Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive894

User:Stevertigo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This user had a long and troubled history on Wikipedia - began contributing in 2002, desysopped by ArbCom after self-unblocking a 3RR block (repeatedly) in 2005 [1] and later placed on an editing restriction by ArbCom which stated that "Stevertigo... is required to cite a published source for any material he adds to an article". [2] The last restriction apears still to be in force. [3] Despite this, Stevertigo has chosem to create several entirely unsourced stub artices - see Expressive power (now removed and redirected to the original topic) and Snap (military) for example. The former is probably best described as unsourced waffle, while the latter is frankly bizarre - if there is an actual topic in there, I haven't a clue what it is, but whatever it is, if it involves a "tachyonic command problem" we should probably give our readers a hint as to what that is supposed to mean. Meanwhile, in talk-page space, Steveertigo has posted another bizarre screed on Talk:Bitcoin [4] claiming (from what liittle of it that makes any sense at all) that bitcoin is run from the English "Fort Terror complex", funded by "Barack Obama, as a favor to Joseph Biden" to the extent of "58,000,000 dollars" as part of some global conspiracy involving England, along with "The Breiviks, Chalmers, and the Odierno groups each represent paramilitary wings of the Euro-forted (Nordic, British, Hispanic), Nihon-Manchu forted militas, who have worked in espionage agains the United States, with planning and involvement in diabolical terror operations abroad, around the world". And at Talk:Honour we have another example of Stevertigo's postings [5] which seems to be a request for a page move on the grounds that "The spelling belongs to the domain of language regulated by a particular government, and is therefore not a part of the Common Anglish/English/Ynglish language, which honor a greater body of people and a greater vision of government, to which the word "honor" is bound to greater ownership of the altruistic, sacrifice for the greater body of people, for the higher then the highest principle, and to the providential and not merely the prosperous. In the context of auto- olig- and mono- archic governments, the term is also loaned to the honor-ific, to the stylistic, and in a different way than in the land abundant nations, to the materialistic". The word bizarre seems inadequate.

Having become aware of Stevertigo's editing restriction, I posted a reminder of this on his talk page. [6] The response in full:

Article stubbing is not a crime, as it takes time to write a global compendium project. I understand that you may not happy there in Bristol, but if the aristos-kleptos money they pay you was worth a nickel they would have built that nice and easy to engineer walking bridge to Paris by now and have hired actual Europeans to do it, (jobs!). Rather than mooching off the Free (democratic honor, try it) people's of the world, and the work we provide, try the opposite. [7]

For the record, I don't live in Bristol. Not that it really matters. And neither am I in receipt of "aristos-kleptos money" (I should be so lucky). As personal attacks go, it is so off-the-wall as to be laughable. It is however further evidence that Stevertigo has gone from merely being a troublesome contributor to one who's sole purpose seems to be to use Wikipedia as a forum for random typing exercises and flights of fancy in the far realms of tinfoil-hat-land. Stevertigo is WP:NOTHERE. He is so far from 'here' that only the internet (which somehow seems to be able to link our universe with his) is the only connection. A connection which is self-evidently of no earthly use to Wikipedia that the only rational thing to do is to indefinitely block Stevertigo and be done with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Block He is clearly not here to build an encycolpedia. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Temporary block This sort of incomprehensible behaviour is certainly problematic. That and the violation of sanctions justifies a block. Given this users long history of contribution I would like to see a temporary block. In my experience people who engage in these sort of bizarre ideas tend to have good times and bad times. Perhaps in 6 months this user will be able to contribute constructively again. Chillum 16:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note that per the arbcom ruling I have deleted the pages this user created without sources. I also moved back a back that he moved out of the way to create Expressive power. Chillum 16:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support - (portion redacted, see below Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)) Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs, plus this user is clearly editing (adding unsourced material) in contravention of an active Arbcom restriction (to source all edits). In any of these cases, the best that we can probably do for this user is to indefinitely block and give the WP:STANDARDOFFER. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I suggest you redact your medical opinions. Collect (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    • It could relevant to treating the situation with some sensitivity rather than annoyance. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
      • No, Collect is right about this, we have a strict policy forbidding specific medical advice. It wasn't so intended, but could be so interpreted, so I have refactored. In future I would take it as good faith if you were to refactor on my behalf if I step across one of these bright-line policies. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I've refactored my comment as well — no medical advice there, but no need to get into that here. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no massive number of problem edits by this (interesting) person, and a block would be far more punitive than preventative. He has posted in the past year fairly infrequently, and making a "big deal" out of the (interesting) posts is not important in the "great scheme of things." Heck, I also routinely objected to banning (grumpy) editors who have been brought to this court. If the matter is not of substantial and urgent importance, it is not worth the paper we are using here. Collect (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is not about grumpiness, have you read some of the stuff he is writing? The comment on the user's userpage where he says "...I declare that this website is to be used for disciples of the love and not of the fold, for Jews of the religion and not of the delusion..." is alone problematic. While you may find it interesting it is certainly not in line with our goal of making an encyclopedia. Chillum 16:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block until such time that Stevertigo explicitly agrees not to create bizarre pages like Wikipedia:Homosexual and related guidelines and policies and Wikipedia:Ratings and rankings system, or post material such as this, this and this. There seems to be either a dearth of WP:CIR or the editor is WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia.- MrX 16:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• In looking over the long history of this editor, Support a Site Ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have extensively examined this editor's editing history over the last few years. Almost all edits to articles are unsourced, and while many of them make do not seem to be problematic, a very large proportion of them add content which at best is personal opinion, and at worst is crazy. Many of the pages created are clearly about ideas the editor has made up himself or herself. This applies not only to the strikingly bizarre conspiracy editing, but also to articles which on the face of it look more natural and plausible. For example, the article Universal Ranking System (now deleted) was completely unsourced. I have searched, and failed to find anything anywhere referring to the sort of "Universal Ranking System" described in the article. What is more, the article's second sentence says "such a ranking system would have to use...", with the word "would" clearly indicating that this is a hypothetical concept, a system which does not exist. Reading the article as a whole, it is evident that it is not about an actual ranking system, but rather about Stevertigo's personal ideas about what a universal ranking system should be. This is a relatively mild example: other parts of Stevertigo's editing are much worse, some of them totally crazy.
• We are not dealing with an editor who has made a few unacceptable edits, and created one or two good faith but not very good articles. We are dealing with an editor who had such an extensive history of totally unacceptable editing that he or she was placed under restrictions which required sources for all article content, but who five years later is still making numerous unsourced and unreasonable edits, including creating completely unsourced articles which are totally off the top of his or her head, unrelated to anything in real life.
• Chillum says "In my experience people who engage in these sort of bizarre ideas tend to have good times and bad times. Perhaps in 6 months this user will be able to contribute constructively again." Maybe that "tends" to be the case for "people who engage in these sort of bizarre ideas", but it does not appear to be so in this specific case. Why should we think it likely that in a few months the editor will have changed for the better, since several years have produced no such change?
• Collect says "There is no massive number of problem edits by this (interesting) person, and a block would be far more punitive than preventative." Collect must have looked at a very different sample of Stevertigo's than I have, because I have seen a very large number of edits which at best violate the ArbCom restriction, and at worst are total nonsense.
• The ArbCom ruling says "he may be blocked for a period of up to one week for each infraction". On the basis of that ruling, I could easily block him for many months, without further discussion. However, I don't think that would be enough. The editor has been subject to discussion in (to my knowledge) at least eleven administrators' noticeboard discussions, and at least three Arbcom cases, and has had restrictions placed on his/her editing at several of those discussions. We did not get to the stage of Arbcom placing blanket restrictions on the editor and authorising summary blocks for individual unsourced edits until the editor had been a major cause of problems. Nearly five years later, the same editor is (a) continuing to produce large numbers of unacceptable edits (b) completely ignoring the Arbcom ruling, and (c) failing or refusing to recognise that there is a problem. What is more, some of the problems are on exactly the same topics which were causes of sanctions before, such as Barack Obama related editing. Problems have been going on for at least ten years (when the editor was repeatedly blocked, and then desysopped): to expect that the problems will now fade away in a few months is unrealistic. Time for an indefinite block, and probably a site ban. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• In response to your question "Why should we think it likely that in a few months the editor will have changed for the better, since several years have produced no such change". The only reason I wanted to give this user a future chance is because they have been here 13 years and was once an admin. Clearly at some point they were productive. I am assuming that they were not disruptive for the whole 13 years. Regardless I do support a block, I just think the standard offer should apply at the very least. Chillum 16:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I tangled with Stevertigo years ago over his insistence that his personal analysis was correct at the article Perfect crime (what exactly does "perfect" mean?) He was wedded to the idea that his own original research was a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. The friction between us escalated to this textbook example of disruption to make a point. Discussion such as this one in September 2009 resulted in him being blocked. Later, at a Wikipedia meetup, I talked with him in person, and he seemed a reasonable guy, but this recent spate of work proves otherwise. Support site ban. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose blocking and site ban. If there is something wrong with the content on his user page, remove it or delete it. From what I can tell, his user page statement is less of an antisemitic one and more of a Christian one. In any case, while it is certainly quite easy to dismiss Steve as "totally crazy" per the above, he's always come off to me as more of an artist engaging in intellectual performance, such as the kind you might find in the local coffee shop or an itinerant orator like Stoney Burke. As long as Steve stays away from article and talk pages, he should be okay. I would recommend that he focus on art and only on his art, as we have numerous topics that need designs, illustrations, and graphs. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

"As long as Steve stays away from article and talk pages"? But he doesn't stay away from them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Er, what? What part of "as long as" is giving you trouble? Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think that there is the slightest chance that Stevertigo would take any more notice of an 'article and talk page ban' (which would presumably also involve him not inventing bogus policies and/or guidelines as well [8]) than he has of previous restrictions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand and sympathize with your confusion. Since you've only been here since 2010, you aren't aware that this entire site was created by editors "inventing" policies and guidelines, just as Stevertigo attempted to do in the above link. His worthy and valuable experiment at creating a "Ratings and rankings system" is no different than any other editor who has proposed to create a trust metric system. The greatest threat to Wikipedia isn't from editors like Stevertigo, people who think differently and march to the beat of a different drum. The greatest threat to Wikipedia is from editors and admins who worship the crushing bureaucracy of groupthink and hive mindedness, and who through their religious devotion to policy wonkery and guideline adoration, crush any attempt at creativity and innovation. I would rather see a million Stevertigo's who seem perfectly crazy and out of their mind than one more additional administrator or rules lawyer narrowly following a policy that drives this site into obscurity. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Far out man. That's some serious shit you're smoking. Peace and Love. Don't let the Man grind you down. Give Vietnam back to the Irish... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban as WP:NOTHERE and a timesink for more productive editors. Miniapolis 22:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I think everything has already been said. If he's unwilling or incapable of creating comprehensible articles, then it's probably time to remove his ability to edit. The history of disruption and ignored Arbcom sanctions makes this an easier decision. If it's all performance art, then that doesn't belong here, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support per JamesBWatson, Ivanvector, MrX, and others. Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block: I have no idea what's going on here (CIR issues, attempts at inserting fringe views, trolling, a compromised account, editing by a very young user) but it's not productive. I have seen no productive edits by the user and plenty that seem like they could be offensive in some way (e.g. is his user page anti-semitic? It might be if I understood what it was saying). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Enough editing time and virtual ink has been wasted on Steve's absurdities.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Site ban as clearly NOTHERE, Enough time, effort and patience has been wasted on this editor!. –Davey2010^Talk 19:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban on the time-honored principle "enough is enough." BMK (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban, this user has had more than enough chances. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jake Speight

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:XVXI appears to identify as Jake Speight. Has removed details of his conviction and said "This page has been edited from facts and is 100% correct. The details from the conviction which is now spent EchetusXe's keeps editing this page and is doing so with any actual facts if this page is changed again we are going to seek legal advice". Seeking advice here. Thanks.--EchetusXe 10:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This is probably more a matter for WP:BLPN at this stage, but I see no harm in having the referenced content about his criminal conviction remain in the article. I'll also remind the user about WP:NLT. GiantSnowman 10:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the account in question for continuing to make veiled threats, which followed this earlier legal threat and came after my warning for NLT. As a side note many thanks to @Collect: for tidying up the wording of the section in question. GiantSnowman 13:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: Huon has since unblocked the user. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unhelpful childishness stroke trolling

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm somewhat displeased about some of the responses from a group of editors following my question here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Horrible_posh_accent

In particular, Baseball bugs and a few others. I mean, how does telling me to watch childrens cartoons and calling me a gobshite and a scumbag really help me out. What happened to the 5 pillars?

No one on the desk seems to care about this wanton, outright abuse directed for no particular reason. So can I ask for some admin intervention here. Preferably from an admin who could at least be a bit impartial, please.

--24.62.140.244 (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe the comments were in jest, considering that "gobshite" would hardly be the sort of word that someone with a "posh accent" would use. Also, Bugs Bunny could hardly be said to have a posh accent.Blackmane (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as one who went to a school more than a thousand years old, I have no idea why you would want to change this. Unless you are Brian Sewell. Even the Queen laughs at his accent. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• We generally allow some humor within the tone of responses to the reference desk but it should not be at the expense of the questioner which I think these were. Fortunately, at one the other IP offered an appropriate response with a link to a google search. Would the computing desk be better than the language desk? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) To be fair... I, too, was under the impression the request was a joke and had myself a quiet little snigger... Kleuske (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the implication that I was calling the OP vulgar names. And I was sincere in advising the OP to study how someone talks and see if they can imitate the style. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CFCF Not Here on E-cigs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

CFCF(User talk:CFCF, CFCF) Has recently made several controversial edits, reverts and moves on pages related to e-cigarettes whilst refusing to engage in consensus building. These pages are subject to General Sanctions

here he re-reverts material that was disputed back into the article despite discussion on the talk page relevant to it that he was not involved in claiming established consensus.

here he hatted a discussion relevant to that controversial material he had added in where he was being asked to justify the inclusion of some material but he did not engage in it.

here he accuses me and/or S Marshal of vandalism for removing content which did not have consensus for inclusion and was being discussed at the talk page when reverting & here he accuses me of vandalism again. (I freely admit here I was slow edit warring however it didn't come close to vandalism, it was a content dispute that I was handling badly and have been sanctioned for). I posted to his talk page to ask him not to accuse me of vandalism when I was not doing that

and here he 1 click archives it without response. I Reposted a request that he engage in discussion to build consensus

and here he 1 click archives without response

here he admits that he finds discussions to seek consensus unproductive and so reverts without contributing or considering them.

here he re-introduced a controversial claim with a long discussion on the talk page which had not found consensus and in which he had not participated.

here Despite an ongoing discussion which CFCF had not participated in at the talk page CFCF moved the article from Chemicals in Electronic Cigarette Aerosol to Electronic Cigarette Aerosol. here CFCF had added a "Redirect you may have meant" tag to Cigarette smoke with no discussion. It had been reverted and he re-introduced without taking it to the talk page.

here When I posted to his talk page about the above he 1click archived it immediately.

here The part about being designed to appeal to 11 year olds we had reached consensus to remove, the later sentences, Quack Guru had Boldly Added, S Marshal Reverted because it was controversial. CFCF re-introduced without discussion

I could go further but this is already long enough and covers just the last week.

I know this isn't a major issue but I feel CFCF has earned at the least warning in an area of general sanctions because this pattern of behaviour is not conducive to consensus building in a topic which, touch wood, has calmed down somewhat recently from a prior battleground and is in some ways being productively edited. I know S Marshall has been frustrated by some of CFCF's edits and they show that CFCF has little or no interest in working collaboratively in this topic area per WP:NOTHERE.SPACKlick (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF has made good edits to various e-cig pages. This should be closed immediately. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This looks very much like abusing process to attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Admins take a bit of a dim view of that. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. My desire in this would be for CFCF to engage in the collaborative process so consensus can be reached on the disputed content but nobody can force that. The issue I have is that when discussion is on-going and the nuance of consensus is being reached, whether in the direction I initially wanted or not, CFCF makes driveby reverts without reference to that discussion or any of the consensus and kicks the process back a notch. Hence why I've asked for a warning or a prod and not any form of ban/block/Tban/Iban that would limit CFCF's contributions.SPACKlick (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The e-cig pages have greatly improved as a direct result of CFCF's edits. That's what the evidence shows. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing in CFCF's edits needing sanctions. I agree with Guy. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. CFCF's edits seem quite reasonable. This appears to be a content dispute and not sanctionable. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 03:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

[Some of] The edits would be reasonable if they responded to consensus but CFCF actively ignores consensus, ignores ongoing discussions, When he adds information and is reverted he immediately reverts back and ignores all discussion about the inclusion. Whether or not the content of his edits is good, and I won't weigh in on that here because there is content dispute, the lack of collaborative effort is a clear example of NOTHERE. SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again I'd appreciate it if someone could restore order on that page. I certainly don't think all of CFCF's recent edits have been 100% helpful, but he's far from the only offender and what's actually needed is a large injection of clue.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Of Note CFCF again included without consensus. There is a discussion about this hatnote on the talk page. 4 editors see the hatnote as outside policy 1 has made an argument for it. CFCF claims to have made his point on the talk page. His one post on the talk page is No, you're wrong. WP:HATNOTE. How are these not WP:NOTHERE edits? SPACKlick (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagreed. See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Off Topic about QuackGuru
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you think your edit improved the page? How about me? Do you think my edits improved the page? Don't massage anything. I want your unfiltered opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC) I think that edit improved the page, yes. Since you ask for my unfiltered opinion, I think your influence on the encyclopaedia as a whole is a net positive because you're relentless in dealing with bad faith editors and highly active, but I also think you have poor encyclopaedic judgment and you often don't understand words in the same way I do. I think CFCF is reverting good edits and bad edits alike and he can't tell the difference. I think the best editor at work on that page is Johnbod and I wish he could get a word in edgeways. And I think AN/I is an extremely bad place to have this conversation because AN/I only ever solves simple problems, i.e. the ones where you can point to a clear policy violation using diffs. You can't come to AN/I saying "CFCF has bad judgment" and expect anything positive to happen as a result.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Do you want me topic banned or "just reined in"? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive886#QuackGuru_and_Electronic_cigarette. Rather than delete relevant text I consolidated two sentences to improve the readability. If you look at my previous edit I changed the word "abuse" to "addiction" to clarify the wording. The known unknowns cited to a MEDRS review is good information, especially when it is about young people. QuackGuru (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC) I know this was directed at S Marshall but IMO reined in, specifically passed through a copy editor. Most of the sources you find have good information and most of the information you want to add is good information to add. It's just how it's incorporated and where its incorporated that's usually where I end up with objections. If you could work closely with a strong writer who can keep things readable and increase the information transfer in the article, your net benefit on the encyclopedia would be significantly greater.SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• SPACKlick is pretty much a WP:SPA for e-cig topics per their contribs. The topic seems to draw such editors or turn otherwise useful editors astray. SPA warns about situations where there is "...evidence that a user is also editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus, possibly with limited interest in pure editing for its own sake....") On their userpage SPACKlick makes their advocacy position on e-cigs very clear (which is very "pro"): here. In my view SPACKlick should be trouted for bringing this groundless case, and should be warned to broaden their editing at WP, with a topicban per WP:NOTHERE, per SPA, riding on their failure to broaden their scope of editing. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Once Again CFCF added a controversial hatnote without engaging in discussion, where the discussion was ongoing, where the bulk of discussion was not in favour of the edit. Likewise CFCF has repeatedly reverted inclusions by S Marshall without discussing it but not reverted the same or near identical inclusions when written by QuackGuru as discussed by S Marshall in this post on the talk page. Whether or not I am sanctioned per the below discussion. I would appreciate if someone could cast eyes and a decision over CFCF's interaction with the page which I feel is pretty clearly not in the benefit of either consensus and collaborative editing at the article or the encyclopeida's aims as a whole. SPACKlick (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

A brand new account reverted the change. Before that an IP reverted the change without an edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As Quack points out another editor removed it after my above comment and CFCF immediately re-instated claiming consensus on the talk page. This is now bordering on Edit Warring Surely? It's ridiculous. Thats 4 reversions 1234 of the same hatnote with only 1 comment of non-engagement on a talk page where 4 editors (not including two who have removed the hatnote) have disagreed with inclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The new account only made one edit to Wikipedia so far. The IP made four edits to Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Another IP making an edit to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF again added the hatnote, calling its removal vandalism. Still has not engaged on the talk page, the discussion still not having come to consensus. That's 3 reversions in 25.5 hours. walking right along the line of an edit war. SPACKlick (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The new account might be a throwaway account. The IP is from Germany. The editor from Germany was banned and indef blocked. Reverting a banned editor is not a revert. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect DaleCurrie is a throwaway account but it's misleading to link to Fergus there Quack, because while they are banned they haven't been shown to make either of these edits, if there's concern you want SPI. By the way CFCF doesn't just do this on e-cig pages. he reverted me on Domestic violence for a formatting fix pointing to a consensus on the talk page. The formatting hadn't been discussed even once on the talk page. I'm rounding on the conclusion that CFCF has a problem with certain editors and fails to follow AGF.SPACKlick (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The 89 IP is back. The IP numbers change but it still begins with 89. The previous edit was this by the 89 IP. The 89 IP made yet another comment. QuackGuru (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The 89 IP made this comment. QuackGuru (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Boomerang topic ban for SPACKlick

Per comment above by User:Jytdog, I propose a topic ban from the e-cig pages for User:SPACKlick. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudjpg: Are you proposing a topicban for yourself too? Your edit count shows a "bizzarro-sock" of SPACKlick and not one with a longstanding edit history.--TMCk (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• This proposal is based on a fallacious and hypocritical comment by User:Jytdog, which itself seems a good justification for BOOMERANG. If SPACKlick can be considered a SPA, Jytdog should be as well.

Spacklick's top edited pages:

94 Electronic cigarette 56 Monty Hall problem 34 Roger Moore 28 List of Durham University people 26 Orthodox Presbyterian Church 25 Sean Connery 24 Electronic cigarette aerosol 24 Safety of electronic cigarettes 23 Top Gear (2002 TV series) 18 St Cuthbert's Society, Durham 17 George Lazenby 16 List of Old Boys of The Scots College (Sydney) 14 Zoe Quinn 11 Trial of Oscar Pistorius 11 College of St Hild and St Bede, Durham

Jytdog's:

675 Genetically modified food controversies 584 Monsanto 327 Genetically modified food 319 Glyphosate 220 Genetically modified crops 159 Genetically modified organism 155 Organic farming 139 GlaxoSmithKline 137 Electroconvulsive therapy 128 ZMapp 124 Organic food 108 A2 milk 99 Séralini affair 99 Novartis 98 Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms

SPACKlick is surprisingly the only editor to speak out against CFCF's unsupportable redirect from "Electronic Cigarette Aerosol" to "Cigarette smoke". A read of the resulting talk page section (where QuackGuru seems to speak for CFCF, who is absent) should have uninvolved observers questioning why it is SPACKlick who is being portrayed as the problem. petrarchan47คุก 22:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Petra you are so dependable! As I wrote above, per contribs. The bulk of my editing on GMO stuff was mid-2012- mid-2013, with spikes when anti-GMO advocates come around, or back around as the case may be, and yes that has been an enormous amount of work. If you look through the past couple years, the edit count would look very different than the totals you present there.

Getting back to the topic, if you actually look at SPACKlick's contribs in the past year or so, he has indeed become pretty much a SPA for e-cigs; those articles cause people to obsess and e-cig topics keep causing trouble. My recommendation is above. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Of my last 500 edits, a quick and dirty analysis says that 60% are e-cigarette related (if there's a tool for better temporal analysis I'd appreciate the link), including talk page edits and user talk edits. but that may have missed some of them. If we go to the 500 edits before that, very few of them are e-cigarette related. It comes and it goes. And I won't deny e-cigarettes has been my focus recently, just s monty hall was for a while. I come and go from the project with certain dense posting periods. I still monitor a lot of RFC's and where I feel I can contribute, do so. I had hoped to get started on a long project in project tree of life but real life got in the way and another stellar editor had done the majority of the legwork prior to my return. I edit where my interest is at the time. E-cigs has been a focus for a long set of editing bursts because it still has major problems and I haven't yet found a tack that leads to productive improvement although progress has been made. SPACKlick (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That User:SPACKlick finds the diffs listed concerning is I agree a concern in itself. Some time away from the article may due SPACKlick good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Of note, In all but one of the diffs I've posted above I have attempted, however (un)successfuly, to point out that my issue isn't the content of the edit but the context of the edit being ignoring, over riding or avoiding discussion between editors attempting to hash out consensus. The one I don't point to avoiding ongoing discussions relating to consensus is where he avoided BRD on a potentially controversial addition by unreverting his own edit. I also pointed out that this wasn't a major issue but it is an issue of disengagement from the process and the sort of behaviour I thought the general sanctions were supposed to nip in the bud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 July 2015‎ (UTC)

• Comment. SPACKlick is well aware of the sanctions.[9] Me thinks SPACKlick repeatedly deleted sourced text.[10] See Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol#Re introduction_again for the current discussion. He was warned by the admin User:Bishonen to stop making personal attacks.[11] Back in April SPACKlick wrote: this previous section at the e-cig talk page: "It's almost like you're not competent to edit this page", "your ridiculous addition", "a ridiculously long caption", "it was pointy, tendentious or ownership", "you do not own this article", "You arrogantly inserted".[12] In June SPACKlick wrote "QuakGuru, whether or not particle size is medically relevant is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of this article which is about the CHEMICALS WITHIN E-CIGARETTE VAPOUR. Particle size, is not relevant to what chemical a particle is. You're nuts"[13] He was recently warned again about NPA.[14] QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Quack talking about ownership: Me, I and myself. Cheers.--TMCk (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
    • You wrote in your edit summary "I'll promise you my friend, I will not cease in standing by your side in battle..."[15] You wrote "I also shall not cease in doing so until you have learned and turned (until death, online or real, will takes us apart).[16] QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
      • And as you can see I did hold my promise.--TMCk (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

General sanctions are failing

General sanctions on e-cigarettes aren't working because it's so hard to attract the attention of an uninvolved administrator. The only participant in this discussion who might remotely count as an "uninvolved administrator" is JzG and he's only contributed one sentence. Everyone else is divided along party lines. What's actually needed here is a referee; but I can fully understand why a previously uninvolved person would shy away from such an entrenched situation with such a lot of history.—S Marshall T/C 07:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Since this thread has attracted so little attention from uninvolved administrators, it should be archived without result.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Well, I can try to referee if you think it would help, but I strongly suspect that my long-standing support for WP:MEDRS and opposition to pro-CAM edits will not sit well with the group that makes up the pro-ecig side of this war. In the absence of uninvolved admins, and given the clear need for some firm action, I guess arbitration may be the only option. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I certainly do think it would help. It shouldn't be necessary to go to arbitration over this; that's like going to A&E with a hangnail. I don't think I could produce diffs that would be of much interest to arbcom.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I can also take a look, but I have some notifications and an Arbcom case evidence to do over the weekend, so if it can wait a couple of days for another set of eyes as well then that would help. Is it deteriorating notably fast? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. I'm finding the situation's improving, probably thanks to the extra eyeballs on the subject. Thank you.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. User:Georgewilliamherbert, please review the current atmosphere at the e-cig pages. I am not aware of "the extra eyeballs on the subject".
• S Marshall is well aware of the sanctions. In your edit summary you wrote "tag-teaming".[17] You claimed "Consensus can change, and it will. I learned this when I got broad consensus to change the first paragraph of this article in many ways, and then started an RfC to discover that changes in the population of this talk page meant my consensus was no longer there. Wikipedia's a waiting game, QG. A quick look at your block log tells me there are pretty good odds that you won't be active on this talk page forever, and when you're gone it will be possible to make the fixes you're preventing. Don't get me wrong, QG, I do think you're a net positive to Wikipedia despite the fact that I find you very frustrating to deal with. I've argued in many discussions before that you should not be blocked, just reined in. My views in that respect have not changed."[18]
• S Marshall, so why do you want me "reined in"?
• Both SPACKlick and S Marshall deleted a 2014 MEDRS compliant review from the Addiction section recently. The 2014 review is relevant to the section, especially since it is concerning youth. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• I want you reined in because I'm a mean and nasty POV-pushing industry shill, of course!—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Whew, glad we got that settled. <g> BMK (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Pretty sure E-cigs is going to need to go to ArbCom, since editors are reporting that GS are not working, and since there are or have been so many SPAs editing the e-cig articles. I propose that someone start to draft an ArbCom request proposal -- but it obviously shouldn't be drafted by QuackGuru or by one of the SPAs or virtual SPAs, past or present. I don't know that there is anyone editing the articles who is completely neutral about the topic, but perhaps Doc James might be willing to, as he has in the past edited on the subject, but has remained decidedly quiet when related subjects come up on ArbCom or ANI. If he or someone of his ilk would draft and post an ArbCom request, however brief, others could chime in on ArbCom with their opinions. Just a thought. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Will take a look in a two weeks as off to Wikimania. I am sure that some would view me as far from neutral. Especially those who continue send me hate mail regarding the topic. User:S Marshall has done some good work condensing the prose. QG adds generally well supported text. The discussion on the talk page get more snarky than it should be at times. Would be good if many of those involved would work more on other pages but of course we cannot mandate that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Someone reverting with a misleading editsummary to re-introduce utter unscientific fringe nonsense -- I sure don't have much (or any) confidence in them. Even less when the same supposed to be a scientist. But go for it anyways. It doesn't matter who is filing.--TMCk (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page showed the restored text is well sourced. For example, see Talk:Electronic_cigarette_aerosol/Archive_1#Re_introduction_again. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have started reviewing pages; I tagged one more with the talk page "under DS" notice. Still getting a feeling for how the conversations are going. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I recommend you check the archives too. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 24 and see Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 25. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Georgewilliamherbert: Are you still looking into it and intend to comment? Just wondering since it's been a while and problems on those pages have been "abandoned" before several times. Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but had other things I am working on as well. They're all watchlisted now and I am still reading histories. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Softlavender that e-cigs proabably needs to go to ArbCom at this point. After following the topic from afar, but purposely avoiding actually being involved from articles aside from RSN, my main concern is advocacy and (relatively) civil-POV pushing that's degenerating the topic into the state it's in now. ArbCom could cut both ways though and end up hindering editors who overall are trying to push back against these problems too and just lock the articles down into the state they're in now. Seeing this ANI with unfortunately nothing that appears actionable (it should probably be closed soon), how often it comes up here, and how many editors that have just given up on it, ArbCom seems to be the only thing left. Kingofaces43 (talk)
• There are two things stopping me opening an ArbCom case. The first is that there's nothing blatant I can point to. There are lots of problems each of which is individually small but annoying, adding up to a great big annoying ball of sludge. I've got to say that the majority of editors from WP:MEDRS treat me like a POV-pushing industry shill to be closed down with the minimum effort, and I've been unable to make any substantive edits stick or to educate them in any article-building technique more advanced than "find a factlet in a reliable source, cite it and shove it in the article". The idea that competent editing involves removing text seems to be some kind of heresy... but what I can't do is provide diffs of the kind of smoking gun breach of the rules that'll solve it. The closest I can get is the inappropriate use of twinkle's anti-vandalism tools to deal with good faith edits by editors in good standing, inappropriate refusal to use the talk page, and some apparent language comprehension difficulties. I'm reluctant to go to Arbcom waving those diffs and demanding action.

