Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly
  • Still not sure what to do? Seek advice at the Teahouse
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

QuackGuru and disruption over e-cigs and pod mods

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

QuackGuru (talk · contribs)

WP:AN is pushing a backlog drive on AfC. Accordingly RoySmith took pod mod into mainspace [2] (so thanks for that). QuackGuru has now removed it [3] as "Redirect non-notable hoax article. (Please do not restore the mass failed verification content. See WP:CIR."

I was thus prompted to raise the following with them:

Pod mod

I'm concerned about your removal of this article [4].

Firstly, we have an AfD process. I'm sure you're familiar with it. It's fundamental here that we operate by consensus. We do not support single-handed deletion of articles like this.

Secondly, your reason for removing this article was "Redirect non-notable hoax article. (Please do not restore the mass failed verification content. See WP:CIR.)" [5] That's four separate claims as to why it should be removed. Yet these are unrelated claims, and you have shown no reason to support any of them. In particular, alleging a "hoax" article is a strong allegation against the editor who created that article and should not be made without some evidence to back it up. Importantly though, you then went on to add content from this article [6] to a new section Construction of electronic cigarettes#Pod mods. So which is it? If this is a "hoax", why are you propagating it further? If these sources failed verification in one article, why are they now acceptable in another?

I'm also less than happy about you using inlined ELs rather than correctly formatted citations and references. [7] Is there any particular reason for this?

Once again, your editing raises concerns. You are quick to add a warning banner about Discretionary Sanctions to this article, but you don't point out that you were the editor warned when such sanctions were applied Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles#QuackGuru_Warned.

This blanking of an article was inappropriate and disruptive. It goes against our accepted practice re AfD, should such an article really be inappropriate. Your allegations against it are unsupported, and also targeted against a specific editor, Sydneystudent123456. Your re-use of some content from the article also rather defeats the claims you made against it originally. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru blanked that without reply (they habitually blank all items on their talk:, rather than archiving). They similarly blanked a second request to discuss this.

I don't see this as acceptable editing, especially not when it's WP:OWN over a whole topic space, one which QuackGuru has got into trouble over before. We work by consensus here (do we still?) Single-handed deletions are not how we do things! I don't myself know if pod mods are notable (to the level of a distinct article) and had already asked as much on the talk: page. (I'm in the UK, I don't vape, I'm unfamiliar with the subtle variants). It does appear now that pod mods are a topic of some debate and we have coverage of them under the broader e-cig articles and also at Juul, the major commercial brand. But this is primarily a behavioural problem – single editors don't get to blank articles, the reasons given are hand-waving at best, certainly not supported by any evidence or specific claim, and when challenged like this it's incumbent upon WP:BOLD editors to be ready to at least discuss it. I would have un-redirected the article and AfDed it myself, except for the second refusal to discuss. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Huh. QuackGuru said failed verification, so I was expecting something really ridiculous like the sources didn't actually exist, but that's not the case. Haven't looked into it thoroughly yet but I'd say whatever QG saw that led him to just instantly blank the page is not obvious, at least to me. I think it's possible this is a reasonable action (the redirect only, not the subsequent interactions), but it really needs to be explained. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. If it had been a "hoax article" then we have WP:CSD#G3 for that and at least an admin and a second pair of eyes would have seen it.

They still haven't communicated, but they have been busy editing and they've added a comment as an edit summary [8] about "Please don't restore content that failed verification or use poor source such as a blog. See https://www.caferacervape.com/blogs/news/a-brief-history-of-pod-mods-and-open-system-low-wattage-devices" However that source wasn't being used in this article, so I fail to see the relevance of mentioning it. Nor is a misleading note in an edit summary an acceptable substitute for discussion via a talk: page.

I half expected QuackGuru to take their usual line that "all sources must meet WP:MEDRS". Except that here [9] at Construction of electronic cigarettes they're happy to reference The Verge [10] and here [11] at Juul they're adding links to the SF Chronicle [12]. Maybe they think that it's OK if these ELs are inlined, rather than presented as citations? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I have undone the redirect. If anybody feels this article should not exist, please to take it to WP:AfD for a proper discussion. @QuackGuru: I explicitly draw your attention to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles#QuackGuru Warned. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• And now of course, a personalised warning, and some WP:CANVASSing in another WP:FORUM, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Pod_mod, but still no discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• QuackGuru is now proceeding [13] to strip sections out of the article, by their usual process of denigrating sources. This is inappropriate: they show no issue with those sources, the claim "commercial source" is not enough to start section blanking, they have shown no error in those sources, they have shown no error in the content and it is against WP:PRESERVE to act in this way to dismantle an article with no effort made to find other sources. We are still awaiting any response from them here at ANI. These edits are disruptive, and they are disruptive in the way for which an explicit DS has been in place on QuackGuru themself for some years. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• And now pejorative comments like this, "please stop restoring original research". But there was no such restoration. This is just throwing phrases into the edit log and hoping that some mud sticks. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• I got a failed verification tag from QG for something that I thought to be uncontroversial. Not sure what is going on but it seems QG is holding this article to a higher standard than others. I added a section to the talk page to discuss and hopefully he responds. spryde | talk 18:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It's my impression that QuackGuru is very frequently concerned that anything short of plagiarism might not be true enough to the cited source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• QuackGuru seems either unable or unwilling to communicate with other editors. They will adopt some particular idea, then defend it to the death and happily edit-war to do so, but simply will not express to others what it is beforehand, thus avoiding a whole lot of argument. I cannot understand why this is, but it does make editing around them particularly difficult. They seem to go out of their way to post half-truths to talk: pages: something which can't be said to be definitively wrong afterwards, but is especially unclear and misleading at the time. So when complaining of a source, they refer to it by a URL that isn't even used in the article, rather than pointing to its use in that article. They complain "don't restore OR" when nothing has been either deleted or restored. They will insist that all sources meet MEDRS, even for simple matters of commercial business (but are happy to use non-MEDRS sources themselves). They remove content as "not relevant" even though it is highly relevant to the broader context of understanding the article, just because it doesn't contain a specific easily-matched word (I've written AI reasoners which suffered much the same problem). And throughout all of this, other editors are simply wrong: there is no room for debate or opinion, it's QuackGuru's version or nothing. That is not how we operate. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Quick example: Tagging the text, "Pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes and some resemble USB devices." as "fails verification " See "The palm-sized device resembles a USB flash drive,,," Obvious FV content." from a source which contains the literal text, "The palm-sized device resembles a USB flash drive".

So, sorry QuackGuru, but that is not an obvious verification failure and you have failed to state what particular arcana is offending you. This is a collaborative project involving other editors and if you are going to oppose other editors over minutiae such as that, it is incumbent upon you to at least explain the issue.

Similarly, "they do not prodcue smoke" when tagging "Pod mods are portable devices that people use to smoke" as OR. Well, sorry QuackGuru but this is smoke; smoke by its technical broad definition includes pretty much any particulate aerosol produced by heat and that includes pyrolysis rather than combustion, and e-cigarettes et al certainly perform pyrolysis. Also modern language has yet to catch up fully with its terminology and possibly "smoking" may not be the best verb to apply here, but in no way is this WP:OR. It is simply another pejorative use of terminology by you to tag it as such, as an inevitable waypoint towards its removal. This is sheer sophistry on your part, to a level where it's deliberate and it's disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley: technically the content did fail verification since AFAICT, no where does the source say "pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes", it only suggested one possible shape (and possibly size). But I'm not sure that tagging it FV was the best way to handle it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• This is not a problem of content, it's a problem of behaviour: that's why it's at ANI.

Far better editing by QuackGuru would be to list any problems on the article talk page, to make specific statements about what is wrong with them, then to put forward intended solutions: a change of wording, a need for a better source, even the need to remove a section. There might not even be much need for discussion: maybe some of these problems and remedies would become so self-evident that all would be in immediate agreement (there seems to be zero evidence of a POV disagreement). But they are doing none of that. Instead we see unexplained changes made directly to the article. We see threats [14] to delete the article again as "unsourced", when this is a clearly untrue and hyperbolic statement to make. QuackGuru's editing style makes collaboration impossible: in a context where reversions are restricted (and they've made that sanction threat clear enough, even though it's not even clear it applies) their technique is to "capture the high ground first". Anyone disagreeing with QuackGuru will be described as edit-warring and instantly reverted. The changes they're making are unexplained and unjustified (even if correct, or at least their underlying reason needing to be addressed) and they're making the change first, then being forced to provide some sort of justification afterwards. This makes it very difficult for another editor to provide a different remedy to the same (agreed) problem.

Consider the case of the physical resemblance to USB sticks: this is a most trivial issue. Yes, there may be some minor inaccuracy in there and it might need to be fixed by some very minor copyediting on non-contentious wording. But instead QuackGuru is attacking the sources, slapping on a "failed verification" tag, advocating deleting the entire article because "100% fails verification". An editor trying to fix the descriptive wording problem then has to fight uphill, justifying their changes in terms of dire actions like "removing an {{OR}} tag from an article subject to MEDRS", "Re-introducing content that failed verification", "Using sources that do not meet MEDRS". This is to skew the entire editing process unfairly in one editor's favour! They might as well start asking, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of Quora?"

This is a behavioural problem (and they still refuse to engage here), it's disruptive, it's a severe form of WP:OWN and it needs to stop or be stopped. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, except that you explicitly said

Quick example: Tagging the text, "Pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes and some resemble USB devices." as "fails verification " See "The palm-sized device resembles a USB flash drive,,," Obvious FV content." from a source which contains the literal text, "The palm-sized device resembles a USB flash drive".

You cannot have it both ways. You made a big deal over the fact that the content does not fail verification because the source explicitly mentions it resembles a USB flash drive. But you completely neglected to mention that in fact the source only says that. It does not support the claim "pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes". Therefore as I said, the failed verification tag was technically correct, regardless whether or not it was the best way to handle it. (And I've already said it wasn't.)

I would note that the reason I realised this is because I nearly faulted QuackGuru on my talk page for them adding a failed verification tag when it wasn't justified since I WP:AGF that you were correct. Thankfully this didn't happen since I double checked myself before leaving my comment.

If you want us to focus on the problems with QuackGuru's editing you need to avoid making misleading claims. From my experience a good way to ensure any complaints you have at AN//I get ignored is by ensuring that we are pointlessly arguing over what the person complaining about said because they are careless or misleading in what they say. As I've said, it seems to me QuackGuru's editing does have problems, so I have no idea why you insist on bringing up stuff that detracts from that point.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• This has never been about the accuracy of the article complaints here, so much as the appropriate remedies for how to fix them. The text in the article was over-specific for what the source literally stated. If an editor sees that as a problem, then there are quick, easy fixes to that such as either rewording to only match what can literally be supported (one observed device resembles such a device) or else (as appears likely to be the case) noting that resembling USB devices seems to be an ongoing theme across the market and finding additional broader sources to support that broader claim. But shouting "FAILS VERIFICATION!!" from the rooftops and demanding the article is deleted as a consequence is an over-reaction. A disruptive over-reaction. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's a straightforward example of disruptive tag-bombing: [15]

"...however the health risks are currently undetermined as they are new productions." {{CN}}

"...the health risks of these are also unknown and not well-studied." {{CN}}

Two tags of those added, where a high school philosophy freshman should be able to spot the fallacy.

If the text read, "the risks have been quantified", then that would be a WP:biomedical claim rightly needing WP:MEDRS. But it isn't, it's the opposite of that. It falls under WP:BLUESKY. They are new (this is unchallenged, and anyway met by RS elsewhere) and there are no known studies. If an especially pedantic editor wanted to qualify the wording of the statement (at the cost of losing clarity as an encyclopedia) then they could reword as "No studies are known at present (2019) to the authors of this WP article", which would be pointless yet justifiable. But to demand citations is ridiculous: "New things are unknown" is not merely uncited, it is unciteable, and that is a matter of classical logic, not medical quackery. To then take that as an excuse for deletion (read the edit summary added) is disruptive above all else. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Without wanting to express any strong views about Quack's overall editing, I request that, if any decisions need to be made, you all please kindly limit the number of RFCs involved. A couple of months ago, QuackGuru had ten (10!) separate RFCs about e-cigs underway at one time. As some of you know, I've followed the RFC advice pages for years and years, and I cannot recall a single instance in which another editor had even half that many content RFCs underway at one time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Agreed that this is WP:OWN behauvior, and QuackGuru has staggering 2,449 edits in e-cigarette according to Xtools edit count. Not everything related to e-cigs should be vetted by one person. --Pudeo (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• My impression which seems to be supported by WP:AfD, WP:ATD-R and Wikipedia:Merging is that it's not always necessary to AfD something where merging or redirection while keeping the old article is the desired outcome even if these are possible outcomes of an AfD. If it's expected to be uncontentious, no discussion may be needed. It may also be acceptable to rely on other forms of discussion like RfCs. This is in part because merging or redirecting (while keeping the article) are explicitly not a form of deletion as no admin action is needed and the edit history is still there. These actions can be reverted by anyone like with normal editing processes. However it's recognised that many editors will not be aware of this, so care needs to be taken and sometimes AfD may be better. Note that this is explicitly not an endorsement of QuackGuru's actions. If you've found a hoax, it needs to be deleted so you should use some deletion process. It's harmful to simply redirect or merge a hoax as you're running the risk someone will revert to the hoax either intentionally or accidentally. But I agree with others it doesn't seem this is a hoax, based on the sources and the fact the info was merged anyway. QuackGuru's other actions here also seem concerning. Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It's been pointed out to be my QuackGuru they didn't merge content so I've struck that portion of my comment above. Instead I will say "But I agree with others it doesn't seem this is a hoax, based on the sources and the fact that the info or very similar info already existed in another article they redirect to. It possible that some of the content in the original article failed verification and this needed to be dealt with, but it's clear that the article itself and the concept it dealt with was not a hoax. To reiterate what I said, if it was a hoax it needed to be deleted outright not simply redirected." Nil Einne (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• " These actions can be reverted by anyone like with normal editing processes. "

No, they can't be "reverted by anyone". It needs a particularly thick-skinned editor to disagree with QuackGuru. Their immediate reaction is to place a dire warning box on the editor's talk: page, threatening sanctions (despite the fact that ArbCom's ruling behind such sanctions was directed at QuackGuru). Then they fire up threads in the walled garden of the medical project, demanding the use of sources to MEDRS, just to say what year a commercial product was launched or whether it's the shape of a USB stick. And they will still not join the debate here at ANI, a thread specifically about their behaviour. This is QuackGuru going out of their way to place barriers in front of other editors, and that's usually an effective strategy to imposing their single viewpoint onto articles. This has nothing about article quality or verifiable standards, it's about refusing to cooperate. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

So, you're saying that "dire warning box" is too frightening? --Calton | Talk 08:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've always said that. It's completely unfit for purpose. It threatens other editors, it's unclear as to what it means, it's unclear as to how other editors ought to respond to it or should change their editing. It's used by a handful of established editors in order to intimidate others, and it's often highly effective against blameless new editors (read some of the Teahouse reactions to being hit with it).

Worst of all is its lack of clarity. It doesn't link to any good explanation of what "Discretionary Sanctions" are and what they mean for ongoing editing. The justification for them (i.e. the source ArbCom case) is hidden and mostly irrelevant to the current situation. These DS boxes are mostly used by two editors: one who favours a DS box linking to an ArbCom case that was rescinded or else (in this case) a case where the editor pasting the warning box was one of those being admonished by ArbCom.

So yes, this is just a scary stick to try and frighten other editors with. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, that has nothing to do with my point which is that there has never been any policy or guideline requiring that redirects and merges must go through AfD. Nor my point that redirects and merges are explicitly not a form of deletion and can technically be reverted by anyone (given the limits of page protection, edit filters, and editor blocks). Note I also said that QuackGuru's actions were wrong here but that doesn't change the general point I made which you challenged. QuackGuru should be called out for their problematic editing. What you've alleged of their behaviour may be a problem, but failing to use AfDs for merges or redirects it not itself a problem unless the conditions when they did so is a problem. Likewise, if QuackGuru prevents people reverting when they should and can that's a problem, but that doesn't change the way merges and redirects operate. That said, I'm not sure that QuackGuru is even putting barriers in place for reversion. Giving a discretionary sanctions notice to someone who had not been notified seems fair enough. I'd note an editor does not need to be "thick-skinned", they just need to properly understand the notice or the discretionary sanctions process in general to know that such notices are irrelevant to whether or not they can revert if justified and of course that QuackGuru's actions would also be covered under the discretionary sanctions regime if their actions are. Not to mention skin thickness does not matter if the editor has received a notice within the past year meaning they cannot receive another one. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've no objection to the use of either AfD or talk: page discussion, or anything similar, but there needs to be opportunity for discussion by some means, and QuackGuru is doing their best to avoid it at all. Their actions are instant, so that WP:FAIT applies, and they're hedging even the smallest issue around with the biggest obstacles of MEDRS etc that they can.

