Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive867

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calibre(unit) / Articles by Shevonsilva[edit]

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

  • To get an idea of the issue, see here (permalink). The close at DRN suggested WP:BUNDLE, that is, nominate all the pages for deletion in a single request. I would like a lower-tension discussion of the issues first where the inclusionist/deletionist model need not be considered. It is disappointing that another twenty articles have been created in the last 24 hours, and a discussion here might strongly suggest that further articles should not be created until the fate of the existing articles is decided. The difficulty is that the source is not sufficiently reliable to be relied on for obscure information which is not verifiable in other sources. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment (after e/c): Shevonsilva (talk · contribs) is creating a large number of stubs for units of measurement, sourced to one single book in which some other editors have little faith. These include many obscure and obsolete measures, some not included in the Oxford English Dictionary. The structure of each article is that the unit is "defined" in terms of other units, unlinked, some of which are themselves of complicated and variable definition, and then a "Conversions" section which gives conversions to other imperial and metric units to a smetimes implausible number of decimal places. As a recent example, see Sarpler (before later edits by other editors). The definition is "26/9 Wey", converted to "330.21524536 kg", while Wey (unit) shows a complex situation. The same editor has added content to existing articles in an unhelpful way - see addition to "Hogshead" (presumably "Madeira" was intended?).
S/he does not comply with normal talk page convention of signing at end of comment, despite requests - is this a WP:CIR issue if they cannot understand the convention and its usefulness? (See confusing comments added at an AfD).
This mass of dic-def stubs is not improving the encyclopedia, and the editor is unwilling to pause and discuss them. PamD 23:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would also note that WP is not supposed to be an adventitious collection of trivia. Looking at these stubs, it doesn't strike me that they meet the notability criteria for inclusion. WP does not need to include reams of information sourced to a single text; at a minimum, even granting that these units are notable for our purposes, we'd want to cite several independent sources. Even if the one source is not dubious, it's not best practice to cite information from it that appears nowhere else. Moreover, one book's assertions about tens of (ambiguous) archaic units and their (supposed) values does not make material for tens of encyclopedia articles.
However, the book itself seems to be a reputable academic publication, so perhaps the information would be more at home in another article, such as this one. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The author is talented ("Manager of Recycling"), but does not appear to have credentials that would make the book sufficiently reliable to introduce novel facts about units. Shevonsilva has hinted that there is more in the book, but so far it appears that each article is based solely on an entry in a table that might say, for example, that 1 wrap is 240 feet—there is no indication of where or when the unit was used, and no underlying source. I guess we will just have to make a group AfD, but this ANI discussion needs to persuade Shevonsilva to stop creating stubs until a consensus is established. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Point taken – I was just assuming that Springer wouldn't publish total crackpottery (I don't think it would), but of course that doesn't imply that the book is correct. Taking a closer look at it, there are a few odd assertions, such as the cubic imperial units being the "chief" measures of volume in the UK, together with a table that has cubic rods and register tons, the latter of which I'd never even heard of, and there are plenty of grammatical and typographical errors. Seems Springer needs to do a better job of copy-editing and fact-checking their publications. Archon 2488 (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have just encountered this editor's contributions. At least some are simply junk: quires is an ungrammatical duplicate of quire. Shevon Silva's native language does not appear to be English, but I wonder about this Cardarelli, who first edited some book with MJ Shields, then had a later version of the same book translated by MJ Shields. Entries like Dash (unit) ‎(Total text: "Dash was a US unit of capacity used in food recipes.") do not fill me with confidence that the author has a clue what he is talking about. A dash of rum improves lots of things, but this does not make it a unit in any coherent sense. And as for Springer (assuming this is the right one!) "In 2014, it was revealed that Springer had published 16 fake papers in its journals that had been computer-generated using SCIgen. Springer subsequently removed all the papers from these journals. IEEE had also done the same thing by removing more than 100 fake papers from its conference proceedings." Amazon offers this "encyclopedia" for 153 pounds. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Propose block of Shevonsilva (talk · contribs) until the user agrees to stop making edits based on the problematic source before a consensus is formed. In the last few hours, the user has created eleven more junk articles (Bale (unit) + Breakfast cup + Bundle (unit) + Coffee measure + Coffee spoon (unit) + Dash (unit) + Quires + Salt spoon (unit) + Teacupful + Water glassful + Wine glassful). Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    I have struck my block proposal as it is not needed now that Black Kite has warned Shevonsilva to stop creating articles until a consensus forms concerning the pages created so far. I intend to examine the pages in a day or two and will nominate those I think are unhelpful for deletion in a single WP:AFD. That is apparently the best way to get a discussion on what should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have investigated several of these cases that have come to AFD and find that they all seem grounded in some genuine usage of the unit in question. For example, the dash is criticised above but that unit already appears in our existing coverage of cooking weights and measures - see pinch (cooking), for example. The work in question has a reputable publisher and, while that doesn't make it perfect, it seems more authoritative than the nay-sayers who don't seem to research the topics thoroughly themselves or consider alternatives to deletion per WP:BEFORE and WP:BITE. This just seems to be a matter of ordinary content creation and our editing policy is quite explicit - that we should encourage half-baked contributions so that something might be made of them. Andrew D. (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you opposing the block? The indentation of your comment does not make this totally clear. In any case, the issue is not really that someone has made one or two poorly worded articles on notable topics which might reasonably be improved with effort from others; it's that someone who is perhaps simply not competent is creating a large number of poor-quality stubs of questionable notability, based on one reference. Far from being a nay-sayer, I was initially perhaps too kind to the book – on closer inspection it seems to have serious problems, as Johnuniq and Imaginatiorium have pointed out. It's also possible that the editor in question is simply not here with the goal of improving WP, because for some reason they seem hell-bent on making as many articles as possible based on the content of one book, to the point of seeming like a SPA.
But as I said above, even if all these facts check out, it doesn't follow that it's appropriate for each little factoid to have its own stub article. There's no reason why such information couldn't be amalgamated into a single article, which would likely be more useful and accessible to readers. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I oppose a block of this editor as this would be quite contrary to our principles of WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:BOLD and WP:IMPERFECT. The topics in question might well benefit from further development and editing but this is normal for new work. The devil is in the details in such cases. For example, Archon 2488 says above that he has never heard of register tons and seems to condemn the Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures because of this. This seems quite mistaken because register tons are quite well-documented here and elsewhere and he may read more about the concept at pages such as gross register tonnage and ton#Units of volume. This example further demonstrates that source in question is reasonably respectable and is more authoritative than its critics. Andrew D. (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Clarification: what I was criticising was the assertion that units like "register tons" (and cubic rods, etc) were normal units of capacity in the UK. I've lived in the UK my whole life and I've never heard of a "register ton". I'm sure the unit exists (or existed), but it's obscure, at least nowadays. I would never claim to be an expert on any system of units except perhaps SI, and I am not claiming to be more authoritative than the author of this book.
The book has a number of odd statements like that, as well as being written in less-than-perfect English. But regardless, my original point still stands: I don't see why lots of arcane obsolete units each need their own article, when each of these articles consists of a dictionary-like entry combined with a dubious conversion into metric units. It's poor-quality material which doesn't obviously add anything to the encyclopedia. Far better to find out which of those units can be reliably traced to reliable, primary historical sources, and put their definitions in an article on old measurement units, rather than scattering them all over the place in a plethora of stubs that nobody is going to read. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have lived most of my life in the UK too and instantly recognise the register ton as a unit in shipping. It's quite familar and not at all obscure in my opinion but I was also surprised that editors had difficulty recognising the usage of calibre too. The cubic rod is more antiquated but it is easy to find 19th century sources which show that it was commonly used in quantity surveying contexts, e.g. The Arithmetician's Guide; House of Lords Session Paper. As editors seem to have trouble with these measures then this seems all the more reason that Wikipedia should cover them. Blocking the editor who has gone to the trouble of helping to fill in these gaps seems quite wrong. Andrew D. (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment If we are going to import Cardarelli's labours into Wikipedia en masse (should we really be comfortable with the wholesale appropriation of such an exceptional work?), we should at least get his name right. Every reference I've checked is of the same form: "Cardarelli, François Cradarelli (2003). Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures. London: Springer. p. nn. ISBN 978-1-4471-1122-1." (my emphasis). @Shevonsilva: please could you correct those references? NebY (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@NebY: The word, Cardarelli, is now correctly applied in the articles. Shevonsilva (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@Shevonsilva: no, "Cradarelli" still appears in 61 articles[1] and in every case that I have checked, it originated with you.
In checking, I find that you have included conversion factors with absurd numbers of digits, such as Point (unit):
"1 point = 0.006944444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 inch feet
"1 point = 0.0001763888888888888888888888888888888888888888889 m"
and the repetitive presentation of a unit used for weighing wool eventually rendering it in micrograms:
"1 sarpler ≡ 2 sacks
"1 sarpler ≡ 26/9 Wey
"1 sarpler ≡ 330.21524536 kg"
Such absurdities are not acceptable in this encyclopedia. NebY (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is half dicdef and half just non-notable units of measure. I AfD'd one of the articles, and came across this. Today, I came across Cord-foot. I think there should be a discussion on whether or not they are notable, and act accordingly, and in the meantime, mini-stubs should stop being created. — kikichugirl speak up! 02:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply from Shevon Silva[edit]