  The second is the triviality of it all. I've been involved in much more complex and difficult disputes on Wikipedia that are about challenging real world issues. This is nothing. It's so petty and pathetic to get hung up on whether the statistics are in the lede or just in the body text... like I said above, if I opened an Arbcom case I'd feel like I was calling an ambulance for a hangnail. Can't a sysop just step in and tell it like it is?—S Marshall T/C 19:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • You previously wanted to drastically shorten alter the lede. All editors opposed that change. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_23#Proposal.
  • You previously tried to shorten the lede but that did not gain consensus and was reverted. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_23#Removal.
  • The stats were moved to the body. Moving it to the body created repetition and the stats in the lede summarises the body. I did start a discussion on the talk page for the change. User:CFCF[19] and I[20] support the use of the word "ever". There is a difference between "ever vaped" and "vaped". The word "vaped" could be interpreted as being regularly used. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• All of those are serious distortions of what happened, QuackGuru. However, even if they were accurate, it would still be inappropriate to bring details of the content dispute to AN/I.—S Marshall T/C 20:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it is accurate to come to the conclusion that editors disagreed with at least some of your proposals. For example, it appeared you proposed deleting well sourced content but editors disagreed. You also proposed moving the stats to the reference section. It is not an improvement moving the stats out of the frequency section. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 25#Proposal to streamline. You claimed "It would be helpful QuackGuru if you could please be less obstructive."[21] Your said "Can I ask you, is English your native language?"[22] This is not focusing on article content. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I've tried to have a moderating effect on some of these discussions (e.g. by going on hours-long sourcing sprees to see what the actual ground-truth is in the reliable sources, and cutting through this-side-vs-that-side invective, as at Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol. While I have an opinion on the RM on that page, I have no other developed opinion on anything to do with e-cigs. I'm not familiar with every detail in this particular sub-dispute, above), but on the same talk page I just linked to (but now archived here, CFCF engaged in tendentious and WP:ICANTHEARYOU, irrational nonsense that is indicative of serious WP:COMPETENCE problems with regard to basics like what disambiguation hatnotes are for (hint: they are not "see also" sections), and a my-way-or-else attitude to conceptually tying e-cigarettes to tobacco smoke. On the other hand, his lead detractor SPACKlick is also exhibiting similar tendentiousness and ICANTHEARYOU patterns, as are several others, especially in persistent belief that WP:COMMONNAME topples all other possible concerns (even when the desired common-name topic is directly misleading and has POV problems because it is marketing language), and a similar position that WP:MEDRS cannot possibly apply to a nicotine delivery device simply because it's "recreational", even when the article is about the biochemical output of the device. In actually reality, it's entirely reasonable, as I believe QuackGuru has maintained, that MEDRS might apply to Electronic cigarette aerosol and to any med/bio-chem claims at Electronic cigarette and other subarticles, but not to other kinds of material in it/them, e.g. about "vaping" subculture, marketing, legislation, etc. Having no dog in the various fights about e-cigs and their great value or terrible effects or whatever, I find the level of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior bewildering and alarming.

  I do think these disputes, as a class, should go to WP:RFARB, because a) it's clear that that this is otherwise going to be a continual war between e-cig WP:ADVOCACY boosters and their WP:GREATWRONGS outlawing proponents; and b) even accidentally wandering into one of these morasses, as I did in responding to a routine WP:RM notice, is a terribly unpleasant, hostile experience for editors who are not thrilling in their part in the ongoing WP:FACTIONalized gladiatorial combat on this topic. When it comes to a three-with conflict between "e-cigs are great!", "e-cigs are a menace!", and "Wikipedia policies apply regardless of your stance on that", I think we know where consensus actually resides.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  PS: I note above SPACKlick making BIG ALL-CAPS POINTS to exclude material because it wasn't quite medical enough for his liking (and he was wrong about that point; particle size is entirely relevant in that context). Meanwhile, when it suits his aims and convenience, he argues in the face of all reason against applying MEDRS. Does not compute; more to the point, it smacks of WP:GAMING.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Earlier this year I made a 16,000 plus edit. Some editors did not like that. I continued to add a ton of new sources to the article. I created Cloud-chasing (electronic cigarette), Electronic cigarette aerosol, and Vape shop. After I created the Electronic cigarette aerosol article things got a bit heated.
  • As for the hatnote I think I did help resolve the issue. I added to the lede "The e-cigarette vapor resembles cigarette smoke.[1]" See Electronic cigarette aerosol#cite ref-Cheng2014 1-1. User:SMcCandlish, this did go to arbcom previously. They tried to topic ban me. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Understood. I'm skeptical that anyone will be pilloried over adding sources and sourced material (unless it's WP:BOLLOCKS which I don't detect in that big edit), nor about disagreements over which data is put where in the article, unless someone's being a flaming WP:JERKs about it. There's a much more meaningful problem here, a campaign to keep genuinely reliable sources out of these articles, to push a POV against scientific coverage and treat this solely as a "lifestyle and culture" topic. There's a countervailing campaign to demonize the topic, and to spin primary sourced, largely preliminary data and a studies from journals as if there were a uniform, secondary-sourced view, and it's original research to combine them all into a "why e-cigs are the devil" message that steers readers to a conclusion. Both of these – exclusion of and misuse of pertinent, reliable sources – are wrong under policy. One might think they'd kind of cancel each other out, but it's not happening, just turning into a perpetual flamewar.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
      • FWIW, It's probably useful to look at that edit in context. The edit User:QuackGuru linked is a revert of a revert of his own edit that dumped a ton into the article immediately after a full-prot expired. In fact, a stream of edits started exactly a half hour after the full-protection expired, and included 22 edits by QuackGuru. This appeared to be a frequently repeated tactic to game The Wrong Version by flooding the article with edits in between the inevitable periods of protection. This is, BTW not the first time this was done. Quack was called out at least here and here. Note QuackGuru playing the victim in the second instance linked. Paleking (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
        • According to User:Bishonen I did follow WP:CAUTIOUS for that specific change.[23] I made even a bigger change on a subpage. It was a +19,168 bytes edit with followup edits after protection starting with a +5,833 edit. There was consensus to include WP:MEDORG compliant sources too. See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_3#RFC:_Are_medical_statements_such_as_those_from_the_World_Lung_Foundation_reliable_for_medical_content.3F this thread. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: To reply to a couple of your points. My big all caps point on the article was when the article was titled and moving towards "List of chemicals in" and QuackGuru was adding nanoparticles in a statement as if they were an additional chemical. That would be outside the scope of the article. As for my stance on MEDRS, I don't believe there's no MEDRS relevance at the topic I just don't believe the whole topic falls under it. How e-cigs are constructed and the social aspects of their use don't require MEDRS level sourcing and some of the sub pages are of limited health or medical relevance. I don't believe the chemical components of something is a medical topic, especially when it's explicitly split off from the medical effects of those components into a separate article.

And as you bring up the content dispute about "Vapour is a marketing term" I have yet to see that claim sourced. It appears to be a claim that people believe for whatever reason but not one that can be justified, it's also a bit disingenuous to say I believe common name trumps all other concerns when I've addressed the other policies as well and so have others to show that, in our opinion, vapour is the name that follows policy. But I'll await that RFC's close to see the assessment of consensus. SPACKlick (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the source "Blu lets me enjoy smoking without it affecting the people around me, because it's vapour not tobacco smoke," says Stephen Dorff, the scruffy heartthrob star of The Immortals."[24] Big tobacco has been very successful in marketing e-cigarettes as simply "vapour".

User:SPACKlick, you seem to have a pattern of deleting well sourced text from the new article.

"metal nanoparticles" and "When propylene glycol is heated and aerosolized, it could produce propylene oxide."[25] deleted The text is sourced to Grana 2014. You criticised the review on your user page.

"copper"[26] deleted (I replaced it with another source)

The lede sentence was deleted twice.[27][28]

"4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone and N-nitrosonornicotine"[29] deleted

"The nickel and chromium nanoparticles that was found in the vapor may have came from the e-cigarette heating element." and "Propylene glycol could produce propylene oxide when heated and aerosolized."[30] deleted

"Aerosol"[31] deleted

"Propylene glycol could produce propylene oxide when heated and aerosolized."[32] Please read the sources: When heated and vaporized, propylene glycol can form propylene oxide, an International Agency for Research on Cancer class 2B carcinogen,69 and glycerol forms acrolein, which can cause upper respiratory tract irritation.70,71[33] Thermal degradation of propylene glycol can generate propylene oxide, which is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a class 2B carcinogen.[34] The text is clearly sourced in accordance with WP:MEDRS.

"The delivery of nicotine from the vapor is inconsistent among products."[35] deleted

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive882#User:SPACKlick_reported_by_User:QuackGuru_at_Electronic_Cigarette_.28copied_to_WP:ANEW_by_SPACKlick.29 for the previous AN/I discussion.

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive286#SPACKlick_reported_by_QuackGuru_.28Result:_Editor_sanctioned.29 for previous 3RR report. QuackGuru (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't intend to get into a content dispute on ANI, that's not the venue, however your list of deletions goes (Scope dispute, Scope dispute, Failed verification, style dispute, style dispute, scope dispute, verification/relevance dispute, style dispute, verification/relevance dispute, Don't know why I removed the last one), the verification/relevance disputes are the same fact, which several people disagreed with including because the source doesn't indicate its relevance to the topic at hand. Yes I got angry and edit warred at your assertion an image showed what was clearly not contained within it. Because it is frustrating to deal with your poor grasp of english, to deal with your ownership, to deal with you not allowing any improvement to the readability and formation of the article, for your shotgun approach to expanding the article by adding overly detailed repetetive sentences. You are an incredibly frustrating editor to work with Quack. Do you understand that? And when someone disagrees with you, or your methods, you claw back through the same complaints, bringing them up time and time again.SPACKlick (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, with a heavy heart, I'll accept SMcCandlish's recommendation and open an Arbcom case. I would suggest that this particular discussion has run its useful course and can be closed.—S Marshall T/C 17:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You have received notification of your recent behaviour. You don't seem to understand you were being uncivil. QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I would also agree with S Marshall's question and have asked it before, do we need to adapt how we communicate with you because of a difficulty with English. It appears you misunderstand words often and are blind at times to matters of context or subtlety and so the question becomes relevant. Do we need to adapt how we interact with you to overcome the difficulty of not sharing a first language? SPACKlick (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• There is a WP:ARB/R discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Electronic cigarette. QuackGuru (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Potential sock

I have reported a potential sock here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FergusM1970. I would not have done this unless the IP: 92.12.66.90 Contributions had made edits to two subjects which User:FergusM1970 is known to have engaged in undisclosed paid advocacy for. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 02:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that Vanjagenije is still waiting for missing information to be provided by you and/or Quack.--TMCk (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spaghetti07205

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Spaghetti07205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is very obviously not a new user, and has pitched into a number of disputes such as over an infobox on Rod Steiger. The WP:DUCK is quacking, but does anyone know the duck man is? Guy (Help!) 14:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Might this be associated with the above discussion on the same talk page? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Could possibly just be coincidental -- he was only involved in the Steiger infobox RfC because he had added an infobox to the article earlier that day [36] (which was in fact different from the infobox which had been there before and had been removed [37]). Although, honestly, why he would create an infobox for Steiger out of the blue is a bit odd; but he could have seen the discussion and decided to make a better one. What other disputes are you seeing that he has been in? Softlavender (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spaghetti07205.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a surprising overlap on some fairly obscure articles previously edited by User:Eric Corbett: [38]. I'm not for a moment suggesting that this account is related to Eric, but it may be an editor who has had some prior interaction with him. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The last blocked out editor that had overlap with him was a sock of User:Mattisse (User:EChastain). That is one place I would start to look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a case of stalking after EC's edits. Those are really obscure articles! I share some interests with Eric, and I've never been to any of them. Definitely someone with a history. This is an interesting edit summary: [39] - I wonder who the "we" - which they immediately deny - [40] is supposed to be... Scr★pIron^IV 15:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

In case it needs to be said then I'll say it: Spaghetti07205 has absolutely nothing to do with me. Eric Corbett 15:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I filed an SPI on Spaghetti07205 this morning. The account is one month old and yet they know an awful lot about the infobox dispute. I don't like the sound of this one bit... JAGUAR  16:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Well the "we" is clearly Lukeno94 [41] [42], who already has a (now closed) ANI running right now [43] (can someone make that a permalink for when it gets archived)?. This Spaghetti character and his similars have an awful lot going on at ANI right now (these in addition to the preceding: [44], [45] [please make these permalinks]), and perhaps all of them are related and trolling. Softlavender (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note -- In light of the above, I would now render the Rod Steiger RfC null and void on the basis that it was established on the back of stalking. The current RfC should be shut down immediately. Would someone facilitate that please? Cassianto^Talk 18:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Response – the "we" was a typo, as I noted in my edit summary, I meant to say "I". Spaghetti07205 (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because the key "I" is so close to the two(!) keys "WE" on the keyboard. Funny how you also know about dummy edits after only five weeks and 250 edits. Softlavender (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's an impossible typo. More like a Freudian slip.--Atlan (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello? Can someone end this thread already? No one's commented for three days, and a CheckUser has been run and has confirmed there is no evidence I've used other accounts. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

A bot archives threads exactly three days after the last comment; now it will take three more days since you've added that post. There is actually no reason to close this with a purple box since nothing was either done or not done; the SPI is on hold rather than closed. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• See 2 suspicious accounts commenting here after this user's comments. Also see edits referred to in these 2 articles. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Is an SPI case ongoing? Guy (Help!) 22:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spaghetti07205. But it was put on hold a week ago, and there seem to have been no further developments. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

JzG (Guy), I've been waiting for Cali11298 to weigh in on Liz's WP:RfA because of what he stated to me about his interest in WP:RfAs and becoming a WP:Administrator, and because he checks up on my edits and no doubt saw me commenting on Liz's WP:RfA. Spaghetti07205 (talk · contribs) has weighed in on Liz's WP:RfA, as seen here and here, which is why I spotted him. And looking at his contributions, I can confirm that his editing pattern is consistent with Cali11298's...with a few deviations (such as nominating articles for WP:GA status) that were likely made to make him look less like Cali11298.

The most recent Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet investigation started/ended on June 14; compare the evidence there to the evidence I list in this paragraph: The Spaghetti07205 account appeared on June 16. Just like Cali11298 is into politics, so is Spaghetti07205, as seen here, here, here, here and here. Just like Cali11298 is into gay topics, so is Spaghetti07205, as seen here. Just like Cali11298 is into comic book matters, so is Spaghetti07205, as seen here and here. Just like Cali11298 is into Internet topics (he tampers with his IP to try to avoid WP:CheckUser detection), so is Spaghetti07205, as seen here. Just like Cali11298 likes to frequent WP:ANI and weigh in on problematic editors and/or other problems, the same appears so for Spaghetti07205. Cali11298 is African American and is interested in African American topics; Spaghetti07205 is also interested in African American topics, as seen here (the Black-ish aspect) and here. Cali11298 likes to use smiley faces, and it seems that Spaghetti07205 does as well. So, yes, the odds that this is Cali11298 are very high. Even if the WP:CheckUser says otherwise, I'm certain that Spaghetti07205 is Cali11298. Flyer22 (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

First I'm a sock of someone names "Mattisse", now you're accusing me of being a sock of a guy called "Cali11298"? I have said that I'm not a sock of anybody. Reply. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, your suggestion that I "no doubt" saw Liz's RfA because I stalk your edits is false. I comment on RfA's sometimes. Two weeks ago I commented on this RfA as well. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Just like Cali11298 prefers to use word the stalk or stalking when referring to his tendency to check up on my edits or follow me around, you can see that Spaghetti07205 used the word stalk above. Also note that I named more than one reason why Spaghetti07205 was at Liz's WP:RfA -- "because of what he stated to me about his interest in WP:RfAs and becoming a WP:Administrator, and because he checks up on my edits and no doubt saw me commenting on Liz's WP:RfA." His "I participated in a different WP:RfA" defense is no defense. And just like one of his latest WP:Socks liked to revert using the edit summary "rvt" instead of the typical "revert" or "rv," as seen here and here, Spaghetti07205 uses the same revert style; see here and here. So go ahead and bag and tag this account already. That he is bothering to deny to me that he is Cali11298 makes me yawn. I'm not even willing to respond to him directly. And once again, if he has found some way to get around WP:CheckUser detection, that does not mean that he is not Cali11298. WP:Pinging Yunshui, who has put the Spaghetti07205 WP:Sockpuppet investigation on hold. Flyer22 (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's about time to take that SPI off hold again; there's been no further indication that this is Mattisse (and at least one editor who is familiar with Mattisse has suggested that it isn't). @Flyer22:, I'd suggest you compile a list of evidence at the SPI page. Whilst I can appreciate your conviction I personally think it would be difficult to make a sockpuppetry accusation stick on the basis of what you've provided above; however if you put forward a case at SPI with further diffs the evidence can be considered there. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Good! Then we can get it over with. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Actually, don't worry about it - I just did a bit more background checking, and I'm pretty convinced by the CU results this time. Spaghetti07205 is now blocked as a sock of Cali11298. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yunshui, the evidence I presented above is hardly any different than evidence I presented in previous Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet investigations; it was enough for editors to go ahead with a WP:CheckUser run. Look at those previous cases I was certain about, where editors trusted me enough to use the WP:CheckUser tool. Trust me now. Spaghetti07205 is Cali11298. And the evidence I presented above, which I believe is strong enough, is all the evidence I have on this latest Cali11298 WP:Sock matter. That evidence cannot be chalked up to coincidence. Mathematically speaking at least. Flyer22 (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I just saw your "08:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)" post. Flyer22 (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range block for long-term vandal using numerous IPs?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Over the past 5-6 so weeks, there has been an incredibly persistent vandal targeting tropical cyclone articles. The user is always under the base IP of "187.198" and purposefully adds false information despite countless warnings...generally in the form of changing wind speeds. I'm wondering if a range block is possible for this person since they seem quite intent on adding false info. WP:Range was vague on what would prompt a range block so I figured asking couldn't hurt.

List of IPs (that I'm aware of) and the dates they were used:

• 187.198.122.133 June 21–27
• 187.198.161.166 June 27–28
• 187.198.228.121 June 30–July 1
• 187.198.167.98 July 3–6
• 187.198.184.164 July 8
• 187.198.117.218 July 8–9
• 187.198.255.91 July 9–11
• 187.198.172.249 July 11–12
• 187.198.235.149 July 12–13
• 187.198.91.115 July 13
• 187.198.235.99 July 17
• 187.198.114.214 July 21–24
• 187.198.164.49 July 24–26
• 187.198.77.120 July 30–31
• 187.198.106.10 July 31, August 3

Thanks in advance for your help. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a range block will be possible with only minimal collateral damage. Of 113 edits from the range in July and August, only three were not hurricane vandalism. The range is 187.198.0.0/16 (covers 65536 IP addresses). Blocked for a week. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Serial block evading sock/IP hopper

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Faisal ahmad22 - see WP:LTA//Thomas.alrasheed. Blox plox. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC).

Thanks! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive dynamic IP at Europa League article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, at 2015–16 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round and related talkpage there has been issues with a disruptive dynamic IP that has edited as

• 109.98.160.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (most recent)
• 109.98.160.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (blocked yesterday)
• 109.98.161.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 109.98.160.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 109.98.161.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 109.98.160.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I am thinking it is time for a range block? Qed237 (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Qed237: I've went ahead and done just that. 45 day block to the range. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat by User:DeBerryTexas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User DeBerryTexas removed sourced material from DeBerry, Texas, claiming to represent the family of the murder victim mentioned in that paragraph. Luis Santos24 reverted the deletion and left a talk page message. DeberryTexas loudly demanded on Luis Santos24's talk page that the paragraph be removed, indicating that "The matter is being turned over to our attorney." --Finngall ^talk 23:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I was about to block for legal threat, however another admin got there first. Effort should be made to see if the information the person was complaining about constitutes undue weight, a BLP violation, or run afoul of any other Wikipedia standard. I am unfamiliar with the topic myself. Chillum 23:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to suggest that including it looks questionable, given the sourcing. No real evidence that it has any long-term significance for the town. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

How we handle these situations requires attention

In my opinion this situation calls for a much greater level of introspection on our collective part. Although I perceive perfectly good faith all around, this is a classic example of how a "legal threat" situation can be reflexively escalated to everyone's detriment, rather than our making an attempt to reduce the tension.

A tragic murder, of no apparent notability by wiki standards but a devastating event in the life of those directly effected, is listed as a "notable event" in the life of the Texas town in which it occurred. The description is not particularly encyclopedic, nor is it written with delicacy (a named woman "was murdered in March 2014, and her body dumped in the neighboring town").

User:DeBerryTexas, a brand-new editor who is a self-identified family member of the murder victim, removed the sentence. He stated in his edit summary that the family do not wish it included in the wiki article, especially since other crimes in the same town are not mentioned.

User:Luis Santos24 reverted the sentence back into the article. He also left DeBerry Texas a templated "unconstructive editing" warning, to which he appended the sentence: "Wether [sic] you like it or not, her death can be listed on the page. Although it is a tragedy, and i am sorry for your loss."

DeBerryTexas reacted very poorly with hostile comments toward Luis Santos24 (headed "Remove the info regarding Alicia...IMMEDIATELY!"), including a threat of legal action. Such a threat of course is unacceptable according to Wikipedia policy, and in any event there is no basis for such action. However, the editor is obviously new to Wikipedia, and has no knowledge of our policy. Moreover, the editor is entitled to a considerable degree of empathy given the nature of the editing dispute in the wake of his family's loss.

LuisSantos24 responded: "User:DeBerryTexas, i am not afraid of you, if you present the others unfortunately killed, i will list them as well. I do not know Alice, so i am not singling anyone out. I will not tolerate your disrespect.... your attorney can do nothing by the way." On DeBerryTexas's talkpage, he also posted a templated civility warning, to which he appended "I said it was tragic and i am sorry for your loss. I do not edit Wikipedia to engage myself in petty arguments. Please watch your tone, you have been reported for being rude, because my patience is thin, if you do not like Wikipedia, why make an account?"

At this point, User:NeilN levied an immediate indefinite block for legal threats, adding five minutes later that "you will be unblocked after you explicitly retract the threat of taking legal action." I see that as I've been typing these comments, User:Chillum has commented that he had intended to block for the legal threat if NeilN hadn't gotten there first.

Despite the mitigating factors, I do not condone much of what DeBerryTexas said, and certainly it was necessary that certain aspects of Wikipedia policy and perhaps American law be explained to him. And as I said, I perceive good faith on the part of Luis Santos24 and certainly on the part of NeilN, whose performance as an administrator I would generally describe as superior. Moreover, I fully understand all the reasons for our strong policy prohibiting legal threats and providing that editors who make them are to be blocked unless and until they are retracted.

Nonetheless, I can hardly imagine how this incident could have been handled with less sensitivity than has occurred. We have now created, without doubt, an individual and perhaps a family who, in addition to having lost a loved one, will despise Wikipedia and Wikipedians forever for the way we have reacted to their request not to further publicize their loss.

Are we unable to evolve a better way of addressing this type of situation? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't particularly like handing out blocks in this specific situation but any changes to the WP:NLT policy will have to be carefully considered. Personally, I'd like to insert a step between 4 and 5, giving the person a chance to retract the threat with their next edit and avoid a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Can the reference to the murder be deleted out of sensitivity for the request of the family (not withstanding the inappropriate legal threat)? Also, LuisSantos24 should not have issued a civility warning when he was himself uncivil. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the murder (and an unrelated arson) from the article because I don't think they meet content policy. Geogene (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, legal threats must be taken seriously. Wikipedia:No legal threats states that the expected administrative action is to "ban the person who made the legal threat until and unless they agree that the legal issue is completely resolved and that they are sure they will not bring legal disputes into Wikimedia space" (I believe that the use of the term "ban" in the statement actually meant to use the definition of a "block", but I'm not completely sure). It's undoubtedly a very tough and saddening situation for anyone who is dealing with the loss of someone they knew personally; I don't believe that anyone here would disagree with that. However, legal threats are serious and must be treated as such. With this in mind, the block on DeBerryTexas was completely justified.