Juul is pretty obviously investing in high quality design to make an attractive product, more than a merely functional one. It does have resemblances to a USB stick, in both size and shaping. The amount of arguing against this and the sources involved, and the implication that the article needs to be deleted as a result, are out of all proportion to the underlying issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, the discretionary sanctions notices are scary for most people – perhaps for almost everyone except the few editors who like to spam them around at every opportunity. We've tried to clarify the wording – I was involved in the effort to specify that this situation exists because of other editors, and doesn't say anything about your own contributions – but they are still perceived by the recipients as direct and immediate threats. I have been wondering whether it would make sense to ban their delivery by people who are in disputes. In the current free-for-all situation, an editor who is edit warring can drop that notice on your talk page. In that situation, it is no wonder that people think the underlying message is "Let me own this article, or I'll get you blocked". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Have to disagree. For new editors, yes I agree they are often scary and confusing. For anyone familiar with the regime, they are generally not scary. For editors who aren't new but are also less familiar with the discretionary sanctions regime IMO it varies. I have said before that IMO it's best if an editor involved in a dispute with another editor, or who simply often disagrees with the other editor doesn't hand them out. Instead an uninvolved editor or even better someone friendly with the editor should hand them out. But I also feel that any ban on people who may hand them out would carry a reasonable risk of making the regime less effective. I myself have handed them out on a few occasions, mostly when I see someone at one of the ANs who is editing the area and where I feel there is a chance the regime may be useful. I admit this may not be ideal, but I generally avoid simultaneously criticising the editor a lot or getting involved in any dispute. Thinking more of something I said above, I wonder if it may be helpful to add something to the template emphasising they apply to all editors including the one handing out the notice if they are involved in the topic area. But this is perhaps getting too far off topic. I stand by my claim that you do not have to be a thick skinned editor to be largely unaffected by the possibility of notices. For example anyone familiar with the regime or anyone who has already received a notice and some other editors. This is particularly significant here since RoySmith and Andy Dingley themselves seem to be 2 of the major editors involved in the article and I do not believe either of them should be affected by receiving a discretionary sanctions notice. The creator User talk:Sydneystudent123456 doesn't seem to have received a notice either [16] Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It's possible true that "anyone familiar with the regime" will be unaffected. However, that restriction basically excludes 99% of registered editors. In my experience, it's really hard for long-time editors like us to even imagine what our system looks like to people who aren't us. For example: Less than 10% of registered editors (all accounts, ever, specifically at this wiki) are autoconfirmed. The median number of undeleted edits for registered accounts is zero. Think about what that means for our assumptions about what "most" editors do or think or feel. We are not like most editors. I might receive these notices with the realization that another editor is trying to escalate a dispute. The median editor receives them with as little nonchalance as they would receive notice of a dispute from their nation's tax agency. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Well I never disputed that discussion should be allowed. My point was and remains that we should not conflated merging and redirection with deletion, and also that other processes can be used instead of AfD for that discussion. I felt this was important since the initial comment seem to come close to suggesting the opposite. I don't really see a point to argue content issues like what Juul makes and USB sticks on this page and was never suggesting we do so. My point with that was that the content did fail verification. As I said, I don't think adding a failed verification tag was the right way to handle that but I stand by my view it's very confusing to imply the content did not fail verification when it did fail verification (even if some part of the content was verified by the source). Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• So, still no response from @QuackGuru: and the WP:OWN continues on the article(s). Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles#QuackGuru_Warned, is it time to escalate to WP:AE? The edits themselves might be debatable as a content issue, but the refusal to discuss is disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • My original post a couple of days ago got lost in an edit conflict. It may be time to escalate this to WP:AE if you think that helps resolve this issue.
  • After I read this comment I decided to make a quick post here.
  • I am discussing the issues on the talk page, but this is a new article and there are very few editors watching the article. The edits themselves can be considered a content issue. I made a bold edit to redirect it because the Construction of electronic cigarettes article discusses the different types of devices and there was a lot of misinformation about the pod mods in the new article. There is new content about pod mods in the Construction of electronic cigarettes that is 100% sourced. See Construction of electronic cigarettes#Pod mods. I wrote the content myself and I did not copy content from any other article. Having a splinter article seems more like a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. QuackGuru (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I've had similar problems with Quackguru, and I haven't managed to discuss most of them them productively: see this discussion, and much of my talk page. Aside from my own ignorance and mistakes (advice welcome), there are a few recurrent sources of conflict, which it would be good to have resolved.

On merging, redirection, and deletion, I'd like to raise what I see as obfuscation of article and talk histories (example, original article) and, more trivially, QG's own draft space (for instance, pages titled with totally unrelated word, or an IPA schwa character). QG's manual archiving of talk page discussions, which matches the clear-desk ethos of QG's talk page, can be inconvenient to part-time and intermittent editors.

Draft-replacing content is fast, but it feels a bit like driving a flail tank through a community vinyard to till it.

I really don't like it when QuackGuru privately writes a parallel article in the draftspace, then overwrites the multieditor article. It is especially frustrating when QG has, while writing the draft, been asking other editors to fix problems identified by QG in the article (or delete or redirect the article), without telling them of the any plan to replace their work with the draft. If editor efforts are in competition, anyone who spends less time editing than QG, or edits more slowly, is at a disadvantage.

QG sometimes uses language I find needlessly threatening (prod example). I have, in the past, overreacted to QG's warnings (though not that one). I've learned that the best response to threats of formal complaints is to urge QG to follow through with them. QG often repeatedly raises issues with my editing. When the issues are irrelevant to the discussion at hand, or when I have acknowledged faults, apologized, and fixed, or when the forum is one I only come across by chance, this feels like mudslinging (example).

I strongly support inline tagging, but I often find QG's tags trivial (some phrasing and page number requests) or incomprehensible (many fv tags). Quackguru seems to mostly think that every sentence must have exactly one source at the end of it. It is also difficult to steer between Scylla and Charybdis with closeness to sources; QG opposes both excessively close paraphrases as copyvio and excessively loose ones as failed-verification. This leads to passages in the first style below:

Anon was born in the 19th century[1]. She was born in Nowheretown[2]. Her parents worked as cobblers[3]. Her mother was named named Anan[3]. Her father was named Anen[4]. Anon attended Nowheretown School[4]. She studied basketmaking in her first two years at Nowheretown School[4]. She also studied applied agrostology in her last year at Nowheretown School[5]. In 1882, the Nowheretown Post described her as a "elderly lady".[6] In 1882, the Journal of Applied Agrostology said that she was well-known to for her "application of agrostology to basketmaking"[7]. She died in 1882[8]. Her son gave the Nowheretown Botanic Gardens and Handicrafts Museum her collections[7]. Her collections included herbarium specimens and furniture[7].

Anon was born in Nowheretown[1] in the 1880s[1] to two cobblers[3] named Anan[3] and Anen[4]. At Nowheretown School, she studied first basketmaking[4], then applied agrostology[5]. In later life,[6] she became well-known for her application of agrostology to basketmaking[7][8]. When she died at an advanced age in 1882, the Journal of Applied Agrostology published an obituary praising her work. Her herbarium specimens and furniture were donated to the Nowheretown Botanic Gardens and Handicrafts Museum[7].

Example obviously made up, to avoid using a controversial topic. I'll also give a real style example; readers may also wish to see if they can spot the two paragraphs of QG's style in Nicotine marketing. A few examples of citation disagreements, all from one page:

• Talk:Heat-not-burn product/Archive 2
• Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive 1#Confusion
• Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive 3#Copyright violation
• Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive 9#Bogus_citation

QuackGuru has argued that that all sources must include wording matching the article title. This severely constrains editor judgment in determining the article scope and providing context (example). Likewise constraining is Quackguru's view that an image cannot be included in an article unless a source says that it illustrates the article topic (one "humorous" example).

Because we have a history of conflict, I probably don't see QG's best side; we all tend to give more consideration to those we respect, an exacerbating feedback. The next two paragraphs may therefore be unduly harsh.

I rarely get the sense that QG is intellectually engaged in a content discussion, and discussions with QG tend go nowhere via long strings of characters. I often find QG's posts unclear, and it takes several exchanges to extract a meaning I'd expect to get in two sentences. QG often does not answer direct questions, and reiterates the same points or ones I find logically unconnected, until I've wondered if my own posts are even being read. This communications burden often puts off other editors who would otherwise engage on topics of interest to QuackGuru (example). I think a majority of my talk page posts have been made in response to QG; I never came in contact with QG for the first decade or so of my editing.

Obviously I disagree with some of QuackGuru's interpretations of rules, and formal guidance on these issues might help reduce conflict. However, more generally, I feel that QuackGuru tends to focus overmuch on using rules to control article content, rather than on understanding and improving content. I'm therefore not sure that providing more rules would help much (especially since combativeness tends, even with the best will in the world, to be infectious). I'm not sure what would help, though QuackGuru has some views. HLHJ (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Edited in response to User talk:HLHJ#Allegations without supporting evidence. HLHJ (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This very much matches my experience of dealing with QuackGuru. They seem to be more interested in content as a sequence of matching text strings and they have no interest in or understanding of any meaning behind that. They are also persistently either unwilling or incapable of communicating with other editors to any normal level: they see interaction as a series of barriers and obstacles, not as an opprtunity to share information. The "I would have commented to this ANI thread about me days ago, but there was an edit conflict" claim is simply not credible. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I do think that QuackGuru is interested in the meaning of content, as QG edits on specific topics of interest, with an identifiable point of view on those topics (which I do not consider unacceptable, or avoidable). I find I can often predict which statements QG will tag and remove, and if and how QG is likely to alter statements, but I find it harder to predict what objections QG will make to the statements. I haven't gotten the impression that QG is very interested in teaching me or learning from me, which I would be OK with if we were not in conflict. I'm not very good at social interactions myself, and I have sympathy with editors who want to minimize the social side of editing; there are unobjectionable ways of doing this. HLHJ (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Well I am out. I normally don't edit controversial things and I try to avoid WP:MEDRS sections of articles as I don't feel comfortable judging if sources are reliable enough. I still think this is a valid article separate from e-cigs as there are a few articles on Google Scholar from JAMA and NEJM which focus on Pod Mods in general.There are also a handful of articles in mainstream sources that also focus on the category rather than a specific brand. That makes it pass WP:GNG in my eyes but apparently not in others. spryde | talk 11:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I've stayed away from this discussion for a few days since I felt I'd said enough and it was better to let others comment. Since it still doesn't seem to have achieved a clear resolution and there are suggestions for AE I'll just make a few final comments.

One, I think QuackGuru's refusal to engage in this ANI is concerning. While sometimes when it's without merit it's fair enough to just let others deal with an ANI on your behaviour, and it's easy to harm yourself with poorly considered posts at ANI; IMO there were enough serious concerns here to warrant at least some comment. It's clear QuackGuru was paying attention since they quickly approached editors who had commented when they had concerns (me and from the sounds of it HLJH).

Two, I'm also concerned there has been no real engagement with QuackGuru on Talk:Pod mods over article content issues. Whatever concerns there over QuackGuru's conduct, I do not believe they warrant ignoring their attempts at engagement, especially since one of the concerns was their refusal to discuss their concerns over article content. To be fair (paraphrasing here) 'should I delete half the article content as unsourced' is not something that's easy to engage with. But when QuackGuru raises specific concerns over specific text failing verification (or whatever), I think at least some action should be expected even if it's just a quick comment 'no you're wrong, the source says XYZ' or minor rewording to fix the problem or finding a new source or whatever.

Three, and bear in mind I have basically no experience with AE and I'm not an admin, I feel if an AE case is raised it would be best to concentrate on clear cut examples. For example whatever problems there may be with posting discretionary sanctions notices unless these are clearly inappropriate (user is already away, user never edited the area) I have doubts they'd get much heed. Likewise saying something did not fail verification because it mentions USB-likeness when it didn't mention the other stuff may not be a great example. Either say that even if it technically failed verification blindly tagging it along with a whole load of other content was not the best way to handle it. Or find refs which do support this content add them and if QuackGuru continues to complain because they don't like 2 sources then maybe you have an example. (I think the former already happened but it's still IMO an example of what happened early in this case that would best be avoided at AE.)

Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Gah the article on pod mod needs work. These are simply a form of electronic cigarette. Does it need its own article? Not convinced... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• No-one is disputing that it needs work – except perhaps QuackGuru, who thinks that such work is impossible and the whole lot needs to be deleted.

Are they notable? Well, my first comment on the talk: page was to ask just that. QuackGuru thinks they're distinct, and has created a CFORK on that basis. I'm still unconvinced (I am too busy to do any editing for the next few weeks), but if they are (and I think they are) it's because the Juul is not merely another e-cigarette. Whether there are any pod mods other than Juul is a separate question. But it seems (from what little I've had time to read) that the difference with them is nothing to do with replaceable coils and it's actually about the chemistry of the fluid used. Juul is using nicotine salts, which appear to have significantly different biological effects. If pod mods are really different from other e-cigs, it's this different chemistry which makes it. However QuackGuru has already stripped the redlinks and decided that it's "just not notable".

They are impossible to work with. They do not engage with others, they do not engage with serious efforts to try and answer specific issues, they just keep re-posting "Can I delete all this yet?". They don't need permission to do so in the first place: they need to justify it. But asking over and over again is a way to get this "permission" by attrition and omission. If they simply persist long enough, more and more editors will say "Well I am out." and when it goes quiet, they can delete the article "because no one complained beforehand". That is not acceptable editing: we have to collaborate here, and none of us get to simply ignore the others. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As someone who is a domain expert in certain topic areas who, like QuackGuru, has a massive edit count in those articles and been involved in numerous content disputes, I have also had WP:OWN thrown at me in content disputes by other involved editors. It is both really disingenuous and a very clear case of fundamental attribution error (i.e., a cognitive bias) to ascribe another editor's reversion of your edits and those of others who are a party in the dispute as WP:OWN without a clear statement of ownership. An editor is violating WP:OWN if the they make a statement of ownership and/or take action to prevent all others from modifying an article so as to effectively retain an exclusive right to edit an article, decide what content it shows, or otherwise dictate what an article states (that's also what ownership of literally anything entails). If you don't have clear evidence of an editor making such a statement or rolling back everyone's edits to an article, do not cite that policy. It is pointlessly inflammatory and I've personally found it annoying to be on the receiving end of that. Frankly, I don't know what experienced Wikipedian would actually believe that they have, or could possibly retain for any length of time, an exclusive right to anything on Wikipedia (the only exception would be the copyright to any CC-BY-SA-3.0-licensed article text that an editor contributes, as that is an exclusive right). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Read the other page discussions. There's little edit-warring in mainspace, because they've already slapped warning dialogs around to threaten some unspecific editing restriction. But on the talk: discussions, we keep looping through the same sequence. "There is a minor wording issue over a very minor topic, where the source does not use those literal words" – 'OK, what change is needed? Just do it' – "This source FAILS VERIFICATION so I've removed it altogether." – 'Don't do that. It means the content doesn't match, not that the source is bad' – "I'm going to delete the whole article again" – 'Why are you ignoring the ANI thread?'.

This is OWN, even if not in mainspace. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I have been thinking over my last post, and I have an example of QG responding to new editors. QG reverted the mostly-easily-salvagable edits, but spontaneously posted on the talk page with some explanation of why. This suggests to me that QG is willing to teach newcomers, but is not always using effective methods (in this case, the new editors did not engage). Sometimes QG has spent far longer getting me to fix problems than it would have taken for QG to fix them and post saying "You should have done this" (example); I think this is partly communications difficulties.

QuackGuru often adds very high densities of inline tags to content I've written, and insists that I fix the content. Some of the reasons behind the inline tags are trivial fixes, things you'd think would be easier to fix than to tag, but most of the problems QG points out are not obvious, and I find many debatable. Any fix I attempt is usually swiftly re-tagged, accompanied by talkpage posts that my changes have made the content even worse, and it would be best to delete the lot and start again. When I add templates criticizing content in articles in which QG takes an interest, QG has reverted the addition (invariably, as far as I can recall). QuackGuru occasionally reverts edits of mine that QG requested via inline tags (for instance, the addition of a large number of verifying quotes, accompanied by translations from the French and German, which took me some hours of editing time: 1, 2, 3).

I don't think this behaviour motivated by bad faith. QuackGuru believes that I lack the WP:CIR to edit, so I think the motive is to improve the content by protecting it from me, keeping me busy with makework until I move to another content area. This is logical and effective, in the short term. Taking the long-term consequences into account, though, it also turns editors wanting to work in this area into opponents instead of collaborators.

For me, this discussion is therefore not primarily about the podmod article (I've been uninvolved with it, apart from a point-of-information talkpage post in answer to a question), or any one article.

I'm a bit uncomfortable addressing all this in the third person. QuackGuru, I know you are reading, and I'm not intending to ignore you, slight you, or speak behind your back. I'd be happy to discuss the roots of our editing conflicts with you in another forum, including a more private one. HLHJ (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Without recommending a remedy, I would like to say that QG has severe OWNership issues with regard to e-cigarettes. I mean, he truly believes he owns the subject and no one else should be allowed to edit there. I tried to get involved with the coverage about recent illnesses and deaths from vaping, but was totally stonewalled and eventually gave up. His style includes spinning off multiple sub-articles, so that he can put disputed content into all of them and no one can keep up. His articles are so technical and detailed, and so focused on single individual studies (quite the opposite of how MEDRS is supposed to work), that there is literally no way for a reader to gain an overall understanding of the subject. I tried for several weeks to make a few of the articles more readable; no luck. I tried to get him to tone down his promotion of the theory that the recent illnesses and deaths are caused by Vitamin E acetate; no luck. The investigating agencies are saying over and over that they don’t know the cause and there are many different histories of what the affected people used in vaping, but he is convinced acetate is the issue and his articles convey that. I know he is a very prolific editor, but IMO what he produces is non-neutral and unreadable, and his attitude is the very opposite of the collaboration that Wikipedia is supposed to be about. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• • Please provide evidence of spinning off multiple sub-articles, so that I can put disputed content into all of them and no one can keep up. The only recent spin off was "2019 United States outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products". It is way too long to merge. There is a summary in the safety article. I also started "Vaping-associated pulmonary injury" after discussing it with WikiProject Medicine.
  • You stated "I tried for several weeks to make a few of the articles more readable; no luck." Can you provide diffs where you tried to make them more readable?
  • See "The CDC stated that the cases have not been linked to one product or substance, saying "Most patients have reported a history of using e-cigarette products containing THC. Many patients have reported using THC and nicotine. Some have reported the use of e-cigarette products containing only nicotine."[5] Many of the samples tested by the states or by the US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) as part of the 2019 investigation have been identified as vaping products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (or THC, a psychoactive component of the cannabis plant).[8] Most of those samples with THC tested also contained significant amounts of Vitamin E acetate.[8]"
  • The CDC and the US FDA have both reported similar things. I included content from both of them. QuackGuru (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I’m not inclined to spend much additional time over this, but if you insist: Here, on September 7, was where I updated the article and put the CDC warning into the lead. This was the “Safety of electronic cigarettes” article (before you spun off the separate article about recent illnesses), so a CDC warning about safety seemed like the single most important thing to have in the lead. But you immediately removed it,[17] falsely citing “failed verification” when in fact it was well cited. Correction: your reason for removing it from the "safety" article was that it was mentioned in two other articles. So that means it can't be in the "safety" article where it is clearly relevant? That's an example of how you use (and misuse) subarticles.