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

  • Without trying (being unable to do so only by accessing sample chapters) to access reference list and bibliography list provided in the end of the book, Johnuniq is incorrectly stating the fact that secondary sources are not available. (I have already provided some on-line sources too traditionally)
  • Again little faith issue is a personnel idea of User PamD. He has to access secondary sources provided by the book. He believed every unit must be included in the Oxford English Dictionary which is not the case for many units as Oxford English Dictionary is a dictionary for English words and it does not cover all the English words and foreign words.In the article Sarpler, it is clearly mentioned sarpler was a UK weight for wool, and in the article way, it is clearly mentioned the unit was also used as weight for wool and it was exactly equals to 252 pounds which can be exactly converted to "330.21524536 kg".With regarding article Hogshead, I have corrected the error in the word Madeira. This addition is helpful as it is defined another additional usage of hogshead.
I will comply with the talk page conventions in future.
I have already discussed these dic-def issues in my talk page and in some relevant talk pages in relevant articles. I explained I have started the articles and additionally I have given unit conversions and some additional informations too. In future, other authors can improve the newly created pages by including further sources. This will be a contribution for Wikipedia.

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

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

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

Four days ago I asked here what the book says about two example units, such as how and when the units were used, and what references for the units were given. There was no response, but elsewhere you provided two links (nuclearglossary.com for "wrap" and ceramicsandminerals.com for "Rod (Br volume)"). However, they are just websites about something else, which also list every claim about units that their authors could find—they are not sufficiently reliable to verify novel information. When modern sources aggregate facts, there is a danger that they simply echo each other. What is needed is a reference to a scholarly source with footnotes, or at least a reference to pre-1920s writing that mentions the units (how would anyone now know how many feet there are in a wrap unless a contemporary account is available?). What is needed is a commitment to stop creating new articles until the issue has been thoroughly discussed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Now I provided a response. And, you mentioned those units were not mentioned elsewhere. I provided some on-line references to prove the fact that these units were mentioned other places too. For reliable references, please visit bibliography list in the book. I never mentioned these units were used in pre-1920s. I mentioned these units were/have been used. For further references, please pursue the bibliography list of the book. Shevonsilva (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I cannot understand your reply. My comment (just above, starting "Four days ago") contains the two "on-line references" so I do not know why you mentioned them, and I explained why the websites are not reliable sources. From your replies I infer that you have not seen anything about rod or wrap apart from the conversion factors—there is no indication of when or where those meanings applied, nor the context. There are no known references verifying the information apart from a one-line entry in a table providing a conversion factor. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Johnuniq:: I was trying to provide the fact that these units are mentioned in other places as you told me that these units are not mentioned in anywhere else. You are doubting a reliable source. For your knowledge, I will provide some other articles where "François Cardarelli. Encyclopedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures" is used as a reference.
Before criticizing any book, the book must be thoroughly investigated and all the references in the bibliography list must be thoroughly pursued. Shevonsilva (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Unit wrap is found in page 348 in another reliable source is "Zupko, Ronald Edward (1985). A Dictionary of Weights and Measures for the British Isles 168. American Philosophical Society". Wikipeadia articles must be thoroughly investigated before commenting on them. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
It cannot be exactly converted to any value in kilograms, because to do so would be anachronistic. The avoirdupois pound today is precisely defined by the kilogram because of an agreement which dates from the 1950s (and going back slightly further, the imperial and US customary units had been variously defined in terms of metric units since the 19th century). But you cannot retroactively apply this to a unit which existed before the metric system did; at most, you can give an approximate equivalent. The measurement technologies that existed centuries ago could not have defined a standard to that level of precision, so it is misleading and meaningless to convert it to 11 significant figures.
It's not anyone's responsibility to buy the book in order to check your sources.
I don't think PamD was arguing that the OED is the ultimate authority on units, but rather that it would be an example of what notability might mean. Generally, for something to be the subject of an article rather than information included in another article, it must be notable in its own right, which includes being well-documented in several independent reputable sources.