Luis Santos24 - Be mindful of your conduct towards others (especially legal threats). Your response here (specifically, "i am not afraid of you, if you present the others unfortunately killed, i will list them as well") wasn't necessary. Responses like these will only add fuel to the fire, and it will only make the dispute and the conflict worse. If your goal is to resolve the dispute in a positive manner, statements like this should be avoided. I just want to leave you my encouragement to be mindful of how you handle situations such as these. It's easy to get sucked into a heated argument. If you feel like you are, you should step away and ask help from the community :-)

Regarding the content: At first glance, I don't think that it is notable to justify that it be listed under the article regarding the city. It doesn't appear to have reached national headlines or sources, and my searches haven't come up with any sources other than those outside local (city) coverage. I think that the content can be removed from the article. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I in my humble opinion, was reasonable. I apologized for the tragic family loss, and i said that i would not tolerate disrespect. I also said that if he could give me more to list, so it would not appear as if we were listing her alone, i would easily do so. It was not my intent to be uncivil, when he was the one uncivil, to both me and Wikipedia itself, even threatening us, and leaving a hostile message on my talk page. I believe the situation was the best we could do. If he can explicitly retract the legal threats, and apologize for his rudeness to me, because i apologized for the families loss among other things, i see no reason not to unblock

Cheers mates, Luis Santos24 (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban of Luis Santos24 preventing them from interacting with new editors except for clear vandalism (no vandalism occurred in the current case). The response to the new editor was disgraceful and shows a permanent inability to communicate effectively. Wikipedia should not be used for automated responses to every situation. Thanks to Geogene who has correctly removed the absurd text from the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Johnuniq, a topic ban on Luis Santos24? If the sole reason behind your proposal is my discussion regarding his response to DeBerryTexas, then I disagree and I think that you're jumping the gun way too far. I see this as an opportunity to encourage positive and civil conduct in the future and nothing more than that. A ban on Luis Santos24 is not something I'd even consider supporting at this time. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq, Once more, i can hardly call that disgraceful. I was acting in my defense. In the end, he insulted me, Wikipedia, made legal threats, and once more insulted me, leaving a hostile message on my chat. I was no scared by the threats, which i stated, i also correctly stated that getting an attorney will accomplish nothing. I was not singling anyone out, i did not know the deceased. Who are you to tell me i cannot communicate effectively? By exxagerrating and calling my actions "disgraceful"? What about DeBerryTexas? I only see people siding against me. I refuse to standby while someone rudely insults me, questions my intelligence, insults the website i am dedicated to editing and maintaining, and making legal threats to it. Nonetheless, it is absurd to take action against me as i did nothing wrong. I gave him warnings, but apparently they did not work. I did not mean to put a vandalism tag, i clicked on disruptive editing. So yes, that was a mistake and i apologize. I am not gonna cradle the persons feeling while getting yelled at by him after i showed sympathy.

No cheers, mate --Luis Santos24 (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I perceive no need for action against Luis Santos24 personally, as this specific situation seems unlikely to recur with him as a party—although I do ask him to refrain from interacting with DeBerryTexas in the future, in the unlikely event that editor sticks around. I'd rather refocus the discussion on the policy issues I've raised, as I continue to find our handling of these situations disturbing. (See also, for related discussion, WP:DOLT.)

I need to sign off for the night shortly. Would someone take on the task of writing a more personalized message for User talk:DeBerry Texas? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Newyorkbrad, i perfectly agree with your terms as to not talk or interact with DeBerryTexas, it was actually my intent to walk away from the situation due to me seeing the higher-ups take action. I appreciate the support. I love editing Wikipedia and me being banned is a worst nightmare. I promise not to even edit the article further, as there is no need.

Cheers, mate. --Luis Santos24 (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ha, I saw these edits a little while ago without knowing it had blown up to ANI already. I left a note--whether NYB thinks it's a good enough one remains to be seen. Luis, I urge you to be less quick on the draw, to think more carefully before you revert, and to take it easy when you respond. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The same situation has occurred in the past, and the same situation will occur in the future. NYB kicked off a sub-topic meant to discuss this in general terms and not focus on this particular case. Probably not the best place for it so perhaps we could continue at Wikipedia talk:No legal threats? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• The main suggestions I have are to stay in the spirit of don't bite the newbies when communicating with someone like DeBerryTexas (even if they are swearing at you or making legal threats), and don't leave them any talkpage templates of any sort (they are too bureaucratic). Do what you have to in terms of actions such as blocking, but write individualized talk messages that address the actual situation and that show empathy for the recipient. Drmies's post on DeBerryTexas's talkpage is a good example that you might examine.

  This is a good article about empathy as a communication tool. It's an internal publication of the Kaiser Permanente healthcare network intended to help Kaiser doctors develop better interaction skills with their patients, so it's written at a technical, professional level without much touchy-feely. Since doctors are basically the same thing as Wikipedia admins except with less training (j/k), the article might be helpful for admins and other editors who get into difficulties over communication. 173.228.123.193 (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abusive conduct by user User:Youssef Muhammed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These abusive statements were put on my talk and user pages by User:Youssef Muhammed.

[46]

[47]

I am requesting that the appropriate steps be taken by Wikipedia administrators to discipline this user.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Youssef Muhammed has made repeated edits at World_War_II_casualties that do not agree to the sources cited. I want to avoid an edit war here.

[48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]

I want to avoid an edit war here.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indef?

I think this editor's block should be changed to indefinite because s/he has stated quite clearly that s/he will continue to behave in the same manner after the current block expires. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Will watch editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I got another stalker

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Apparently, this person took umbrage at a revert I made on Centennial High School (Franklin, Tennessee), so he reverted every edit I made yesterday. I have warned him about the personal attack, and will set about undoing the damage. Please do whatever you think is right to prevent this continuing. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone close the rFC? The votes are in and it's not Tamil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.56.3 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Firstly, this request needs to be at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure; however, I see little consensus at the moment and the RfC has only been running for ten days, so it is unlikely to be closed yet. Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Бучач-Львів

• Бучач-Львів (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I tried to explain the user that WP:MOS disfavors sandwitching text between images and the infobox. They have chosen to edit-war in Zhovkva (a town in Ukraine). Normally, I would just go to WP:3RRN, however, they also went to my talk page and left a message in Russian [55] saying that since I am Russian (which they apparently infer from my mothertongue), I may not edit articles about Ukraine and should go editing articles on Russia and Putin. I believe this requires some administrative intervention. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Subsequently, they accused me in vandalism [56]. They are writing in Russian, possibly to avoid scrutiny. I respond them in English.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Ymblanter said absolutely horrible about my editing. I think, it was some tactless on his part. What were temples remove photos from the article? Sorry for bad English. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC) I can speak Russian well.

to Ymblanter, Iryna Harpy I'm not accusing Ymblanter of vandalism. I said it looks like vandalism. but he have perverted their way to my phrase.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I said that the layout of the article after your edits looks horrible. I removed the pictures per WP:MOS, and this is the third time I am trying to explain this to you. If you do not speak English, may be you should not be editing here.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you two can agree to display the four non-infobox images in a gallery rather than deleting some of them or forcing some of them into a position that produces an awkward "river" of text. Discussion on the talk page seems called for here. Deor (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, the user has consistently demonstrated problematic behavior and inability to comply with our policies. You may want to check their talk page. Additionally, their command of English seems to be insufficient, they clearly do not understand the messages. And, for the record, I started a talk page discussion before coming here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

to Ymblanter You said absolutely horrible [57]. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you actually speak enough English to understand my comment? Do you understand what I said?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I very much doubt that the user does, Ymblanter. The editor has a history POV-pushing on Eastern Europe related articles, but doesn't seem to understand policies and guidelines when they're pointed out to him/her. Even if we are to assume good faith, their command of English is too poor to meet with the WP:COMPENTENCE needed to contribute productively hence, unfortunately, their presence here has become WP:DE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly my impression. I refer to WP:MOS, and suddenly they say I should keep clear of the Ukrainian articles because of my bias. It is not even an overreaction, it is a clear lack of understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

to Ymblanter exactly, clear lack of understanding (100%). It is not my first conflict with you. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't we have WP:EMBASSY to facilitate communication in such cases?

• Getting back to the original complaint, this seems like an uncollegial nationalist (pro-Ukraine, anti-Russian) who is editing English-Wikipedia incompetently and behaving uncivilly. I favor a block. Carrite (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

to Carrite Ymblanter tells some lies, I believe, if he hasn't the right to edit articles about Ukraine. Of course, he has every right to do so. But since this article is about the Ukrainian town Zhovkva, this theme known me better than him. I think, his actions in the article, when he removed the photo of the Ukrainian church and the Rome church, were not constructive. Regarding my uncollegial nationalism - you are mistaken. But I am Ukrainian, and might know something about my country some more than the citizens of other countries.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

What about: Жолква - это Россия? Город основан украинским поляком. Пожайлуйста [sic.], займитесь Россией, Путиным. Бальшое спасиба [sic.]. ? This is akin to an Austrian telling a German Wikipedian to stop editing about an Austrian village and to go back to writing about Germany and Hitler. That needs an apology, for starters. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Russian Пожалуйста transated like please in English. I only expressed a request to Ymblanter because he speaks Russian, better complements the article about Russia or president Putin, instead he had removed photos of churches from the article about Ukrainian town. Am I charged him? I thank him for his contribution and I am glad its constructive contribution to the Articles about Ukraine.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Бучач-Львів: Please do not try to play other editors for fools. There are plenty of us who know Russian (and some of us actually know and speak Ukrainian far better than Russian). Fobbing off the remainder of your missive by pointing out your use of 'please' in the context (where it is far more likely to be read as, and intended to mean, [I'll thank you not to]) is intentionally misleading as there is nothing polite about the remainder of the message: read as a whole, it in absolutely and undeniably WP:UNCIVIL.

Furthermore, it is indicative of the WP:PERSONAL attitude you adopted virtually from the moment you began editing English language Wikipedia. Aside from the derisive manner in which you've approached Ymblanter, should I bring your Ukrainian language 'discussion' with Ezhiki to this forum and translate it precisely (that is, with the nuances thoroughly parsed) for non-Ukrainian speakers? Your attitude is arrogant and harsh towards anyone you even suspect of being Russian, and all you've managed to demonstrate to this point is that you are an unabashed bigot. Nonetheless, you persist in depicting yourself as being good faith and are unable to bring yourself to even apologise for your behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: sorry that you think that I want someone to deceive. I currently difficult to prove to you my opinion, because it is the opposite of what you still want to keep. Thank you. Sorry for my mistakes. But what you say if I initially changes in enwiki am constantly WP:PERSONAL attitude - that did not quite true. Sorry for google transl.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Бучач-Львів: What it comes down to is the fact that you aren't assuming good faith about other long term, regular editors (in this case, we're talking about two administrators who have always been NPOV about the most contentious issues surrounding Eastern European articles). Rather than trying to WP:LISTEN, you are working on the assumption that they are POV pushers and telling them that they have no right to work on articles because they're Russian (or, in this case, you're assuming that they're Russian). They have tried to explain the policy and guideline based reasons for reverting your changes and/or modifying the content you've introduced. Interacting with other editors on a seriously misjudged assumption that they are automatically the 'enemy' because of your perception of ethnic prejudice undermines the entire project. Such an attitude is WP:BATTLEGROUND. No two editors are always going to agree on everything. Approaching any subject matter on preconceptions as to who they are and assuming an agenda is unacceptable. Any apologies should be offered to them, not to me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Бучач-Львів: Please refrain from adding Kyiv in any Kiev-related article by citing this letter before we reach any consensus. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Commenting here so that it does not get archived. The article still is in violation of WP:MOS, since the user is unable to understand what the problem is and just reverts everything.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The editor is clearly driven by nationalist agenda. As usual in such cases, big troubles are to be expected, if some rouge admin does not block the account. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ghirlandajo: What are the so-called nationalist problem is in Article Biliavyntsi, f. e.? How WP:PERSONAL? --Бучач-Львів (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

User:William D. Money

• William D. Money (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Skip Bayless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

OK, I'm reporting this one now. William D. Money has engaged in edit warring (as well, as implicit personal attacks, while maintaining a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude) in effort to maintain a WP:PEACOCK and non-NPOV language at the article Skip Bayless (where the editor has now been reverted by three different editors, including Admin Jenks24). I don't think the extent of this editor's silliness can be grasped without viewing this little gem at Jenks24's Talk page.

I'd ask for page protection, but really in this case I think a block is in order to get across that this kind of behavior is not acceptable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Links I found regarding this(sadly they are missing above):

Last edit showed that the user is very inexperienced (asks where the talk page is)

Possibly emotionally close to the subject, as seen in that text wall comment

Reinserting Peacock and NPOV terms, indeed.

again

and again

... and so on. It seems that this editor doesn't understand what Wikipedia is or how it works. I've left a message on the talk page.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a topic ban. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That's too early. His last edits not only show that this user is quite inexperienced in some fields(not finding the talk page and such, but also show that we might be able to convince him why he is wrong.--Müdigkeit (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Blatantly partisan skewing

An editor, User:Cwobeel, is going around to the articles of GOP presidential candidates, and removing the fact that they are presidential candidates from the lead paragraphs. This is not just contrary to WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. It is blatantly partisan skewing, as this editor does not bother with the BLPs of the five major Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton. I have had my disagreements with User:MrX, but not even he has openly advocated removing a presidential candidacy from the lead paragraph of a BLP. Frankly, I am not sure what to do here. There is an ongoing RFC at the Rick Perry article on this subject, but Cwobeel just plows ahead at other GOP articles (see his contributions). I have no idea what to do. Am I supposed to start an RFC at every single GOP presidential candidate BLP? Is it an NPOV violation to apply a double-standard to the BLPs of candidates whom you don't like? I should note that all of the Democratic candidate BLPs (including Clinton's) mention the candidacy in the lead paragraph, and then provide a bit more detail at the end of the lead. But Cwobeel is opposing mentioning the candidacy only once in the lead, in the opening paragraph of a BLP of a GOP presidential candidate. Is it best to just let this editor run rampant, or spend all my time putting together multiple RFCs that will undoubtedly go on for weeks while the user gets his way?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Non-US editors, please note that "GOP" is the Republican Party, one of the two major US political parties. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant After cwobeel's edits, I am still seeing mention of candidacy in the ledes (typically in the last paragraph). could you confirm your allegation is correct? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he wants it out of the lead paragraphs, and put only at the end of the lead. That's contrary to WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. Every Democratic presidential candidate has candidacy-related info both in the lead paragraph and at the end of the lead. I suggested (for now) that GOP candidates get worse treatment than Democrats, by only having this info in the lead paragraphs but not at the end-of-lead, and yet even that is not worse enough for Cwobeel.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide us with a link to this discussion between you and Cwobeel? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said, the primary discussion is in the RFC at the Perry talk page, here, where he indicated that discussing it is a "waste of time".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be a discussion about the Perry article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The issue is identical at all these articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

So you haven't actually discussed this with Cwobeel except in relation to the Perry article? What exactly are you asking to be done here? This seems to be a content dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

He has already said that discussion about this is a "waste of time", as I indicated above, and he has ignored my edit summaries reverting him at other articles. I am asking that you block him for blatantly partisan editing that violates clear policies about npov and WP:OPENPARAGRAPH and consensus. Not that I have much hope you will do so. If you don't, how about telling me what the [] I'm supposed to do, hmmm?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm in no position to block anyone - I'm not an admin. As for consensus, where is it? The RfC at the Perry article has only been running for a couple of days, and could go either way - and only applies to that article anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, I meant "you" plural. Were you asking me what you as an individual editor should do about Cwobeel? If so, I suppose the answer is that you really can't do much of anything as a non-admin, to anyone. As far as I know, there is no one at Wikipedia who has taken the position that presidential candidate ought to be removed from the lead paragraph and buried at the end, except Cwobeel. Does that sound like consensus to you, Andy? (In any event, even if Cwobeel were part of a mob doing this, I don't suppose ANI would be helpless.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

*I don't want to jump to conclusions here but a quick glance does suggest that this is borderline disruptive editing as it is being done in a rather pushy way and without consensus. I will refrain from opining on motives, though the fact this seems to be directed at Republicans does seem odd. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not entirely convinced that even it were done for some nefarious purpose it would actually achieve anything. I assume that for most of these individuals, their potential candidacy is well known anyway - and whether this appears in the first paragraph of the lede or the third isn't going to make much difference is it? Am I missing something significant here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the policies I mentioned, the practical effects are many. People who are looking for info about the presidential candidate will expect to see it in the first paragraph, and if they don't then many will assume they came to the wrong place or quickly run out of patience. Moreover, the first paragraph of the lead is often presented as a search result, or as a summary by many search engines and phone makers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I suppose you may have overlooked the fact that Anythingyouwant made pushy changes on a number of BLPs a couple of days ago. Neither Anythingyouwant nor Cwobeel are being disruptive in making these edits; they're merely being bold and editing these article as they believe best. The difference is that Anythingyouwant accuses other editors of partisan editing, typically doesn't respect BRD, and continues to edit in his preferred versions even during on ongoing RfC. I suggest that Anythingyouwant be patient and avail himself of the dispute resolution process.- MrX 03:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Full disclosure: MrX and I do not get along, and I called him here to ANI awhile back.[58] As to me editing similarly to Cwobeel, I think not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Speak for yourself. I have no enmity for you.- MrX 03:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Nor I for you. Do you think we get along well?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC) As well as any two anonymous, hard-headed people on the internet who happen to occasionally disagree.- MrX 03:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"People who are looking for info about the presidential candidate will expect to see it in the first paragraph, and if they don't then many will assume they came to the wrong place or quickly run out of patience." No they won't. ("That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." — Christopher Hitchens.) Writegeist (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Then I dismiss your comment without evidence, Writegeist. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Evidence. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Much of a do about nothing. These politicians are notable on their own right, their candidacy being a recent event. Thus, mentioning their candidacy in the lead in chronological order is more appropriate. Look at it another way, many of these candidates in a few months they will likely no longer run, at which point mentioning their candidacy in the opening paragraph will be most awkward. These articles are encyclopedic articles about these politicians, and do not need to be slanted to recent events. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

As for the "blatantly partisan skewing", what is that all about? Anythingyouwant may need a reminder to WP:AGF and stop seeing shadows where there are none. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

All I have to say is that it's interesting that these articles, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Lincoln Chafee, Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, all have a mention of their presidential run in the first paragraph. Hmmmm. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Then fix them. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

...and do the same for Jeb Bush while you are at it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done. All candidates have their lede in chronological order, regardless of party. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Consistency is good. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a welcome development. I still don't think it's compliant with policy about lead paragraphs, and am skeptical that the lead editors at the Hillary Clinton and other articles will accept it. We'll see. I also don't think any of these leads are now chronological, if you include the present lead paragraphs, nor are they supposed to be. Thanks everyone for listening.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have not looked but have all these articles and editors that frequent these pages tagged with arbcom American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions notices? If these articles or frequent editors to said pages are still engaging in any edit warring or POV pushing, then reminders are needed.--MONGO 04:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Does anyone want to propose that to WP:OPENPARAGRAPH at the MOS? It can be as simple as adding "or lead paragraph(s) in chronological order" to the end of the sentence that starts "The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held ..." or separately (e.g. "For persons with a series of notable position(s) or role(s) but who are currently is or seeking a new role or position (e.g. an actor in an upcoming television show or movie or a politician seeking a new office), their position(s) or role(s) should be listed in chronological order with the most current role of position being seeked listed at the end of the lead section."? That should reduce this dispute in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is needed. We already have WP:RECENTISM to guide us, and US politician are running for office all the time. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

IP hopper NOTHERE

User:108.195.139.158 made a lot of white space edits. These were reverted by User:Arthur Rubin. User:68.41.32.7 has reinstated a few. Personally I don't think they are revert-worthy. I have left a note for the latter IP, requesting they stop. I would suggest that if they continue suitable temporary blocks be used. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC).

108 is almost certainly the "Michigan Kid", and 68 is probably the Michigan Kid. Perhaps the "Kid" needs an WP:LTA page? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe so. If we have access to the community memory on these LTAs we can look at crafting a response. I already have a filter in mind, if this is an ongoing problem, give me lots of data on an LTA page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

request to delete inappropriate, biased, and incomplete information from Jeffrey Elman Biography

I am the subject of the article 'Jeffrey Elman Biography'. I write about a matter that was previously been dealt with on the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. It resulted in editor intervention that satisfactorily resolved the issue by removing material I believe to be contentious, defamatory, factually incorrect, and inappropriate use of Wikipedia as a way to advance a political position. The matter was dealt with by editor Lithistman on 28 September 2014, resulting in a reversion of this pate to revision 627348309 by Malerooster. The matter has been quiescent until 7 July 2015 when user Nomoskedasticity restored the problematic material. Because this is now the third time that the issue has come up, I ask for administrator intervention to restore the prior version of the bio (prior to Nomoskedasticity's edits) and to possibly freeze my bio to prevent what I feel is unjustified edit warring.

The material is the final paragraph of my biography. This paragraph implies that as Dean, I infringed the academic freedom of a faculty member. The sourcing involves two item, both of which are based on information provided by the aggrieved faculty member and without any attempt to obtain the full facts.

The facts are as follows. (I apologize for the lengthy explanation, but having been through this several times, it may be useful to describe the issue in detail.)

In 2006 I was told by the Chair of the Sociology Department at UCSD of a dispute between two faculty members, A and B. Professor A alleged fraudulent scholarship on the part of B. The matter was upsetting to the department and the Chair asked me for advice. I explained the University of California policy regarding charges of research misconduct and recommended that he advise Professor A, if he felt misconduct had occurred, to file a complain with the campus Research Integrity Officer (RIO). That was done, and a faculty committee investigated the charges. That committee concluded that there was no basis for claims of fraud or other research misconduct. The RIO informed Professor A of this and advised him that further such claims would not be viewed as reasonable scholarly debate but might be considered defamatory. Professor A did not appeal or argue with this decision.

Two years later, I was told by the Chair that Professor A had continued to allege fraud and that Professor B complained about what he felt were defamatory comments, and was considering leaving the university. I consulted with our Executive Vice Chancellor and legal staff, who advised me to send a letter to Professor A letting him know that continuing to make charges that a faculty committee had already found to be without basis could result in legal action and university sanction. I conveyed this to Professor A in the 2009 letter referred to in the paragraph introduced by Nomoskedasticity. I did not personally threaten Professor A with any sanctions. Indeed, as Dean I have no power to implement such sanctions. The most I can do is warn faculty of risks they may be incurring.

Professor A was upset and took the matter to a subcommittee of the Academic Senate. This subcommittee has the charge with considering university policies on academic freedom but does not investigate specific cases. However, the 3 person committee decided—with no formal investigation—that the university and I had in fact violated Professor A’s rights. The committee presented a summary to this effect to the Academic Senate but without giving any details. The Senate agreed that if true, the behavior described in the subcommittee’s resolution was of concern. I was not named in this resolution.

The local newspaper (San Diego Union Tribute) was called about the matter (I assume by Professor A or a member of the subcommittee) and provided with the committee's perspective. I was not contacted or offered any opportunity to provide any information. That article is in fact the only sourcing that might be considered factual and unbiased, although as I said, it was quickly written with no attempt to gather information from me, Professor B or his Chair, or anyone else.

To this point, there was no formal investigation. Professor A subsequently initiated a formal grievance with another subcommittee of the Academic Senate.This is the one committee that is empowered to carry out such investigations and to make recommendations to the Chancellor regarding their findings. Two charges were filed. The subcommittee held extensive hearings over the course of several months. The subcommittee rejected the first grievance as not having any merit. After this decision, in June 2014, Professor B then retracted the second grievance and indicated the matter was closed. Nothing else has happened since.

These are the facts of the matter. The paragraph in my biography obviously presents a very different picture of what happened and makes no mention of the outcome, leaving readers with the impression that I probably violated the rights of a faculty member and was censured by the Academic Senate. Neither of these things has happened.

When this material was first introduced, I objected to its inclusion on the basis of most of what I have explained above. After extensive discussion, the matter was resolved on 28 September 2014 when Lhistman removed the material, reverting to an earlier version of the bio prior to its inclusion.

The matter was at rest for a year and a half, when Nomoskedasticity reintroduced it on 7 July 2015.

The inclusion of this paragraph has not been without consequence for me. I have been told that my candidacy for at least two university presidencies was derailed because of worries regarding the appearance of bad behavior on my part. It was told explicitly that the issue was not necessarily whether I had been guilty of bad behavior, but simply because of possible negative reactions from the appearance of impropriety on my part.

Thus, I ask that this material once again be removed. It is biased in a way that I have reason to believe reflects a political agenda, omits critical information (some of which may be confidential and cannot be placed on a public Wikipedia page), and is damaging to my reputation. At this point, I am concerned that this entry not turn into a ping-pong match in which the entry is used as a forum for an academic political discussion. So I also ask that freezing the bio be considered as an option to prevent edit warring. Kk1892 (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The material is clearly a "contentious claim about a living person" and one based on a "single source". Pending finding a strong corroborating reliable source, I deleted the claims. Collect (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone apparently cannot count to two. It is based on two sources, including a peer-reviewed academic journal. Professor Elman's real beef is with that journal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I have noted this source at WP:RS/N -- and note your claim that since the person has not requested a retraction of the book review (how would you know this?) therefore the claims must be true about a threat letter. Alas, I demur on your position, and consider a book review in a learned journal to be competent only for the normal use and ambit of the journal, and not for claims of fact about a third party. ("Someone apparently cannot count to two" is a tad snarky, IMO) Collect (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The Contemporary Sociology article is a book review of Richard Biernacki’s book and any statements in it can be deemed as the reviewer's opinion and not a reliable source about the event in question. The last paragraph as it reads now is very one sided. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 19:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles in that journal are peer reviewed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It's still a "peer-reviewed" essay that begins with this: "Richard Biernacki’s book has been controversial since before its publication. As has already been widely discussed on the blogs (emphasis mine), Jeff Elman, the dean of Social Sciences at the University of California, San Diego sent Biernacki a letter in June of 2009 ordering him not to publish his manuscript or present findings from it at professional conferences." (Dylan Riley. Back to Weber! Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews September 2014 43: 627-629). The author states he got the information from a blog, still not a reliable source even if it has been published in a peer reviewed journal as it is an opinion piece. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 19:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The scientific journal is indeed a book review. Interestingly we learn from that article that prof Biernacki is a methodologist (and professor A in the argument above) and is an involved party in the dispute. There has recently been a lot of discussion about the use of scientific methodology in the social sciences (especially in sociology and psychology). While there is (in my professional view) a lot of room for improvement in social science methodology, not following golden standards as decided by methodologists is not necessarily scientific misconduct (if only because following these standards is in practice often impossible). The discussions between researchers adhering to strict methodological standards, at the risk of not being able to investigate important phenomena, versus researchers being more liberal in methods at the risk of overinterpreting such phenomena can be incredibly vitriolic, and (although I do not have all the facts here) that seems to have been the case here.