For some reason you strongly objected to putting any warning into the "safety article" lead, leaving the lead full of years-old studies indicating that vaping could be relatively harmless or even beneficial. As recently as September 11 the lead of the safety article still didn’t mention the outbreak of disease and death. In fact it said (based on a 2016 report) that the risk of serious adverse effects was low, while it rambled on about possible battery explosions. I remember arguing with you about the necessity of putting the warning in the lead of that and several related articles; that argument is here. Finally on September 11 I was able to get a sentence about the outbreak (without mentioning the CDC warning) in the Safety article lead.[18]

Now that I have researched this, at your request, I see that this issue wasn’t just with me and it wasn't just one article. Doc James inserted the CDC warning into the lead of the main Electronic cigarette article three times on September 7, and you removed it three times, [19] prompting him to issue a warning on your talk page.[20] In other words, you kept insisting the warning couldn’t be in the lead of any article, even though that was only your own opinion, vs. well supported arguments to include it from two other people. Like I said, you don’t believe in collaboration or consensus; you believe you OWN these articles. That is not how Wikipedia works. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You added on September 7, a CDC warning. This was added to the Safety of electronic cigarettes article before I created a spin-off. I removed it, along with rewriting other content, correctly citing "failed verification" for "WDHS2019". Both citations did not verify the same claim for "In 2019 hundreds of cases of severe lung disease were reported among users of e-cigarettes." The US-centric view for "recommending against the use of e-cigarettes because of their association with severe respiratory disease." was not a neutral summary for the lede. It was replaced with neutral content. See Safety of electronic cigarettes: "In 2019, an outbreak of severe lung illness across multiple states in the US has been linked to the use of vaping products.[23]" Also see Electronic cigarettes: In 2019, an outbreak of severe lung illness across multiple states in the US was linked to vaping.[105] Adding a US-centric warning to the lede of "Safety of electronic cigarettes" or "Electronic cigarette" is not neutral. The outbreak is in the US only. More than one editor objected to including a US-centric warning. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive 31#US-centric. Simply stating the facts in the lede that there is an outbreak is far more neutral than including a US-centric warning. I did add the CDC warning to the Electronic cigarette.[21] It is still in the Electronic cigarette. See Electronic_cigarette#Positions_of_medical_organizations. I did add it to the lede of the Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Simply stating the facts in the lede that there is an outbreak is far more neutral than including a US-centric warning. And that's what I did, here, although apparently even that wasn't worded to your satisfaction and you reworded it. I'm done here, but my comments stand: you insist that everything at these articles, great or small, has to be done your way. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You added "In September 2019 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported an outbreak of severe lung disease in the US associated with the use of e-cigarette products.[16]" The CDC reported an outbreak in September 2019, but the outbreak started before September 2019. I fixed the inaccurate content. When did the outbreak start? "Cases involved in the outbreak of severe lung illness associated with vaping products were first identified in Illinois and Wisconsin in April 2019.[13]" I wrote accurate content without misleading or biased content. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

See here. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Propose ban

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

---

I've largely stayed out of this, but I've slowly come to the conclusion that QuackGuru is a lost cause. We should just WP:CBAN him and stop this endless time sink.

I made an attempt to work with him. See the Talk:Pod mod#Failed verification content thread. He questioned whether Research reveals potential health risks in aerosolizing nicotine salts and metal toxins that are produced was verified by the cited reference. I decided to investigate.

My first task was to find a copy of the reference, and discovered that it existed on-line, so I updated the reference to include the URL, and some other minor reformatting while I was at it. This earned me a complaint 10 minutes later that, The citation was formatted but that does not solve the FV problem. I continued to read the cited source and concluded that QuackGuru was correct; it did indeed not verify the claim made in the article, which I stated on the talk page. Amazingly enough, his response to my agreeing with him was yet another salvo.

Somewhere in there, he dropped a Template:Ds/alert on my talk page. What purpose this served other than an attempt at intimidation, I can't imagine. I've got a pretty thick skin, but I imagine most new editors would be scared by this and disengage. Which I assume is exactly the intended result.

Irksome habits like continually blanking their talk page, while not forbidden, certainly does make it more difficult to interact with them.

Every interaction between him and other editors that I've observed over the past few days is aggressive and just attempts to bludgeon the enemy into submission rather than engage in a productive discussion with them. It is good that they insist on correctness and verification through reliable sources, but they take it to such an extreme that nobody can work with them. This makes them a net negative to the project.

I count 19 blocks, spanning 12 years, for QuackGuru already. It's hard to imagine that any additional attempts at behavior modification will be any more successful than the past ones. It's time to cut our losses. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru has been very productive in Wikiproject Medicine articles...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru has done good work over the years. I agree with a fair number of the concerns they raised at the pod mod article. Their redirect with the claim that it is a "hoax article" however is not accurate and I would advise them to be more careful with their words. Not sure I see the issue with this notice.[22] I had a personalized notice placed upon my talk page about the existence of DS with respect to gun related issues a few days ago.[23] I took it as a useful FYI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Doc James. Clearly some concerns raised here are valid, but just as clearly some are overstated. The volume and quality of QuackGuru's work is impressive. I agree they need to improve their collaboration. But a ban is over the top. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose ban QuackGuru operates in Wikipedia's most controversial medical spaces. I perceive QuackGuru to be an advocate for the consumer, medical journals, and WP:MEDRS standards. Most commonly QuackGuru is in conflict with editors who advocate for or sympathize with the position in alignment with corporate industries well known for aggressive propaganda in favor of harmful health practices. In this case we are talking about nicotine use where a billion-dollar industry is selling a drug with health effects and which is lobbying globally to control the conversation. Everyone who edits the Wikipedia nicotine articles will be read by a billion people including all journalists, lobbyists, doctors, policy makers, and the lawyers in the related lawsuits. The money tied up here is obscene considering that advocacy for science in this space has no budget, and in large part is defended by QuackGuru with support of others. When Wikipedia is the target of hundreds of paid lobbyists I expect missteps and misunderstandings from any volunteer editor. I do not perceive the problem here to be QuackGuru, but rather, the center of the problem is the topic itself and the infinite funding available to pay people to endlessly argue the minutiae of the topic to the limits of the Wikipedia process. Most people who edit here are not lobbyists but propaganda is in the heads of everyone who thinks about this topic and extreme caution is a useful norm for this space. QuackGuru knows the wiki bureaucracy and runs discussions and editing discussions by wiki process. I expect content in this space to move slowly and be more cautious than in other articles where a billion dollars and national economies are not the stakes of what Wikipedia publishes and which politicians read when they are making laws. If anyone enters such controversial topics then they should expect bureaucracy, be forgiving, move slowly, and feel free to call on mediation processes such as seeking comment from WikiProjects such as WP:MED or any lightweight process such as WP:3O. I understand why anyone would be frustrated in such unusual articles but this is how extreme controversy works on wiki. The environment is crazy and everyone who enters it will have to abandon some humanity and become a bit of a robot and bureaucrat. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ban per Bluerasberry. It is regrettable that QG causes frustration but the topics are frustrating with conflicting interests colliding. I have not checked all relevant edits, but I have seen that QG is on the side of reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• And by implication, anyone who disagrees with him isn't? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• He is on the side of the reliable sources that support his position, but resorts to all sorts of tricks to ignore or downplay those that don't! Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose ban after reading the thread, the underlying issue is literally just a content dispute in a contentious topic area which has gotten out of hand. Content disputes in such subjects are not unexpected/infrequent and sometimes editors who are party to one − myself included − make errors in judgment. That is absolutely not a suitable justification for a site ban unless said error is particularly eggregious. Personally, I think everyone involved should just take a step back, take some time to cool off for a day or two, then come back to the table to discuss the issue and sort out the underlying problem. I don't think anyone who is a party to this dispute is currently acting in an appropriate manner for the purpose of dispute resolution; dispute resolution involves identifying underlying issues, correctly interpreting and applying relevant content policy, and trying to find common ground. In other words, take some time to cool off and make the effort to talk it out; do not neglect engaging in a discussion with all involved parties on a talk page or escalate further argument by making baseless inflammatory accusations pertaining to behavioral policies, applying unfaithful interpretations of content policy as justifications, or otherwise undermining the dispute resolution process. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The basis for this complaint is invalid. There is quite literally nothing wrong with performing a unilateral blank-and-redirect in good faith, per both deletion and redirection policies. If such an act is contested, it can be reverted and discussed and proceed to dispute resolution, just like any other content dispute. As a matter of policy, and contrary to the OP's claims, it is not considered to be either disruptive or an inappropriate circumvention of deletion process. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - No good reason given. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. As other's have mentioned, the basis of the complaints were invalid, and the doubling down trying to get a site ban after the initial section didn't gain traction looks like battleground behavior that has no place in a DS topic. If RoySmith was actually a regular in the topic I'd suggest a WP:BOOMERANG in the form of either a topic ban or interaction ban for RoySmith to try to settle the topic down, so I'd at least suggest a decent sized WP:TROUT instead.

My understanding based on when I see QuackGuru's editing pop up here is that QuackGuru often acts through WP:STEWARDSHIP in e-cig topics, and those in content disputes with Quack are trying to portray that as WP:OWN here instead. If advocacy is still a problem in this subject that gets stewards acting terse while still engaging in discussion (which seems to be the case when you look at diffs or lack thereof vs. claims made at this ANI about Quack), the DS need to be enforced more stringently to the cut to the source of the disruption. I haven't seen anything presented here that indicates Quack is a true source of disruption in the topic (and I'd change my mind if I did), much less the entire project. This ANI reads as an attempt at a gotcha of a frustrated editor in order to win a content dispute though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: I fail to see a legitimate policy-based reason for this suggested sanction. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Propose small measures applying to all parties

(originally part of ban discussion) QuackGuru is a bit of a Wikidragon, and does write large amounts of content. As BlueRaspberry points out, this is an area in which content is expected to move slowly, so QG's wish to make drastic changes causes more conflict. I do not see QuackGuru as always being on the side of the evidence: short example. However, I do not see this as sufficient reason to ban. I'd suggest the following remedies, all of which should apply to everyone in this topic area, not just QuackGuru:

• the same standards should apply to one's own edits as one applies to the edits of others. Editors should avoid COI by not removing templates criticizing their own content, unless they have a good-faith belief that the problem has been fixed (not the belief that it never existed).
• we should not template things that are easier to fix than to template.
• fv tags may be hard to understand. Inline tags in this topic area should have a informative |reason= parameter, and may be deleted if none is supplied by an editor aware of the need.
• all edits in this controversial area should initially be made incrementally. Only after incremental addition of content fails should an RfC be used to add the content. An RFC should not be started before the matter and the RfC question have been discussed on the talk page.
• any non-minor edits suggested by declared COI editors should seek talk page consensus before inclusion in the article.
• long reverts, especially reverts of several weeks of complex good-faith edits by multiple editors, should be clearly labeled as "reversion to version of [timestamp]". Discussion should not be avoided.
• it is not OK to follow the letter of rules, but circumvent their spirit. Misuses of process, such as getting a consensus for deleting an article in order to replace it with a version one has already written, should not be undertaken.
• in this controversial area, we should avoid doing things that curtail or hide talk discussions, such as needless discussion forking, manual archiving, and using WP:G7 to delete and immediately recreate pages.
• DS notifications, formal or informal, should not be repeated more than once a year, or made in a way that implies personal criticism or threat. Generally, the matter should only be raised with the formal template.
• per Wikipedia:Citation overkill, two or three citations may be used to support a single sentence. Per convention, different citations may be used to support different parts of the same sentence. Where it is simple, these citations should be separated so that it is obvious what section of the sentence they support (for instance, a citation at the end of each clause: Smith said X[1], and Jones said Y[2]). Where this would contort the sentence structure or otherwise impede readability, Template:Refn may be used to insert a note clarifying which fact comes from which source.

Is there anyone who feels that their editing would be seriously hindered by following these guidelines? HLHJ (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed editing restrictions short of a ban

I don't think a ban as justified at the moment, but having read this thread its clear that QG's approach to editing in this is not without problems. Accordingly I think restrictions should of a topic ban should be tried first - I'm thinking perhaps in the eCigs topic area:

1. 1 revert restriction.
2. A revert of anything that is not self-evidently vandalism or a personal attack must be explained on the relevant talk page.
3. Prohibition on converting an article to a redirect. They may propose merging and/or redirecting on the talk page, and they may nominate for deletion.
4. Prohibition on moving any page to or from draftspace. They may propose doing so on the talk page.
5. No significant addition or removal of content without first getting consensus on the talk page.
6. No placing tags (including failed verification and citation needed) on an article without first either (a) rewording the content to match the source, and/or (b) attempting to find (alternative) sources that do verify the content. In all cases the actions must come with explanation that allows other editors to understand both what the problem is and the reason for it - including use of the reason= parameter. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• support Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• oppose per reasons given in previous section by half a dozen editors, to restrict such a capable editor is not beneficial to anyone--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Being "capable" is not enough - you need to be able to work with others in a collaborative environment. Without restrictions QG is not, presently, able to do that per all the evidence in this and previous discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ive worked w/ QG on Vaping-associated pulmonary injury which is all over the news, there have been some 17 deaths(and cases here in the U.S. and Canada) we both worked together to form/create the best article with the current information available on this condition... that is being capable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Unable to support "No significant addition or removal of content without first getting consensus on the talk page." Not clear what "significant" means. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Doc James: instead of throwing out the whole thing over a minor detail, propose either a way to determine what "significant" means or propose an alternative. This isn't dissimilar to the attitude that's causing many of the problems in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    • User:Thryduulf I have received death threats via twitter and requests that my university fire me for my editing of e-cig content. To say it mildly this is a controversial topic area with editors with financial conflicts attempting to suppress concerns (to be clear I am not making this claim about anyone involved in this discussion currently). Well QuackGuru and I do not always agree we are generally able to find something we can both live with. Of your suggestions which I have numbered I would support the 6th (but I would support it for all involved). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
      • That is horrible. I'm sorry you are both dealing with death threats and intimidation. It says something that anyone edits in this area voluntarily.