It's not the main goal of WP to increase the number of articles for the sake of doing so; the objective is to provide a large quantity of high-quality relevant information, and making a new stub for every obscure fact under the sun will not accomplish that. You cannot create lots of stubs and expect that other people will eventually turn them into something useful. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Archon 2488:

I never mentioned the conversion was applied before 1950s. These units were still used until very recently according the source provided (i.e. after 1950s). In that case, it is permitted to translate to an exact value as these units were used until recently and they were defined exactly based on pounds or yards.
Before arguing about the validity of a book, user must thoroughly check the sources provided in the book.
With regarding notability, again please refer the bibliography list provided by the book.
one goal of WP is to provide extensive information. I am initiating that.

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

Can I draw particular attention to the UK and US counting units article created by Shevonsilva - it includes such definitions as "1 Hat trick = 3/2 Pair" and "1 Thousand = 125/18 Gross". I find it hard to credit that any remotely credible source would express numeric values in such a way, and would like Shevonsilva to clarify whether these bizarre constructions are actually in the source, or are her own definitions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the sample chapter on page 34 of the PDF (numbered 53 in the PDF). The only information given is in a table titled "UK and US dimensionless counting units". In one column is "Hat trick (nest)" with the weight 1, and in another column is "Pair (brace, yoke)" with "≡ 3/2" on the same row as the former unit's "1". What a mess. Similar for thousand/gross, in the same table. In case you're interested, the table helpfully tells us that a thousand ≡ 1000/3 hat tricks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Bizarre. The table in the source seems designed to present information in the most confusing manner possible, and Shevonsilva has cherry-picked it for additional obscurity. A simple statement that 'Pair = 2' and 'hat trick = 3' would have been sufficient - except that the term 'hat trick' is only ever used in relation to sporting scores as far as I'm aware (the Online Etymology Dictionary seems to concur: [2]). The table omits such context entirely, making it worse than a collection of dictionary definitions. To put it bluntly, it is junk, published by Springer or not. And certainly not an appropriate source to cherry-pick for the dog's breakfast that is presented at UK and US counting units. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and nor is it an exercise in numeric obscurantism - accordingly, we have no need to use the Encyclopaedia as a source, and we certainly don't need to cherry-pick it to confuse our readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • AndyTheGrump is the one engaging in cherry-picking here. The sample chapter shows that the Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures is a huge compendium and that the great bulk of this content is accurate and uncontroversial. The work has a standard form of presentation for conversion factors showing the ratio of the different units of different sizes. So, for example, there are various nautical measures of length such as the nautical mile, the cable length and the fathom. This generally seems quite reasonable but it's possible to nitpick particular combinations, because, for example, there's not a round number of fathoms in a nautical mile. That's all we're seeing in the case of the dimensionless units - the application of a standard form of presentation to cases for which it is not especially well suited.
  • I think there is a serious issue here: you are almost alone, but you persist with the claim that this is a reliable source. I am looking at the sample Chapter (Section?) 3 here [3]. I assert that Table 3-262 (on page 136 of the PDF) is almost total gibberish, and I have plenty of sources to back this up. Do you dispute this? Imaginatorium (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Such tabular information does need some narrative to make good sense of it. For example, I have investigated the case of deal which is mentioned above and find that there's plenty more to say about it - see Tree Lore, for example. The current draft page we have is just a crude start which needs a lot more work but it is our editing policy to work in this way - starting with a crude, rough-hewn first draft and then shaping, trimming and polishing it into a better form. This is the standard work of content creation and the platoon of would-be inspectors should not rush to criticize immediately. We have a big backlog of reviews wanted for hundreds of articles in places such as Wikipedia:Good article nominations or Template talk:Did you know. They are the best place to challenge our content, not WP:ANI.
Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
A simple question. Was it me that decided that it was appropriate to define a 'hat-trick' as '3/2 pair', or was it Shevonsilva? If that wasn't cherry-picking for obscurity, it was incompetence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree that we can't rely on the book. The bibliography looks impressive (I found the first page of it here) but no part at all of the text or the conversions in the sample chapter 3 is tied to any particular references. Anyone who's taken an interest in ancient units of measurement or simply tried to translate an old text will be disturbed by the simplicity of the tables in that chapter and a cursory check shows Cardarelli either neglects or is just unaware of the variations in units over time and place (for example, in the values for weights of wool in the UK). The book might sometimes provide a starting point for further research but it is clearly not reliable. NebY (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Update[edit]