Prof Elman was not even involved in the content of the dispute, but as dean had the task to try to control the dispute. Perhaps his letter to prof A was not the best possible solution, but we all make mistakes and this seems to be a fairly minor one. Thus I do not think this single incident justifies the largest paragraph of his whole career summary. While maybe it does fullfil WP:RS, I think putting attention to this minor incident appears to be against WP:UNDUE. Also note that in biographies (especially of living people) we have agreed to be exceptionally cautious in making claims (per WP:BLP) and the challenged section tends to go against the spirit of that policy. Arnoutf (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the previous discussion at BLPN, if anyone would like to review it. This seems like a pretty straightforward question of whether there are enough and reliable enough sources to justify having that content in the article - hopefully it goes without saying that we shouldn't be giving the article subject's unpublished, self-reported version of events much credence. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

While it is true that Wikipedia should not kowtow to demands from the article subject, it also goes without saying that care should also be taken in what sources are used to prove a point instead of spreading third-hand hearsay. Prof Elman's views are probably unpublished and unreported because there are confidentially agreements in place at the university, so the event is always likely to be one sided with the unbound party constantly crying foul and having the "true, since it's published" side of the story. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 20:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I said it's a question of what reliable sources support. But "third-hand heresay" isn't really an accurate description of how the available sources treat this either. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe an author that states he got his information from a blog (even if published in a well-regarded, apparently peer-reviewed scientific journal) would qualify as third-hand information, and personally if I had reviewed this article would have asked to have that statement removed or at least provide an RS before acceptance for publication. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 18:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Is any of this encyclopedically significant enough to belong in the article at all? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, it seems more an issue of undue attention to a relatively minor incident than one of reliable sources. Arnoutf (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I was just asking the same question as Brad over on the RSN thread. [59] The sourcing seems sparse for a 'controversy'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought that it's a matter for discussion at the article talk page, or perhaps BLPN (where it has previously been discussed). Usually when there's a content dispute it's pretty clear there's no call for discussion at ANI. Anyway, since the question has been posed, it's not something that is sourced to just one reference. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Elman here. The reason for raising this issue on ANI is that in fact, the matter was discussed previously on BLPM and the result of that discussion was that the material was removed until reinstated earlier this month by another user. With regards to the sourcing, the two sources are extremely weak. The SD U-T article was based on incomplete information with no attempt to contact me to provide my explanation or a fuller accounting of the facts. The Contemporary Sociology article is based on that source plus input from the aggrieved faculty member, again with no attempt to provide information about the fuller context, etc. The article reports a vote of a small number of faculty who were operating with incomplete information (there are approx. 1000 UCSD faculty; about 70 attended this meeting and were not given any details about the incident). When an official investigation was later carried out by the Academic Senate's committee that is empowered to investigate such things, they dealt with two grievances. The first was found to be without substance, and the professor who submitted them then withdrew the second grievance. To a large extent, the details are confidential, which places me in the difficult situation of only being able to say these things without the ability to verify them without public sources. That said, the matter is at the very least contentious, the Wikipedia entry has been damaging to my reputation, and I would argue, it is a relatively minor incident in my career. It is not clear why, particularly given the resolution of the issue, it belongs in the bio. Nor is it clear why, having been removed by an editor last year, it has suddenly resurfaced. Kk1892 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Fyddlestix has now provided a wider range of sources at RSN. One of them [60], an article in CHE, no less, says that the newspaper did attempt to contact Elman but Elman did not respond to request for comment. The newspaper itself says this [61]. I find it unsurprising that claims above based on personal "knowledge" work out to be contradicted by published sources. Again, however, I think the discussion here would work better at BLPN, or perhaps RSN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I can understand why Mr Elman came here (since the previous BLPN thread got archived w/o him seeing the changes he wanted), but ANI really isn't the proper place for this discussion. BLPN is the obvious choice, although the thread at RSN already has considerable participation, perhaps we can all just agree to discuss this there (in one spot?) Fyddlestix (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful IP edits

User 151.227.129.136 is constantly edit-warring and adding unhelpful edits to articles. S/he seems to think no one else can edit certain articles, even if the other person is clearly trying to improve it. Please consider a warning or blocking this user. --TBM10 (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok I apologise for some of my actions, but the things I mostly disagreed on was the fact you was removing a large amount of information that was kept in the route boxes the route boxes have always showing their combinations but your removing a large proportion of it thats what I'm not happy about, and I am not showing every iteration of the timetable because I'm only showing some iterations but there's nothing wrong with that, after all this is normal wikipedia so the pages and route boxes are ment to show more information, its not simple wikipedia, also on Witham station why did you chose a photo from 1979, can we chose the more up to date photo from 2013 please? --151.227.129.136 (User talk:151.227.129.136) 22:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Routeboxes, June 2015 - same problem, different people. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@151.227.129.136: picture quality is the overriding consideration in image selection. Date is a secondary factor. Mjroots (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing: 188.78.134.205

• 188.78.134.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in persistent edit warring, disruptive editing, outright vandalism in at least one article (Corruption in Navarre), and hounding over me. The IP editor has mutated from previous 188.78.131.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (previously temporarily blocked for vandalism) and 188.78.129.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Their focus is on tracking my latest edits (check IP's contributions), as well as the Basque topic (my main topic of interest, as stated on my Userpage).

S/he shows single purpose editing, trying to add their ideas wherever s/he sees fit, but sometimes seems to be disruption for the sake of disruption (a way of wasting my time), like here. Repeats continually the need for references but does not add them, like here, or startling claims. They removed fully valid verification when they did not like it. Despite their eventual participation in discussion, shows no consensus building, and it is plagued with accusatory and incoherent language, sticking to their point and failing to listen to the arguments provided by other editors.

The pages affected have been protected by bot, but as it happens that has established the IP's reverted last version in a number of articles while they were being discussed on the talk page, which appears to me a kind of reward for disruption, since protection affects all editors alike. The latest IP editor will feel free to act again on August 3, when the ban to edit those articles is lifted. I request a clear indefinite block on 188.78.134.205 and, if possible, its sockpuppets, to avoid further disruption to the WP. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(Remarks) I think that it is Iñaki who has an agenda and adds Basque origins (such in the case of Banu Qasi which I reverted) without references. By the way, I am not the IP. The IP's reversions were correct. --Maragm (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No references?

Basque kingdom of Navarre;

• Possessing the Land: Aragon's Expansion Into Islam's Ebro Frontier Under Alfonso the Battler:1104-1134, by Clay Stalls, page 12.[62]
• The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe, by Wendy Davies, Paul Fouracre, Cambridge University Press, page 97.[63]
• World Monarchies and Dynasties, by John Middleton, page 95.[64]
• Spain: An Oxford Archaeological Guide, by Roger Collins, page 31.[65]

Inigo Arista a Basque;

• Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of Al-Andalus, by Hugh Kennedy, page 61.[66]
• R.L. Trask, The History of Basque, page 14, "In about 824 a certain Inigo Arista in turn otherthrew the last trappings of Frankish hegemony and founded the tiny Kingdom of Pamplona. Inigo, like most of the population of Navarre was a Basque."[67]
• A History of Medieval Spain, by Joseph F. O'Callaghan, page 107.[68]
• Conquerors, Brides, and Concubines, by Simon Barton, page 26.[69]
• The Encyclopaedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Volume 25, page 541.[70]

According to this source, Basque was the "lingua navarorrum", but not used in a written or official capacity;

• Basque Sociolinguistics: Language, Society, and Culture, by Estibaliz Amorrortu, page 14.[71]

Maybe the IP and Maragm should do a better job of researching, instead of making accusations based on their own personal opinions. I will stick with the facts I have listed above. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Listen, IP 188.78.134.205 (or should I say Maragm?), I did not bring the issue here about references, whatever you have add them on the right place and the right statement, refuting the main statement, that the king was a Basque, period. The problem is as follows, not only did Kansas Bear add loads of references on the talk page, but I added myself one fully valid inline citation and you replaced it gratuitously. You are wasting my time and that of other good editors big time, contribute what you need to contribute, and do it as smooth as possible. You engaged in blatant vandalism in Corruption in Navarre, adding an incongruous explanation line, since you removed loads of content you did not like. I demand a rapid executive measure, I do not have time to engage in a long discussion that will last days, since that is the disruptive editor's aim, to cause frustration. I demand an executive measure over an IP tracking disruptively my edits, non-responsive to anything, and not collaborating. Maybe the vandalism resource is the right place, the IP has been warned by now. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The only thing was to add this remark on the talk page of the Banu Qasi article agreeing with the IP's reversion. I can assure you I am not the IP and if you have any doubts go to a checkuser. --Maragm (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I find terribly shameful this way of ¿reasoning? consisting of accusing others of being the same person, in order to disguise the lack of true reasons about the content of the disputed articles.

If anybody want an administrator to check my connection data to verify that I am not another user different than me, please, go on. I do not have anything to hide. The truth is this conflict is, as Maragm said, that the user Iñaki LL has an obvious strategy of imposing slanted labels and biased or false claims focused on the consideration of Navarre as a "Basque" territory. Sometimes he does it by imposing a statement without any references. For example in the article 1833 Territorial Division of Spain, in which he is obsessed with impossing the biased expression "Basque Districts" (regarding Navarre as one of them) in spite of the fact that there is no academic usage of it (as he knows perfectly, because he has been unable to give any reference). Sometimes he does by adding politically slanted labels to historical figures and trying to support that with references of books published 50 years ago or whose verification can't be done by internet. For example in the case of Iñigo Arista the vast majority of the Navarrese historians agree about the absence of evidences about the filiation of Íñigo Arista, and significantly (as I remarked in the Talk Page of the article by giving the due reference) the Gran Enciclopedia Navarra (a well known and prestigious source of information comparable to the British Encyclopaedia whose content is accessible on line) states this fact, and tens of references of books and scientific papers (much more recent that the given by Iñaki LL) regard the Kingdom of Navarre as Navarrese/European/Hispanic kingdom and not as a "Basque Kingdom", moreover no king of Navarre entitle himself "king of Basques", never). In the case of the article Corruption in Navarre everybody can realize by reading only a few lines that the writing is clearly biased and is utterly aimed to convince that a particular political party is "corrupt" by regarding irrationally as "corruption" several events that they have nothing to do with corruption like a problem with a catering company (!).188.78.134.205 (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Your effort to add references, Kansas, is highly appreciated, no matter what the actual target issue is. As for Maragm, I did not report 188.78.134.205 for sock-puppetry, although there are at least 3 different IPs with strings pulled by the same master. You speak like 188.78.134.205, your accusatory style lacking in detail is just as coarse and incongruous as that of the IP, well, you do not let me many chances (WP:DUCK). You intervened here just about 20 minutes after I posted the report template on 188.78.134.205's page, you claimed you had reverted me in article Banu Qasi, well, a simple check of the diffs tells it all here and here (helloooo). By the way, I made clear my views on this issue in the Talk:Banu Qasi, but both Maragm and her (her?) alter ego 188.78.134.205 have shown a total inability to engage in consensus and have kept pushing ("it is utterly illegitimate stating that the Banu Qasi were 'Basque'", it seems that for the IP it is about a moral issue...). I won't dwell on content issues or incongruous talking, as attempted by 188.78.134.205 in the last intervention above ("books published 50 years ago", don't make me laugh, you were attempting to justify your position with an 800 AD propagandistic reference!) since this is about someone throwing out of the window the WP guidelines and policies all in a row, as well as WP:HOUND. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You say: "...your accusatory style lacking in detail is just as coarse and incongruous..:". I have not accused anyone of anything. And yes, you're right, I did not revert in the Banu Qasi article and just added a remark and a source, sorry for the despiste. Lorenzo Jiménez has written not just the article I mentioned but a book, recently published on the Banu Qasi which I don't have with me because I'm on vacation, but I have many other sources that I use to reference articles and none mention the supposed Basque origin of the Banu Qasi. And as far as I remember, I have not intervened in any of the other articles you mentioned, just the Banu Qasi and I always log in with my nick and I never edit under an IP, so stop making the accusation that I am that IP with whom I just happened to agree on the Banu Qasi issue and added a reference. Agur ba. --Maragm (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As I explained on my talk page, I stick to evidence shown in all editors' records, you Maragm engaged yourself in the dispute. Instead of adding accuracy and detailed evidence, you have come to say that I want to add Basque origins and "agenda" and stuff, nothing said on 188.78.134.205's irregular behaviour. In fact, if you get down to detail, you will read that I may agree that it is not certain that Cassius was Basque (nor that he was Visigoth), but all the same... In fact, I did not add that information myself originaly. 188.78.134.205 not only added its own rejection of just about anything Basque, but added generic information on the religion of the Banu Qasi lineage ("Christian", Syrian Christian perhaps??? Did not the article mention that they were muwallads?, sic), and other ambiguous information (Pyrenean...), all without references. Well, no wonder, since the IP's drive is to cause disruption and frustration. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You'd better use all the time that you're spending in making false accusations, in providing references about those inexistent "Basque districts" (until now you have been utterly unable to do), in showing the references supporting that a problem with a catering company is "corruption" (you have been also unable to) or in explaining the reason why the Gran Enciclopedia Navarra (the most important on line source of information about Navarre) is not a valid source of information for Wikipedia.The truth about Iñigo Arista is almost the same about the Banu Qasi. The filiation of this historical figure is unknown (that is what Gran Enciclopedia Navarra confirms). There is no notice about his birth (date and place). The only medieval source of information about the lineage Arista states that the familiar origins of Iñigo Arista were in the French Central Pyrenees (Bigorra). But even that is not enough in order to state that Iñigo Arista was bigorran, cause this only source of information is dated two centuries later, and so the only certainty about this matter is that his origin remain unknown (as the proper Wikipedia article explains). Trying to report to different administrators or in different days (as you do each time that an administrator decline to validate your desire of imposition of unreferenced content or introduction of biased labels), or trying to undermine the credibility of a user by sprinkling accusations of being the same person (as you are doing in order to disguise your lack of reasons about the true content of the dispute or your argumentative impotence against Maragm) are just additional evidences of the questionable aims of your behaviour. Please, don´t confuse knowledgement with political opinions. There are many things in the world and many aspects of the reality that don´t match with my preferences, but I have a minimum of honesty in order to not to try to impose them on knowledgement. Think again, please. 95.20.249.28 (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

And, obviously, I carry on being the same IP user, now identified 95.20.249.28 and not with 188.78.134.205 because my device works with dynamic IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.20.249.28 (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, I must agree with the IP. The artice on Íñigo Arista is protected now and contains your version, again, A Basque origin, as you had erroneously claimed on the Banu Qasi. Yes, you definitely have an agenda and it is you behavor that is irregular. Now go to a checkuser to confirm if I and the IP are the same person. I guess you can't take any criticism and lash out when contradicted, accusing anybody who disagrees with being a sockpuppet or whatever. --Maragm (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

O, this is funny, so you were "over and out", and here you come again, Maragm, with personal sweeping accusations, well done for your contribution to the WP! Listen, if you are on holidays as you said, and you feel you got involved inadvertently, get a break and chill out, instead of adding fire as you are doing now. Again, you, like the IP, are not sticking to evidence but ad hominem sweeping arguments, and you are talking yourself out.

As I said, there is not talk on content, I accept whatever provided by the references (let's move on... even the "Gran" Enciclopedia, a whitewashing resource sponsored and managed by the anti-Basque, now outgoing, sectarian government of Navarre), over. That is just a diversion of the disruptive editing, POV pushing, WP:HOUND, removal of content and references and a conspicuous do-as-I-say attitude. My work on the WP is my best support, and everything is there, so I have no worries. Sorry, I have to say, what worries me is the absence of the administrator, this is a straightforward case as regards WP guidelines and policies.— Preceding Iñaki LL comment added by Iñaki LL (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Labelling the Gran Enciclopedia Navarra as a "whitewashing resource sponsored and managed by the anti-Basque sectarian government of Navarre" is a major evidence about that your behaviour in Wikipedia is not related with any sincere desire of adding knowledgement to this project. Take notice: The Gran Enciclopedia Navarra is a prestigious academic work published for the first time in 1990 (when the government that you label "anti-Basque" it was not even in power).95.20.246.45 (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

As for the IP, o, at last a speck of honesty. It is funny that you say I switch administrators, well I have not. I used once and you were temporarily blocked for disruptive editing and vandalism. In contrast, despite being an experienced WP editor if your knowledge of the WP is anything to go by, you avoid warnings and blocks behind different IPs, so that they can not be held against you, but well, now we know at least that there is master behind a number of IPs. Bye Iñaki LL (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

First, Maragm and I were "the same person". Now, behind us is an evil "master". What is the next that you are going to try in order to disguise that you are unable to explain why a problem with a catering company is corruption and to give references about the usage of those inexistent "Basque districts"??95.20.246.45 (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I won't comment on the manipulative rhetoric above. The same POV-pushing, the-worse-the-better Battleground mentality. I add a link to Talk:Navarre, as added by Kansas below for further clues. Iñaki LL (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed link to the relevant article in previous comment: Talk Kingdom of Navarre (it was added below by Kansas anyway). Iñaki LL (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This is never ending, latest update: Reconquista Iñaki LL (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Amazing that so much can be placed on the Enciclopedia Navarra when it makes no mention of Inigo's ethnicity! And yet, in contrast, the IP can categorically ignore sources he does not like! IF any of the sources I have posted on the Talk:Kingdom of Navarre page are "biased" then the IP needs to "put up or shut up" and take those sources to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard!
Also, just where is the Basque article in the Gran Enciclopedia Navarra? Link? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandal-like disruption, aspersions and PAs at WP:AVDUCK

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Background: WP:Advocacy ducks is a relatively new essay, currently rated low impact. Unfortunately, what recently transpired was off the charts, WP:POINTY. A few editors are now attempting to make a mockery of the essay in a very disruptive, vandal-like fashion which was actually tried once before in the recent past by Quack Guru as evidenced below. The same editors adamantly opposed the essay from day one and tried to prevent it from going into mainspace. Their 3rd attempt failed but they have not dropped the stick. The most disruptive editors of recent events are:

• User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc
• User:AndyTheGrump
• User_talk:QuackGuru

I've grown weary of the BATTLEGROUND behavior.

The essay was created as a guide to help new editors respond properly to real (or perceived) disruptive editing by advocacy zealots. The suggested responses could actually apply to most disruptive situations. Much to my dismay, a small group of editors have misconstrued the essay and cannot/will not be convinced otherwise. They began the disruption after I initiated the current RfC because of ATG's reverts of my work. They have incorrectly interpreted the proposed statement and the essay itself as an attack on project teams which couldn't be further from the truth.

Disruption by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc aka User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc/Previous_Account_Names

• Categorized a serious essay as “humor” He has been reverting and adding content in vandal-like fashion attempting to change a serious essay.
• Added pure nonsense mocking the essay
• Reverted with edit summary - “I LIKE IT” in a display of WP:OWN adding a link to ATG's user space mockery.
• More gibberish he added about burning witches to the stake he added to an image caption ^{added 17:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)}
• I reverted the gibberish and an unknown IP quickly reverted me - Hmmm Sock activity, perhaps? Atsme^📞📧 18:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Perhaps this is more sock activity replacing the gibberish after I reverted for vandalism [72] ^{18:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)}

Disruption by AndyTheGrump

• ATG mocked the essay in his user space and linked to it on the essay's TP
• Challenge to another editor - more battleground behavior
• Reverted my edit with unwarranted PA edit summary “you don’t get to use essays as a soapbox for your personal grudges”
• Casting aspersions I believe it's the result of his own misapprehension of the essay and the statement I added that he kept reverting.

• ATG continues to challenge segments of the essay, and insists there is zero evidence that confirms 'project advocacy' (his terminology) exists anywhere but in my imagination. Of course, that isn't true and I've explained it to him numerous times, and even quoted Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Advice_pages, which confirms it as follows: However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope... ^{added 15:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)}

• The following PA which he just posted in this ANI is enough to warrant an iBan and page Ban at AVDUCK to prevent him from further interaction with me and the essay he hates so much: [73] He said to me: "You are beneath contempt, and the sooner Wikipedia gets rid of you the better." Something has to be done to stop this behavior. Atsme^📞📧 07:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruption by QuackGuru

• Quack Guru added ATG's mockery in the body of the essay. ATG reverted it.
• April 4, 2015 - PA against editors who supported the earliest version of the essay. QG opposed earliest version in an MfD stating, Delete and sprinkle extra salt. Trout and/or block editors for supporting nonsense. ]
• April 5, 2015 - More unwarranted PAs against other editors
• April 13, 2015 - After my essay was deleted, he rewrote his own to suit his POV - Wikipedia:Advocacyquacks - It was speedy deleted but not without resistence

Such behavior is disruptive, unwarranted, hurtful and certainly not helpful to the project. I respectfully request that an administrator review the behavior and take remedial action. Atsme^📞📧 04:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously User:Atsme this is not needed at ANI. I agree some sticks need to be dropped. The Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks essay started out really bad. It is now somewhat better. User:AndyTheGrump does write a good story though :-) We are here to write a high quality encyclopedia based on high quality sources Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sticks do need to be dropped, and this is exactly the place for it since it isn't happening organically. (I'm unsure what high quality sources have to do with this thread or the essay.) petrarchan47คุก 05:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP:Advocacy ducks should be userfied as it is a misguided essay based on the idea that certain editors should be dismissed as "advocacy ducks"—anyone wanting WP:FRINGE to be followed is an advocate and is biased. Furthermore, if several editors disagree with you it's because they are part of a biased project (see the talk page RfC). Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a rehash of the failed deletion discussion, it was closed keep. Sadly those opposed continue to beat a dead horse. AlbinoFerret 12:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I definitely would not say that I own the essay. I would say, however, with actions like this ANI report and the heavy-handedness with which she is trying to impose her views on the talkpage, that Atsme seems to think she owns it. If anyone doesn't like my edits, please feel free to revert them. I'm just trying to improve things. If I fail, well, that's life. jps (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think your editing patterns at the essay define you quite well. You have consistently disrupted my editing beginning with your opposing views at Griffin which resulted in you proposing an RfD which also didn't fly. Atsme^📞📧 15:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, would you care to explain why, having written that "If you have an opposing opinion to this essay, WP guidelines suggest that you create your own essay expressing your opposing view, and we can link to it", [74] you are now complaining that I did just that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Certainly - [75]. Atsme^📞📧 17:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, reading something before posting a link to it is advisable. You have posted no evidence whatsoever that I am trying "to prove a point" (what point?) or that I am trying to "game the system" (How? And to what purpose?). Instead, my essay is doing exactly what a user-space essay is supposed to do. Express a personal opinion on the way Wikipedia operates. And providing useful advice. Advice on the inadvisability of tilting at windmills, and the advisability of actually providing substantive evidence when claiming evidence of wrongdoing. Advice you should follow... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well of course - your essay is perfect and the essay I created is garbage - the world according to AndyTheGrump. Generally speaking, it's actually good to maintain confidence in one's own ability as long as it's within reason. Atsme^📞📧 19:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

When I want advice on whether something is 'within reason', I'll ask someone who doesn't ask for Monty Python references to be oversighted. [76] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Note - it has been pointed out to me that the apparent call for 'oversight' I link above might have been a typo, and 'checkuser' intended. If so, I'll withdraw the above remark. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Administrator attention please?

The named editors are not only causing disruption, they have now assumed WP:OWN of the essay and are removing images and attempting to change the entire perspective of the essay against what WP:Wikipedia Essays suggest. We have an ongoing RfC, a SPI and this ANI and the BF behavior continues. Please help before this escalates anymore than it has as a result of the above named tendentious editors. I am asking for an a-Ban against the named editors because they have opposed the essay from the very beginning and will not drop the stick. Their reasons for changing are clearly based in their own POV. Atsme^📞📧 15:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Editors are attempting to change and improve the essay, true, but they're allowed to do that and there's nothing to indicate that they're doing it in bad faith. Opposing the essay as written does not mean that they're acting in bad faith. On the other hand, when you say to an editor Please help further by incorporating your suggestions as you envision them to be placed in the essay. You can start a new section below on the TP,[77] or revert changes with a similar edit summary,[78] you're showing classic signs of WP:OWNership. Ca2james (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

What is happening at AVDUCK is nothing short of BATTLEGROUND and you, Ca2james have come here with dirty hands. You are just as responsible for the behavior there as the other 3. In fact, it was you who tried to get the finalized copy of WP:Advocacy ducks deleted when you pretended to be a collaborative editor until you didn't get your way as evidenced here [79]. You initiated an MfD and your attempt failed, [80]. Now you have joined forces to cause disruption at the essay just like you did at Gabor B. Racz, a BLP I created that was promoted to GA. You can try to convince others that you're not on a mission to do me harm but the evidence proves otherwise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 18:02, August 2, 2015 (UTC)

I nominated the essay for MfD because I wanted to be sure that the community found it acceptable, as I said here. I've dropped the issue since then and haven't sought deletion or major changes to it. Everything I do is an attempt to improve the encyclopaedia; I saw the Racz article at COIN and noticed that it had some major issues which I attempted (and continue to attempt) to fix. As I've said before, I bear no one any ill-will. Ca2james (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• comment - to further evidence the relentless disruption and targeting of my work, please note that the last edit made to Gabor B. Racz by Ca2james was July 15, 2015 [81]. I nominated it for GA today, August 3, 2015, and Ca2james quickly showed up at the article to destabilize it and prevent it from being reviewed, [82]. The hacking away of information began just as quickly, [83]. ^{added 22:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)}

Atsme please stop casting aspersions. I'm editing in good faith. I've hardly been editing at all over the last few weeks because I've been sick and although I'm feeling better than I was, I still feel like shit. Since the article was still undergoing a GA reassessment, I figured it wasn't worth spending my limited energy to work on it. Since I'm feeling marginally better and the GA reassessment is concluded, I started editing the article again. I honestly didn't see that you'd re-nominated it for a GA; as soon as I did see it, I left that message on the Talk page saying that I didn't think that the article was ready for a GA (and I don't think it's ready now, either). My intention was not to stop the review but to express my concerns. That's it; that's all. Ca2james (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I am asking for an iBan regarding the 3 named editors and Ca2james, and an essay ban (aBan) for all 4 of them. I see no other way to prevent them from causing me further harm and disruption of my ability to edit and improve articles on WP. I think my track record in creating/editing/promoting articles to GA and FA speak for me. I just want to edit in peace and as long as I have to contend with this troll-like behavior, I cannot do my work. Atsme^📞📧 18:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

'an essay ban...for all of them'?!?!?' What the heck is this supposed to mean? That because Atsme and her (few) supporters don't like my essay, I should be banned from writing any more? This has to be the most utterly ridiculous of Atsme's endless demands that those of us who have had to deal with her have seen so far. We have had to put up with relentless battleground behaviour, endless accusations of policy violations that nobody else can see (i.e. the latest nonsense ai WP:COIN, the failed ArbCom case etc, etc...) and a complete inability to see disagreement as anything but evidence of some ridiculous grand conspiracy against her (does she really think she is that important?), but demanding that we be restrained from even expressing opinions on Wikipedia policy is going too far. I don't of course suppose that the community would for one minute sanction such draconian measures on the basis of the supposed 'evidence' she has presented so far (it should be noted that of the 130 or so people who have read my essay, the only negative comments have come from the three or four or so supporters she has who habitually follow her around), but I would ask that this obnoxious demand that her critics be silenced be taken into consideration when this thread is closed - as further evidence that she is unfit to edit Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Part of the problem has surfaced - AndyTheGrump has again misconstrued what he has read. My request has nothing to do with his fantasy essay but he's trying to make it appear as though it does. My case evidence proves which editors have created the BATTLEGROUND beginning with Andy's reverts of my attempts to improve/expand the essay, his unwarranted PAs and various other nonsensical comments during the RfC and everything I've mentioned above in my initial filing. The disruption caused by AndyTheGrump, JPS, and Ca2James is out of control. Several IPs have shown up at the essay, one that appears to be a sock which resulted in a SPI [84]. That escalated into retaliation by JPS who filed the following unwarranted BLPN [85] - another example of these same editors refusing to DROPTHESTICK. Now they are trying to flood this ANI with more nonsense so that no admin wants to get involved. They are experts at gaming the system. And to think, the same 4 editors - AndyTheGrump, JPS, QuackGuru, and Ca2James - have created all of this disruption at a low-level essay, not because they care about improving the essay, but because of retaliatory motives and their refusal to respect PAGs and the suggestions set forth in WP:Wikipedia Essays. The big question is WHY? Why are they going through all this trouble over an essay I created and co-authored? It's a sad state of affairs. Atsme^📞📧 20:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