Thryduulf, are you thinking of some limit on the proportion of the article, or number of facts, changed in a given period? I said "incremental" above, which is not much more concrete than "non-significant"; I meant changes submitted to the article as they are written, and not en-masse. Belatedly, I think there might a problem with WP:FIXED here. Reverting excessively large undiscussed edits is an option, but then the article still turns into a series of RfCs about warring versions, rather than a collaboration. I'd prefer RfCs about individual concepts of content, not entire articles; the discussion is apt to be more substantive, and the end article better. It might get us a bit farther from arguing over sourcing rules, and towards assessing balance of evidence. Maybe we could try presenting an argument for both sides in discussion, reciprocally? Sadly, I've found myself spending more time on the less content-concerned discussions, like this one, simply because they are more antagonistic and thus clamour for attention. HLHJ (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do you "prefer RfCs about individual concepts of content, not entire articles"? Is it because I proposed a draft and I gained consensus to replace the older versions with the expanded version? Read this comment: "there are so many problems with the main article that it is a bit shameful WP allows work like this to remain."[24] Editors were disappointed with the older version. User:Sunrise closed the RfC. See Talk:Heat-not-burn product/Archive_8#Older_versions_or_expanded_version. QuackGuru (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: I am not attempting to defend or downplay any of that behaviour from SPAs et al, it is indefensible, but none of that excuses the bad behaviour exhibited by QG. Proposal 6 (thanks for numbering them by the way, that is helpful) could indeed be applied to editors generally - and discretionary sanctions are authorised for the topic area. However I don't think that alone gets to the heart of the issues with QG's editing.
@HLHJ: I don't regard proportion of an article as a useful measure as it categorises rewriting two sentences of a one-paragraph stub is vastly more significant than rewriting two sentences of an article that is multiple pages long, yet the effect of the changes may be more significant on the latter (depending on the detail, obviously). Number of facts changed is a better measure, but again it depends on the detail - if you're updating figures to match the latest released version of statistics everyone agrees are relevant then that is really only one change despite many different facts being changed and in many circumstances wont be controversial. However changing just one fact by switching from one source to a different one could be very significant, especially if one or both are (allegedly) partisan. It really needs to be something like "does this materially change what is being said?" or "is the source used to verify what I'm adding/removing/changing controversial?" and if the answer is yes, then it's a significant change, and if the answer is no then it wont be in most circumstances.
@QuackGuru: RfCs only really work when the question being asked is focused and specific. This is almost always vastly easier to achieve when dealing with individual items of content than dealing with whole articles. The comment you quote is a good example of one that is unfocussed and woolly essentially to the point of being useless. Be specific - explain what the problem is, why its a problem, what would be better and why that would be better. Then do the same for the next problem. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The HNB article was like a stub by my standard. There was little content in the lede and the writing was incoherent. My proposal was to expand every section of the article. HLHJ was still complaining about the article after I expanded it. The solution was to start specific RfCs to resolve the remaining disputes. There was a previous RfC that was malformed. See Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_7#RfC on solid tobacco heated using external heat sources. Those issues were unresolved. I eventually started RfCs to address the concerns. I left it up to the community to decide. See Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#IQOS_content and see other RfCs such as Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#Pyrolyse. QuackGuru (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• oppose Agree with Ozzie10aaaa and Doc James. I also agree that QG has problem behavior. But this is not the solution. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • So what is? Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I've added proposed editing restrictions for e-cigsCloudjpk (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I personally don't want to see QG banned, and I think this is a reasonable stopgap measure. — Ched (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Doc James. I've had a fair bit of contact with QG. I won't deny QG can be a little stubborn and pedantic, but I've never had cause for a second to think he is biased. He genuinely has neutrality and the interests of the encyclopedia at heart and these proposed sanctions are an over-reaction. -- Begoon 10:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I too don't doubt QG's motives, but that doesn't mean his behaviour is not disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Honestly, I think banning QG from ecigs would be a net positive for him and the project. Of all the editors with whom I agree (and I do agree with almost everything he writes), he is the closest I have come to asking for a siteban. Guy (help!) 11:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I am doing a fair amount of editing across multiple e-cig articles. There is bound to be some conflict with the amount of editing I have been doing. The RfCs helped resolve the issues. You closed two of the RfCs. See Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#WHO_claim and see Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_31#Nicotine_and_Passive_vaping_sections. QuackGuru (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - As I said above, the complaint is invalid. There is quite literally nothing wrong with this user performing a unilateral blank-and-redirect, per both deletion and redirection policies. As a matter of policy, and contrary to the OP's claims, it is not considered to be either disruptive or an inappropriate circumvention of deletion process. It should be treated like any other content dispute, not dragged to AN/I. Looking at the above section, this was already pointed out, and the OP seems to be ignoring it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think I support this proposal but as I think the first person to point out redirection does not need an AFD and may not even need discussion (05:58, 27 September 2019), can't say I agree QuackGuru did nothing wrong. As me, DocJames and others have said, calling it a hoax was clearly wrong. Firstly while the article had problems, it was not a hoax. Regardless of the merits of the blank and redirect, you can't just go around using misleading summaries when doing so. It confuses the hell out of other editors and provides no understanding of why you did the blank and redirect. Frankly no edit summary would be better than the one they provided. QuackGuru was an experienced editor, so they should have recognised this was not a hoax and they should have not called it one. Second, if QuackGuru genuinely believed the article was a hoax, then simply blanking and deleting was not the solution. Perhaps blanking and deleting was okay as an interim measure, but they should have immediately moved to having the article deleted after that. We cannot allow hoax articles to hang around in main space lest people accidentally or intentionally revert to them, or copy their content. Nil Einne (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  Please see my updated edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  Your second edit summary was better but still somewhat unclear. The fact that a blog is used or some of the content failed verification is not itself a reason to blank and redirect. AFAIK at least some of the content did match the citation. You seem to have a decent level of English, so I have no idea why you couldn't have just left an edit summary like "Blanking as most of the content appears to fail verification" if that was your opinion. Frankly though, if you had just left the second edit summary the first time around I think me and at least some others wouldn't care so much. Again, as an experienced editor you should not need someone bugging you on your talk page to tell you how utterly confusing your first edit summary was. Further (other than the updated summary) AFAIK you never provided an comment on your use of such an utterly confusing edit summary or at least you hadn't on the original ANI discussion despite having multiple days to do last I checked. And as I said elsewhere it's not like you were super busy doing something else, you were able to directly respond to people who posted to the ANI when you had issues with what they said. A simple "sorry I was wrong to call it a hoax, don't know what I was thinking" or whatever would have at least provided some clue you recognised the problem. Ultimately though, whatever you did do afterwards, my main point stands which is I disagree that you did nothing wrong since you did initially use that edit summary and it took someone asking on your talk page for any clarification. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per DocJames. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Swarm, DocJames, and others. Discretionary sanctions are already in effect in the topic, and any restrictions through them should apply to all editors, not just one who actually seems to be following WP:FOC here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support: But definitely would also strongly support a compromise in specifics with the issues presented by Doc James and those who feel similarly as I feel their concerns have merit. Waggie (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: per the good Doc James. Significance differs from person to person, and there's really nothing wrong with what QuackGuru did, as Swarm rightly notes. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Thryduulf's proposal, largely with the same feeling as Guy. If "don't place tags without genuinely trying to WP:SOFIXIT first" is too complicated, then a full TBAN is an option. For context, I just had a long and frustrating chat at WT:MED (until I gave up, because life's too short to keep explaining simple facts to people who are very highly motivated to not listen). In this conversation, Quack was apparently able to look at images like this shield-shaped product and this long, skinny one and still desperately trying to convince everyone that "different sizes and shapes" was a hopelessly unverifiable claim that urgently needed to be removed from the article. I don't think that the inability to see what's plainly in front of your nose is either "nothing wrong" (to quote Javert2113's description) or what we need in an editor who gravitates to controversial subjects. I'm thinking about the intersection of WP:COMPETENCE, WP:THERAPY, and WP:BOGO: If you are unable or unwilling to admit that those products aren't all the same size and and shape, then I really don't think that the rest of the community should spend this many hours (for years and years and years – has anyone ever written a complete list of the many previous bans and restrictions?) to you overcome your limitations. I'm perfectly willing to take names for the list of volunteer mentors, though. If others really want to dedicate their wiki-lives to mediating these questions, then that's okay with me. "Y'all should just put up with his rigid thinking and obsessiveness and find ways to work around it. I'm gonna go do something easier and more fun" isn't what the project needs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per DocJames and BMK. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Swarm. Buffs (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• No point. I assure you on the basis of extensive personal experience that you will never change QG's behaviour. No amount of handwringing or exhortation will have the slightest effect. Tbanning him will work; any other sanction is exactly the same as doing nothing. And Tban proposals relating to this editor never get any traction. QG does genuinely good work fending off advocates and SPAs. This makes him useful to MEDRS, and thus editors active in MEDRS appreciate him and show up to defend him against Tbans (although most of them will acknowledge that he does display some behavioural problems). I personally raised this with Arbcom in 2015 and they couldn't change him. Neither can AN/I. This is why we have QG --- one of Wikipedia's most often-sanctioned editors, and a person with massive control issues and extreme IDHT, running off the leash and hounding away editors who demonstrate considerably better judgement than he does. I still hope that maybe one day QG will do something so egregious that his MEDRS buddies can't save him, but it is not this day.—S Marshall T/C 02:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I use quality sources including MEDRS-compliant sources such as reviews.
  • You suggested others were IDHT about sources.[25] What about you? You repeatedly deleted a review and replaced it with popular press sources.[26][27] QuackGuru (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The fact that you're answering with whataboutery is telling. If you believe there's a problem with my edits, please do open an AN/I on me. I've always welcomed community scrutiny.

      Listen, QG: you do use good sources, almost always. Specifically, you go through the good sources, you find a statistic, you cite the statistic extremely thoroughly, you attribute it carefully, and you insert it into the article next to other statistics about the same topic. This produces something that looks superficially like a paragraph of text, but isn't. A QG "paragraph" is in fact a bullet-point list of statistics that's been disguised by removing the bullets. And the paragraphs you remove -- the paragraphs other editors want to insert and you edit-war to prevent -- are the paragraphs that move beyond the premises that you love so much and onto thesis and conclusion. When editors want to do this you behave as if they want to violate NPOV, when in fact all they're trying to do is make an article that fucking well goes somewhere. And the IDHT in this is because I've told you all this before, and you ignore whatever I say because it's me saying it.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

      • You have not provided a single diff. But I provided diffs.[28][29] You supported this. The proposal made no sense. The entire e-cigarette aerosol article was deleted and replaced with some content from other articles. I started a real RfC. All those edits were undone. See the expanded new article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
        • It's absolutely true. I've provided no diffs. I said that you're one of Wikipedia's most sanctioned editors. Nobody who's got any business closing AN/I discussions will have got all the way down to here without checking that point, so diffs are needless. I've described your behaviour accurately, and that's easily checkable from the diffs provided by others. And I've given a recommendation to the closer, which is that there's no point giving you sanctions that fall short of a topic ban. Arbcom weren't able to rein you in, discretionary sanctions weren't able to rein you in, and in fact your disciplinary log is clear evidence that nothing short of a topic ban will make the slightest difference to your behaviour. And you're responding with diffs from four years ago that Arbcom have already seen and dealt with by way of a resounding yawn.—S Marshall T/C 13:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Arbcom has not seen and dealt with you removing a 2014 review in May 2016. Why did you replace a review with popular press articles?[30][31] A review is a higher quality source than popular press articles.
          • See a random diff from 2017: "Some researchers and anti-tobacco advocates are concerned that irresponsible marketing could make e-cigarettes appeal to young people.[81][57]"[32] You claimed the sources verify "anti-tobacco advocates". Where does the sources verify "young people"? You think authors of e-cig research are "anti-tobacco advocates"? You don't like the word youth? Is it because marketing to youth has a negative connotation for the e-cig industry? Now there is an entire section on marketing to youth in a new article.
          • Citation 81 verifies "E-cigarette marketing may entice adults and children. Citation 52 verifies "E-cigarettes may appeal to youth because of their high-tech design, large assortment of flavors, and easy accessibility online."
          • You previously stated "QG does genuinely good work fending off advocates and SPAs." Do you acknowledge you added content that failed verification? QuackGuru (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
            • Lol, I acknowledge that I've often added content that fails your interpretation of verification. You think that anything that isn't directly taken from an academic source is inadmissible. Incidentally, the reason why WP:V explicitly tells you not to violate copyright is because nearly ten years ago, I personally put that in. Nowadays my original phrase has become a whole paragraph, because people citing sources too exactly has been a serious problem.

              As I said, if you think my edits are problematic then you're welcome to open an AN/I on me below: I'll happily respond to them there. But this thread is about your behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 20:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed editing restrictions for e-cigs

A key part of the problem is unsourced and failed verification content. Accordingly I suggest these restrictions on policy violations:

1. Prohibition on unsourced content. If there is no citation at the end of the claim it is considered unsourced content
2. Prohibition on failed verification content. If the citation does not completely verify the claim it is considered failed verification content.

Anyone violating these restrictions more than once in a one week period is topic banned. They would have to be warned about the first violation before they would be topic banned for the second violation.

• Support. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Missing the whole point. No-one is trying to push unverifiable content here. Rather QuackGuru is using that as a dogwhistle complaint against our normal standards for what really constitutes "unreliable" or "failed" sourcing. To implement this would be to also give them a tban-on-request stick against other editors, contrary to all our normal TBAN process. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For almost all content related to nicotine, it is against our normal standards to add or restore "unreliable" sources and "failed" content. See WP:MEDCITE. QuackGuru (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andy Dingley. There is no need to define unsourced content and/or failed verification any differently to the way it's done everywhere else on the encyclopaedia. Indeed, doing so would likely do more harm than good. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • !00% of the content in Electronic cigarette is sourced and it is peppered with hundreds of MEDRS-compliant reviews. Following V policy is very simple, IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support This is already the case everywhere. WP:V: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. And it is a blockable offence to restore it without a valid source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Violating" WP:BURDEN is not generally considered a blockable offense, especially, and most relevantly, when we're talking about restoring blanked content that (a) doesn't actually need a source according to any editor except one who wants every single sentence followed by an inline citation to a plagiarized or near-plagiarized reliable source, or (b) the content is already cited elsewhere in the article. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing will both get you blocked, though. Have a look at Quack's very lengthy block log if you want proof of what we actually block editors for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support both 1 and 2. There are issues with unverifiable content being added and restored here. Recently sourced content has been replaced with failed verification.[33][34] There was a RfC about the safety content. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_31#Safer_than_tobacco_claim. I started RfCs to deal with failed verification content. For example, see Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#Pyrolyse. If anyone feels that their editing would be seriously hindered by following verifiability policy then maybe they should not be editing this topic area. This will help with behavior modification and to cut our losses with repeat offenders. QuackGuru (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - It is not quite correct to say that this is already the case throughout Wikipedia. WP:V doesn't prohibit unsourced content, it can be added to articles, but is subject to removal at any time, and can't then be restored without a source. That's not the same thing as is being proposed here, which is that unsourced content is prohibited from being added in the first place. There are no sanctions specified (which is a problem with the proposal) but I would assume that any editor making multiple infractions of this would be subject to blocks. I do wonder, though, if it would not be better simply to place E-cigs under community general sanctions as a tidier solution. (See WP:General sanctions#Community-authorised sanctions for a list of currently active community-imposed general sanctions.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken: Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles#Discretionary sanctions the previous Community-authorised sanctions for this topic area were withdrawn and replaced by arbcom discretionary sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Ah, thank you, I wasn't aware of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken: maybe I've misunderstood what you're saying but this proposal explicitly says (and said [35]) "Anyone violating these restrictions more than once in a one week period is topic banned" if they've been warned. Once an editor is topic banned, the norm is they will be subject to escalating blocks if they edit in violation of their topic ban. Technically this doesn't cover people who violate these restrictions once every week but such gaming of restrictions tends to be dealt with the same as violating them. Nil Einne (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Clearly QuackGuru is a little too aggressive in this topic area, and hasn't backed down from that stance despite people raising concerns. Waggie (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

So you want to give them the power to TBAN opposing editors, just on their say-so? Did you intend your support comment to apply to the proposal it's tagged beneath? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

DS are already in effect in the topic, so "opposing" editors (or anyone) can be topic banned if their behavior is disruptive, contributing to a battleground mentality, or causing other editors to be terse. For instance, when an editor such as Andy Digley exhibits battleground behavior in their comments at this ANI towards QuackGuru, that can be a good indication to admins that they should be topic or interaction-banned in order to cut down disruption in the topic. I went looking at the talk pages to try to verify some of your claims about Quack, but I'm already seeing some hounding of Quack on the talk pages here and here where you're unable to WP:FOC at article talk pages and more interested in hounding QuackGuru who actually was engaging in content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Andy Dingley, not based on someone's say-so. Concern has been raised, and after reviewing the situation QuackGuru is, in my opinion, clearly overly aggressive in this topic area, based on own behavior. I also do believe that you are correct in that I posted my support in the incorrect proposal here. I have struck my support here. I support Thrydulff's proposal, as I believe that will yield sufficient results in this situation. Waggie (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support the ideas in theory, but the discertionary sanctions should already be tamping down or removing editors that are causing problems in these two areas, so any admin can enforce this already. Given the battelground behavior I'm seeing at this ANI that appears to be mostly one-sided after not looking at an e-cig page for some years, it's clear the discretionary sanctions need to be enforced in general to cut that behavior out. I'm mostly seeing QuackGuru sticking to content while others are more focused on QuackGuru here, so fixing the latter battlegrounding should alleviate some of the terseness coming from QuackGuru (which isn't sanctionable in the first place). I'd sure stick to focusing on content and not responding to WP:BAITING comments like in this section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Battleground? I'd remind you that QuackGuru began this by falsely describing this as "Redirect non-notable hoax article.". It is not acceptable to attack multiple other editors like this and to accuse them of creating hoaxes. This isn't merely a difference of opinion, it's an accusation of fraudulent editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

What did the updated edit summary state? QuackGuru (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Funny looking sort of apology. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - using a sledgehammer to crack the wrong nut. Will cause more trouble, not less. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Near the start of this thread, WhatamIdoing stated, "It's my impression that QuackGuru is very frequently concerned that anything short of plagiarism might not be true enough to the cited source." I've seen QuackGuru do this various times, and his odd interpretation of verification has gotten him in plagiarism trouble before. As seen here, an editor brought plagiarism to his attention. Also, here in a different ANI thread, Doc James stated, "They closely follows sources which is generally a good thing. Agree with the concerns around them adding FV tags as sometimes it is appropriate to paraphrase more." Needless to state, his faulty "failed verification" tags are a big issue. Somehow QuackGuru got it in his head that we can't summarize a source's words, like we are supposed to do if not quoting the source and if WP:LIMITED doesn't apply. If an editor uses their own words to summarize a source's text, you can expect QuackGuru to add a "failed verification" tag. This has got to stop. It is one of the more problematic aspects of his editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the requirement that every fact be followed by a citation. The table that User:HLHJ put above is, in my experience, a remarkably accurate illustration of what's Quack wants. We need well-writing articles that contain verifiable contents and present all perspectives in WP:DUE weight. The overall goal is almost unrelated to whether or not there's an inline citation after every piece of terminal punctuation. Nobody wants {{fv}} content. The problem here is what happens when one editor perseverates in declaring a fact to have failed verification after multiple other editors tell him that he's wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTPERFECT. These restrictions are too onerous. Buffs (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. No need when arbcom DS are in effect anyway - this would just add more surface area to wikilawyer about. Alexbrn (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Next step?

There is I think consensus above that something needs to be done regarding QuackGuru's editing behaviour, at least in the e-cigs topic area. There is though no obvious consensus for any specific action. This means we need to decide how we move forward in a way that benefits the project. What is that way?

• Option 1 is to ignore it and hope the behaviour goes away, after all these years of it being repeated and not going away at all?
• Option 2 is to, as S Marshall puts it: "Issue another warning, in the hope that the frowny face and waggy finger of administorial disapproval somehow works this time, after all these years of having no effect?"
• Option 3 is for an uninvolved admin to issue a discretionary sanction (Arbcom authorised discretionary sanctions in the e-cigs topic area in the case)
• Option 4 is to hand the matter to arbcom as we, the community, have clearly failed to solve the problem.

I support 3 or 4, with a very slight preference for the latter. I do not support options 1 or 2. Thryduulf (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4. In the few paragraphs I was able to read in this discussion, it looks like there are a lot of legal implications involving the subject area which QuackGuru usually edits. For that reason, I think it would be wise for Arbcom to take on this case and see if there might be underlying reasons for an action that we have yet to discuss here. I have never edited in this area myself, but from reading this in from my experiences with knowing how the media is portraying the subject these days, I can tell this is a highly pretentious subject area and the concerns regarding QuackGuru's editing need to be handled very carefully and thoughtfully. Steel1943 (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Hilarious though it would be for AN/I to decide that QG deserves yet another last chance, out of the options above it's clearly in Wikipedia's best interests to refer the matter to Arbcom. Again. 3 is a non-starter. If any of the DS-enforcing admins knew what to do about QG, they would have done it. Arbcom has no magic powers either, of course, but it can't allow its own previous decisions to be ignored, so a referral to Arbcom will be just like issuing a Tban here and now. But with more delay, process and bureaucracy.—S Marshall T/C 09:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option four: QG is back at it again, flagrantly violating wp:soap within this article: 2019 United States outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products - any attempt to adjust the article results in a revert and a passive-aggressive message! they have accused me of shilling:

The hospital bed patient and image is a salient topic. Anyone can create a new article. It is a violation of NPOV to hide the content under a rug.