Since 24 December 2014 when Black Kite and Lesser Cartographies asked him to stop creating stubs, he's created half a dozen more. I gave him a final warning 06:16, 26 December 2014. He then created another similar stub 14 min later. I blocked him for two days. He just put in an unblock request. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that Shevon is female. [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
{{gender|Shevonsilva}} = he NE Ent 10:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have updated my summary of all the articles in my sandbox (permalink). That page shows the content of the 82 articles. When I feel up to it, I intend working out which I think should be deleted, and nominate them all in one batch. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Holy moly, that's a lot. Thanks for gathering that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
This list shows clearly what the problem is. Why for, instance, does WP need a separate article for a fraction of a unit? There are other miscellaneous errors in the (dubious) conversions, e.g. it is stated that the sarpler is equivalent to "160 stone", which is then converted to the specious "330.21524536 kg". Leaving aside the issue of specious precision, that is not even the correct conversion factor; converting 160 stones (i.e. a long ton) to kilograms gives a value of about 1016 kg. I am not sure whether this was an error in the book or in Shevonsilva's transcription of it. The article on the point has ridiculous recurring decimals. Apparently a magnum is equivalent to "2 reputed quarts" – it seems that a "reputed" quart is a sixth of an imperial gallon, but we are not given any explanation of this, or a link to another article. Indeed, there are few links to any other articles in any of these stubs, and I don't believe they are linked to by other articles, which further decreases their usefulness.
This ties in with another problem mentioned above: the lack of contextual information, or even awareness of context, to the extent of providing totally specious conversions such as from hat tricks to grosses or thousands. In practice, nobody uses "hat trick" as a unit of anything; it refers to something very specific, i.e. a single player scoring three goals (or points, or taking three wickets, etc.) in the course of a single match. Treating it like a dimensionless unit of counting and converting it is utterly meaningless. To say it again, you can't get much encyclopedic information from a table of conversion factors presented without context. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Johnuniq above seems to be on the right track. I think it should be noted that I also recently batch-nominated a couple of very similar of these articles for deletion... this is getting a bit out of hand; time for community to officially decide whether or not we should include them. — kikichugirl speak up! 00:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Viewfinder indefinite topic ban from Jacob Barnett[edit]