What AndyTheGrump said. I believe that I am being targeted by Atsme because I disagree with some of her interpretations and behaviour and because I express my disagreement - even though I do so respectfully. Although I do oppose the essay and did nominate it for MfD, I have accepted that the essay exists and have not sought to change it. It is clear to me that Atsme only wants to work with people that agree with and support her which would be very nice for us all but when there are multiple people working together, there will always be disagreements. It's equally clear to me that it's her antagonistic behaviour when receiving even the most gentle critique, coupled with her not being willing to accept that she's not right about something, that causes disruption. Ca2james (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely untrue as evidenced by the following diff: [86] Atsme^📞📧 21:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That comment appears to have been made in relation to the second version of the essay, which was tagged for speedy deletion by me on April 14, the same day as this comment appeared. That second version was speedily-deleted for being substantially the same as the first one that was MfD'd. The current version of the AVDUCKS essay (the third version of this essay) was created on April 18. Ca2james (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding: speedy deletion of the second essay was endorsed at deletion review. Ca2james (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Atsme is yet again being wildly inconsistent. She states that her request for an " essay ban" against me has "nothing to do with his fantasy essay but he's trying to make it appear as though it does". Yet she started this thread with an assertion that I had "mocked the essay in his user space and linked to it on the essay's TP". She simply can't make up her mind what it is she is objecting to. So far, all that she has demonstrated concerning me is that I have written an essay she doesn't like, and that she objected to my revert of an edit which an RfC has overwhelmingly demonstrated that the community doesn't like either. Having failed to demonstrate that anything I did was remotely against Wikipedia policy, she then goes on to hold me responsible for what other people (including by the look of it one of the regular trolls who lurk around ANI) have been doing to the article. I reverted QuackGuru's addition of my personal essay to the article - and made it entirely clear to him that I wasn't happy with him doing it. I played no part in the addition of 'Monty Python' references to the article etc, and at no time have I suggested that I supported such behaviour. I don't, if only because it distracts from the core issue here - Atsme's ownership of a Wikipedia-space essay, her refusal to accept that legitimate criticism of it is justified, and her relentless battleground behaviour. She seems to be under the misapprehension that somehow the sheer quantity of vague assertions that policy has been breached by me will make up for the fact that she fails (per usual) to actually produce any verifiable evidence. This isn't a new phenomena - it is the way Atsme has operated for some considerable time, and it is the prime reason why I think Wikipedia would be better off without her. She may possibly write good articles sometimes (I haven't looked), and she clearly has talents (e.g. in TV documentary making - I watched one, and was most impressed), but she simply lacks the necessary social skills to work in a cooperative environment where disagreements are inevitable, and the resulting conflicts, escalated by her inevitable claims that she is being conspired against by anyone and everyone, are such a humongous timesink that any potential benefit we get from her presence is by far outweighed by the negatives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Not inconsistent - I included (aBan) to define to what I meant. Article bans exist but I wasn't sure if essay bans existed and I meant the single essay not all essays in WP which is why I added (aBan). Further references specify page ban. A big part of your problem is your hair trigger responses and emotional outbursts. You create the drama, not me. Move along, Andy, move along. Atsme^📞📧 22:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump's response:

Ok, let's take a look at just what Atsme is accusing me of:

"ATG mocked the essay in his user space and linked to it on the essay's TP" [87]

I had written an essay (User:AndyTheGrump/Advocacy Dragons)), clearly indicated as a personal response to the Advocacy Ducks one. And added a link to it amongst the 29 'Related essays, policies, and guidelines' (including several other personal essays) at the bottom of the 'ducks' essay page. Does it 'mock' the ducks essay? If you want to read it that way, possibly. Though only to the extent that the ducks essay deserves mockery (or at least criticism) for its emphasis on seeking out 'advocacy ducks' as some sort of alien species, rather than recognising that advocacy is a complex issue (I'd argue that every Wikipedia contributor is an 'advocate' of something or another) and that apropriate responses are better centred on actual behaviour (and actual evidence) than on duck-hunting. A perspective which is at the root of much Wikipedia policy, I would have to suggest. And why the hell shouldn't I write an essay on advocacy-hunting if I want to? Wikipedia contributors are perfectly entitled to express their personal opinions regarding the way Wikipedia is run. Atsme has written a controversial essay, and added it to Wikipedia space. And she has the nerve to object to me expressing an opinion of it, in my own personal space? A double standard almost beyond belief.

As for the essay itself, I invite everyone to read it, and decide for themselves whether it is legitimate. I note that the page view statistics show that at least 99 people have viewed it so far, and that the only people who have criticised it have been Atsme and a couple of her supporters from the RfC. Supporters who seem to think that they are beyond criticism, and that they have the right to stifle dissent.

"Challenge to another editor - more battleground behavior" [88]

Utterly ridiculous. A contributor was basically asserting that edit-warring to remove the link to the essay (which incidentally I'd only ever added once) proved that there was no 'consensus' for it. Did I 'challenge the other editor'. Certainly - because he was asserting that edit-warring was the way to determine consensus. Which needless to say, it isn't...

"Reverted my edit with unwarranted PA edit summary “you don’t get to use essays as a soapbox for your personal grudges” "[89]

Given the nature of the edit, the number of times Atsme has defended the content by claiming (without ever producing the slightest bit of evidence, despite being asked to on multiple occasions) that Wikiprojects have been engaging in advocacy, I have to suggest that all the evidence points to the fact that my summary was correct. And note that this edit is over a month old. And that I told her that if she had a problem with it, she should take it to ANI (se this discussion at User Talk:BDD [90]) She didn't. Instead, she chose to start an RfC on the disputed material. Which unsurprisingly shows that the clear consensus is that unwarranted attacks on the integrity of Wikiprojects don't belong in an essay in Wikipedia space. Only now, when it becomes clear that I was right to remove the material, does she decide to raise it here. And as for the edit summary itself, Atsme had stated only a few days previously that she intended to edit the 'ducks' essay [91] - in a manner clearly intended to attack the integrity of Wikiproject medicine.

"Casting aspersions I believe it's the result of his own misapprehension of the essay and the statement I added that he kept reverting." [92]

As is self evident, I am doing nothing of the sort - Atsme wrote "Some editors who happen to be members of certain project teams are disruptive and they do tag-team and exhibit WP:OWN..." ...and yet again failed to come up with even a scintilla of evidence. Aspersions were certainly being cast. By Atsme. Yet again.

In summary, nothing Atsme has linked is evidence for anything but her own relentless battleground behaviour, her own inability to take dissent as anything except evidence as a conspiracy against her, and her complete lack of self-awareness when she accuses others of behaviour she exhibits herself by the bucketful. She is a liability to the project, and we would be a lot better off without her. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: From a post by Atsme, on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks:

"If you have an opposing opinion to this essay, WP guidelines suggest that you create your own essay expressing your opposing view, and we can link to it." [93]

AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been noticing the goings-on over this essay, and would say AtG's is an on-point analysis. Meanwhile, I am having my own time wasted by Atsme with a vexatious complaint at WP:COI/N#Potential_COI_re:_Alex_Brown, and this follows on the heels of a declined case at Arbcom, again over COI. The Arbs suggested there were issues here to be discussed at AN/I and so it may be time for the community now to examine this editor's behaviour more widely and decide whether its patience with Atsme has been exhausted and if some kind of WP:BAN should be considered. Alexbrn (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Alex, your presence here is retaliatory which is understandable but it conflicts with WP:AGF. Proposing bans, blocks, etc. simply because I filed this ANI is pretty sad. Perhaps you should be included in the above list considering your hands aren't clean based on the disruptive behavior you displayed at Gabor B. Racz along with the many unwarranted allegations and aspersions you've made against me in recent months, July 4, 2015 - edit summary: (serious problems with sourcing (/advocacy?), July 7, 2015, edit summary: "the lurking suspicion of a COI taint": and your unwarranted removal of copy-edit tags I added to a poorly written BLP. Your presence (and that of a few other editors here who won't drop the stick) is seemingly ubiquitous where I'm concerned. I just want the PAs, aspersions and disruptive behavior to stop so I can get back to creating and editing articles and improving the encyclopedia. The amount of attention that was given to a low-impact essay I created and co-authored coupled with the gang-like disruption from editors who opposed the essay from the beginning (and who have repeatedly refused to drop the stick which Doc James even noted) needs administrator attention. Please don't try to make this a kangaroo court because the focus needs to remain on the obnoxious behavior exhibited by the above named editors. You know full well it was disruptive and unambiguously pointy and carries the strong scent of tag-teaming and own. Atsme^📞📧 17:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say that AndyTheGrump is 'casting aspersions' on this editor. His editing is disruptive, unfriendly and not cooperative. The well meaning and well done essay does not deserve such intense attack personalized against the writer of the essay. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I find AndyTheGrump not to have been disruptive whatsoever. He has accurately and forthrightly laid out the facts. I see no personalized "attacks" at all, just a calm recitation of what has been happening. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

EKJ, would you care to expand on that in a manner that suggested that you were actually addressing the issue being discussed here, rather than using this thread as a platform for your own issues with me? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Earl King Junior is the one entirely uninvolved voice in this thread, and his comment is 100% accurate. petrarchan47คุก 19:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved with the AVDuck essay, yes, but has had arguments with AndyTheGrump over at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) so I wouldn't characterize EKJ as uninvolved when it comes to comments on ATG. Ca2james (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

If we were to dismiss the comments of every editor who has ever argued with AndyTheGrump, we wouldn't have any opposing views. Also, you and I haven't had model collaborations, and considering the fact you actually tried to get the essay deleted from namespace, your derogatory comments about me are biased and weighted. Atsme^📞📧 04:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Granted alternative essays on Advocacy may be something that can be linked within an essay. But an essay that seeks to focus, not on advocacy, but on other editors work is not appropriate. When asked if diffs were really needed to be provided of his continued opposition to the essay [94] His answe was "Nope" and then a suggestion that after his reading he formed an opinion.[95] This is a clear case of failure to drop the stick as the essay has been under constant battleground mentality of those opposed to its existence, even after a deletion discussion was closed keep.[96]. The continued battleground against the essay, which doesnt have to be in complete agreement by all editors, borders on WP:POINT and WP:NOTHERE behaviour if not already crossing the line. AlbinoFerret 16:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

"a suggestion that after his reading he formed an opinion" as evidence of battleground behaviour? Do you even have the faintest clue of just how ridiculous that is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The continued opposition to the essay is battleground behaviour, even after the deletion discussion ended as keep. Once read you have continued, not to make it better, but to oppose it. Its time to drop the stick and focus in on building WP. AlbinoFerret 16:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I am entitled to my opinion of the essay. I am entitled to express my opinion of the essay. And that will remain true no matter how many times you repeat your vacuous clichés. Wikipedia is open to contributors with a diversity of opinion, and is not under the control of bureaucratic Commissioners for the Prevention of Literature. [97] If you want a website where doubleplus-ungood thoughts are suppressed, go find a Maoist cult or something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Doubtful whether Andy wants to be a Wikipedia editor in the longer term and in the short time throws around nasty things at other editors. Generally Wikipedia editors do not go to such extreme putdowns of fellow editors. I would call it out of control bad will. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Doubtful whether Andy wants to be a Wikipedia editor in the longer term?

Earl King Jr.

First edit: March 2012

Total edits: 2,997

Number of edits per day: 2.4

AndyTheGrump

First edit: August 2010

Total edits: 39,043

Number of edits per day: 21.6

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point. And Earl King Jr.'s edits focus almost entirely on a single topic. Following are the pages where Earl King Jr. has over 100 edits:

• 103 The Venus Project
• 114 Talk:Jacque Fresco
• 114 Zeitgeist (film series)
• 115 Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie
• 169 Zeitgeist: The Movie
• 185 Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)
• 263 Jacque Fresco
• 265 The Zeitgeist Movement
• 269 Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement

That covers more than half the edits, and many of the others are on the same topic. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang suggestion

Might I be so bold as to suggest that perhaps Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be topic banned from vexatious litigation at ANI, COIN, and other noticeboards? If she ends up having problems, she could contact administrators privately rather than drawing everybody into a circus of drama. As for her WP:OWN problems, well, we can see if being deprived of external squawk boxes might not allow her to settle down a bit.

jps (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Classic - I think the lady doth protest too much. An editor once summarized the Boomerang OP quite well in the following statement, [98] It should serve as a lesson to all that while some may make promises to change their behavior, they rarely ever do. Atsme^📞📧 15:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the lady doth protest too much. Which is why it has been suggested that banning the lady from protesting might be a good idea. I would support a topic ban from ANI, COIN etc as a minimum response, though I'm not sure that it wouldn't merely result in moving the problem elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I do think a boomerang is in order. However, I don't think restricting her from the dramah boards will help as she already has been contacting admins privately on their Talk pages.[99][100][101]

The problem as I see it isn't that she takes things to the dramah boards but that she engages in aggressive, bullying, tit-for-tat behaviours when editors disagree with her or call her out on her behaviour. From my statement at her declined RFAR case request against Jytdog, "This is par for the course for Atsme; instead of dealing with criticism, she engages in WP:POINTy edits[102] and posts long rants (for lack of a better word) about how she is right and accuses those who disagree with her of being unwarranted,[103][104] ill-will,[105] harassment,[106] being biased,[107][108] or, as in this case, being part of a cabal.[109][110] Also of concern is her misunderstanding of edit-warring,[111] MEDRS,[112] NPOV,[113] and POV-pushing." Her bullying, antagonistic behaviour is not new. She avoided a block in 2014[114] by finding a mentor[115] but her behaviour remains unchanged since that time.

She is displaying strong WP:OWNership behaviours on this essay and addedin the text under discussion in the RfC in a revert of another editor's changes.[116] I removed the text[117] and left a note on the essay Talk page;[118] instead of responding there, Atsme inserted an extraneous character into the essay to leave an edit summary arguing with the one I left[119] and then she left the extraneous character in there. She has also displayed ownership of Gabor B. Racz where she continually reverted changes to remove promotional puffery, COPYVIOs, and inaccuracies.[120][121][122][123]

With all of these long-term issues, I think a block or ban to prevent further disruption to the encylopaedia is necessary. Ca2james (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Classic play when someone is brought to AN/I. Try and toss a boomerang. Then others can pile on edits from other articles where there is a content disagreement with those who disagree with the person who is the boomerang target. Perhaps this tactic needs an essay. AlbinoFerret 17:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Seeing things in terms of "plays" tells of a problematic mindset on your part and fails to assume good faith. Sometimes problems are real, and Wikipedians do their best to express what they see happening. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, if you watch this board long enough and read enough of the sections you will see this done quite often. AlbinoFerret 18:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I could not agree more with AlbinoFerret. I have followed Atsme's articles and disputes for several months now. I have been absolutely staggered at her continued politeness and strength of motivation to focus on the content rather than editors, and to remain civil. This is in total contrast to some of her opposers above where it seems they can make uncivil remarks about edits or editors with apparent impunity. A boomerang is definitely not appropriate here.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed you have been following, for example egging Atsme on by tittering together over the "Pricks"[124] on Wikipedia (or is that the Borg?) who you fancy yourself to be in battle against. Alexbrn (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on the edit, not the editor.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Point of order. I did not post on ANI. If you think Atsme is being harassed by my response to her thread about me, then you would do well to advise her to voluntarily topic ban herself from venues where this kind of outcome may occur. jps (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@jps My ES was not directed at you.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

AN/I is for examining editor behaviour, and that includes mine - and yours, DrChrissy. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Support a boomerang. I believe Atsme is fundamentally well-meaning, but s/he seems unable to let anything go on Wikipedia, ever, and seems prepared to poke and pester her opponents ad nauseam. That is a problem. Editors with such an approach have been known to ultimately be indefinitely banned from the project. (I'm thinking of a particular user, but I don't want to name them here.) I support a sanction, either a ban from Wikipedia space or a ban from vexatious litigation (which would fit the case well, but is probably impossibly vague, and would be a difficult judgment call every time) or, ultimately, a block of some length — one month, three months? This after reading through this ANI which Atsme opened 1 August, this arbitration case which Atsme opened 12 July (declined by arbcom 15 July), and this retaliatory COI noticeboard report against Alex Brown (compare the edit summary here) which Atsme opened 29 July. Look at the whole pattern: she's abusing the noticeboards and brandishing an apparently never-to-be-dropped stick. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC).

Addendum: Added after seeing this utterly irrelevant oh-yeah-what-about-you well-poisoning retort to jps just above, posted by Atsme while I was fiddling with my own post (I'm slow). It made me cross out the bit about believing her to be well-meaning. I've changed my mind. Also considering this 2014 ANI: this time she has really run out of excuses for acting like a newbie. Support a three-month block. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC).

• comment to Bishonen - what you said about me is not true. Why would I retaliate against Alex? What did he do to me? Why would you say such a thing? He wasn't even involved in my Coinoscopy. You need to retract your statements. You completely ignored my original post which provides solid evidence for the real disruption that occurred over a low-impact essay, for Pete's sake. How can you not see it? You ignored the profanity by AndyTheGrump, you ignored the fact that Doc James even said they need to drop the stick, and you focused on me while failing to tell the truth. I think your participation here is disingenuous based on your antagonistic posting of the moon template - (Casein geology barn star) - on the TP of JzG, April 12, 2015, commending him for his off-the-wall comments to me during a discussion on the TP of SlimVirgin where the essay actually originated, April 9, 2015. He responded to you with the following, April 12, 2015. It's pretty sad when admins start antagonizing editors they disagree with and then use an open discussion on the TP of another admin as justification for their foolishness. There is also your comment to me as a TP stalker when I posted to Alison for help, [125]. I never accused anyone of anything rather I asked for help, but it appears you have been stalking me for a while now, and I find that very disconcerting especially considering you've been untruthful. Atsme^📞📧 02:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

If Alexbrn wasn't involved in your 'Coinoscopy', why did you name him as an involved person in your failed ArbCom case? [126] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• "She seems unable to let anything go on Wikipedia, ever" - Wow. That's a pretty big statement. I checked out your claim and immediately found it false, using the Kombucha page as an example. In nearly every source about Kombucha research, it is noted that very few human trials exist. In the Lede, the Project Medicine regulars prefer to leave this fact out, and say simply that no evidence exists to support health claims. This leaves the reader with the idea that perhaps many trials have been conducted and failed to find evidence. The team (Alexbrn, Jdog) reverted my change that added this context. Ca2James reverted Atsme twice when she made the same edit. Atsme apparently did let it go, her only edit there today was to fix the prose. Atsme has been trying to help stick to the science and help deal with the intense bias and misrepresentation of evidence at Kombucha. IMO, Atsme is being trolled. For instance, I have been editing here for years, and only ran into AndytheGrump at Jimbo's page... until the essay happened. Now, any page I edit where Atmse is active, there's Andy. My topic areas haven't changed, and I don't see him at any articles that I edit if Atsme isn't there. At Kombucha, I haven't seen any evidence that he is there to help build the article, even though I have asked for help. But he is always there to bash on Atsme. That's how it appears to me, anyway. petrarchan47คุก 20:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting. So AndyTheGrump followed you to Kombucha? Are you sure about that? In my recollection it's more the other way round: Andy has been a long-time steward of that article, and you (and, coincidentally, Atsme) showed up at the same time fairly recently pushing the same line. What brought you to the Kombucha article, really? Alexbrn (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Even more interesting is that I didn't claim he followed me. I'm just reporting a strange phenomenon and I highly doubt it has nothing to do with Atsme. It is time to drop the stick, by force or otherwise. petrarchan47คุก 20:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What 'strange phenomenon' are you referring to then? That you and Atsme have a habit of turning up at the same articles, pushing the same fringe POV, and that people object to it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You wrote: "Atsme is being trolled. ... Now, any page I edit where Atmse is active, there's Andy." I'll leave it to other readers to decide what you meant by that. You also put "My topic areas haven't changed" - but your topic area did suddenly change to include Kombucha, at the same time as Atsme's did. Just another "strange phenomenon" ... or ... what? Alexbrn (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I have edited health articles for years, and trying to fix your "Kombucha kills people" falls right in line with my previous work. I got involved with the Cannabis articles for precisely the same reason, someone was claiming that Cannabis killed people in WP's voice, just as you were doing at Kombucha. petrarchan47คุก 20:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck has an article I've never edited [127] got to do with this? As for Kombucha, I am of the opinion that including reliably sourced information in an encyclopaedia is generally a good idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing. I was replying to Alex. petrarchan47คุก 02:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Andy, your use of profanity is uncivil. Please have some consideration for the possibility there may be children reading your comments. Atsme^📞📧 23:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly - though I suspect that unsupervised children will find more interesting things to look at on Wikipedia than ANI threads. I'll refrain from making suggestions beyond pointing out that we have an article on the word, per WP:BEANS, but if you really think that 'think of the children' is a valid reason to complain about things on Wikipedia, you are probably raising the issue in the wrong place entirely... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

My first edit to the Kombucha article was in November 2013. Atsme's was in June this year, as was Petrarchan47's. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that I now run into you on various pages, but never on pages where Atsme is absent. You know as well as I that we never ran into each other before. petrarchan47คุก 20:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a user interaction tool somewhere, isn't there? From memory, I can only think of a few articles where I've interacted with Atsme at all - at the Kombucha article, at the controversial No-go area article (which I had again edited long before Atsme's involvement), and in relation to the 'ducks' essay. If there has been other significant interaction, I can't think of it offhand, though I'm prepared to accept evidence to the contrary - I have a lousy memory for names. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No Boomerang Atsme brings evidence of behavioral problems that need to be addressed by uninvolved editors/Admins. petrarchan47คุก 20:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No Ban for presenting the case at ANI. There is sufficient evidence that there is repeated bad behaviour in this case, and that means that presenting this case at ANI is not abuse.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• comment I would support a topic ban but only in principle. Atsme does have actions that do betray her and it's time for her battleground behavior to stop. This however is a case with alot of evidence to review and it does go back a few months. I don't think and I have seen that Atsme is not the sole problematic editor in this "Feud". I don't see any problem above with Andythegrump however. While I would support a topic ban of Atsme, it would be better to allow her to bring further evidence so that a few others might take part in a ban with her.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support boomerang to stop this bloody waste of time: Keep her away from ANI, COIN, and other noticeboards. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Do you you really care that little about the project that you would take such a cavalier attitude to the potential ban of one of the most productive, polite and insightful editors on here. That is shameful. If you don't want to waste our time, then vote !no (that would save us all time), or give your reasons for the !yes posting.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. This can be quickly resolved with a topic ban. It is becoming a waste of time trying to improve the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• comment - I have asked for an iBan and aBan against you, AndyTheGrump, JPS, and Ca2James as it was your disruption at a low-level essay where all 4 of you refuse to WP:DROPTHESTICK that caused the disruption that brought me here. Your failure to let it go now further demonstrates the seriousness of your behavioral issues. I also hope the block records of the first 3 editors will be considered because it demonstrates a pattern of repeated BF behavior. The gang-like, troll-like activity that I evidenced in my initial post is unmistakable. Atsme^📞📧 20:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose boomerang Atsme has eloquently raised legitimate concerns about the disruptive behaviour of some editors in an essay. Here at AN/I, she has raised concerns about the way she is being dealt with regarding the essay. She should in no way be punished for bringing this behaviour to AN/IDrChrissy ^(talk) 22:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Support boomerang I wrote above my reasons for supporting a boomerang but thought I'd formalise my !vote. I'd prefer to see a three-month block because her behaviour extends everywhere she edits and is not limited to the dramah boards. That said, keeping her away from initiating new reports at the dramah boards will help. Ca2james (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Atsme has done nothing to warrant a boomerang. She has simply came here seeing community consensus for what she sees as a disruptive problem. AlbinoFerret 00:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Looks like wiki-hounding from Andy. Bringing up behavioral issues concerning editors is legit. No brazen swearing should even be allowed here. Its not funny or clarifying, just bad behavior. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support boomerang, although Cwobeel does not express his reasons very elegantly, I share his sentiments. I have just wasted several hours following the various dramas leading to this ANI. All the hallmarks of 'conspiracy ducks' are displayed by the stronger defenders of this (fundamentally misconceived, from its title to its content IMO) essay. Ownership, PAs, forum shopping, demanding good faith while displaying none.Support a three-month block.Pincrete (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support boomerang. A meritless complaint from Atmse looks to me to have harrassment of AtG as its purpose. BMK (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Müdigkeit and petrarchan47. There is clearly ongoing battleground. Instead of singling out Atsme it would seem much better for neutral uninvolved admins to keep an eye on situation. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose boomerang. WP:AVDUCK, the article created by Atsme, resonates with my own experience of editing on WP. If some editors have tried to make edits to this article so as to change its general tone and intent, which is one of Atsme's allegations, then this is clearly disruptive behavior. As Atsme has rightly said those editors who have a problem with this article should write a separate article(s) expressing their disagreement with the article written by Atsme. Soham321 (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You appear not to have read Atsm's original complaint. She has repeatedly called for sanctions against me because I wrote an essay which disagreed with hers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to get into Atsme's issues with respect to a specific person. I might easily misinterpret her. But i do not believe she had a problem with you writing an essay disagreeing with hers as per the last few lines in this diff: diff1. Soham321 (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

REgardless of what you think, the demonstrable fact remains that in starting this thread, Atsme made it entirely clear that she objected to me writing an essay in response to hers - she started this ANI thread with an explicit statement to that effect. Which makes your rationale for opposing sanctions questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Sadly for you, saying it a bunch of times doesnt make it true. I have read what Atsme said. She said she didnt mind an opposing essay on the topic of Advocacy. But your essay isnt on the topic of advocacy, but on the editor who wrote an essay on advocacy. Its a carefully worded piece that to anyone who has been involved with the WP:AVDUCK essay can clearly see is directed at Atsme. The list of supporters of this essay of yours comprises those who have been against the essay and tried to get it deleted. AlbinoFerret 01:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