— QuackGuru

• Option 3 Admins are empowered to impose DS in this area, so one may step up and do it. Sooner would be better than later judging by how much time/attention this has consumed already. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• The issue appears to be that the community disagrees regarding the degree of the present problem / what the problem is. As raised by a few people there is some concerns around QG use of "failed verification" tags. And what degree of paraphrasing is allowed / required by copyright. An option that addresses that would be something I would consider. Maybe something like "Option 5 QG must post on the talk page when they feel something fails verification, if another editor agrees with them than the tag can be placed. Otherwise they are free to go about rephrasing the text in question per normal editing practice" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• I really don't feel that this proposal will do anything to stop QG from being abrasive, confrontational, obstructive, patronising, and immensely time-consuming to deal with.—S Marshall T/C 14:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree his abrasive nature (e.g implying I'm a shill) wastes time that could be put to more productive things Mfernflower (talk)

• I was not here for the citation issues, my main complaint is he has included and emotionally defended patient testimonials copypasted from news sites in the 2019 lung disease article in flagrant violation of wp:soap and wp:nothere Mfernflower (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• None of the above options I'm not seeing any consensus that something needs to be done, let alone what. Swarm and others feel the complaint is invalid. To me this seems largely a content dispute. However I agree Quackguru has been abrasive, but not to a level worthy of restriction. I have dealt with prickly editors whose contributions remain valuable. A few editors here are concerned about QuackGuru's use of failed verification tags. The tags were created for a reason; it is not disruptive to use them for the purpose for which they were created. Complaining on AN/I about mere use of them seems to me a frivolous complaint. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction - I'm sure this proposal was made in good faith, but I must reject the very premise of these supposed "options". Someone brings a content dispute here, falsely (objectively falsely) reporting a legitimate action as an abusive circumvention of policy, which it wasn't. This gets pointed out, then the complaint gets rewritten by numerous other users coming out of the woodwork who want to air their grievances, which are not even clearly defined or cohesive. Numerous proposals come about, none of which are successful. There is no consensus for any action. But now you're coming here, claiming that we need to formalize something, and framing "no action" as an option to "ignore the problem and hope it goes away"? Seriously? I have never, ever, seen such a thing. How silly is it to propose "Arbcom, sanction, warning, or ignore the problem"? There's no possibility for disagreement, you've just unilaterally decided that you're trying to facilitate a consensus that you claim exists, as an involved complainant whose proposal for sanction was rejected. Imagine if everyone did this; made a complaint, proposed a remedy, got rejected, and then started a subsection saying "okay, we now have a community consensus that my complaint is valid and that something must be done. So choose between Arbcom, sanction, and warn. Anyone who wants no action can get put down as 'wanting to ignore the problem.'" It's just so deceptive it's wrong, and so was the original complaint. I'm not saying none of the complaints about QG are legitimate, but I refuse to support or even consider any proposals for sanctions that are facilitated by gamey tactics such as deceptive wording, false pretenses, moving goalposts, or outright lies. If QG is half as disruptive as people are claiming he is, then there should be no problem coming here with a concise complaint, diffs that speak for themselves, and a clear remedy to be proposed. This thread was dirty from the start and the optics of this proposal are just terrible. If you have a proposal to make that you want considered, make it. But opening with a presumption of guilt and telling us to decide between "do something" or "ignore the problem" is so incredibly wrong. That's not how it works. "No action" is the default. AGF is the default. The only real way forward that I can envision starts with this horrible thread being put out of its misery. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

We do not have a policy that says it's OK to accuse other editors of creating hoaxes, just because one either doesn't like the topic, or doesn't like other editors writing in 'your' space. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

we have policy against the latter wp:own Mfernflower (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I provided an updated edit summary for the redirect. QuackGuru (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm and Cloudjpk: I get that you disagree that the evidence of years of disruptive editing, tendentious editing, refusing to accept consensus, failing to understand the concept of paraphrasing, etc. presented above is evidence of any of that. However there is a clear consensus of other editors that it is a problem and that something needs to be done. That part of the discussion is over, the consensus of the community is that there is a problem that needs dealing with, whether you agree or disagree with that is not relevant. The only thing needed now is consensus on what action should be taken to deal with the problem. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

What? Just what? These words you have written have nothing to do with what I said. Either you didn't even read my comment, and you're just dismissing me as "disagreeing with the evidence", or this is yet another deceptive and misleading tactic meant to facilitate your desired outcome. Again, you're WP:INVOLVED in this discussion, so claiming that you are facilitating a consensus is not only technically not allowed, but abusive. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I'm involved with this - I'm involved and trying to facilitate a consensus because that benefits everybody - whether that consensus is for my favoured outcome or not. I'm not being deceptive, I'm not being misleading, I'm summarising the blatantly obvious: There is a consensus that something needs to be done, there is no consensus on what needs to be done. I have read everything in this thread multiple times and I honestly do not see how anyone can have done so and fail to see evidence of a problem. If you genuinely do think this is a harassment campaign against QG, you or anyone else then please feel free to take it to arbcom (given that we're already at ANI). Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I think Swarm (talk · contribs) is onto something in that the accusation here is sort of broad and nebulous, encompassing content disputes as well as conduct disputes and personality quirks/abrasive behavior. That is probably why none of the proposed sanctions were successful, because each failed to address all of the concerns that people had and were not tailored enough to be reliably enforced without actually causing future problems. I wonder if it might be a good idea for QuackGuru's critics to just take a step back from editing the same articles as him for a while. Not an interaction ban, but just a (voluntary) step back to allow the tension to ease and to make it easier to work together. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Awful idea - as per WP:OWN - he also flagrantly violated copyright law in one of his articles. Mfernflower (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I generally don't edit the same articles as QG anyway, my concerns about his behavior stem from the reports on boards like this. Someone having so many problems in so many disparate areas that simple proposals can't emcompass all of them indicates a greater need for action not a need for those affected to step back. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

His aggressive ownership of articles is what bothers me most Mfernflower (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

These are all fair points. As a compromise, what if the affected editors all agreed to step back from these articles temporarily for a few weeks, and QG is admonished to review WP:OWN and discuss future failed-verification tags either in the edit summary or the talk page so that others can understand his perspective and debate the rationale behind the tag? This won't fix all of the issues but it would reduce the surface area for future arguments. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, because that's not in any sense a compromise. Driving away other editors is the result QG wants to achieve. He wants to be allowed to make all his articles identical to the userspace drafts he maintains for each one. Other editors prevent him from doing that. So if we agreed the affected editors all stepped back, then far from "compromising", what we're actually doing is rewarding QG for the problem behaviours.

I've noticed that @Swarm: thinks there isn't any evidence to document that QG has any problem behaviours. So let's enumerate some of them. Searching AN/I's archives about him yields these 277 results. I present his block log, and draw your attention to the number of times the words "disruptive" and "harassment" are mentioned in it. Searching Arbcom's enforcement logs yields these 19 results, of which to be fair "only" 16 are actually about him. I could go on and on.

In fact, I think I will. He was asked to desist from tendentious editing in 2008. He was topic banned from pseudoscience and chiropractic for a period of one year on 24 July 2011. He was restricted to 0RR in the acupuncture topic area and 1RR in alternative medicine topic area on 24 May 2015. This was escalated to a topic ban on 6 October 2015. On 17 November 2015, Arbcom noted that he exhibits "a double-standard for sources", criticised him for "edit-warring" and for making large changes without discussion, among other behaviours, and gave him the warning Thryduulf mentioned at the start of this colossal thread. By the by, I'm sure that the reason why Thryduulf is so clear that QG's behaviour is a problem, is because Thryduulf was an arbitrator the last time all this went down so he's already familiar with a lot of the evidence.—S Marshall T/C 19:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, now this is just getting comical. I'm opposing specifically on the grounds that the complainants are employing inappropriate behavior in this thread, specifically stating "I'm not saying none of the complaints about QG are legitimate, but I refuse to support or even consider any proposals for sanctions that are facilitated by gamey tactics such as deceptive wording, false pretenses, moving goalposts, or outright lies." These are all things that are going on in this thread. And, yet, Thryduulf misrepresents me by claiming I disagree that 'the evidence is evidence', and now you're going even farther in claiming that I think "there isn't any evidence" whatsoever. This is exactly what I'm talking about, you guys are not only misrepresenting me, but you're outright lying to discredit me. And that's exactly the reason I reject the premise of this thread, because you guys are being deceptive, misleading, and manipulative, trying to game your way into your desired end result. The funny thing is, I'm not even defending QG directly, I'm just calling out these bizarre manipulative tactics as I see them. I have never seen people go to such lengths to unfairly manipulate a discussion. Like I said, if QG is half as disruptive as he is alleged to be, then I don't understand why we're seeing these desperate lies, misrepresentations, involved readings of consensus, deceptively-worded proposals, and personal attacks against uninvolved observers. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

If that's your view, why not support the referral to Arbcom? This will give you a platform to complain about mean old S Marshall and his gang's framing, spin and blatant unfairness to our innocent victim QG, and you'll have the satisfaction of seeing them hand down mighty boomerangs of admonishment.—S Marshall T/C 21:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

This proposal itself is part of the problem, as I have literally already explained. If you guys want it to go to Arbcom, then take it to Arbcom, literally nobody's stopping you, and you don't need my or the community's approval to do that. Nor is anyone stopping you from making a new proposal for community consideration. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The proposed "solution" of letting QG run the article without interference from anyone who disagrees with him is so favorable to him that it raises eyebrows TBH. And from a user who doesn't seem to know about the history of the controversy...? 107.77.203.209 (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 I have run into this editor a few times. Their behaviour both in articles and towards me needs action. Per Steel194 and S Marshall. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc reverting my edits to My Sims Agents, adding a copyvio back to the page in the process

Hello! This happened last month but I only noticed this now. Benjaminkirsc undid my complete rewrite of My Sims Agents, citing that the information I added was "unnecessary" and had "possible incorrect grammar". However, when they did this they failed to realize that the whole reason that I rewrote the page is because the version they reverted the page to is a fairly obvious copyvio, which was mostly unsourced, and was literally written like a sales pitch, because it was one. Normally, this would just be something that I would warn a user about, but I realized that they had been reported to ANI once before. I'm honestly not sure how they could miss that they were reverting the page to a version that was literally an advertisement. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on Benjaminkirsc's edit since the last AN/I visit (I was hoping to see improvement), and while they've managed to stop swearing so much in edit summaries, they're still having issues with edit warring and civilly disagreeing with other editors (including a handful of undos with the edit summary "wrong," like Special:Diff/920805947 and Special:Diff/920805947. Their reactions to others on their talk page have some communications issues as well, with very brusque replies and no further engagement. creffett (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

​FYI: the first dif you posted is of an edit by Zacharyalejandro, not Benjaminkirsc. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

TheAwesomeHwyh, oops, I always have trouble getting the right diff ID, it's probably the next diff. Thanks for pointing it out, fixed. creffett (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel that the copyvio is wrong Benjaminkirsc (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

​So... then why did you revert back to it? TheAwesomeHwyh 01:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Because it was a problem Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

​??? What? You reverted to a copyvio... because the copyvio was a problem? TheAwesomeHwyh 22:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposing indef block: I just took a quick look into their edit history and found these summaries showing some serious WP:CIVILITY issues. An where an IP user literally only added the number "90" to the article, which could've easily been a mistake, was reverted with the summary "WHAT WRONG WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". Another, where another IP user added the wrong release date, was reverted with the summary of "YOU ARE WRONG!" Both of those edits were done after this AN/I report was filed yesterday / earlier today (depending on timezone). TheAwesomeHwyh 22:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not related thouogh. Do that somewhere else. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

​I don't think you understand. This page is for all of your behaviors, not just the one mentioned in the section title. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I can undertand what your saying but, this is talking about My Sims Agents. If you want talk about that, please let me know in my talk page. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

​No, as I've already said this page is for everything related to your edits. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc, you're missing the point. Having your attitude and competence repeatedly discussed on the noticeboards is NOT normal. How many editors are following your edits to make sure you're not going off the rails yet again? If you continue as you are, then sooner or later the community will decide that the value of your contributions is not worth the cost of watching out for, and correcting, your mishaps. Cabayi (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Cabayi et al. Benjaminkirsc, you were warned about your behaviour especially the way you were dealing with vandals and others in edit summaries. You seem to have cut out on your "fuck" and stuff but some of your edit summaries still leave a lot to be desired. The fact that some of the examples highlighted don't seem to be clear cut vandalism is even more reason to be concerned. In this case [36], your edit summary was okay. However as I pointed out your edit seems to be wrong. Two of the most recent sources support Imagine Publishing as the publisher, so does the image of the cover in the article. If you are going around yelling at people for being wrong, there's a good chance you are eventually, if you haven't already, going to yell at someone when you were the one who is wrong. Think about that for a minute. Note when I reverted you, I did not see the need to say "WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU, THE 2014 SOURCE CLEARLY SAYS IMAGINE PUBLISHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". It does not help you or anyone else. Not really the place for this but since I brought it up here, it seems Future plc acquired Imagine in October 2016. So the current digital only edition is I assume published by Future plc although it may also be published by Imagine depending on whether they maintained that as a subbrand which I don't know. This was after the print edition ended in April 2016, which suggests the print one was published by Imagine to the end, which is supported by the source suggesting to buy it from the Imagine store. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Good thing I didn't yell or curse there. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Well you're still missing the point. You also still haven't explained why you reverted to a copyvio, so.... Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Resorting to the maximum right from the get-go might be a bit much...Buffs (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

TheAwesomeHwyh, your report begs the question, why didn't you tag the copyvio with {{copyvio-revdel}} to clear it out of the article's history? Why haven't you still? Cabayi (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Cabayi I don't know, actually, sorry. I've done it now. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks TheAwesomeHwyh. Cabayi (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Support indefinite block or community ban. The editor does not appear to understand they should not revert to copyvios and has shown little ability to understand the feedback they've been offered. Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Very weak support for CIR block - it's pretty clear that this editor just isn't getting it, if you look at their talk page, responses here, and responses in the previous ANI thread. I'm reluctant to block here, but I'm not sure what other options are on the table when they just don't seem to understand why their actions are inappropriate, and I suspect that if nothing is done we'll be back here in another month or two. I'm kind of perplexed by this editor's actions, to be honest - usually in these kinds of cases it's not listening, but my read here is more "not understanding" than "deliberately ignoring." creffett (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a block of a few months to give the editor some time to mature? WMSR (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Support indef block. It seems like his MO is to do something bad and then refuse to understand the negative feedback. If you look at his talk page it is filled with final warnings for the same conduct going back several months, and his responses have been mostly glib one word answers or one-liners. There's no sign that he is really getting better. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Support indefinite block. I've sorta been keeping an eye on him for a while and have greatly noticed his refusal to work with others and deciding to ignore site policy. Him yelling at other users through edit summaries (and the occasional cussing) don't help his case either. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 16:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support a REASONABLE-length block Near as I can tell, he's never been blocked before An indef block is a significant first block that isn't generally supported by precedent. Anything from up to a week is fine by me; otherwise, oppose. Buffs (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't realize that he hasn't been blocked before. I can see your point about him not getting a block before, and frankly I'm surprised since I've seen people get in trouble for less severe misconduct and IDHT issues in the past. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I suspect we're dealing with a lack of competence due to youth. A block for a couple years wouldn't be necessarily a bad thing. WP has plenty of editors who were a pain in the ass but after maturing for a few years they became very productive editors. Blackmane (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Support reasonable block. I agree with Buffs, a permanent ban is a bit over the top. I've had limited dealings with Benjaminkirsc, so take my opinion for what it's worth. When he removed some info about a mobile port from a video game article (Special:Diff/918276204), I reverted and said he needed to use the talk page to explain his deletion (Special:Diff/918278677). Which he did. I explained his reasoning from flawed, and that was pretty much the end of it. So he is certainly capable of listening to others and taking advice. And I have no reason to believe he's malicious in any way. However, I'm inclined to agree with Blackmane, I do get the impression that he's very young, so a block of a few months/years might not be a bad idea. Bertaut (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy: this is the talk page discussion Bertaut is talking about. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Saqiwa and original research on Fijian chieftain lineages

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

---

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

Saqiwa is an editor that flew under the radar for a few years, all of his contributions are about the geneology of Fijian chieftains, but it's only recently that someone started to notice that these edits consisted of unsourced original research, original research sourced to drawings of geneology trees (which fail verification), and "sourced" edits that fail verification.

Reliable sourcing has been explained to him several times, here by Marchjuly, here at the Teahouse, and here by me.

Verifying his contributions is very time consuming as the information is disjointed and because he does cite some sources, it just fails verification.

Some examples:

• [37][38] DrKay reverting his addition to Nakorotubu District as it all failed verification.
• The outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monarchy of Fiji was "Keep, but delete everything Saqiwa has added".
• [39] Failed verification
• [40] Failed verification
• [41] Use of an unreliable thesis, explained multiple times, reinserted multiple times. The same thesis failed verification for the statement it was used for in this next edit:
• [42] Adding large disjointed sections about geneology and intermarriage to the article Roko Malani, but it does not actually start with the article's subject Roko Malani (1754–1833) but instead a namesake who was alive in 1879. Among sources are scanned geneology trees that don't even mention the subjects.

Source check for the above

• Source does not mention any of the claims it's attached to in "The two brother's great grandfather, Ratu Meli Salabogi (1) declared Nakorotubu as an independent state in 1860 to protest of Ratu Seru Cakobau declaring himself as a self-styled Tui Viti during the Deed of Cession negotiation with Great Britain"
• The 1959 installation of Ratu Sir George Cakobau by Ratu Meli Salabogi (3)'s son Ratu Kuliniyasi Roko Malani (2) proceeded without any problems or disputes is sourced to an an image of some people sitting in a circle
• Page 243 does not verify any of "The care and benefits from the coconut plantation of the Lau Provincial Council and the Vuanirewa clan in Lakeba resulted in the diplomatic shift of Fiji's traditional and political order, as Nakorotubu ensured a smooth and favorable leadership seat for Niumataiwalu's lineage in Bau and Lau post-World War 2 and post-1970 independence during Ratu Sir George Cakobau and Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara leadership time."
• Multiple family relations "sourced" to this document, but it does not seem to actually verify the statements it's attached to.
• Unsourced BLP statements about the police & military intervening with someone in 2018. Note, this is in an article about someone who died in 1833.