I am here to request an indefinite topic ban of Viewfinder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) from editing Jacob Barnett, Talk:Jacob Barnett, and discussions directly connected with the subject (for example, future AfDs). Viewfinder has been persistently defending media claims that Barnett expanded and/or disproved Einstein's theory of relativity. For example, the TIME article "12-year old expands Einstein's theory of relativity" says "Could Einstein’s Theory of Relativity be a few mathematical equations away from being disproved? Jacob Barnett of Hamilton County, Ind., who is just weeks shy of his 13th birthday, thinks so. And, he’s got the solutions to prove it." They then go on to present Tremaine as having "confirmed he’s on the right track to coming up with something completely new." Almost all of the sources we reference say at least that Barnett "expanded Einstein's theory", which present that "expanded theory" as though it were a real thing. The Daily Mail, for instance, states that physicists "confirmed the authenticity of Jake's theory". Multiple sources have said that he is "about to disprove Einstein", that he is "disproving the Big Bang", etc. Here are just a few examples of this in the media:

  • Indystar "The numbers that keep him from snoozing are the same that led him to develop his own theory of physics -- an original work that proposed a "new expanded theory of relativity" and takes what Einstein developed even further."[1]
  • Time "12-year old expands Einstein's theory of relativity" and "Could Einstein’s Theory of Relativity be a few mathematical equations away from being disproved? Jacob Barnett of Hamilton County, Ind., who is just weeks shy of his 13th birthday, thinks so. And, he’s got the solutions to prove it."[2]
  • CTV News "he built a series of mathematical models that expanded Einstein's field of relativity, which was described by a Princeton University professor as ground-breaking."[3]
  • The Blaze "he’s working on an expanded version of [Einstein]’s theory of relativity. So far, the signs are good. Professors are astounded. So what else does a boy genius with vast brilliance do in his free time? Disprove the big bang, of course."[4]
  • Yahoo News "12-year-old boy has new theory of relativity" and "he's about to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity."[5]
  • Huffington Post: "Barnett believes he can prove Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity wrong, TIME reports. Astrophysics professor Scott Tremaine of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton confirms he's onto something. Another project in the works: disproving the Big Bang Theory."[6]
  • MacLean's: "Diagnosed with severe autism as a child, Barnett is now 15 and one of the world’s most promising physicists"[7]

References

Now, all of this is obvious nonsense, as has been pointed out to User:Viewfinder by myself User:David Eppstein, User:Agricola44. However, perversely User:Viewfinder defends such statements in the media, and even denies that there is any obvious falsehood in statements of this kind. In several places at Talk:Jacob Barnett, as well as in a discussion at WP:FRINGE/N, where I address such material substantively and directly. Here are some of the points raised by User:Viewfinder:

The most recent episode concerns the addition of a link to an obvious piece of promotional flap from the article. This link clearly failed Wikipedia's external link policy: a promotional link for "The Spark", maintained by the subject's mother, falsely presented as the subject's official website. Viewfinder then reverted the removal of this link, vigorously maintaining on the talk page that it had encyclopedic value, even though its actual purpose is obvious to anyone visiting the site. Viewfinder wrote the following at the AfD, suggesting probable WP:SOAPBOX reasons for this: "I happen to agree with Charlotte Moore who writes in the Spectator that '(Kristine) is an admirable woman, Jacob is a remarkable boy and their story deserves to be told'" and added: "I feel this way because I see SB refer to mother's cynical attempt to flog her new book in the media and BBB use the uncivil expression FFS, then refer to 'extremely poor' science journalism as 'normal', which I see as nasty attacks on an individual and a profession respectively. Loads of people attempt to use journalists to sell their work, and very few succeed. Despite the scientific flaws, that the mother has succeeded must surely count for something. Perhaps these journalists admire her determination to publicize her case of autistic child prodigy and frankly I agree with them. Go, Kristine. Go."