My essay isn't on advocacy, it is on the inadvisability of engaging in the sort of behaviour encouraged by the 'ducks' essay. An essay I am perfectly entitled to write. Nobody but Atsme's small band of loyal followers seems to have objected to it, or suggested that is a personal attack of any kind - and it has been read by around a hundred and fifty people. [128] Still, if you don't think it is justified, there is nothing to prevent you using the WP:MFD process to see what the community thinks of it. Until then, it is going to remain in my user space, as my personal opinion, and it is going to remain linked in the 'ducks' essay, as WP:WPESSAY makes clear is appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice strawman. No one has said you cant write something and keep it in your user pages. But the reason your here is the idea that your entitled to link to it in another essay. Your not, and the WP:ONUS is on you to prove you have consensus to add it. It gets removed, and one after another, editors opposed to the WP:AVDUCK essay replace the link. Its time to drop the stick. Keep your essay in users space for all I care, because large lattitude is given to pages in userspace. But leave it off of AVDUCK and stop with the disruptive behaviour. As I see it your WP:NOTHERE. AlbinoFerret 02:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Per WP:WPESSAY, my essay will remain linked in the 'duck' essay until such time as the community decides that it shouldn't be. You have no right whatsoever to exclude links to opinions just because you don't like them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thats right, its an opinion. Your opinion, and the ONUS is on you to prove it belongs. By the way I just like it isnt a good argument for inclusion. Attack pieces on the other had done seem to make the cut. AlbinoFerret 03:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The onus is actually back on you now. You saying the phrase "The onus is on you" doesn't actually put the onus on someone else. ATG has offered that his essay is a direct response to AVDUCK and therefore it should be linked as is common practice (this is my personal interpretation ATG but if you feel that it some how misrepresents you please do correct me). Your response really amounts to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Unsurprisingly it doesn't actually matter what you do not like. Consensus after all not a popularity contest. Do you have an actual substantive reason not to include a link to this essay? The onus is on you. Put up or drop the stick.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from the boards for 6 months Atsme says she wants to work on content. What she has brought to ANI and a number of editors talk pages is mostly unfounded accusations. This topic ban will help her work on content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

As you are probably aware (having been present at the discussion), Atsme was advised by the ArbCom members to bring Jytdog to AN/I for doxxing her. This suggestion is untenable at best. petrarchan47คุก 01:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• comment You and Alexbrn were the first two editors who went after the article I created, Gabor B. Racz, a GA that you immediately requested GA reassessment when the COINoscopy ensued. Your collaborative team took it over in a WP:OWN sweep and while I agree better sources were needed, the article did not need to be rewritten - it was a POV issue regarding a BLP and syntax and your POV won. Here you are now defending truly disruptive editors, most of whom are members of your Project Med team. No surprise. You also falsely accused me of copyvio on the Racz article, took a position of WP:HEAR and wouldn't drop the stick. I actually had to contact the author of the piece to prove it was public domain. I suppose your supporters will say, bravo you did the right thing, really? Being on the receiving end of your bias, I can't help but feel you are now wanting to be punitive. I was foolish enough to trust you and ask you for help in resolving the issue because of the obnoxious behavior by the above named editors. You again turned your attention to me while turning a blind eye to the true disruption and bad behavior. There is absolutely no justification for anything you've said or have recommended except extreme bias. Your response is an incredible disappointment - especially after AndyTheGrump's demeaning and unwarranted comment to me below wherein he stated, "You are beneath contempt, and the sooner Wikipedia gets rid of you the better.” You shrugged it off with more aspersions against me. I may not be the perfect editor who can sit quietly while others pound and kick me with the sticks they refuse to drop, and I have certainly responded in defense of myself as any responsible adult with integrity would be expected to do, but you defending disruptive editors while trying to make me look like the sinner goes beyond fair and reasonable. It's more than sad - it's heartbreaking because I once looked up to you despite the prior disappointments. Atsme^📞📧 14:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The COPYVIO accusations were based on evidence that COPYVIOs had occurred.[129][130] The article has been delisted as a GA.[131] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca2james (talk • contribs) 20:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The copyvio accusations were based on a misinterpretation of WP:COPYVIO so I became the target because WP:CIR. Yes, the GA was delisted which is not good testament to your work considering the changes that were made to a once GA that you and the team managed to get delisted despite the original reviewer standing by his initial GA assessment - a reviewer that is no slouch when it comes to recognizing GAs and FAs. What you did was cause harm to the project to push your POV- not helpful. Drawing more attention to it now doesn't exactly shine a good light on you. Curious - your user name and Doc James user name reminds me of a license plates one would see on the James family vehicles, hypothetically speaking of course. You both hail from Canada, both use "James" in your user names, and I was wondering if there is any relationship or is it just coincidence? Atsme^📞📧 20:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you actually suggesting that Doc James and I are the same editor with no evidence but that our names both have James in them and we're both from Canada? I ask that you strike this absolutely unfounded and inappropriate accusation. As for Racz, it never should have been a GA because it contained promotional language, copyvios (which you, to this day, deny), and factual inaccuracies. I was working to improve those aspects of the article, which I think does improve the encyclopaedia, but I'm well aware that it's not GA-quality at this point. Ca2james (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I never realized sentence comprehension was an issue on WP. I asked if you were related or if it was coincidence, that's all. I already know you're not the same editor because you can actually spell. Atsme^📞📧 23:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I openly admit that I cannot spell. The fact that you do not accept that copyright issues occurred is unfortunate and another reason why a topic ban would be appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, Doc. It appears you've forgotten what really happened. You threatened to block me over an alleged copyvio that did not exist and refused to drop the stick.

July 13, 2015 Asked Alexbrn, Ca2james, and Doc James to Drop The Stick,

July 13, 2015 Doc James insists that I'm wrong and threatens to block me even though I was correct that it was not a copyvio.

July 13, 2015 Proof I was correct, it was not a copyvio. No apology - instead the same 3 are here now teamed up trying to get me blocked. Sad. Atsme^📞📧 02:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Following this comment I support Atsme being banned from editing entirely. The copy vios were from more than one source. The copyright release she tried to get after the fact. Also we need the OTRS ticket number to follow up on its veracity. See Talk:Gabor_B._Racz#COPYVIO Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Doc James, did you see this diff of Atsme, [132]. Making a site ban demand cannot be done on the basis of the copyright violations claim which you are giving since as she has argued the facts were not under copyright in the first place and secondly things like the awards he won, organizations he was affiliated with, etc. cannot actually be reworded. Soham321 (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The information copied was not a factual list of awards. It was word for word copying of text. This is the issue Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Facts are not under copyright but the presentation of those facts is. Atsme claimed that she used the facts from the CV but investigation showed that the wording she used was the same as another site.[133] The choice of which awards and affiliations to include and the way they're presented can certainly be reworded. For anyone interested in the full discussions, please see here and here. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious what has happened? Both the content in the website and Atsme's edits originate from this individual's CV. Soham321 (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a waste of time arguing with them. They won't drop the stick so it's better to let them believe I manipulated some ridiculous conspiracy and magically turned a copyright violation into a nonviolation. If I really could do something like that, you'd think I'd be considered an asset to the project. I even followed Doc's suggestions and provided the proof that the information was public domain but that wasn't enough - he wanted me to admit I was wrong even though it wasn't, as in bow to me humble servant, or maybe it has something to do with the gender gap, I honestly don't know. I even changed the wording to appease him even after he attacked the Racz article during my COINoscopy despite it being a long stable GA. I hope other admins are watching this closely and can see what's really going on here because Doc's actions are clearly retaliatory, punitive and unbecoming an administrator in his position. It's rather shocking that he is now calling for a complete edit ban based on his false allegation of a copyvio. Wow! The entire reason for this ANI has been buried. Welcome to kangaroo court, folks. I guess that's what happens when a "pledge" provides diffs that don't flatter an admin. Atsme^📞📧 17:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support boomerang and a long ban from the boards, per Bishonen and others. Thomas.W ^talk 14:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support boomerang, per OP. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Question Are IPs allowed to !vote on such matters?DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• This isn't a vote, and until such time as there is consensus for a lockdown of this page to only established user accounts, AN/I is required to suffer the little IPs to come to us. Admins will decide whether or not to weight all the points made in this morass. jps (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Suggest that AndyTheGrump and Atsme just agree to take an interaction break for a while to cool down, and this whole affair be concluded without further drama. -Darouet (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support boomerang with topic ban. Much of the community has tired of Atsme slinging out accusations of personal attacks whenever someone doesn't agree with them on content, so this might help. There is some very nebulous tendentious behavior that by definition is very hard to succinctly address at ANI, but focusing on AVDucks, etc. might be a good starting point. Atsme originally started recruiting editors to the COIDucks essay when they were on the same side of a content dispute, or were in a separate dispute with another editor. This resulted in a selection of people supporting the essays and Atsme's actions there, and many of those same editors are also opposing the boomerang here. History to be aware of for a closer. Others above have described this and WP:OWN issues at the essay where Atsme appears to take changes to the content pretty personally by how often the personal attack comments come out. This ANI posting appears to just be a continuation of that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• comment Of course you do - it's retaliation for when I exposed your BF edits and aspersions back in March when you were participating in the tag-team activity at G. Edward Griffin, [134]. Sad to think this is what ANI has become - a kangaroo court while the real offenders go free? Every editor who holds a grudge against another editor comes forward and slings mud and BS without one diff? Let's get back to the real issues here - the tendentious editing, foul language, suspected SPI activity, and total disruption of a stable essay by AndyTheDog, AndyTheGrump, JPS, Quack Guru and Ca2james. Atsme^📞📧 00:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)^{correction 12:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)}

• support Boomerang not just for Dramah boards, but for fringe topics too. I would support a total (infinite ;) ) ban had it been proposed. Her Britannicas might be impressive, but they don't seem to have helped her improve the project in the time I have known her, ie since she joined the edit crew at Griffin. The most notable case of The Dunning Kruger Effect I've ever seen here, endless disruption, and probably due to WP:CIR @Atsme - Who is Andythedog? -Roxy the dog™ (Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home) 12:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• comment I wondered how long it take before the rest of the team showed up to castigate me over their misapprehension at Griffin where the RfC closed in my favor. [February 16, 2015, February 21, 2015, February 18 2015 for starters. I fixed the mistake you pointed out. Atsme^📞📧 12:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The full conversation for anyone interested [135]. Nothing was "exposed" there since that's the same lashing out from you that many have become tired of in the community even after many, including myself, have tried to walk you through ways to alleviate the problem. Just various empty allegations again. I guess thanks for demonstrating the point for the proposed ban. The idea that everyone is out to get you has been disruptive at articles and elsewhere. You demonstrated that pretty distinctly by saying I'm trying to retaliate against you for something as innocuous as what you said. Multiple editors have bumped into your behavior on their own through articles or noticeboards over time, and you are mistaking that for tag-teaming, out to get you, etc. It's your behavior that's catching up with you here. Either way, I'm not interested in getting pulled into the drama further. That's simply my take on this most recent development. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support boomerang and topic ban. Atsme's comment above has proven Bishonen's point. That boomerang might hit some other users that are opining here as well. Encouraging long-term disruption contributes to the problem. Geogene (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sure you realise of course the boomerang could be aimed at you. Why bring up the subject unless you are perhaps wanting to contribute to long-term disruption - the very thing you are warning against!?DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support boomerang and topic ban per Kingofaces43, Bishonen et al. This has gone on long enough. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support boomerang per Bishonen (change to support for site ban per Doc James, because of continued cavalier attitude to copyright which jeopardises the Project). If there was any doubt before, Atsme's recent behaviour here has sealed the deal. Alexbrn (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support boomerang per Bishonen; I am also getting the vibe of not able of letting things go, aka dropping the stick, based on below comments with Doc. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 15:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support boomerang and topic ban at the very least, per Bishonen, Kingofaces43 et al. Writegeist (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose boomerang. Legitimate disagreements, legitimate raising of issues should in general not be "boomerang"ed (it's just part of Wikipedia bullying), and not here in particular. --doncram 17:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support boomerang I was considering not commenting here as it originally seemed that not much action would need to be taken, but WP:ROPE has prevailed as evidenced in the exchanges between Atsme and Doc James. They allegations made were quite ridiculous and it seems to have become a pattern for Atsme to engage in such accusations in attempts to discredit those who disagree with her. She does not appear to be willing to acknowledge her own wrongdoing and instead continues to engage in the most blatant battleground behavior I have seen in a long time. I recommend a long block with topic ban from the boards. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Instead of joining in the mud-slinging why don't you provide the diffs to support your allegations? Every single comment here amounts to casting aspersions because there is not one diff that supports anything that's being said. If you consider defending one's integrity a "pattern of bad behavior" then I'm not the one with issues. I was doing fine as a happy collaborative editor until AndyTheGrump decided to WP:OWN AVDUCK and impose his POV on the essay without any discussion on the TP. I am weary of the groundless allegations - they are unfair and dehumanizing. This has to stop. Atsme^📞📧 18:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• [136] Provides good evidence of battleground behavior and refusal to acknowledge criticism. Other than that, we have nearly every comment you have made at this ANI, the merit less Arbcom case [137] (The most damning part is where Atsme accuses those involved in forming a "cabal"), the merit less COIN case, and especially the exchange with Doc James on this thread. I could provide diffs, but based on your past behavior, you would not be able to understand what you have done wrong despite being repeatedly told so, and I believe that neutral parties will understand based on the evidence presented in this thread. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support boomerang There is such abundant evidence of WP:Abusing the system that I can not see any other solution than a ban from this type of editing. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose-This is ludicrous. The editors who should be blocked include AndyTheGrump, Jps, Quack Guru, and Ca2james. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekay2 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per the opinions expressed by SoHam321 and BobMeowCat. LesVegas (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This kangaroo court needs to be dismissed

If anyone needs evidence of what WP:POV_railroad looks like, they need look no further than right here. I have grown weary of being beaten with a stick that the main subjects of this ANI have refused to drop, and is now being passed around as a show of support for editors who have clearly been disruptive, demonstrated hatred and bias toward me, have clearly indicated their advocacy positions, have been untruthful, vindictive, retaliatory, and punitive. I've provided all the necessary evidence supported by diffs. I made a GF attempt to resolve a very serious issue regarding the obnoxious behavior being displayed at a low-impact essay including tendentious editing, incivility, WP:OWN and now that same behavior has exploded here. This boomerang is not even related to the incident and is nothing more than a means to castigate me and cast aspersions without providing any diffs. It is POV pushing for unwarranted reasons and has been allowed to escalate for whatever reason. What editor isn't going to defend their integrity? I apologize if I drew unwanted attention to the bad behavior of certain editors favorite colleague, or a project team member, or collaborator you adore but what you cannot dismiss is the fact I've provided diffs to support my position unlike the allegations and downright lies that are being told about me. Atsme^📞📧 16:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Kangaroo court? Didn't you open this? Seems like you are saying it's legitimate if you get your way but otherwise not. This is not a court. People can and do look at evidence that is not introduced.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Those who use the term "kangaroo court" often find boomerangs headed their way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I find the term interesting considering a great many editors supporting the ban on her have had disagreements with Atsme. AlbinoFerret 17:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If you feel that there is any vexatious litigation on the part of anyone who has had a disagreement with Atsme then feel free to provide evidence.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your statement alone shows you are expecting the worst. The perception of impropriety and the possibility of bias creeping in is very possible. If you want a list of all those who have taken part who have had disagreements with her to show involvement. Thats possible. AlbinoFerret 18:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That's really interesting and all. I just wonder if I look thru if I will find any previous disagreements between you and AndytheGrump or JPS. I wonder if any of those of you who have come here to speak out against those individuals and quackguru have had any disagreements with those individuals in the past. This matters only now that the messenger may have shot herself in the foot. If there's any evidence of any impropriety or any bias that shouldn't effect Atsme here please bring it. It can later be brought to ARBCOM as I understand it. I've had disagreements with Atsme before and I've even defended Atsme before. But I'm wondering why the possibility of bias matters but only when it applies to Astme. seems like abit of a double standard.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a really lame accusation to make, AlbinoFerret. I have never ever had any contact with Atsme until this thread was created. Even then, we haven't even contacted or crossed paths directly. We haven't spoken to each other. So do I exactly have had disagreements with her? Not everyone who supports a topic ban or block has had disagreements with someone over x reasons, something you seem to perceive. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 18:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The lame accusations aren't being made in my defense. They are being made by my attackers. I think it's pretty sad that all the haters have joined forces to cause me harm, and those that may not be haters misinformed and have adopted a lynch-mob mentality considering every single accusation against me lacks evidence. It really is sad. I could say all kinds of things about my attackers and never provide a diff. Perhaps that is what I should have done - and also lied about them like they've lied about me. Atsme^📞📧 18:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela I said a great many, not all. @Serialjoepsycho Andy and I have not had any real disagreements in the past that I can remember. We really only edited one article, Bitcoin. But he may have made a post or two in others I have edited in the past. AlbinoFerret 19:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Tagteam Dramaboarding

Check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc. It seems that @Atsme: is getting the rest of her tagteam to do her dirty work for her now. She tries to get a checkuser to come after me and then crows about it on the AVDUCK talk page. The cause is taken up by her comrade-in-arms @AlbinoFerret:. Just another fun day dealing with the alternative medicine true believers. jps (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I didnt know Atsme had tried to get a checkuser on you. But the edits on the AVDUCK page, right after you were brought here, an IP replaced one of your edits, twice, right down to the wikilinks on a relatively new and unused essay prompted me to start an investigation into whats happened. WP:SPI is the correct venue for such investigations to look into such edits.AlbinoFerret 23:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

According to logic you've used elsewhere, your claims of ignorance seems to fail the WP:DUCK test. Seems to me that you all are working as a WP:TAGTEAM. jps (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I have watched Atsme's talk page because we have worked together on the essay, but there is no tag team, I dont look at it all the time or follow her editing. I simply found it fishy on the essay and sought for an investigation into what happened. AlbinoFerret 00:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:AVDUCK, I don't think that's a convincing argument. Do you? jps (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I too deny any involvement whatsoever in a tag team. I follow the essay and it's talkpage. I saw that Atsme had deleted an irrelevant edit and when this re-appeared, I deleted it for the same reason. I thought at the time it seemed rather unusual that an IP had made exactly the same edit as jps but I am rather naive in these matters and the very distinct possibility of sockpuppetry did not occur to me while reverting the edit.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that this is exactly what a sockpuppet of Atsme would say in order to encourage plausible deniability. Isn't that a reasonable suspicion on my part? jps (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

jps, aren't you against this specific essasy?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

An attempt to write for the enemy here so that maybe they'll see what they're doing is exactly what they're concerned everyone else is doing. The essay, for better or worse, is kept in Wikipedia space. Maybe they're on to something? I don't know. Help me out, here. jps (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho, it appears you are correct.[138] AlbinoFerret 01:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Albinoferret, aren't you for the essay?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I have edited WP:AVDUCK and !voted to have it kept. I think its useful now, especially new users, and I hope it improves over time. The essay recommends looking at your own behaviour first and not that of others. To focus on content and not to assume that the other editor is an advocate or a tag team. To me its more about useful advice than a weapon. AlbinoFerret 02:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes this is definitely tag teaming according to AVDUCK. They work together, they leave supportive messages for one another on each other's Talk page, and when one shows up the other three aren't far behind. How could one conclude any different ? </sarcasm>

Seriously, I hope this shows how disruptive it is to be falsely accused of doing something. Those who disagree with Atsme end up being falsely accused of things as a matter of course; that's part of how she rolls. It's unpleasant and it's chilling and it's disruptive and it doesn't help build an encyclopaedia. Ca2james (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This right here really seems wp:pointy. Looks like we are trying to re-litigate the AFD. jps you are actually a highly competent editor. But then why are you disrupting a stupid and useless essay? It's a terrible essay. It's probably one of the worst I've seen on wikipedia, but it's more than clear that the authors meant it seriously. Your tagging it with humor categories and posting some posting Monty python in it. Just cut the crap already and quit trolling essay. While some of this BS Atsme has brought here seems vexatious (as does the COIN case currently opened by Atsme), some of Atsme claims see a little legitimate.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

SJP, it's an opinion piece - there is no right or wrong, and we all have opinions. I created and co-authored the essay with GF collaboration even though it was a bumpy road getting it to where it is today. We didn't just roll the essay out into namespace like most essays enjoy and remain in peaceful fashion. WP:AVDUCK became the eye of a hurricane - the wind blew and feathers flew - and the storm chasers were primarily members of Project Med. You are certainly entitled to have your own opinion about it which actually helps make WP a better encyclopedia. It is what it is. Atsme^📞📧 21:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should allow incompetently written essays like this because.... it helps the encyclopedia? Right. In the meantime, it is causing a headache for many editors who are doing your dirty work in trying to keep alt med articles neutral and well-sourced and your ilk seems happy to just say "cut the crap" when those of us who are in the trenches try to deal with stuff. My God. You don't think "advocacy ducks" is humorous? Fine. I'm not editwarring that. You don't think that the Monty Python reference is relevant to the scales in an essay about ducks? Fine! I'm not edit warring that. I'm seriously trying to figure out what the hell this piece is supposed to be beyond an anemic attack by true believers in alternative medicine on the status quo sourcing and NPOV standards at Wikipedia. Maybe it's supposed to be a humor piece. Maybe it's supposed to turn into something better. I don't know, but to tell me to "cut the crap" when I'm trying to figure out what to do about this mess that the admins don't seem to want to deal with themselves is a bit of having your cake and eating it too. So happy to know that you think the essay is horrible. What should we do about it? Just let it fester and be used as a weapon by the group of editors I've identified? Just give me an indication of what you think the best outcome here would be and as long as it results in a reaffirmation of the principles of sourcing and neutrality, I'll be happy to fall in line. jps (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I've seen many incompetently written essays. Beyond that this essay had an AFD opened for it, the result was to keep. The essay isn't causing any problems for anyone at alt med. Alt med had those same issues before essay and if this essay is ever deleted it will continue to to have those same issues. Do I find this essay humorous? Actually yes since so poorly written, however that is meaningless as it clear the editors meant it as serious. You don't need to take effort to delegitimize it as it does so well enough on it's own. I also feel again that you are competent and you realize they felt it was serious. Maybe you do have a point in turning it into a humor piece however just get a consensus. Beyond that cut the bullshit out. If you can't get a consensus then just move on. Cake and eat it to? Your actions legitimize this otherwise bullshit ani. You aren't the only one that needs to cut the crap however. The COIN case and the SPI are bullshit as well. I find it rather audacious that they would open an SPI primarily because their ANI isn't working. What more is that then forumshopping really? I do hope that the SPI gets reviewed for possible meat puppetry.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:Serialjoepsycho. When you say "...that they would open an SPI...",(my emphasis) please would you clarify who you believe they are?DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho:. I understand that you think my actions of the WP:BRD sort are provocative. Please understand, however, that not everyone plays the insipid "get consensus first" game. It is possible to make edits and see if they stick. You also intimate that this essay is not causing problems for alternative medicine editing. I strongly disagree. I believe that the tacit endorsement of this group's behavior via the inclusion of this terrible essy in WP space has had direct negative effects at certain articles such as kombucha. This is a bit beyond the scope of this discussion, however, but I do find the strain of "go ahead and let them run rampant -- they won't make any progress" to be one that is shortsighted. I've seen that kind of hands-off approach go very wrong. Emboldening groups that behave poorly such as the Atsme contingent tends to be what marches us towards WP:ARB. On the other hand, I have seen success where certain groups have been shut down by effective and consistent pressure being applied in the correct direction. My point is that I think your approach is too accommodationist and liable to cause harm. I don't mind if you continue to hold that view, but you shouldn't be acting like it is somehow better than the approach I'm taking. jps (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

BRD is not a policy. You also posted an edit that completely changed the tone of the essay, an edit that can not be termed more than controversial and that has the potential to be reasonably seen as a provocation. Even your justification for it is half cocked. You don't really expect me to believe that you actually feel this is the proper use of BRD do you? If you want to use BRD great but we both know you know how to use it appropriately. Kombucha was in this same mess before this BS essay and there's really no difference now with the essay. It's the Same old crap that has been happening since the very first alt med article was posted on wikipedia.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that Serialjoepsycho and I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc have a Battleground mentality about essays. This is a content dispute and therefore not covered by AN/I. I suggest that both editors are wasting Admins' time and should be dealt with accordingly.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the battleground you wouldn't even be here now, Dr Chrissy. Content, tell me about this content dispute I'm involved in? Please provide some actual evidence. But since you can't actually provided that evidence go ahead and don't mention my name. I have addressed JPS conduct and specifically to them. The key word is conduct. It actually address a specific complaint that Atsme has made. I don't suggest but instead I point out that you are wasting Admins' and non-admins' time.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, man, it seems that you are simply not attributing my actions to good faith at all. I understand that these situations don't exactly lend themselves to magnanimity, so I don't really blame you. But, honestly, I thought the essay could use some fixing along the lines I attempted, and the essay deserves a change of tone, IMHO. I do expect you to believe that this is how I use BRD. It's not just in this essay. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Anyway, we should let this go, because it's clear to me that the behavior issues outside of my attempts to fix problems with one of the worse essays on Wikipedia are becoming apparent. jps (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, I can either assume good faith or I can assume competence. I choose to assume that you are competent in your actions. I still do. Though perhaps I could assume good faith but then I would just assume that this situation had become very frustrating and that you perhaps you didn't consider the negative impact of the use of BRD in this situation. This is nothing more than me addressing your behavior and I hope you will consider this in the future. Although I do feel you have taken what I've said under consideration and well what more can be asked? With that there is no further need to say anything else. As far as your last comment however, I do not wish to misunderstand you, but If there is anything of issue you see with me in this situation then feel free to address it. Note, I also agree with your position on the quality of the essay.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Update on SPI

This SPI has been closed by Vanjagenije, with the remark "The evidence is too weak to take any action. Closing the case" before which he had said " please (I'm talking to all participants), stop using SPI as a battleground for your disputes, it is highly disruptive. There are dozens of cases waiting to be reviewed and I had to waste my time reading all this battling". Does anyone want to apologise or strike-through in the light of this outcome? Pincrete (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I dont have anything to strike. It was an investigation, and the evidence wasnt good enough, not that there wasnt some. But I think jps should strike all the tagteam and meatpuppet statements. Like this one,[139] as its casting aspersions. AlbinoFerret 18:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Who are you to answer (in one of the most childish posts I have ever seen) for an editor who is making direct public accusations about other editors. jps should be called to account for his totally unfounded accusations.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Who are you even talking to?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed site ban for User:Quackguru

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Quackguru: I have looked at the present and previous behaviour of User:Quackguru. Quackguru has an ongoing history of blocks for disruption and uncivility. He has been topic banned once already:[140] and the continuation of uncivil behaviour(mentioned earlier in the opening post of this ANI discussion, with diffs)... I'd say Infinite site ban.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose QuackGuru is a party to the Electronic Cigarette Arbcom case request that looks to be accepted. Let ArbCom sort this one out. Ca2james (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close. While I love the histrionics of calling for an "infinite site ban", QG has been an asset in many areas of alt med editing. Excluding QG from Wikipedia would be a net deficit to the project. Many of the sources and citations added by QG have been among the best added to the articles and as WP:ENC comes first, I think it highly irresponsible to suggest this. I wonder whether the proposer has an ulterior motive. jps (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Providing good sources sometimes is not an excuse for continuous incivility.
2. The community is not arbcom's slave. Also, that dispute is not the reason for this. Also, arbcom cases take their time. By banning now, we stop further disruption right now, and not weeks or months later(You could also propose to ban Quackguru from any editing except the arbcom cases he is involved in until the arbcom case is finished, if you think that we should leave the final decision to the arbcom).--Müdigkeit (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you a party to the e-cigarette arbcomm case? Would it benefit you directly if QG were removed from Wikipedia? jps (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not a party to the e-cig page, I have never edited there, but I have seen the behaviour of QuackGuru and the chronic nature of the incivility deserves the infinite site ban.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean "indefinite". No one has ever been given an infinite site ban, to my knowledge. jps (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Do not patronise me. I know the difference between "indefinite" and "infinite". The proposal here is for an "infinite site ban". I happen to agree with that. It may not have happened before, but I think the extreme behaviour of the editor is probably deserving of the first imposition of this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