• [43]. Not in the cited source, the other source is from 1862 and is therefore unlikely to include comments on the marriage of someone born in 1879.
• 10 October 2019, giving two sources, one of which doesn't mention the subject and another that a) mentions a namesake in passing but not the subject and b) is an unreliable opinion piece.
• 13 October 2019, part failed verification, part improper use of primary sources whose existence can't be verified

Source check for the above

1. Roko Malani (2) - (1820-1890) of Lau. Younger brother of Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba (1), the Tui Nayau and grand nephew of Roko Malani (1). He named a newly birthed Ra chief as Ratu Kuliniyasi Roko Malani (1879-1933) during his stop over visit to puakaloa vasu maternal relatives at Nabukadra village in 1879 before attending a Methodist church conference in Vuda.

2. Roko Malani (1879-1933) of Ra. Ratu Kuliniyasi Roko Malani, former Sergeant of the Fiji Armed Constabulary Force in Levuka and late Buli Kavula, son of Ratu Amenatave Dewalarua and Seleima Veinoyaki and grandson of Ra chief, Ratu Meli Salabogi mentioned in the W.J. Smythe Cession Preliminary Report of 1862. Married Adi Asinate Senirewa from the Vuanirewa clan, the daughter of Roko Vilisoni Tuiketei (younger brother of Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba (1) and Roko Malani (2) who named Roko Malani from Ra during birth in 1879). They had two issues, Ratu Meli Salabogi MBE, JP (1911-1989) and Ratu Wilisoni Tuiketei Malani OBE, JP, OSTJ (1920-2005).

3. Roko Malani (1937-2013) of Ra. Ratu Kuliniyasi Roko Malani (2), the elder brother of Adi Laufitu Malani and son of Ratu Meli Salabogi MBE, JP (1911-1989). He traditionally endorsed and spent a night at Vatanitawake in Bau during the Vunivalu of Bau installation in 1959.

References

Saqiwa's comments:

• [44] "What I am concerned about is how other wikipedia editors are selective and inconsistent in applying the wikipedia rules to my articles. For the last 4 years, all my articles were not considered important, however recently there seems to have been a sudden increase to the scrutiny of my contributions, specifically when certain information/documents that were considered confidential and question certain status quo have been shared. I have now reached a stage of keeping a personal copy of my contributions in order to compare that with the reasons that a editor will use to delete or amend my articles to prove that there are ulterior motives of amending my articles through the wikipedia rules. Before, wikipedia editors would be very friendly and encouraging by guiding and amending my articles whereas, now, the only thing that I am receiving are threats of being blocked from wikipedia, which makes my conspiracy thoery more relevant."
• [45] "can this be part of an organised watch group to suppress Fijian historical facts? [...] There is definitely something more than this, perhaps the sensitivity of the Fijian historical facts exposed?"
• [46] "This sudden increase in scrutiny [of my edits] happened lately in the last few months when confidential information about Fiji's history were shared"
• [47] "the recent micromanaging and scrutiny to my contributions seems to have started from the recent exposure of suppressed Fiji's history that are well documented but suppressed for reasons well known."

– Thjarkur (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thjarkur This is really an abuse of power in editing privilege. There is really evidence of selective editing in keeping similar sourced materials in Roko Malani compared to my articles including the Roko Malani article 1879-1933. Wikipedia should be aware that this is happening and the reputation of wikipedia is at stake.Saqiwa (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Support indefinite block or topic ban. The diffs and quotes provided above by Þjarkur clearly show that Saqiwa is determined to keep adding fringe original research to wikipedia. He has just once again misrepresented a source in this edit. The source he provided did not support the material he added, and he removed the material that opposed his view and that was reliably sourced. There have been numerous warnings and explanations at User talk:Saqiwa and they've just not worked. A block is now the only way to prevent further disruption. DrKay (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether WP:INDEF would be warranted at this time, but Saqiwa's tendency to perceive those who disagree with their edits are part of some WP:CONSPIRACY (both on Wikipedia and out in the real world) designed to prevent the "truth" about Fiji from being added to Wikipedia is becoming a bit of a time drain. I do think Saqiwa is sincere and means well, but at the same time all editors are expected to work within the constraints of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and try our best to ensure that articles are kept in accordance with these policies and guidelines as much as possible. There may indeed be problems with how the subjects Saqiwa is interested in are being covered in reliable sources, but I've tried to explain to them that it's not Wikipedia role to set the record straight and fix things.
  Assuming from the beginning that other editors just have to be WP:NOTHERE because they are challenging edits and by making comments to that extent at places like the Teahouse (e.g. Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1015#Follow-up to Editors are editing and removing my articles and demanding quotations of sources when they are already quoted.) and in edit summaries (e.g. this and this), immediately starts to move things into WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:USTHEM territory which only makes discussing them that much harder. Then, there's also a tendency to not follow WP:BRD when edits are challenged (e.g. here) which is quickly leading to WP:EW and WP:3RR problems. I've tried to encourage Saqiwa to follow WP:DR and resolve these content disputes through article talk page discussion and thought I was having some success; however, they seem to reverting back to a more brute force approach to try and force their edits through once again. I've got no idea why articles Saqiwa has been editing for some time are suddenly attracting attention (I only saw the Teahouse question and then tried to figure out what was going on), but questionable content is not just simply kept because it's been there for awhile; if someone comes along and challenges it, even after years of going unnoticed, then the best way forward is generally to try to sort things out is through article talk page discussion. I think Saqiwa needs to realize this because continuing on as before is not going to be to anyone's benefit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• He continues to point to unreliable opinion pieces that don't verify any of his claims. All of this has been pointed out to him here, but he refuses to listen. He has again rewritten and added sources to this draft, but the sources don't verify his claims (he points to a source from 1918 for someone born in 1937). I have actually not found a single statement in his contributions that has turned out to be mentioned in the sources he cites. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - I think that there's a real risk with editors who do stuff like this. While it is easy for anti vandalism patrollers and other editors to catch when completely unsourced and false information is added to an article, it is much harder to catch when faked sources are used, especially if the information presented is not outlandish to the naked eye. A patroller would have to step through each source and carefully read it, which could allow a user like this to slip in inaccurate/false information and have it go unchallenged for a long time. 107.77.203.73 (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

As Saqiwa is now edit-warring to insist that someone who died in 1833 is the father of someone born in 1920 because the lineage is apparently supernatural[48], I feel that this section has been archived prematurely, and have consequently restored it. DrKay (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the Fijians had cryogenic sperm banks? EEng 06:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

EEng (talk · contribs) You think Fiji had cryogenic sperm banks in the early 1920s?? I'm not sure that's 100% plausible but in any case if that was the case then surely he would be able to come up with a source for that haha ;) 38.142.216.106 (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

1830s, actually. EEng 00:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

EEng (talk · contribs) - maybe you are right lmao. At the very least, we can't rule it out. I'd love to see the reliable sources Saqiwa will use to support this claim though. I think they will be quite fascinating. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• A topic ban is basically going to be, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of an indefinite block in this case. Saqiwa has been pretty much an WP:SPA editing only Fiji related articles since they created their account, and it seems very unlikely that they will simply switch to another subject matter and stay away from Fiji articles; so, there's no point in a topic ban since my guess is that it would not be effective. The edit warring with multiple editors at Nakorotubu District over a disagreement on what a source says (or doesn't say) and some of the comments being made on the article's talk page seem to indicate a problem that goes beyond one particular article. The constant WP:ASPERSIONs that others have some kind of ulterior motive in challenging their edits is starting to cause things to heat up unnecessarily and is making it harder to try and have any productive discussion. Perhaps an administrator warning or maybe even a short cool-down block might be warranted to give them a chance to try and reflect. If things don't improve after that, then a much stronger response might be warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support any sanctions. His block log is clean so I guess we could try a time-limited block. But I doubt there is anything we can do to turn him into an effective contributor. Haukur (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban or a block at this point. Someone who is willing to edit war to include obviously false and frankly preposterous information in the articles is probably never going to be a good editor. The fact that he has already graduated to advanced disruption (using faked sources to make it hard for editors to catch his bad edits) is already worrying. I think if the community agreed to something less than an indef topic ban then we will be here again as soon as it expires (and probably before it expires TBH). 38.142.216.106 (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Consistent Original research additions by Deathlibrarian

First addition of the OR was observed here[49], the edit stated "30 mile safezone on the Turkish border. This is the majority of the areas where the Kurdish population lives," without a citation. I've added a ((cn)) tag [50]. User took it out adding a citation with a new statement [51] "30 mile safe-zone on the Turkish border. 2.2 million Kurds live in the proposed safe zone" I checked the citation and it said 2.2 million people live, Kurdish and not, not in the 30mile area but the entire Rojava area. I feel this was done deliberately. Also, the article Second Battle of Ras al-Ayn (2019) which was created and mostly written by the user has over a dozen missing citations in it, yet even after me adding ((cn)) templates user continued to add incorrect information. I feel the addition of OR will continue without an intervention and I cannot keep checking all of users edits to detect the original research and felt the urge to make a notification here. KasimMejia (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

This is content dispute. Please follow WP:Dispute resolution. According to BBC [52], When the Turkish offensive began, the UN said the potentially affected area included SDF-controlled territory that was home to 2.2 million people.... My very best wishes (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I know it said, yet the user wrote it as 2.2 million Kurds lived in the 30mile safe zone. Where as the article states 2.2 million people (Kurdish and Arab) lived in the entire SDF held zone (about 6 times the safe zone). The article is full of other failed verifications too and user cannot keep writing unsourced information like this. KasimMejia (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The reason I opened this incident is because user even after being told of adding original research continued to add original research. I believe if I don't notify the administrators about this the user will keep adding original research and I can't stop him with discussion. KasimMejia (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Possibly you could have discussed your concerns with them a bit more? I cant see anything on the talkpage of the article except a debate about terminology...You templated them with an OR template on their talkpage 10 minutes before opening this ANI, after tagging it citation needed what..an hour or so before that? You tagged one section of the article with citation needed tags, proposed the article for deletion, then sent it to AFD, all in one day, yesterday. You appear only to have been editing yourself for about a month or so..perhaps slow down a bit before dragging other editors to ANI? Curdle (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  HI everyone - as far as I can interpret that article, the 2.2 million refers to the kurds living in the safe zone(ie the "potentially affected area"), not the whole of Rojava. The BBC article says "the UN said the potentially affected area included SDF-controlled territory that was home to 2.2 million people". The population of the whole of Rojava is not 2.2 million, its in fact 3.5 - 4 million. Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

"population of the whole of Rojava is not 2.2 million, its in fact 3.5 - 4 million." According to who? This is yet again an original research even at the noticeboard, the article Rojava says the whole of Rojava population is 2 million. Including Arabs and Kurds. I also don't understand how you interpret the source saying affected area included SDF-controlled territory that was home to "2.2 million people" as "2.2 million Kurds live" in the area. When there is no mention to the word Kurdish at all. The article you have written still has alot of original research in it too. KasimMejia (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

And there is still nothing on the talkpage of the article, which is where this discussion should be taking place. Curdle (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes you already said that, and I told you user continued despite discussion. KasimMejia (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Population is 4 million, according to the official Rojava cite and NY Times say 4.6 million Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Good! I hope you add it to the articles from now on too. Without giving a citation there is no basis on where the information is coming from. And also, you changed a statement saying 2.2 million people live in the safe zone to 2.2 million Kurds live in the safe zone. How do you know they are all Kurds when the source doesn't say so? KasimMejia (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

And that's a discussion to have on the article talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Personal Attacks and Legal Threats at the Daily Caller

Page: The Daily Caller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An IP editor who identifies himself as Charles Glasser, who is a media lawyer and journalist, posted that he was asked by The Daily Caller "to help sort out some factual inaccuracies and biased material" in their article. This provoked discussion about conflict of interest and I and other editors advised Charles Glasser to follow the procedures outlined at Conflict of interest, to which he agreed. Subsequently Levivich has made a number of comments on the talk which that could be considered personal attacks and legal threats.

• CharlesGlasserEsq, you wrote "I'm here as a media adviser and ethicist. Nothing more, OK?" No, that's probably not OK. (01:54, 20 October 2019)[53]
• If he IS acting as an attorney and is failing to disclose it, he could be disbarred under 4.3" is exactly what I'm getting at....What kind of an ethicist plays around with Rule 4.3? (18:08, 20 October 2019)[54]

I told Levivich that they were "entering the territory of personal attacks as well as legal threats" and that their concerns should be taken to COI or ANI,[55] to which they replied, "I don't understand where you see a personal attack or legal threat in anything written here by anybody."[56]

Could someone please explain to Levivich why their postings are inappropriate and some action could be taken against them if they continue?

TFD (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oh for crying out loud. Probably Levivich should skip the disbarment talk (though an attorney needs no shielding from being chilled by that — assuming he’s doing nothing wrong) but otherwise this is a lot of fuss about nothing. EEng 19:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  I think Levivich's behavior on that page is hostile and not helpful, and the kind of thing which gives Wikipedia a bad name. Paul August ☎ 19:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  Paul August, I'll second that! Buffs (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• I still don’t understand how the quoted sections constitute personal attacks or legal threats. I quoted another editor’s mention of disbarment, and agreed with it, not as a legal threat, but as a reason why an attorney wouldn’t be coy about their relationship with a client. I have no intention of continuing with that thread, beyond my pings to two attorney admins to get second and third opinions. – Levivich 19:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  This is not appropriate at all. You interrogated a fellow editor about their motives for contributing to Wikipedia, while threatening them with their own professional code of conduct. And when Glasser complained that this was hostile, you didn't stop – you continued the line of questioning and brought up disbarrment. What part of this could possibly be considered okay? – bradv🍁 20:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  I didn’t bring it up, that was another editor. I still don’t read that editor’s comment or my own as threatening anyone with anything, but I’ve stricken it per Barkeep’s comment below. – Levivich 20:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  That's a load of garbage. You DID bring it up: "Remember Rule 4.3; you are communicating with unrepresented parties here." Blaming me for telling people what 4.3 covers is disingenuous at best. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Nope, Brad said that I "brought up disbarment", and I replied that I didn't bring up disbarment (that was you, Buffs). I did bring up Rule 4.3, but not disbarment or any other sanction. – Levivich 18:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I think it's important Levivich to think about why WP:NLT exists. It exists because it inhibits free editing, in this case Glasser's right to request edits, it creates bad feelings and lack of trust, which given our current location I would suggest has occurred, and because it might damage the person making the threat's reputation. As I'm sure you don't want that last one I would encourage you to consider striking the parts that refer to Section 4.3 of the New York State code of Professional Conduct and to refer to the answer that Glasser has given on Talk:Daily Caller, WP:AN, and User talk:CharlesGlasserEsq about his role. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  Ok, stricken. – Levivich 20:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just a note that CharlesGlasserEsq says they were the IP, and we have confirmation that CharlesGlasserEsq is indeed Charles Glasser and so no need to talk around the fact that the IP is Glasser. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Timeline:
  • 20:17, October 16, 2019 BullRangifer asks for clarification on Glasser's relationship with the subject of the article
  • 20:32, October 16, 2019 Glasser confirms he is not working in a legal capacity
  • 01:54, October 20, 2019 Levivich asks again, referencing the professional code of conduct
  • 14:30, October 20, 2019 Glasser replies again, while complaining "that sounds awfully hostile"
  • 15:35, October 20, 2019 Levivich asks again, again referencing the code of conduct
  • 17:20, October 20, 2019 Buffs states that he believe Glasser is not doing anything wrong
  • 18:08, October 20, 2019 Levivich disagrees, saying he doesn't believe Glasser's explanation, and mentions disbarrment
  • 18:33, October 20, 2019 After being warned, Levivich pings two lawyers to the conversation for a second opinion on his concerns

I can't see how CharlesGlasser's experience at Wikipedia so far has been at all positive, and Levivich has broken several policies in their interactions with them. Simply striking the offending comments is not sufficient here — this is borderline harassment and it needs to be addressed. – bradv🍁 20:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Ya hit the nail on the head there! Perfect summary! Buffs (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Disagree that anything Levivich has said constitutes a legal threat - my read is that it's just been discussion on appropriateness of CharlesGlasserEsq's actions so far. I would only consider it to cross the NLT line if he directly called it a violation and/or threatened to take it to the Bar Association. I concur that Levivich's behavior has been on the hostile side, maybe not to the point of a PA, but it does need to be toned down. With that all said, I've kept a bit of a watch on this discussion, and I think Levivich's concerns are reasonable. The situation is just a little too ambiguous for me, CGEsq's statements have read to me more as saying "just because I'm a lawyer doesn't mean I'm acting as counsel" rather than "I am not acting as counsel," if that makes sense. (Edited: clarify some parts, striking comment about bar rules, I wasn't aware that the two pinged editors were attorneys, that's getting too close to the line for me) creffett (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I see no valid reason for raising the bar rules other than to imply a legal threat. bd2412 T 20:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    • BD2412, struck for different reasons, but I don't think raising the bar rules (heh, "raising the bar") is a legal threat so much as a rather assuming-bad-faith comment. creffett (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
      • See Hijiri88's comments below, but, yes, demanding an answer and reminding someone about the rule that could result in disbarment as part of your demand is indeed a legal threat, threatening someone's job, and implying malfeasance when there is no evidence of such. This level of hostility needs a response. IMHO, a 1 minute block would suffice. Buffs (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
        • We don't do 1 minute blocks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• How is it not a legal threat? I'm sorry, but pointing out that if User X is an attorney doing Y they could be disbarred is a pretty clear statement that "I think User X is an attorney doing Y, and should be disbarred" (and by implication "I think User X is an attorney doing Y, and if I find proof I will have them disbarred"). Implying that a professional attorney needs no shielding from a chilling effect and therefore NLT should be relaxed in such cases, or that someone who is doing nothing wrong has no reason to be intimidated by such threats and therefore the only people who are intimidated are doing something wrong and "deserve it", is a pretty blatant violation of both the spirit and the letter of our NLT policy. Levivich's evasiveness regarding the issue (claiming that hequoted another editor’s mention of disbarment, and agreed with it) is completely out of line: Buffs didn't say the same think Levivich did. Given this, I think it would be appropriate if Levivich were given one chance to acknowledge that what he did was a policy violation, and if he fails to do so he should be blocked. (Small disclosure: I stopped editing for most of 2014 because of an explicit legal threat in an email from a now thankfully sitebanned editor, who had been using cutesy quasi-LT language on-wiki for several weeks and not blocked for it. I have had a very low tolerance for NLT violations, including "borderline" ones that in my experience are usually just the polite public "preludes" to serious threats and stalking, ever since.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  Hijiri88 I'm definitely sympathetic to that perspective. I think user:Levivich was operating in good faith on a perceived WP:COI but I do think that sometimes people here, especially longtime editors, get so comfortable with the sharp elbows and aggressive styles of communicating that are common on some of the more fractious areas that they overlook how this looks to a new user or an inexperienced user. The edits in question tiptoe right up to the line of a legal threat, even if there's disagreement about whether or not they cross that line, and they should be walked back since this is the kind of thing that pushes people away from editing constructively. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich is not a "longtime editor", though. He started editing about a year ago, and has spent most of the subsequent time hanging out on ANI. I know because a few months back he was part of a cadre of editors who decided to make life difficult for me, all of them new editors who clearly didn't know what they were talking about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  Yup. Grandpallama (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Levivich has stricken the offending comments and hopefully understands why they were problematic. Time to move along. Lepricavark (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• @QEDK: I've reverted your non-admin closure as premature. Levivich has been denying any wrongdoing, showing a continued failure to understand the policy, and even made a bogus accusation against another editor in an apparent attempt to draw attention away from himself. Striking these particular violations while effectively promising that the same will happen again is not good enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Hijiri88, I'm not closing this but FWIW I think it should be and if you hadn't posted that you reverted such a close I would have done that myself. Levivich has struck the comments which to me addresses the concerns presented. Should further such actions arise well that would be a different discussion but given the facts at play here I don't see what benefit drawing this thread out serves. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Gonna side with Hijiri88 here. The isn't done and, no, he hasn't admitted wrongdoing. Buffs (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  The question always in these kinds of situations is what kind of wrongdoing needs to be admitted, and in what way, for us to move-on. I would agree that a cleaner admission from Levivich would be helpful, but I also don't think it necessary in order for the issues brought up here to be considered resolved. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'll repeat my remarks from the talk page: It sounds very much to me like he is a licensed attorney, but in this capacity, he is just someone who has been hired by the subject for a position unrelated to his position on the bar. I don't think his motives are in question here. He is following WP:COI to the letter and spirit. Not sure what else you want from him. If he IS acting as an attorney and is failing to disclose it, he could be disbarred under 4.3 [referencing Levivich's other remarks]...I see no reason to doubt him at his word that he says he isn't working in a legal capacity for this client; despite Levivich's demands, he doesn't need to elaborate further.