What you suggest goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, and claiming that QG is worse than any other editor ever is the kind of thing that tempts people to engage in mockery rather than reasoned discourse. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You mentioned "Providing good sources sometimes is not an excuse for continuous incivility." User:Müdigkeit, please provide specific diffs of "incivility" or withdraw you request. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Snow Oppose and Speedy Close. Good grief. WP:BMB: "Editors are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors." This is not the case with QuackGuru. QG may not be the most equitable or collaborative editor, but he serves a valuable purpose to the project and does not warrant a site ban by any means. It is not the place of this ad hoc ANI mini-subthread to enact a site ban on a longstanding good-faith editor. Softlavender (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

We have this and this, which were mentioned in the opening post already; and one case in your block log(old), as well as this. And for disruptive editing... Well, just look at your block log, as well as the rest of the diffs provided in the opening post.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed page ban for AndyTheGrump

Andy has refused to drop the stick. He was against the essay and wanted it deleted. [141]. After the keep vote he has been disruptive as shown above. He has written an essay that attacks the writer of the WP:AVDUCK essay and her motivations for writing the essay.[142] Advocacy Dragons He has linked to this essay of his in WP:AVDUCK. He has not relented but throughout this section has presented strawen, and mischaracterised another editor].[143] I suggest an indef page ban of WP:AVDUCK for WP:NOTHERE and failure to drop the stick.AlbinoFerret 02:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me see, you are asking for a 'page ban' because I have expressed an opinion [144] about a controversial essay? Yeah, that's bound to succeed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No, its for WP:NOTHERE and refusal to drop the stick, thanks for proving its a continuing problem. AlbinoFerret 03:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Do try to inject at least a smidgen of originality into your endless clichés - it does little to improve your case, and according to at least one expert on the subject can lead to corruption of your thought patterns: [145] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, in what way does Andy's essay attack ANYONE, it mocks a tendency we all have sometimes to imagine the whole world is against us, its 'message' is 'cool off'. It would help your case if you stopped alternating between claiming that you and Atsme have no objections to ATG's essay then immediately objecting to it.Pincrete (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I read ATG's essay shortly after it became available. I was left in no doubt whatsoever that it was aimed directly at Atsme, given the timing and context of the discussions.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"I was left in no doubt", does not answer the question I asked, but does point to the central flaw in this whole enterprise. "I think I see a duck" = you are a duck, "I feel I was maligned" = I was maligned, "I think I am right" = I am right (and anyone who doesn't agree is clearly a wrong-headed malignant duck). In the absence of any stronger argument, it is obvious tha ATG's essay is (as he says) pointing out the foolishness of 'tilting at windmills', but attacking no one, and therefore this ban-proposal is founded on nothing. Subjective feelings are not EVIDENCE to an impartial jury.Pincrete (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop shouting. Then, maybe you can find an impartial jury.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support - Andy is a combative editor, refuses to drop the stick, and managed to turn this entire ANI into a BATTLEGROUND. It never ends. No one is stopping him from having his fairytale essay. It's in his user space and I even suggested he improve it and get it into namespace. Editors are weary of his battleground behavior, the relentless reverts and WP:OWN behavior, the untruths, the diversionary tactics he uses to game the system and so on. He should have dropped the stick and moved on after he created his opposing essay and linked it to AVDUCK. All he's doing now is creating more disruption. Atsme^📞📧 03:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no 'untruth' in the statement that you started this ANI thread by calling for sanctions against me because "ATG mocked the essay in his user space and linked to it on the essay's TP" - with a link to my essay (Or rather to where QuackGuru had added it to the ducks essay - without my consent. Not sure why you did that). You objected to the essay. You objected to it being linked in the 'ducks' essay. As for the rest, per usual, no evidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You're doing it again now, Andy. I did not oppose your essay. I actually suggested that you write one of your own, [146]. You did mock AVDUCK and create disruption there - that's no secret. Are you denying it, or trying to justify your disruptive behavior at my expense? There's also a link to the essay in your user space on AVDUCK. So what? I did not "object" to your user space essay as evidenced by the following diffs, [147] and here, [148] so I don't know why you continue to say I objected to your essay when it simply is not true, Andy. It looks like more of your BATTLEGROUND behavior and why we ended up here in the first place. Try taking a responsible approach and fess up to what you've done, and drop the stick. Atsme^📞📧 05:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, the evidence is in plain sight at the top of this ANI thread. You called for sanctions against me because I "mocked the essay in his user space and linked to it on the essay's TP". Fact. Simple undeniable fact. In plain sight. No matter how many times you try to confuse the issue through repetitive blather, the facts are still there. As facts. For all to see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Add diffs to support your allegations, otherwise you're just casting aspersions. Atsme^📞📧 03:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A diff to the first post in this ANI thread should be entirely unnecessary. Particularly when I have twice provided the exact text. Here it is though, since you seem to be having trouble remembering how you started the thread: [149] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Read the diff because the reason I filed this ANI isn't focused on your antagonistic mockery of an essay which appears to be your only focus. It's about your tendentious editing, bullying, own behavior and the obnoxious hateful comments like the one you made to me: "You are beneath contempt, and the sooner Wikipedia gets rid of you the better." [150]. That comment alone justifies an iBan and page Ban to prevent you from doing me further harm. If you hate me so much, then stay away from me and stop the hounding and harassment. It's very obvious that you are one of the editors who adamantly opposed AVDUCK and have disagreed with my position on other articles as well. We are never going to agree, Andy - you are too filled with hate and I'm now beginning to wonder if it's not somehow rooted in misogyny. Only you know the truthful answer. I've grown weary of the unwarranted attacks and what has now become WP:POV_railroading. I've tried the RfC approach and was castigated while the tendentious editing never ceased; I even asked for admin intervention and got disruptive admins instead. I exhausted all other options and finally brought it to ANI. I was afraid it would turn into a kangaroo court and it has - and it certainly isn't because I deserve a boomerang or to be treated with such bias and disrespect because no editor deserves that, much less what happened to me with the unwarranted COINoscopy and everything that followed. I am appalled by some of the behavior I've seen and the comments I've read. I'm surprised it was allowed to go on this long. It's downright shameful, especially in light of the behavior I came here to report, and those who support it, including two admins. What on earth has WP become? Atsme^📞📧 18:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, 'holding an opinion that someone else doesn't agree with' isn't one of the definitions of misogyny. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a rehashing of the same bullshit written above with the same lack of evidence.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment:Considering that Andy has written a rebuttal to WP:AVDUCK and has placed a link to his rebuttal in the main page of WP:AVDUCK, and considering Andy has repeatedly expressed his disagreement with the views expressed in WP:AVDUCK (this includes his vote to delete the article altogether), i would like to know from Andy why he would wish to continue editing the main page of WP:AVDUCK. As i see it, the problem in Andy editing this article in future is that Andy could inadvertently change the tone and intent of WP:AVDUCK if he continues editing this article. In fact all those who have expressed their disagreement with the views expressed in WP:AVDUCK should in my opinion refrain from editing WP:AVDUCK because of the legitimate concern that they could inadvertently change the tone and intent of the article. The efforts of those who have expressed disagreement with the views expressed in WP:AVDUCK should be directed towards doing editing on the rebuttals to this article. Soham321 (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Wikipedia doesn't ban people from editing content because of their opinions. Particularly when their opinions appear to concur with both Wikipedia guidelines and the consensus of the community. I have made few edits to the 'duck' essay, and the only significant ones have involved twice reverting an edit by Atsme that the subsequent RfC has demonstrated she shouldn't have made, and of adding links to my own essay, per WP:WPESSAYS. I have no great wish to edit the ducks essay (as I have made clear, I think it should be deleted), but I think it is reasonable that I should be permitted to ensure that it doesn't become even less compatible with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and practice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Andy, the first edit I made in over a month you reverted twice without any discussion on the TP which clearly demonstrates WP:OWN behavior, [151] You falsely called it an attack on Wiki projects, and then started casting aspersions with the second revert [152]. The RfC has proven nothing because (1) there hasn't been a formal close, (2) there were only 1 or 2 oppose comments that were substantive, and (3) according to WP:Wikipedia Essays disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently from writing an article, because there's no need to agree on a single "right" version. A few days later and after much disruption by you on the TP you added an improperly formatted link to your essay [153] and then fixed it. Right after that all hell broke loose and you were right in the middle of it. Soon after I initiated the RfC, your first comment was a snarky PA against me instead of a substantive comment about how to improve the essay which I now see is never going to happen because of your fixated POV and BATTLEGROUND mentality, [154]. You kept on making snarky, baseless comments demonstrating your denial that projects don't have advocacy groups, [155] even though Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide says they exist, but you chose instead to attack me refusing to DROPTHESTICK, repeating the same nonsense over and over and over again until our heads were about to explode, [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162]. You might also want to read the statement by SMcCandlish at the ARBCOM case [163] regarding advocacy groups. And then there's this diff wherein you state that if anyone removes your links again, you'll report them for tendentious editing, [164]. Doesn't get anymore ironic than that. Atsme^📞📧 06:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"The RfC has proven nothing because... there were only 1 or 2 oppose comments that were substantive..."? Thank you Atsme, for demonstrating the contempt in which you hold the Wikipedia community. You started an RfC, and now that it isn't going your way, you appoint yourself judge and jury, and dismiss the views of anyone who disagrees with you. You are beneath contempt, and the sooner Wikipedia gets rid of you the better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think one would need to be very niave to not recognise that editors sometimes end up in 'camps', defending certain approaches, PoVs etc. What I find objectionable about this essay (and the attached 'dramas'), is that rather than endorsing a policy based, values based, 'cool off' approach, it invites a wholly subjective 'reds under the beds' mentality which excacerbates, rather than addresses the problem it purports to be advising about. Defenders of the essay, seem to be oblivious to the irony that - several of them - having followed each other from 'alternative medicine' through the various admin boards, are a perfect example of what they claim to be identifying.Pincrete (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The essay has been through the deletion discussion twice. "Defenders of the essay" includes the community as a whole. At this point, as Doc James notes above, it's time to drop the stick. There is nothing defensible about Andy's comments such as "You are beneath contempt, and the sooner Wikipedia gets rid of you the better." It's obvious why Atsme is having a problem with him, and an IBAN at the very least is in order. There is no justification to bash a person for writing an essay, nor to follow them around and bash them some more. If Andy feels so strongly about Atsme, he should stay away from her. It isn't Atsme who is inviting this drama; any sensible editor would have taken him to ANI sooner or later. petrarchan47คุก 01:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

nb edit conflict.The first 'deletion discussion' was a clear speedy delete, the second was a non-admin close concluding only that there was no consensus for delete, so 'defenders' does not include 'the community as a whole', except in the sense that a 'default don't delete' decision was reached. Apparently 'drop the stick' did not apply when this essay was re-instated without any undelete procedure, as in so much of this sorry saga, R&G apply only to others.

I have no prior involvement with medicine/ducks or any of the key players here (minor recent interaction with ATG), therefore before posting here, I followed umpteen COIN postings, talk page discussions, and a travelling circus on User:TPs. This led me to the conclusion that overall, the person who is disruptive, who is abusing noticeboards and other procedures to fight vendettas, who is incapable of respecting any opinion but her own, and who takes it personally if that opinion does not hold sway (regardless of the lack of evidence offered) is Atsme, and that therefore she is a net liability to WP. The 'essay' is formulated on exactly the same false premise that this ANI and umpteen COINs are based, namely that there exist droves of advocates suppressing legitimate material and creative editing, (for every time that actually happens, there are probably several dozen instances where this is the editor's fantasy. Even on the rare ocassions it does happen, it is an unproductive mindset).

AndyTG's assessment of Atsme's net worth ('beneath contempt etc'), is excessively and needlessly direct, however compared with wasting the time of innumerable noticeboards with no significant evidence, simply in order to wage some personal crusade, his 'sin' is small IMO. … … ps ATG expanded on 'beneath contempt' here, which one might see as clarifying or compounding the 'sin'. Pincrete (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:Pincrete Just earlier today you wrote to me "Subjective feelings are not EVIDENCE to an impartial jury.[165] (the shouting is all yours) when I was offering my opinion about the intent of an essay. Yet in the posting above you state "...his 'sin' is small IMO." I believe IMO means In My Opinion. So when are opinions allowed and when are opinions not allowed...in your opinion?DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

User:DrChrissy, nobody said opinions are not allowed, there are some things that are inherently opinion/judgment (such as whether an editor is a + or-), however if you, Atsme and others wish to convince me and others, that ATG's essay is an attack, I/we expect a little more than your opinion. Ditto a COI, ditto being a 'duck', ditto, ditto ditto … (it would also help your case if you made up your minds whether you object to the essay or not). (nb inserted out of sequence with following post).Pincrete (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you expect the community to be convinced that ATG's sins are "small" I/we expect a little more than your opinion.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm weary of being beaten by the sticks of tendentious hate-filled editors who refuse to drop the stick all the while accusing me of being tendentious without one diff to support their claims. An admin needs to close this ridiculous kangaroo court and take remedial action on my original post regarding the named disruptive editors. Atsme^📞📧 15:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

What you haven't taken into consideration is that an essay reflects the opinion of its creator and coauthors. Yes, they are open for all to edit, but attempts to change the intent, opinion and meaning of an essay is not encouraged and the reason we are here now. In essence, what you're saying is that you don't want the essay to reflect the opinion of its creator and coauthors - you want it to reflect yours and those with like-minded opinions. Really? We actually did make improvements to the essay in an effort to appease as many editors as we possibly could but that in itself is impossible. The essay is compliant with WP:PAG so there is no justification for deletion. If you have an opposing view, essay guidelines recommend that you write your own essay and link it to the one you oppose. It's black & white so the disruption that ensued at AVDUCK and what caused me to file this ANI is that a group of editors are trying to make the essay reflect their POV by changing the intent and meaning of the existing essay which is considered tendentious editing and own behavior, and it is highly disruptive. JPS has also strongly indicated that he is on a mission to save project med from what he considers to be a threat. Sad because it's all about his misapprehension of the essay which recommends self-analysis, AGF, and to go slowly before advancing the DR process. In light of the remedies proposed in the essay, the opposition to it is mind boggling but we're all entitled to our opinions. That's why we follow guidelines - WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. When you click on that wikilink, it states: However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project.. I didn't make that up - it actually exists. Now review the comments made by JPS above and you will see his advocacy in action - writing for the enemy, and it is causing a headache for many editors who are doing your dirty work in trying to keep alt med articles neutral and well-sourced and your ilk seems happy to just say "cut the crap" when those of us who are in the trenches try to deal with stuff. My God. and You also intimate that this essay is not causing problems for alternative medicine editing. I strongly disagree. Wow! That isn't how project teams are supposed to work - that's how advocacies work - and it's very disconcerting because it defies our PAGs. Atsme^📞📧 15:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

????Atsme, Who is this post addressing?Pincrete (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Somebody close this please. AndyTG is sometimes very 'direct', but there is no evidence of acting outside P & G .Pincrete (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the same thing that Atsme is asking for above but AndyTheGrump hasn't done anything outside of policies and guidelines. He's allowed to disagree with AVDUCK, to write his own essay as an opposing view, and to link to it from AVDUCK. Andy was within policies and guidelines to remove text that he thought was an attack on Wikiprojects. That Atsme believes the objections to that proposed text are not substantive doesn't change the fact that the community is also objecting to the text. Ca2james (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Please close this. It comes down to 'I don't like your opinions so I want you removed'. Yeah, no. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support an indef page ban from WP:AVDUCK. ATG has a very long history of BATTLEGROUND behaviour almost wherever he edits, including the DUCKS essay. This is an opinion piece and editors should be able to express their opinion (within WP Guidelines and policy of course) without having to fend off disruptive editing. It will not harm ATG to be banned from just one of many articles he edits, but it will send a message to him about his disruptive style.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Andy is free to have, and express, whatever opinion he wants about AVDUCK, as is every other editor here. Bans shouldn't be used to protect one side in a content dispute from their opponent(s). Thomas.W ^talk 13:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support To accuse another editor of being beneath contempt isn't acceptable in any circumstances Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Trout the proposer for being a tendentious editor. jps (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Pincrete. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Suggest that AndyTheGrump and Atsme just agree to take an interaction break for a while to cool down, and this whole affair be concluded without further drama. -Darouet (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Thomas.W BMK (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Thomas.W as well. However, I support interaction ban between Atsme and AndyTheGrump (suggestion by Darouet). Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 22:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Per Dr Chrissy and my own observations noted above. I would strongly support an IBAN between Andy and Atsme as well - the problem isn't confined her essay. petrarchan47คุก 22:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Insufficient evidence that it is needed or that it will solve the underlying problem. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  Doc, did you forget your comment above about them needing to drop the stick? And what about his nasty PA filled with hate when he said I was beneath contempt? You don't think he needs some time off to think about what he's done? Atsme^📞📧 02:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  I am suggesting that you User:Atsme should not continue with this. Following this comment [166] the release was after the fact and for only one source.

  Per evidence here you however copied from multiple different sources.[167] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Doc, I will AGF and consider your comment to not be a threat. The information I copied was a factual list of credentials and awards - facts are not copyrightable - it was press release info in public domain and at the very least, fair use. I did my best to change the wording of his credentials but guess what - it's hard to change "Past President of the World Institute of Pain". You accused me of copyvio because you weren't convinced it wasn't a copyvio so I provided more indisputable proof. Now you're saying, well it was a copyvio before you proved it wasn't. Jiminy Cricket. Ok, I'll drop it. Atsme^📞📧 15:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• support-I agree with Jimfbleak. Accusing another editor of being "beneath contempt" is unconscionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekay2 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• This proposal is too ridiculous to oppose. I see nothing in the essay which is directed personally at someone. If the involved people choose to read between the lines for some implied insult, it's not a problem. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Atsme

I think it is time to start dealing with Atsme. This vexatious report is entirely characteristic of Atsme's approach: the problem is always everybody else, Atsme apparently believes nothing she writes is ever problematic, and anybody who identifies a problem is harassing, stalking, casting aspersions or in some other violating policy - which seems to be interpreted as "no criticism of Atsme is permitted".

It took a very long time indeed and several RfCs to get Atsme to drop the WP:STICK at G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and the immediate response was to write the original version of this essay, which was nuked because it encouraged assumptions of bad faith and basically implied that anybody promoting the scientific consensus was a pharma shill.

It is abundantly clear from the above that the problems of ownership, m:MPOV and the like, have not gone away. In fact they seem to have got worse. Supports for WP:BOOMERANG above seem to me to come from an understanding of exactly this. I believe a restriction of some kind is warranted, especially a restriction from abusing process to try to settle scores and gain advantage in content disputes. I therefore propose a six month topic ban from Wikipedia namespace for Atsme. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support proposed ban, per my comments above. Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• comment :I wonder if this should be moved to the boomerang area? But none the less. In addition to any specific length topic ban and/or block a indefinite block should also be imposed per WP:CIR. Kangaroo court? This really comes down to a question of competence. Is there a secret evil wikipedia cabal just out to get her? Or does she recognise that she has done something wrong? It would be a waste of time to simply topic ban and/or block her if she did not in fact understand that she has done something wrong. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Necessary competence is a matter of opinion, but I don't think CIR applies to editors with a good article history, and if it does then that makes me really nervous. AN/I has never seemed like a kangaroo court? Maybe if you'd been angry? Geogene (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Good Article history notwithstanding WP:CIR is not limited to content.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It also applies to all editors so please don't encourage anymore of this ridiculous criticism toward me. Guy is just picking up where COIN left off. They know I haven't violated any PAGs, and that I have been the victim of their retaliation. That's quite evident - in fact, you even caused me grief back when, SJP, and nothing would stick because there simply isn't anything that should stick. Guy thinks I'm pro-CAM and against project med the same way you used to believe I was anti-Muslim. In retrospect it makes me laugh because it's so far-fetched. I could care less about medical topics beyond how it applies to fish & wildlife or livestock. The extent of my involvement with med topics was when I tried to expand Griffin to get it promoted to GA. That was stopped by Guy and it now sits there as an ugly coatrack not unlike what you did with the IPT article. You can have it, I don't care anymore. It doesn't hurt me - it hurts the project. What hurts me are the PAs and aspersions and attacks on my credibility, all of which have been unwarranted. I also created an article about an amazing doctor, got it promoted to GA and now the Proj Med team has taken it over - not to improve it but for punitive reasons. They have an entirely different idea of improvement and I disagree with it. That is the only justification they have for wanting to get me blocked and/or banned from editing. I think it's pretty darn sad. They get away with a lot of stuff because of their sheer numbers while lone editors get tarred and feathered for having simple differences of opinion. The reactions I'm seeing from some editors reminds me of the Asch conformity study. Oddly enough I still maintain faith in the system because I know there are good admins out there. *sigh* Atsme^📞📧 20:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the most frustrating things. Atsme is a nice persona nd can write decent articles, but as soon as anybody disputes her interpretation of the facts, it's straight into the same old litany of WP:TLAs, WP:IDHT and forum-shopping. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy, what is equally as frustrating for me is that you know darn well I like you, and I know you're a good person, a talented individual, and you write exceptionally well. I feel like I know you and your family after reading the wonderful stories about your parents, and the other bits and pieces of your remarkable life that you were kind enough to share. I know in my heart that our differences are not that far apart and I do understand that you lose patience with me, and I'm sorry for that. I do listen to you, Guy, even though I don't act as quickly as you'd like for me to, but I do learn and I do understand where you're coming from. You have recognized the same things about me and you knew early on that my focus is about the storyline. That isn't going to change because I've done it far too long. I don't want us to be at odds - ever! I also don't want to be at odds with any other editor but when my integrity is under attack, I will defend myself, not because I think I'm always right and can't recognize when I'm wrong - Lordy I'm way past that - and yes, I do ask questions and I do take a stance but I'm also flexible and I do listen. My presence here at ANI is simply to get relief from the bullying I've experienced at the essay. It has nothing to do with WP:OWN - I just want to keep improving it, making it better and more useful for new editors. I'm not a child who needs their hand held. I realize my first attempt at writing that essay was terrible and it caused the Project Med team to distrust me but I was willing to make changes and with the help of coauthors and GF collaboration, we did make it better. Guy, I will gladly strike through the rest of my comments in this section if you and I can shake hands and forgive and forget. I've got a wonderful project in the works that I've been looking forward to collaborating on for the past month. Please let's not let these trivial matters ruin what's good about editing WP. Atsme^📞📧 02:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, your response here you discuss alot of things and it's abit rant like. It also suggests WP:IDHT. I'm not above reproach. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

SJP, it has taken me a while, but I do understand what you're saying and I respect your knowledge and straightforwardness. It took me a while to understand it all and I'm not still not there, yet, but I am trying. I just want to be treated with kindness and respect which is how we should treat all editors who volunteer their time to the project. You are well versed in WP:PAGs and I appreciate the help you've given me and your wise words of advice. I just want us to be happy and make good things happen. Atsme^📞📧 02:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I find it amazing the number of editors out for blood who have had disagreements with Atsme. One of which wants to dredge up the stale past for a present day ban. AlbinoFerret 17:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If you feel that there is any vexatious litigation on the part of anyone who has had a disagreement with Atsme then feel free to provide evidence.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The first person to bring up Griffin in this thread was Atsme. [168] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, the "vexatious litigation" is a little strong. But there is a strong chance of a perception of impropriety and bias. A list of those involved in such disagreements is entirely possible, it covers a lot of those supporting bans.

While she may have brought it up Andy, its stale, and now its being attempted to be used for a present day ban, that alone has a smell of bias. AlbinoFerret 18:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump curiosity has got the better of me. I notice that the Proposed page ban for AndyTheGrump was opened by AlbinoFerret. I'm just wondering if you have had any "disagreements" with them in the past. In addition have you had any "disagreements" with any of the other editors who supported it? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

As I posted above, I cant remember any disagreements with Andy. We really only have edited one article, Bitcon. Its possible either of us may have made an edit here or there on other articles, but no disagreements spring to mind.AlbinoFerret 19:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten the Kombucha article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I dont remember you editing it, but if you say you have. I walked away from that article, nothing worth arguing over. AlbinoFerret 19:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I walked away from it too. I also walked away from Griffin. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see who owns an article and when an editor is outnumbered and out tenured. The problem now is that I'm being pushed away from articles I created and co-authored so others can change their original intent to their POV and that is just plain wrong. Atsme^📞📧 20:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Atsme has a positive talent for pissing people off. And as you'll see fomr the age of the diffs, she bears a grudge. Nothing is ever settled until she likes the answer, basically. And since most of her complaints are frivolous, they rearely get settled to her liking. Here's the thing: I didn't follow Atsme here. I'm here because it's the admin board and I'm an admin. So's Doc James, the subject of Atsme's next reflexive complaint. Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus has no meaning for Atsme, I think,. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - oh, Guy, I really tried to avoid bringing out the diffs that demonstrated your obnoxious, tendentious behavior but now I have no choice. Why did you start this?

• April 24, 2015 And Jesus Wept
• April 21, 2015 Talks to Ca2james about my COI ducks essay
• April 16, 2015 Atsme is in danger of climbing
• April 16, 2015 Antagonistic comments about me
• April 9, 2015 More antagonizing
• April 12, 2015
• - December 18, 2014 - wingnut drivel
• January 15, 2015 Calls a BLP a "low-life" It surprises me that he wasn't TB from editing BLPs
• - January 17, 2015 What happens when an editor disagrees with an admin
• - February 16, 2015 Finally got an ARB warning for his behavior
• February 16, 2015 Threatens me with ARBCOM and calls me ignorant
• - February 16, 2015 Demonstrates his political advocacy by calling Birchers "toxic"
• - February 18, 2015 Admin tells him he was casting aspersions against me.

Is it really necessary that I provide all the diffs that demonstrate all the PAs and harassment while I basically absorbed all the punches like what's happening to me for filing the ANI? And Guy - you were the one who commented to me about another editor just doing what men do. I don't want to have to pull out all those diffs so please retract this ridiculous request. Atsme^📞📧 18:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The diffs that failed to persuade last time? The ones that were subject to your vexatious complaints against me, rejected in multiple venues, while you were trying (and failing, per RfCs) to distort the article on Griffin to undermine the fact that laetrile is quackery? I think that was a spectacularly bad idea, because a lot of people here have memories long enough to remember that you already made these complaints and they wer erejcted, and in the context of a discussion of your obdurate refusal to accept any outcome you don't like, it constitutes a double-barreled WP:FOOTGUN on your part. Jesus. I think you are actually intelligent but sometimes your eally do act incredibly stupid. A ban form Wikipedia space is for your own protection. The alternative is very likely to be a site ban in the not very distant future. You can only get away with it so many times. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Support I must say that this entire discussion seems to be mired with WP:WIKILAWYERING from Atsme's side. I support a ban from this type of editing. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - the diversionary tactics need to stop. Guy has a very strange POV toward BLPs and could care less whether or not a BLP is noncompliant with NPOV. When the RfC confirmed my position, Guy found ways to bypass consensus. It appears that's how things work on WP these days. He has managed to escape ARBCOM unscathed but what he is doing now by diverting attention from serious behavioral issues to settle his grudges with me is pathetic. I left the article Guy - you ran me off from there successfully. DROPTHESTICK. You all keep trying to paint me as the one who won't drop the stick but it's you. I've moved on - I just wanted an opportunity to expand an essay I created and co-authored and it has blown up into this. I was also run-off from another GA I created and had promoted and it appears what's happening now is just a continuance of what COIN failed to accomplish. The motives are nauseatingly transparent and I am more convinced now than before that they are rooted in gender bias. How much more pathetic can it get? Atsme^📞📧 19:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Since you asked: Waving the gender card to get sympathy and support in a discussion that clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with gender is as pathetic as anything can get. Besides, you can hardly !vote in a discussion that is about a proposed ban against you. Thomas.W ^talk 20:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose-Sure looks like a vendetta by Guy against Atsme. I witnessed his behavior toward Atsme at Griffin and it was pathetic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekay2 (talk • contribs)

Is this like one of those pictures that you have to stare at for along time and a crooked angle to see the hidden image? I'm looking above and I see where long before Guy came along that someone had proposed a boomerang. I don't see it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Vendetta? Don't be silly. I worked long and hard to avoid getting Atsme topic-banned over that incident. Who started the RfCs to finally settle the issue? Who argued against requests at ArbCom? Yu are showing that there is factionalism on one side here, but not the side you were hoping for. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Although I am wondering if there is a vendetta. Looking at Pekay2 very few wikipedia edits it does seem as if they have interacted quite abit on the opposing side of Guy and some of the other listed individuals here. Seems as if Pekay2 might have a vendetta.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please, Guy. You were the one who got the AE warning. Don't pretend you have clean hands. And SJP - let's not dredge up your disruptive past and the fact the BLPN decided in my favor. Seriously. The wrong editors are under the microscope here. Atsme^📞📧 22:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not above reproach Atsme. There's no point in any passive aggressive threats. If you would like to dredge up our past dispute then feel free to. Yes the BLPN that I opened to get a consensus was decided in your favor. The BLPN that I opened because you choose to ignore the prior consensus and actually did nothing to achieve a new consensus. Well it's not that you did nothing but do you really want to go into what you did. It actually lines up with alot of the complaints that others have made. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The warning that was rescinded you mean? Not relevant. What is relevant is your repeated attempts to abuse process in order to try to gain an advantage in content disputes. This vexatious request with its tendentious language is a perfect example. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't really remember, but I think pekay2 might be a fan of some form of quackery or another. I tend not to get along too well with quackery advocates, so that seems like the most likely source of conflict given that I encountered Atsme in the context of her advocating for sympathetic coverage of the laetrile cancer scam. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support based on my comments way above in the Boomerang section. This proposal is not so different than that one; I'd support either or a block based on the behaviours I described above and her behaviour in this thread. Ca2james (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia-space topic ban for Atsme per Guy. BMK (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Rehash of old complaints. This looks like an attempt to throw stuff on a wall hoping something sticks if the section lasts long enough. AlbinoFerret 01:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support At this point, it's abundantly clear that Atsme has difficulty accepting that consensus might go against her, or multiple people might vehemently disagree with her, except as the result of a malicious and coordinated conspiracy. (The community had to reframe the essay here from Atsme's original conception because of that attitude.) The Lightbreather case is the most recent and spectacular example, but this is a pattern I've seen in other cases: an editor is recalcitrant and litigious. This attracts scrutiny. The editor becomes even more uncooperative and less productive. The scrutineers become irritated, overbearing, and start to cross the line themselves. If no one intervenes, positive feedback continues until someone (on either side) self-destructs spectacularly, with collateral damage all around. Looking at this thread, it seems that if there really is an issue requiring RfCs, administrator feedback, policy changes, etc., there are plenty of sympathetic editors around to notice it and take it up, so I don't think any great harm will be done by asking Atsme to step away from the Wikipedia namespace for six months, as proposed, to break the cycle of tension and litigation. Choess (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• The level of drama and rash actions and vortex of disruption surrounding Atsme seems to be increasing rather than decreasing. Something needs to be done, although I think Bishonen's block just now of one month is much more reasonable at this point than a six-month. Future blocks can escalate in length if the problems persist, but I don't personally think we are at six months quite yet. UPDATE: Given the fact that Atsme just AfDed 14 of Thomas.W's articles as revenge for this comment, I Support a six-month block. Softlavender (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC); updated 13:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That block was exactly what I was hoping to avoid. Atsme is often very productive in article space, but adding her to any drama is definitely a recipe for disaster, hence my proposal for a six month ban from Wikipedia space. I wonder if we could form a consensus for that and perhaps lift the block? I acknowledge that this might be Quixotic. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the 14 revenge AfDs, and the resentful self-justification in reply to questioning them, have preempted any kind of parameters on the sanction; WP namespace only would be insufficient. Enough WP:ROPE has been given, I believe, and the community cannot endure more of this. Softlavender (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Doc James

I notice Doc James's demand for a site ban on Atsme has received some support from other editors (who are citing the Doc when voting for a boomerang action against Atsme). The problem is that this demand is prima facie completely misconceived as these two diffs show: diff1 and diff2.Soham321 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The allegations against me for copyvio are unsupported and were followed by more than one threat as the following diffs will evidence.

July 12, 2015

[169] I explain to Doc James that I disagreed about copyvio and contacted author

[170] Doc James insists on copyvio and his concern

[171] I disagree because it's public domain - asked him to please stop trying to make me look like the bad guy

[172] Doc James says it's first time I said it was public domain, and found it interesting that it was first time I mentioned it.]

[173] I explained that I did mention on TP, and how I came to write article, said I was weary of accusations.

[174] Doc James wanted me to state that I did copy & paste, that it was not allowed, and that I wouldn't do it again.

[175] I explained why I would not do it, why it wasn't copyvio, and ended with the appendectomy quip.

[176] Ca2James chimes in with why it was copyvio, won't DROPTHESTICK.

July 13, 2015

[177] Alexbrn chimes in with his rendition of copyvio, won't DROPTHESTICK

[178] I told them to Drop The Stick. Explained I had contacted author per Doc James. Explained you cannot copyright facts.

[179] Alexbrn continues about copyvio, won't DROPTHESTICK

[180] Ca2james continues about copyvio

[181] Told them to refer above

[182] Doc James tells me my arguments don't make sense. Please note that if you do what you did again and you will likely get blocked.

[183] I asked him to explain what I did.

[184] My warning is that what you did is not allowed. And if you do it again you will likely get blocked.

[185] I asked him to please tell me what I did. (He never responded)

[186] I posted the permissions that it was free of copyright and in the public domain. I also said, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but to issue warnings of blocks without specifying what I did wrong is inappropriate, and carries the strong scent of retaliation. I'm not a bad editor and I actually am competent not to mention thorough. I'm not perfect but I strive to be." He never responded.

ANI - More threats by Doc James:

[187] Threatens me to not continue

[188] More misinformation about copyvios

Seriously, what would you do if you were accused of copyvio when you knew full well you had not violated copyright law? Atsme^📞📧 19:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you know it when you made the initial edits though? The e-mail seems to postdate them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Atsme, for providing another data point in the "it's everybody else and never Atsme" narrative. I have tried and tried to show you why this constant vexatious complaining is an issue. You won't listen, it seems. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It is remarkable how thorough Atsme is able to be at pointing out when other editors are unable to DROPTHESTICK, and how readily she is able to detect when other editors' actions carry the "strong scent of retaliation".

Per AndyTheGrump above, I do also wonder if Atsme is able to clarify for us the basis for her declaration that the document in question was in the public domain prior to her request for permission of its authors. Securing the release of a document into the public domain – while sometimes useful – isn't actually the same thing as a document being in the public domain all along. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

_{'she', not 'he' AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)}

Amended. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears some editors need to contact a copyright attorney to answer their questions. I've spent a small fortune keeping a copyright atty on retainer for the past 30 years. I've said all I'm going to say. Atsme^📞📧 22:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you didn't look for permission to use the text until after you were warned about it, and this whole thing is a baseless smear of Doc James. Thanks for clearing that up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Never, never, never my intention. [189]. What's happening now is quite the opposite. I realize that my providing diffs to support my position are not held favorably by Proj Med members, and I did not want or expect this ANI to escalate to this point. I am simply defending my honor and credibility. I am not the editor I have been portrayed to be and anyone who takes the time to investigate the accusations against me will discover the truth. I have nothing to hide. I simply want the hounding, harassment, false accusations, tendentious editing, PAs and overall disruption to stop. That's why I initiated this ANI in the first place. I tried to add a simple sentence to an essay I created and coauthored and was prevented from doing so by AndyTheGrump, then Jps, then Ca2james, and QuackGuru. This fiasco did not have to escalate to this point. It wasn't because of me that it did. Read the original filing and go from there and you'll see where the disruption originated. Atsme^📞📧 23:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

How did jps, Ca2james or QuackGuru prevent you from making the edit? I reverted you, advised you that if you had a problem with me doing so, you should take it to ANI. You didn't. Instead you started an RfC (weeks later), and only then, after it became apparent that the community agreed that my revert was correct did you raise the matter here. Along with a whole lot of other contradictory nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I can not believe this is being raised here. What more evidence do we need of a vendetta against Atsme? People - some of you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves and you really need to have a very close look at your motivations for being involved in this project.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Atsme. we need more editors who will stand up to admins. Power to the regular editors and not to the elites. Imagine having to have a copyright lawyer on retainer just to edit around. @Jimbo:, isn't it pathetic that your project has come to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.182 (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2015‎ (UTC) Struck as troll.

The above IP editor is clearly a regular editor masking their identity. Their comments should be ignored until they are posted under their actual account name. BMK (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of editors who will stand up to admins, and most of them do not have the unfortunate problem Atsnme has, of being wrong much of the time. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverse Boomerang

What obviously happened was that Atsme freely used the source material in her edits because as per her understanding the source was not under copyright protection. She freely used this material which included facts like the organization the individual (whose WP biography she was editing) was affiliated with and the awards he had won, and so forth. Subsequently, when challenged, she contacted the author of the source material and confirmed from him that the source material was not under copyright. To demand action against Atsme for this, and to keep making this demand or seek explanations from her tendentiously and persistently, constitutes harassment and deserves a reverse boomerang in my opinion. As i see it, Doc James has recognized the danger of a reverse boomerang occurring. That is why, after his initial demand for site ban for Atsme on the basis of his copyright violation allegation, he is no longer participating in this discussion after his view was challenged. Soham321 (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop posting nonsense. Nobody is demanding action against Atsme for copyright violations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see diff1 and then decide who is talking nonsense. Soham321 (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What part of "Nobody is demanding action against Atsme for copyright violations" do you have difficulty understanding? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the diff i gave in my earlier response to you? If no, read it. If yes, re-read it. At any rate, i have pinged Doc James in my first post in the Reverse Boomerang section, and if he feels i am misinterpreting what he has written, then he is welcome to correct me. Soham321 (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As ridiculous as this is why would Doc James bother responding. There's really no need. Half of it is speculative. Really Doc JAmes isn't here because they are scared of a boomerang? Well I can play that game to. Doc James isn't here because they are on a plane to France to Visit Jim Morrisons grave. I don't know if this is true but it's just as likely as the nonsense that you make up on the spot.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"no longer participating in this discussion"? What are you talking about? I made comments here on Aug 3rd and 4th. I do not need to comment every couple of minutes to be still participating. Must work too. 01:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for closure

• This is a contender for the silliest (aka WP:LAME) thread ever. The link to Andy's essay should never have been removed. You folks evidently enjoy arguing with each other. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

God yes. --JBL (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Atsme blocked

Georgewilliamherbert has hatted this whole long thing as "Failure to identify actionable disruptive behavior other than the acusations back and forth themselves. No good is coming of this. Everyone gets a Trout." Not good enough, George, especially in view of Atsme's ongoing disruption after your hat. I have reopened it, and assessed the consensus wrt sanctioning Atsme. A little confusingly, it's spread across two subsections, "Boomerang suggestion" and "Atsme", but looking at them together, or indeed just at the Boomerang secion on its own, there is obviously consensus for a sanction. Quite a few people in fact recommend an indefinite siteban, others a ban from the noticeboards and/or from the essay Advocacy ducks. The evidence of the past few days suggests that no kind of topic ban will do much to contain Atsme's ongoing disruption — it would only move somewhere else. Compare this just now: nothing to do with any of the problem topics described here, but consisting of fourteen posts to Thomas.W's talkpage within a few minutes, prodding fourteen of his articles with identical (formalistic) rationales, with no attempt to discuss with him first. This looks like retaliation against a user who has disobliged her in this thread. I have blocked Atsme for one month. In my personal estimation that's too short, but I have taken into consideration that there are no previous long blocks in her log. Bishonen | talk 12:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen, I recognize that you are doing what you think is best, but would ask that you reconsider the length of the block, recognizing that Atsme suffered some pretty strong harassment early on. She's a strong content creator and a female editor, perhaps we could find someone from the GGTF to mentor her? Just a suggestion. GregJackP Boomer! 16:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, GregJackP, but I'd rather leave it to the admin that reviews her unblock request. (I'm fine with any modification that the reviewing admin may want to make, up to and including an unblock.) However.. I can't help but notice that her unblock request is unlikely to help her cause. IMO. If you want to help her, Greg, perhaps you would like to try to advise her on her page about formulating a better unblock request. She's allowed to change it at any time. Bishonen | talk 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC).

OK, thanks Bish, I'll do that. GregJackP Boomer! 17:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it allowed to reopen a discussion correctly hatted by a closing admin, then issue a ban without further discussion? This seems to leave the previous closing admin in rather a "difficult" position.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not the first time that an admin reopens a discussion closed by another admin because of things that have a direct connection to what has been discussed in the closed discussion, but happen shortly after the discussion was closed. As in this case. I have never crossed paths with Atsme, neither on Wikipedia nor in real life, before this ANI-discussion and the discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Advocacy ducks, and Atsme has AFAIK never shown any interest in articles about rare fish species before, so targeting 14 of my properly sourced articles about rare catfish species was IMO done in bad faith, to get back at me for voicing opinions that she didn't like. Thomas.W ^talk 13:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Thomas. I can assure you that Atsme does have a long and ongoing interest in rare fish species. Please look at Paddlefish, Alligator gar and Sturgeon - just 3 examples I know of.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Species that have nothing in common with very small and very rare Asian catfish species, species that are so obscure that there's no way she could have found those articles without specifically targeting me. If she had been into rare species she would also have known that properly sourced articles about correctly described species are inherently notable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. As evidenced by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glyptothorax conirostris being quickly closed as speedy keep. Thomas.W ^talk 14:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is. It happens all the time. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please state your reason as to why the multiple WP articles on the different species of Catfish should not be merged into a single article. As of now at least all these articles are stub-like in nature. It will be more convenient for the reader if all these articles are merged into a single WP article (which is also something Atsme had suggested). Soham321 (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Because every one of the altogether around 90 species of small Glyptothorax needs a separate taxobox and description. Making the current system, with a list naming all species, plus a separate article for each species, better (so far only a relatively small number of such separate articles about each of the many species have been created, but I intend to do all of them...). A system that is used for a very large number of species here on en-WP, not only the articles that I have created. Thomas.W ^talk 14:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I oppose your idea. My suggestion is that since all the WP articles on Catfish species are stub-like in nature, they should be merged into a single WP article. As more and more material is added to a specific Catfish species on this single WP page, one by one we can create forks and create new WP articles on a particular Catfish species (if there is sufficient material about this species). As i understand, the need to keep the convenience of the reader in mind should be paramount and the reader is not well served by creating numerous stubs of the Catfish species. The approach you suggest is also not beneficial from the point of view of expanding the content for each of the Catfish species.Soham321 (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Atsme had also suggested that the different WP stub like articles on the Catfish species can be merged into a single WP article. As i see it, this has boiled down to being a content dispute. This is further evidence that the block on Atsme was unjustified. Soham321 (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W if these very rare Asian catfish species really are "...so obscure..." then perhaps they are not deserving of their own page and Atsme was justified in her actions.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Each scientifically described species deserves an article, no matter how obscure the species is. Thomas.W ^talk 14:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been through the list of 14 species pages that Atsme edited. Of the 14, only one appears to be endangered. It's curious that you have been suggesting multiple species are rare.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's off-topic in this thread but one of them is listed as critically endangered and seven aren't categorised at all by IUCN because of being so rare that there's very little information available about them. And if attacking that is the best you can do in your attempt to support everything Atsme does, I suggest you reevaluate your strategy. Thomas.W ^talk 15:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the irrelevancy of DrChrissy's last sally... I would suggest that if someone were to explicitly go against established practice in species stubs (for which a case could conceivably be made - it's not a rule after all), the initiative should not be coming from an editor who is clearly acting in revenge.--Elmidae (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant or off-topic if someone has been misleading other editors about the subject matter. If the 6 that are uncategorised really are so rare that they can't be categorised (we only have your word for that) then this still leaves 7 on the list that are at least not threatened. My motivation here is not to support Atsme - my motivation is that I do not like being misled...DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You disappoint me, DrChrissy, claiming that you've been mislead is just plain silly. And this whole discussion is totally off-topic in this thread, which is about Bishonen blocking Atme, as I already have pointed out a couple of notches up. You're free to continue the discussion on my talk page, but it most definitely doesn't belong here, so I suggest someone collapse the off-topic responses here. Thomas.W ^talk 16:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The whole discussion is completely appropriate because it shows Atsme has been unjustifiably blocked because of a legitimate content dispute. Soham321 (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Except they weren't blocked because of a content dispute. They were blocked for disruptive editing, battleground behaviour, and borderline WP:NOTHERE. And their meatpuppets who keep pretending this was a legitimate content dispute may not be around for much longer either. 2607:FB90:1F02:C56D:48D4:33F6:BDE4:934B (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment This appears to be a Single Purpose Account.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Pot. Kettle. Black. 2607:FB90:1F02:C56D:48D4:33F6:BDE4:934B (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup, It's a fair cop. For anyone taking this IP seriously, take a quick glance at my user page to see how ridiculous their edit is.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not claiming we were misled, I am stating we were misled. Your edit here [190] states "...so targeting 14 of my properly sourced articles about rare catfish species...". It is clear not all 14 articles are about rare fish. I wonder whether you attempted to raise the apparent importance of your articles to perhaps increase the apparent disruption or damage and thereby raise the anti- toward Atsme.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It is entirely INCIDENTAL to the issue whether these fish are rare, common, or animated slabs of shoe-leather; your chagrin over being 'misled' appears rather self-serving; and I'd advise that we all would probably would do best to stop replying to this particular side circus.--Elmidae (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I am very much opposed to overriding an uninvolved Admin's wise move to close the drama by an involved Admin. Atsme shouldn't have been blocked by someone who has a history with her. petrarchan47คุก 16:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen has no history with Atsme beyond commenting in this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken. This is a diff from Bishonen's talk page: [[191] Soham321 (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That diff postdates Bishonen's post in this thread - it isn't evidence of a prior history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The previous diff revealed Bishonen telling Atsme to stay away from Bishonen's talk page unless it was an Admin related issue she wanted to discuss. When Atsme responded to Bishonen she agreed to honor Bishonen's request and in return requested Bishonen to stop stalking her on talk pages.And this is the diff: [192]. This suggests a prior history. Soham321 (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no history between Atsme and Bishonen prior to Bishonens's posting in this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not make any such definitive statements since you have no way of knowing the truth in this matter; ideally we should be giving an opportunity to Atsme to give diffs of prior interactions with Bishonen. Soham321 (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you have no evidence to support the claim of prior history, but have been making it anyway. As someone with a prior history of being blocked by Bishonen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Soham321, unless you can actually provide a diff of any involvement between Atsme and Bishonen prior to this incident, this would be a good time to stop, given that you yourself do have a history of involvement with Bishonen. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I will honor your request, but i will also clarify that just as i have a history of involvement with Bishonen prior to the present discussion thread, so also i have a prior history of involvement with Atsme prior to this present discussion thread. Soham321 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:INVOLVED, specifically the second paragraph, prior to posting any further accusations of misconduct. I'm certain it doesn't mean what you think it does.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

For those questioning whether there was a history between Bishonen and Atsme prior to this thread, please look here where this template was posted on April 12th[193] in response to this interaction[194] which was posted on April 9, 2015. Guy responded here[195] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs) 6 August 2015, 21.32 (UTC)DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In what way does a diff showing that Bishonen posted "a casein geology barnstar for your great work on the composition of the moon" on JzG's talkpage show any previous interaction between Bishonen and Atsme? Thomas.W ^talk 21:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, it would be helpful if those throwing our the accusations of WP:INVOLVED actually read it. Simply having had interactions with a user previously is not a violation. If you have to try this hard to try to connect some convoluted dots then the likelihood of a breach of the policy is practically nil. We're not playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The fish thing? It's a distraction.

The issues with Atsme's behaviour are:

• Tendentious editing
• Describing good-faith edits as vandalism
• Refusal to acknowledge points made against her
• Ownership of articles
• Abuse of process to try to gain advantage in a content dispute
• Asserting that the problem is always everybody else and never her
• Retaliatory deletion nominations
• Turning every dispute into a war
• Following people round once she's picked a fight
• Refusal to let go even after it is obvious that the dispute is not going her way

I could go on.

This is not about the fish articles. It's about a long history of the same behaviour across multiple articles, multiple requests to multiple drama boards, against multiple other editors, over a long time, culminating in a set of WP:POINTY retaliatory deletion nominations.

The biggest problem is the complete absence of apparent self-awareness or self-criticism. Her unblock request says it all, really. In the words of Mark Knopfler, when you point the finger 'cos your plans fell through, you got three more fingers pointing back at you. Every regular on these pages knows it.

The supporters who have appeared here do not seem to actually support Atsme's edits, they only seem to have enemies and grudges in common. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Action against Bishonen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The 14 articles proposed for deletion by Atsme are here: [[196]. The articles are on fish species, and these topics would seem to be inherently notable on first glance per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. However, if you notice carefully, the 14 articles are not about species, but about sub-species of the Catfish species of fish. Atsme has, in responding to Bishonen said that they "need to be deleted and moved to Wikispecies, or possibly merged into a list. They do not warrant being separate articles." [197] This is a perfectly valid reason for proposing these 14 articles for deletion. It is absurd to imagine that since the creator of these 14 articles had voted against Atsme she would then target him by trying to delete articles created by him. There were many people who had voted against Atsme and there is no reason for her to try and target one particular person.

Atsme has said that Bishonen should not involve herself in taking any action against her. Please see the previous diff i have given for Atsme's post where Atsme has given two diffs to show that Bishonen bears ill will towards her. The first refers to when Bishonen proposed a three month block on Atsme in this very thread, and the second when Bishonen asked Atsme to stay away from Bishonen's talk page unless Atsme wanted to discuss some Admin related issue with Bishonen. Essentially, Atsme is invoking WP:INVOLVED. I propose some action be taken against Bishonen for abusing her Admin powers in violation of WP:INVOLVED. Soham321 (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose any form of sanctions against Bishonen for doing her job. They're not sub-species, BTW, but "full" species in the Glyptothorax genus of the Sisoridae family of catfish (Siluriformes). And your reason for proposing sanctions against Bishonen, and indeed to get involved in this entire mess, are obvious. You want to get back at her for having issued a topic-ban against you. Thomas.W ^talk 13:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I stand corrected. They are indeed full species. However, there is no reason why we cannot have a single WP article on all the different species of Catfish. Soham321 (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you link to any diffs of Bishonen's supposed involvement in the dispute? I don't see any diffs linked, only Bishonen's comment at the ANI, which is an entirely admin-like observation that Atsme's behavior was disruptive. As for the fish articles, whether or not they actually need separate articles is beside the point; it beggars belief to posit that Atsme just happened to find a bunch of year-old articles in a topic area she'd never edited before, coincidentally right after their creator had supported a sanction. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please re-read my response. The second diff that i gave contains Atsme's response to Bishonen which in turn contains two diffs showing what you are asking me to give. Soham321 (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, re-read your response, still don't see any diffs of this alleged involvement. I don't think this thread is going anywhere. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You probably should stay out of this, Soham321. I think it is already well-known that you have an axe to grind where Bishonen is concerned due to your topic ban and blocks. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have every right to comment on Bishonen's actions as an Admin if i believe she is violating WP policies and guidelines. Soham321 (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Are they sub-species? I'm no catfish expert, but Glyptothorax cavia seems like a species from the wording of the article. The multiple-Prods seem odd to me, and I disagree that it is absurd to imagine that there could be some ulterior motive. Per WP:INVOLVED, I don't see her actions as being any different that those that would have been performed by any other reasonable admin. Fenix down (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose and close this frivolous complaint. Bishonen did her job. This is, at best, a frivolous complaint. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose and Speedy Close. (1) Atme's endless dramafest and then revenge AfDing had gone on long enough. (2) Bishonen took the consensus of this discussion (which actually preceded the 14 revenge AfDs), and if anything underestimated it. There's no reason to sanction Bishonen for doing her job; if anything, the bock should be lengthened -- the community should not enable users who revenge nominate 14 articles over a single ANI comment. Softlavender (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Although I think that some of these deletion ideas aren't that bad, in the whole... disruption.--Müdigkeit (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ArbCom?

I see in Atsme's unblock request [198] that she states that she intends to take matters to ArbCom. Since it seems to me that sooner or later ArbCom is going to become involved anyway, might I suggest that an offer be made to her that she can be unblocked, but under a strict topic ban which restricts her solely to filing the ArbCom case (until such time as the existing block expires) - no posts anywhere on Wikipedia except to Wikipedia:Arbitration subpages? The choice is hers of course, even if the offer is made - she can still appeal the block in the normal manner if she prefers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The consensus to block was overwhelming; the chance of this going anywhere at Arbcom is tiny and if Atsme goes to Arbcom again, the most likely result this time will be a site ban. It doesn't help anybody, and especially not Atsme, to encourage that. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It is possible to request Arbitration while blocked. That said, Jytdog's assessment of the extremely likely outcome is spot on, and encouraging Atsme to pursue Arbitration (indeed, restricting her to an Arb request as her only permitted on-wiki activity) would be counterproductive for all parties, especially Atsme. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't suggesting that Atsme be unblocked so she could appeal the block at ArbCom - she can do that anyway, via an email to BASC. It was her suggestion that she intended to start a case on the broader issues that I was addressing. As for whether it would be in her best interests to do so, I very much doubt she would take much notice of my opinion on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Banned IP hopping user on Talk:Cheshvan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yet another IP sock of Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs) has just shown up. He showed up at Talk:Hebrew calendar and was identified after a day, blocked and the talk page was page protected. He now has decided to carry on with his issues at Talk:Cheshvan, which I'm reverting. I've just alerted User:NeilN on his talk page, but this guy seems to be pointlessly persistent. Choor monster (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

A word in your ear: [199]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.164.227 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of your history of misrepresentations and proclamations that admins will be desysopped. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuing DE by buzzbuzzwili

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Fresh off his 24 hour block for DE, [User:Buzzbuzzwili] is continuing to change political parties' ideological points of view, often without citing any sources. [200] [201] [202], but at least once with a source [203]. MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like WP:IDHT. Topic ban? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd don't see that a single topic ban is going to accomplish anything. The user is obsessed with changing political positions and ideology for parties across the entire globe (see his/her contributions page). The editor doesn't seem to be WP:HERE and only interested in pushing their own personal interpretation of what party adheres to what. S/he's DE right across the board. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Doell brad

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Doell brad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Personal attack by user [204] and clearly a sock puppet of Wikipedia members suck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who edited Barry Zito before he was blocked. TL565 (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not think he is a sock. User:Wikipedia members suck was blocked because of the username and I think that might be a new account created after the block for the username --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

He is clearly a sock. Wikipedia members suck edited Barry Zito before he was blocked, then Doell brad account is created and writes on my talk page about Barry Zito. Both have edited porn actress articles. It's the same person. TL565 (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

User is clearly being disruptive [205], [206] WP:NOTHERE. TL565 (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Given this users only edits are either disruption or insults I have blocked them. I am happy to reconsider, or for any other admin to reconsider, if the user indicates a willingness to play well with others. Chillum 14:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.