WP:COI is a misunderstood document. It doesn't mean you cannot contribute. It means that you openly state that you indeed have a conflict of interest and your edits will get more scrutiny. That doesn't mean you can't contribute. Buffs (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• If I tell an editor they've crossed WP:3RR and ask them to revert, I don't see that as a threat to take them to WP:ANEW. If I post a vandalism warning on an editor's talk page, that's not a threat to take them to WP:AIV. If I ask an editor to strike a comment that I think was uncivil, that's not a threat to take them to ANI. Similarly, I did not intend any threat when I reminded an attorney about what I saw as their obligations under Rule 4.3. In my mind, reminding someone about a rule is not the same thing as threatening to take any kind of enforcement action. And–seriously–the notion that I would file a bar complaint against someone because of something they posted on-wiki is insane. Insane. Regardless of what my intentions were, mentioning Rule 4.3 was superfluous–I could have and should have made my point without it–and it's now obvious that some editors interpret a mention of a real-world ethics rule or law as an implicit threat to take enforcement action (as Barkeep pointed out to me above), and for that reason, I struck my comments and I will avoid mentioning people's obligations under real-world rules and laws in the future. – Levivich 18:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Karldmartini

Based upon the clear consensus at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Karldmartini, I believe that Karldmartini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be topic banned from adding product images that he has created to any Wikipedia article, but at the same time allowed to suggest on article talk pages that the images be added. I can repeat what was said at COIN here if required, but I think it is easier to simply read it there. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support proposed topic ban. In what way does for example an animated gif with a rotating random suitcase, a rotating random shoe, such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (and they're far from the only animated shoe gifs that they have uploaded and added to articles), or a rotating random vibrator (added to Vibrator (sex toy)) improve the encyclopaedia? Or an animated gif of a rotating oven ready chicken that has been added to articles on multiple language versions of Wikipedia, including en-WP... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thomas.W - Honestly, those gifs are kind of cool. I don't know if they necessarily belong on Wikipedia though but I thought they were pretty neat. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Being "cool" and "neat" doesn't automatically make things suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No arguments here. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Karldmartini just responded at COIN, so we may want to see how that discussion turns out before doing anything here. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon (talk · contribs) - I don't know if you had a chance to see this on the WP:COIN page, but it looks like he thinks that you withdrew the initial offer that you made about the restriction on adding images directly to articles, but if you're OK with reinstating that offer and he is going to abide by it then this thread might end up being resolved in the near future. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It has been 12 hours since I asked for a clarification.[57] I figure we should give him at least 48 before assuming that he isn't going to respond. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

TurokSwe is continuing on with the same behaviour on Alien, Predator and AvP pages

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

---

The TurokSwe (talk · contribs) has been continuing his contested behaviour on Alien vs Predator related pages. This is the third time he has been taken to ANI, the first time in the beginning of this year it was decided he would be indefinetly blocked if they edit warred again, which they did, the second time it was decided he would be topic banned for a couple of months. Now that that topic ban is over, he has started again to do as he used to. For one he has already edit warred on Template:Alien (franchise) until I just gave up, then he created the page Timeline of the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator universe, which was put up for AFD for being fancruft, non-notable, reliant on primary sources and filled with copyright violations, it was speedy deleted for the copyright problem, after which he created it again, just much shorter this time. During this AFD he display the exact same problems which got him topic banned before, like stonewalling and refusing to understand what others are talking about. During one especially egregious moment he stated that he doesn't even know why exactly he was topic banned, this leads me to belive that he will not be able to better himself and should be indefinetly topic banned.★Trekker (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please explain what exactly I have done that you have an issue with. The edits you're referring to on the Alien template page were being discussed and you never responded, that's not my fault. The Timeline of the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator universe article was recreated without the apparent copyrighted material and I don't see what the problem is supposed to be. You've been consistently using ad hominem arguments against me where you've been reminding me of my previous issues from earlier this year and trash talked me while refusing to take part in a civilized and reasonable discussion on either of the two pages in question. Noting that maybe the reason I'm not fully aware of why exactly I was topic banned in the first place is because (1) the original reasoning was unclear and confusing and perceived as unreasonable and (2) I can't accurately recall the events from that time. - TurokSwe (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Excusing your conduct on the basis of you not understanding is getting very old, very quickly. Just as soon as your topic ban expired, you snapped back into it and started reverting everything back to how it was before your ban, to include: "The film series was crossed-over with the Predator films with the releases of Alien vs. Predator (2004) and its sequel Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007). The Alien vs. Predator franchise serves as a sequel to the Predator series and as a prequel to the Alien series", regardless of what said page may entail. No reliable sources have supported your fan theory. The timeline page was and continues to be a mess of incongruity, fancruft and original research that incorrectly merges three continuities that ignore and contradict one another-- you recreated that before the AfD could even be closed. It's not ad hominen of ★Trekker to bring up that you're doing exactly what got you topic banned earlier this year, as you're absolutely continuing it - even if you phrase it like those days are long behind you. Just like immediately editing the pages back to present your perspective that Alien, Predator and AvP are synonymous, immediately recreating a page subject to an AfD showed a lack of faith in your fellow editors. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 04:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't help if I fail to understand what I've supposedly done wrong (if indeed I've actually done anything wrong at all). I don't know what you mean when you say that I started to revert "everything" back to how it was before I was blocked and that comes across as brutally incorrect and I can't remember having reverted anything. I've only been concerned about fixing and improving these articles. I also don't know where your quote is taken from or what is supposed to be the problem with it. What "fan theory" are you even referring to? I haven't proposed any fan theories. You keep making the claim that the timeline page supposedly consists of three different timelines and is filled with considerable contradictions and yet you refuse to support these claims with any evidence or explanation, whereas the evidence for a single shared timeline are abundant and evident to anyone and reliable sources have been provided in the article but are continually overlooked or downplayed. I don't understand why AfD had to be closed before recreating the page and I have not been made aware of any such rule, nor do I understand how this supposedly demonstrated "a lack of faith" in my fellow editors or what that is even supposed to mean. Trekker indeed makes herself guilty of ad hominem arguments when she resorts to insisting that I'm the problem and there's always something wrong with me (without explanation) instead of discussing the topic at hand in a civilized and reasonable manner. The perspective that Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator are interconnected franchises which for all intents and purposes takes place in the same fictional universe is but a simple objective observation and an unavoidable logical deduction judging from all the available media and perspectives of Fox representatives, but again, I'm realizing there seems to be an evident anti-AVP-bias in operation here (which tends to be a big issue for some fans who hold a strange preference towards separated universes). - TurokSwe (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

During all of these continued issues with you, dozens of other editors have already explained over and over and over what it is that you're doing wrong. You're pretty much demanding that we explain it in a way that you agree with, which is beyond impossible because you will never accept or even consider the possibility that you have done anything wrong, so by default you will never be happy with a single reply we make, so all your comments are pretty much a waste of time and space for everyone involved. No one could possible reply to you in a way that you would accept, you'd just keep on insising that all the editors and admins who have agreed that you are at fault are wrong, which is a very Wikipedia:NOTHERE move.★Trekker (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I've only noticed about one or two individuals voicing complaints about me yet none have been able to adequately and clearly communicate what the problem is actually supposed to be. You can keep insisting and implying that I'm "just wrong" but as long as you refuse to properly explain why I'm wrong and what the problem actually is you will leave me none the wiser, and this I would consider a great disrespect, and I sure wouldn't think of treating you that way. I don't see why you would opt for such a denigrating and antagonistic approach when you could just have a civilized and reasonable discussion and contribute to a more positive atmosphere and help build people up along with their work. I am more than willing to admit fault, given that I understand what I've supposedly done wrong, and I'm absolutely dumbfounded by the behavior displayed towards me here. It seems to me that Wikipedia:NOTHERE (and I'm not sure what I've supposedly made myself guilty of in regards to this) is much more applicable to what you're doing in this instance, certainly fitting the label of being disruptive in the sense that you're pursuing me and constantly acting towards me based on an antagonistic image you must have of me in your mind, and that attitude can't be very healthy for anybody (both you and me included). - TurokSwe (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"I've only noticed about one or two individuals voicing complaints about me yet none have been able to adequately and clearly communicate what the problem is actually supposed to be." Are you for real? Do you think you ended up being topic banned for fun?★Trekker (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't remember how many people were involved in the ANI earlier this year nor what their stance was or how it all transpired, and I was here referring to the current ANI and the current state of things. I would appreciate it if you would drop the attitude, as I'm sure anybody else would appreciate as well, as it doesn't help anyone here at all. - TurokSwe (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There are clear links to the ANI's above, feel free to refresh your memory. Again, I ask you, why were banned if you think you have done nothign wrong? Are the admins biased against you in your mind?★Trekker (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Glossing over it now, it seems I was banned due to some relatively severe edit warring, but regardless, I don't see how I've made myself guilty of that now in regards to the current ANI. - TurokSwe (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• I was the admin that topic-banned TurokSwe for those six months. I note that, when TurokSwe returned on 4 October and started editing Alien/Predator articles again, pretty much the first thing they did was start edit-warring on the same thing, Template:Alien (franchise), which was part of the reason why they were topic-banned in the first place. I suspect if I'd seen those edits at the time, TurokSwe would now be indefinitely blocked. I further note that they are still posting endless replies of "I don't know what I've done wrong" and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator universe is frankly ridiculous. We can't have these persistent time sinks on editors' time, so something clearly needs to happen here, an indefinite topic ban being the starting point, I think. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I would go along with an indefinite topic ban, this is very much I didn't hear that territory. Fish+Karate 09:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban as described, or preferably an indefinite block as per WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE. --Yamla (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block, since they clearly still don't understand how Wikipedia works, in spite of having had it explained to them umpteen times over the past seven years, both here and on the Swedish WP (where they started their "WP-career", and were blocked multiple times for edit warring and refusing to accept that they had to provide reliable sources for their edits, on articles ranging from movies in the Alien series to cryptozoology...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's more and more obvious from the discussion here that this is a case of WP:CIR, and that an indefinite block is the only way to put an end to their endless waste of other editors' time. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban. It's pretty clear from reading the two archives linked above that this user does not understand why his behavior was problematic and does not really intend to stop. In both of those threads, and in the linked WP:AFD discussion, his approach insist that he does not understand why he/his edits are being criticized and to insist that people have failed to explain things that they have explained repeatedly for at least the past several months. To me, that indicates either a competence issue (he genuinely cannot understand what other editors are saying, which is unworkable for a collaboration-based project) or a tendentious editing issue (he is pretending not to understand so that he doesn't have to change his behavior). Either way, I think it's time to wrap this up in a definitive way since it is draining editor time and editor resources. A time-limited topic ban just means that we will back here again, so an indefinite ban makes sense since, to lift it, he will have to show that he understands and will abide by the rules going forward. 107.77.203.215 (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block, failing that an indefinite topic ban. There are two reasons: first, the persistent edit warring and inability to understand the "D" part of "BRD", and second, their inability/refusal to understand what the problems are. The final straw for me was just above, when they had been asking and asking about what they did wrong, and when they were explicitly pointed to previous discussion they use expressions like "glossing over it now" – they seem to have very little interest in even trying to understand. (That, and the fact that they don't think they have been edit warring this time around, when that was explained in the very first post in this thread.) These issues are not topic related, they are general behavioural patterns – and seeing that TurokSwe was indefinitely blocked for edit warring in 2013, and then unblocked with a ROPE rationale in 2014, it really doesn't seem excessive to block indefinitely at this point. --bonadea contributions talk 14:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block: As Jehochman wrote on 4 January 2019,[58] "I do not think a topic ban will help because the trouble will just move to another media/pop culture topic. If after 5-6 years a user can't understand not to edit war, I don't think we need to offer accommodations. Unless convinced otherwise, I intend to place an indef block. We can't let a small number of difficult editors make editing miserable for the majority of peaceful editors." TurokSwe's claim above that "I've only noticed about one or two individuals voicing complaints about me"[59] is the last straw, making it crystal clear that nothing short of an indef will stop his behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I followed the rules and did not exceed the three revert rule on the Alien template page and my final action was initiating a discussion on the talk page which Trekker responded to at first but eventually left it hanging. What did I do wrong here? - TurokSwe (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You tried to force the exact same things which got you banned in the first place. I did not reply again because speaking to you is like speaking to a wall, it's honestly a waste of time and I was sure that you would end up getting yourself indefinitely banned very soon in the future anyway so it was honestly better to just wait it out.★Trekker (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't "try to force" anything, I was merely insisting upon the edit in question, and I believe I approached it in a relatively reasonable manner by (1) not exceeding the three revert limit and (2) initiating a civilized discussion. I thought my argument on the talk page was relatively reasonable and I can't see how that supposedly came across as "talking to a wall" and I suspect you left the discussion because you had no convincing counterargument. I'm still not sure what I've done that would justify being banned and nobody thus far has properly explained it to me. - TurokSwe (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, of course you think that.★Trekker (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

TurokSwe, "I didn't "try to force" anything, I was merely insisting upon the edit in question" sounds like a self contradiction to me. Secondly, Edit warring is *not* the same as 3RR, and the fact that you still don't appear to understand that after all these years is not a good sign. It is *not* sufficient to merely avoid 3RR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

How is "forcing something" and merely "insisting upon something" supposedly equal acts? Merely insisting upon something is harmless whereas forcing something is damaging. If avoiding 3RR is not sufficient then it ought to be made clear, lest you risk confusing editors. - TurokSwe (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It is clear, very very clear, if you bother to read WP:EW and WP:3RR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

And in case it makes any difference, insisting on your version of an edit and edit warring continually to try to impose it without gaining a consensus in favour is precisely what is meant by trying to force it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

TurokSwe, what part of...

"The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."[60]

...are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'll Support the topic ban to start with, as we've seen TurokSwe continuing to exhibit not the slightest clue about their problematic behaviour in this very discussion, still insisting that nothing has been properly explained to them. If someone can't understand the simple English explanations that have been provided repeatedly, there's only so much repetition other editors should be expected to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban and a block if the editing persists. I was about to mention the WP:CIR contradiction but Boing got there first. MarnetteD|Talk 15:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. According to TurokSwe they did not understand how their editing was problematical prior to the previous ban and they're stating the same now. I see no instructional value in a topic ban. Tiderolls 16:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely. TurokSwe was warned in January 2019 per this ANI thread, where several admins, Jehochman and Black Kite among them, considered an indef but in the end merely warned that TS would be indeffed next time they edit-warred. One might have expected that to happen the next time they were taken to ANI for persistent edit-warring, in March,[61], but that time they got away with a six-month topic ban. It seems to me that we have already paid out masses of rope to this user, and clearly the people above who support a strong sanction (mostly an indef) agree with me. I have indeffed on the principle that (oh, here she goes again) the time and patience of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource, and is not to be squandered in this way. I'm doing this on my own responsibility, rather than waiting for the thread to be open for 24 hours and then closing it, as I believe that would be a further waste of everybody's time. Bishonen | talk 17:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC).

  Good call. I hadn't read that January 2019 thread when I supported just a topic ban. In that, Jehochman summed it up well with "If after 5-6 years a user can't understand not to edit war, I don't think we need to offer accommodations". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  Dammit, Bishonen, you had to close this already! I take one day off from en-wiki and miss what's probably my only chance to appropriately !vote to take off and nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure... rdfox 76 (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about the scope of any topic ban

The last time he was topic banned from Alien / Predator pages, but he has shown a strong interest Ice Age (film), A Nightmare on Elm Street, Godzilla, King Kong, Anaconda (film), Graboids (From the Tremor movies), etc. Given that he has shown zero understanding of what he is doing wrong or what is expected of him, and apparently cannot even count how many people have objected to his behavior, I question whether another Alien / Predator topic ban will be effective. If the decision is not to indef, perhaps a topic ban on all films and videos? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC) ‎ ‎

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

An unresponsive user?

Rahmadiabsyah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) An ip had tried to reach out to this user about adding some tv show's episode listing, on Black Clover (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). And I gave advice to say WP:CRYSTALBALL. But the ip went to talk to me about this user. That their mainly unresponsive on their talk page. On a concern that if adding a tv show's episode too early, it doesn't match the refs/ or sources it presents. Per WP:VERIFY. (Example; from last week, here and the ip's response and from today, this and the ip's second response.)

Before, I had a concern about this user because of WP:SPLIT concerns and that the user may have been reading from wikia/ fandom without adding sources about a new tv season. Or that wikia/ fandom falls under the rule/ guideline WP:USERG. Then starting from here (note; In the edit summary I might have been irritated. Because leading up to the split, I kept having page notices from this user.) In which I supplied the WP:SPLIT or WP:COPYWITHIN. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: Another issue that the ip had a concern of, on my talk page: Is that, is there a language barrier for Rahmadiabsyah for not replying. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a comment, when I started the concern a week ago. Detailing that, what if you add something too soon. But no one knows if the content is verifiable until the show has aired. Then until it does, I am thinking that Rahmadiabsyah to stop adding it. But since then there has been no answer from the user. Until today. 99.203.50.212 (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Tainted-wingsz - Does the response from Rahmadiabsyah here resolve your problem? 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You can't really ask a user to stop. But they're sort of still unresponsive. And maybe answering vague messages, then who knows. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

To 38.142.216.106, it felt like a weak response. I was thinking that the ip 99.203.50.212 earlier wanted to know where can the episode's be found at. Other than here; But in the last two weeks Rahmadiabsyah was silent on replying to the ip. Because every Monday the ref or the tv's schedule updates and it sometimes may tell the episode's name in advance. But in the past it only shows what date is it airing at. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

For the message, I still kept looking. If you go to here; and press the; ブラッククローバー it will show you the episode listing and on Monday at 15:00 (UTC) or a little later. That's when the tv schedule has been updated. (That would show the new episode's name in an one week advance. And the episode that's airing later at night.) Then a few hours before it gets updated, Rahmadiabsyah was adding the name to the episode in. So right after I removed it. From that until the tv schedule was updated, is this WP:OR? 99.203.50.212 (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a little hard to prove. If it's not Monday anymore? The main point is. What if your adding something and it could wrong. As some tv show didn't go in chronological order. That's one reason to wait. Which I think you wish for Rahmadiabsyah to follow. But, if there not very responsive and doesn't edit much. So since there's no action taken for the moment. Then let this be. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Short opinion

Question, I have a lingering thought. Since Rahmadiabsyah does edit and adds the next episode title. Then the IP may repeat this, removes it, and tries to ask Rahmadiabsyah again. And they don't reply swiftly. So what do we do with the user then? Unblue box (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

If I wasn't clearer earlier ago, I was digging more into this. If it's around Monday at 15:00 (UTC) and until the show; Black Clover has finished airing on Tuesday at 9:55 (UTC). There is a short timeline where you can find the next episode's name. But during that time what happens if it doesn't say anything about it. Then in the last two weeks the IP removed Rahmadiabsyah's edits because the ref, doesn't tell what is the next episode's name and the IP remove it. Then asked Rahmadiabsyah, about this inquiry. Before the show's tv schedule has been updated on Monday at 15:00 (UTC) or later on. Then it raises a question of mine, if Rahmadiabsyah doesn't edit often and doesn't reply to messages when the IP had a concern about this two weeks ago. Is the user being unresponsive and what do you do with that? Nor if this editing pattern would continue. Then next the IP went to Tainted-wingsz about this concern. Since he is one of the main editors on Black Clover. Unblue box (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Unblue box, Users are expected to engage in communication per WP:CIR. If a user refuses to engage, report them here, and provide as evidence all attempts to engage with them. Often those users will get a short block to get them to engage, and if they don't talk, the blocks get longer and longer.

As a side note, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here in general, perhaps something got lost in translation. Are you saying that Rahmadiabsyah isn't engaging? What are their problem edits? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

References

User:Dorarocks2003

A user by the name of Dorarocks2003 has been pestering me on my talk page about The Powerpuff Girls (2016 TV series) supposedly ending, even though there has been no official confirmation that it has ended - [62] [63]. They had previously taken to talk pages about articles related to the show ([64], [65]).

I had repeatedly told them that we can't say the show has ended yet since there is no official confirmation and it hasn't been a year since the most recent episode aired, yet they continued to bother me. I feel like this is a clear-cut case of an editor repeatedly showing an inability to get the point, and since most of their edits are trying to push for saying the show is done for, I feel as if they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. What say the rest of you? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 15:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dorarocks2003: Wikipedia is written according to what reliable sources say. If there are no sources to confirm this, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Please just let it go until you can provide proof. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Does this give off Bambifan101 vibes to anyone else? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 19:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rockstone: That was my first thought reading this. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rockstone: @Thryduulf: Me, or the editor I'm reporting? It's not immediately clear to me. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 20:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Grand Delusion: Sorry for not being clear, it's the user you are reporting (Dorarocks2003) that reminds me of Bambifan101. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not Bambifan101.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Not sure if you used your checkuser powers, but although they reminded me of Bambifan101, I wasn't sure given that the user edited a random IPv6 talk page after making their account, whose IP geolocates to Massachusets. They just reminded me of them. Speaking of which, has Bambifan101 been active, or did they finally give up? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 01:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Grand Delusion: Yes, I meant the user. My apologies. No boomerang here! -- Rockstonetalk to me! 01:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Promotional editing

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

---

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

This user has added highly promotional (and probably copyrighted) content to Amity College three times today. I reverted twice and when I went to their talk page to warn I saw that had received multiple warnings about this 8 months ago. Although they stopped then, the behavior has resumed. MB 03:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed for edits containing copyrights violations added on multiple occasions. El_C 05:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Yet another editor using an IP sock

• Chad The Goatman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.27.17.104 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Recent contributions show a striking similarity of interests. Editing as an IP is not proscribed per se, but the user alternates between IP and the account in an edit war. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no doubt whatever that this is one person, who has also used the IP address 98.27.17.189 in the past, but apart from the one incident linked by Incnis Mrsi I have not seen any edits which could be regarded as abusive use of editing with and without logging in. (However, there are many hundreds of edits, and I can't guarantee there aren't more problem edits that I haven't seen). 98.27.17.104 is currently subject to a CheckUser block. I shall post a message to Chad The Goatman advising him not to alternate IP editing with logged in editing, especially when editing one article. For now, I think there is nothing else to be done, but of course I will be willing to reconsider that if future editing shows further problems. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 11:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AIV

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

---

Could someone please deal with the backlog, and particularly with the disruption at Field hockey, where an IP-hopper is "having fun", blocking the latest IP (Special:Contributions/197.159.134.201) and protecting the article? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Definitely needs an admin's touch

I was gnoming around saw User:Itamar_Shamam this user's page. The user page is being used as an article which isn't appropriate, the article appears to be about the named user, but I'm not sure as it goes from one topic to another (physics?) topic without an interruption. At the bottom the user has a "copyright" style message as well.

I didn't want to move his user page to a sandbox as I wasn't sure if this would mess up his user page, and I already know copying and pasting this into a sandbox is wrong, so I thought I'd alert the admin corps instead. This user will be notified as soon as I'm done here. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It does look like he is using his user page as an article, but it is not clear if he is trying and failing to write a BLP in sandbox about himself or if he is misunderstanding the role of a userspace. Taking a look at his contribution history, it looks like nearly all of his edits are to that page so there may be a WP:NOTHERE issue as well as a potential referral to WP:Miscellany for deletion. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm deleting per U5 and issuing an only warning. The complete lack of editing anything else makes it abundantly clear he's only interested in pushing... whatever the hell that is on his userpage, which isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

And his response made it abundantly clear that his goals are rather clearly not aligned with improving Wikipedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights - is there a way for him to get a copy of the information he wrote? It looks like someone deleted all of it before he had a chance to respond to the ANI notification, so from his perspective the deletion would seem abrupt and he might not have had a chance to save a copy. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I offered to give him a copy in the note mentioned below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• No one ever told him anything about how this place works. The user page obviously doesn't belong, but we could be gentler about it than this. I've left a note on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Geez...less than 4 hours from "hey might this be a user who doesn't understand" and without ANY notification to "delete without a chance to recover"? WP:BITE much? Good night! What would the harm have been to just blank the page and leave a note on his talk page explaining? Or, perhaps allowed him to explain/converse? If we smack everyone who makes a mistake with a 40 lb hammer, we're going to drive away editors that could easily have been saved. Totally unnecessary. Buffs (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  This user had an account for almost 2 years, and save a single mainspace edit did nothing but edit his userpage. Obviously I'm fine with giving him a copy of what's been deleted, but I'm also a bit less than sympathetic to someone who in 2 years made no serious effort to discern the purpose of Wikipedia. If he wants to contribute here further, in accordance with what Wikipedia is for, I'd happily welcome anything he has to add. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

rev war with users NorthBySouthBaranof‎ & Pepperbeast

• NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pepperbeast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• J. Sketter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paternity fraud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi.

I seem to be in a rev war with users NorthBySouthBaranof & Pepperbeast over the article Paternity_fraud. Also NorthBySouthBaranof's talk page. Care to take look? Thanks. If I here should inform NorthBySouthBaranof please say. --J. Sketter (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• J. Sketter, say. In the meantime, stop edit warring. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Also, RS is not an "empty claim". It's how we work. I am beginning to think that there are some issues here--pertaining to OR, RS, BLP, and gender matters. Weird claims like "A woman can't cheat by mistake" bother me--and have you never heard of how King Arthur was conceived? I'm about to run to class and I wouldn't be surprised to find you topic banned by the time I get back. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Gentle reminder that you are required to notify all users that you are reporting to WP:ANI, as I have just done for NorthBySouthBaranof and Pepperbeast. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that J. Sketter is here to push an agenda, and that agenda includes misgendering subjects of articles, such as Zoe Quinn. "It is, we can mention she either wants or really thinks she has many persons in a single woman's body. But I guess there's no RS for her schizophrenia." and "Quinn's quest for plural noun is attention seeking or self-marketing" are particularly fun gems. They also refer to DS notices as "spam". --Jorm (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The OP's history at False accusations of rape is also particularly interesting for context given the similarities to the current dispute. --Jayron32 16:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added userlinks and pagelinks at the top of this report. Thanks to the IP editor for notifying NBSB and Pepperbeast. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Goodness gracious. Seems to me that the OP is someone who is WP:NOTHERE.--WaltCip (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I just wait some of the admins to come to the real issue here. This heavy targeting by some block of users is interesting and I'm naturally flattered! As I see I'm against, let me count... 5 named users and 1 IP. I do count the 2 admins as nonpartial ones. Anyways, I return to this tomorrow I believe. So I can deal with every item in order. --J. Sketter (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to the party, but just wanted to concur with Jorm's comments. J. Sketter seems to fancy himself some kind of gender defender and has an obvious axe to grind. PepperBeast (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

J. Sketter - To clarify, I'm not against you. My only involvement was to notify the users you referenced of this thread, which is a mandatory requirement for anyone who posts here. Please don't lump me into any kind of conspiracy theory or accuse me of bias just because I followed a simple neutral rule that is posted at the top of the page. Thanks. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• I think a topic ban from gender matters is the least we should do here.

  Oh, J. Sketter, you said you were waiting on us to get to the "real issue". Well, that's easy. You were edit warring. You removed a bunch of content that was strongly sourced, you were reverted, you reverted, you were reverted, you reverted again, you were reverted by another editor. You didn't post on the talk page until two hours later, and that post started with an insult: "As so often some editors like to debate for the joy of debating." So, what I see here is a couple of infractions, all of which are blockworthy already--edit warring, disruptive editing (against consensus of at least two editors), vandalism (removal of sourced content), lack of good faith (claiming they're just reverting for the sake of reverting. So I'll be happy to give you a warning for that: do not do any of those things again or you will be blocked. OK?

  But the real real issue is your apparent agenda-driven edits which fly in the face of various guidelines we have, and that is what you invited scrutiny of when you posted here, where I assume you were hoping to get those other two editors punished. We refer to this as the boomerang effect. And I reiterate that a topic ban on gender, very broadly defined, is a good thing for the project. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not in a place where I can dig too deeply, but it looks to me like this editor is having problems in the area covered by the GamerGate set of discretionary sanctions, so pretty sure unilateral administrative topic bans (among other things) are fair game here. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  There is no article more deeply affected by the GamerGate sanctions than Zoe Quinn, with perhaps the exception of Gamergate controversy, so yes. They are absolutely covered by that.--Jorm (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  That's a good point. I don't know if this user's conduct is necessarily driven by GG (though it's plausible) but the article itself definitely falls within the scope.GPL93 (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Even if not, "gender matters" is within the broadly-construed scope of the GG sanction. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Exactly. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  I looked at their Quinn edits again and revdeleted them as BLP violations. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I am unsure why, given the content of the diffs Drmies has revdelled, the user has not already been indefinitely blocked. Fish+Karate 08:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock consideration for 2A02:C7F:7E20:C400::/64

• Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:7E20:C400::/64

User has been rather disruptive on various media pages and does not seem to understand wikipedia. E.g., [66]. The user has had a previous block as well ([67]). Given that they don't seem to take warnings seriously ([68]), I think a WP:DE or WP:CIR block may be warranted. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Done. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

User Wikideas1 uploading screen grabs from the internet without proper copyright attribution

Wikideas1 (talk · contribs)

This guy is screenshotting websites and uploading the media using "Own work", when it is clearly a screen grab. He also adds his "politically biased" graphics to articles to further his agenda. Maybe have a look at this guy.

At the article Forklift he added some ridiculous design which doesn't even fit in the section or the article.

212.98.173.17 (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The reporter neglected to notify Wikideas1 about alleged licensing problems and did not notify Wikideas1 properly about this very thread. See talk:Forklift #"Container_mounted_forklift" for the content dispute in Forklift. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reopened this as it seems to be an issue. I've posted Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs) closing remarks above, and removed the "close tags". As stated clearly in the posting directions for this page the editor must be notified. I'll do so now. — Ched (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'll also supply a couple of the diffs that seem to be in question:

1. Forklift post - forklift pic
2. Abortion in US by state - uploaded picture
3. Incarceration in US - pic

These seem to indicate a pattern in last few months and IMO deserve discussion with regards to how appropriate the uploads and postings are. If Incnis Mrsi feels the IP is posting inappropriately, they should also provide diffs as AN and ANI posts look at behavior of all parties involved. — Ched (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

77.162.226.226 again

77.162.226.226's temporary block has expired. But they've resumed their previous behaviour. Vandalising information in articles and replacing them with blatantly incorrect information. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. If it starts up again, you can report the IP to WP:AIV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Second_Battle_of_Ras_al-Ayn_(2019) by KasimMejia

KasimMejia appears to be engaging in disruptive non good faith editing on the page Second_Battle_of_Ras_al-Ayn_(2019). (1) He put the page up for deletion (2) He put a Wikipedia noticeboard incident up about the page and myself, without discussing the issues with myself (3) He then removed the link to the page from the main page about the operation 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria (4) he then put citation tags all through the page, some justified, but many spurious (5)At one point, he had 4 Banner problems on the page. Considering he is pushing for the page to be deleted because he says it is unsubstantial..at the same time, he is removing material from the page that should be there, and without seeking any sort of consensus on the talk page. At one point, he had put 16 citation tags in the article, and 4 issue templates at the top. I am not sure his editing has the genuine interest of wikipedia users at heart. I have asked for him to return the material to the page until consensus is reached, and he has refused. I don't have time to deal with this, and I can see he has had issues with edit warring in the past, and want to avoid this. I would ask that an admin has him blocked from the page, thank you. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

You two need to learn to work together instead of both of you continuing to bring your content disputes to ANI. El_C 10:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I would have assumed the above activity, plus this is not standard/good faith wikipedia article creation, especially considering KasimMejia has only been editing for less than a month.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The article talk page is the place to raise these issues. Do so while assuming good faith, even and especially when disagreement is acute. Other editors' interpretation of the material may vary highly, but strive to reach consensus to sort out the article's direction. The AfD is part of that process. There are also dispute resolution requests that are available to you. Please take advantage of them rather than look for an admin to decide in your favour by fiat — that seems unlikely to happen at this time. El_C 10:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The diff that he has linked was taken out by me after 1 minute. [69], [70]. KasimMejia (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment I nominated the page the user created for deletion due to lack of material. I also added verification and original research templates due to both problems at the page. I also opened a notification about the user here 2-3 days ago due to him adding uncited material. Later I improved the page he created by taking out unverified additions as well as the template and inline templates - he is now accusing me of disruptive editing for that. One final note, before opening this notice, user accused me of being in bad faith two times on my talk page, "having and agenda" and told me to cease working on the page he created or he will have an admin banned me from it. [71]. KasimMejia (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks El_C Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization)

There is a problem with a neutral point of view on the page of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Particular attention was drawn to an active user in the Russian Wikipedia Wanderer777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who at one time replicated his version of the article at once in several language sections of Wikipedia. Moreover, he submitted the information in such a way that it does not correspond to a neutral point of view. When I tried to improve the article, my edits were simply deleted, despite the presence of the "in use" template.

For some reason, the author’s sources were deleted: https://daily.rbc.ua/rus/show/spasti-planetu-ukraintsy-ochishchayut-vodu-1449570920.html https://un-sci.com/ru/2019/05/29/ukrainskoj-akademii-nauk-ispolnilos-28-let/

I found the additional sources, but I'm afraid that they will be deleted the same way, and my work will be in vain. I left a message to Wanderer777 on his talk page but did not receive a response. Wanderer777 contributes a copyright infringing link. To do this, he turned to a user Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who added the link to the White List. Now Ymblanter has deleted not only the sources, but also the categories and infobox.

This behavior of the participants leads to the fact that they violate the fundamental users of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Since one of the users is an administrator, I write messages here-DrPoglum (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)