I have submitted that there are definite WP:COMPETENCE issues involved in Viewfinder's behavior. I have observed that he or she seems to be absolutely unable to read what is actually written in sources, guidelines, etc., and doggedly continues to defend the outlandish claims made in the media, despite many editors' warnings. I have raised the issue of what sources actually say twice at Talk:Jacob Barnett, and once at WP:FRINGE/N, but Viewfinder has refused to engage on any specifics. So it seems that there is a dichotomy here, either between WP:IDHT and WP:COMPETENCE: either this editor is acting in good faith but functionally illiterate, or he or she is wilfully acting disruptively. (In any event, I have been warned that it violates WP:NPA to point out one of these things, and WP:AGF to point out the other. So apparently there is no way to call out an editor for being a net negative to the project, wasting the time of otherwise productive editors. Is AGF really a life sentence?)

In either case, it seems to me that the community's patience has been thoroughly exhausted. As User:Agricola44 points out "We're all going batty." I motion that we should all be allowed to get on with more productive things, by issuing a topic ban of User:Viewfinder for topics related to Jacob Barnett. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the third application to get me topic banned for my contributions to the talk page at Jacob Barnett. The last attempt was dismissed as being "not an ANI issue" and this attempt appears to be no different. I have only made one recent edit to the article itself, and when the nominator reverted that edit, I did not pursue the article any further. Yes, I have been having my say on the talk page, defending the international media against what the nominator calls "obvious falsehoods", but it that really grounds for a ban? Is there really evidence, as the nominator claims, that I must be either incompetent (he has called me an "incompetent idiot") or acting in bad faith? Viewfinder (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, given that the discussion that you linked to is not ANI, and the comment that you misquoted actually says as much, that "This [forum] is not ANI", I think this very comment nicely illustrates the kind of persistent incompetence that we all have to deal with. Or perhaps you are deliberately misrepresenting things. But in the end, it doesn't really matter why you do this sort of nonsense. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Also, I wish to draw attention to Viewfinder's accusations that those who disagree with him are part of a "cabal": here, here, here, and most recently here, in violation of a bright line against any such further insinuations that I set here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I did not use the word "cabal" in the most recent example, even it appears on the nominator's user page. I referred to a tightly-knit deletion team, that has come together to go to considerable lengths to get the article deleted. I opposed these attempts, and so far they have been unsuccessful, but it is not hard to see that the nominator wants to deny me any say in likely future attempts. If I am so incompetent, why must he go to so much length to get me topic banned? Viewfinder (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Just looking through some of the discussions between Sławomir Biały and Viewfinder, I notice that of the two, Sławomir Biały seems to be behaving rather badly. Repeated insults is no way to persuade anyone and may actually result in sanctions against you. I also notice that Viewfinder seems to be overly willing to respond to all the insults and the arguing. Not sure why he thinks that will accomplish anything other than warming the air. If Sławomir Biały were to restrain himself and argue only specific article content and Viewfinder only responded to arguments regarding specific article content, they might find their differences a little more manageable. – JBarta (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, this bullshit has being going on forever. Viewfinder has been systematically WP:IDHT, and enough truly is enough. Do productive editors really need to put up with civil trolls who can stick their fingers in their ears, going "Lalalalala", despite endless entreaties from multiple parties? Surely not. Productive editors can only take so much of this. So, I'm looking for something a little more useful than "let's all just get along mmkay." That's been tried. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd also note that Viewfinder has made precisely one edit to the article in the last four months and rarely edits the article in general (at least looking back a year or so)... though of late the arguing is rather continuous. A lot of this seems like arguing just for the sake of arguing. The cure for that is quite simply... stop arguing. – JBarta (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, lots of trolling indeed has occurred on that discussion page. He even brazenly continues the trolling here: see his two posts immediately above. Shall I hat or revert future trolling, then? Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I was actually thinking that you are continuously arguing with someone who doesn't actually edit the article (or at least edits very little). If you restrained yourself to just discussing edits he actually makes, you two would have much less to argue about. – JBarta (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but the latest episode regards a revert that Viewfinder made to the article, concerning a link that obviously did not belong there. Viewfinder seems intent on questioning any change to the article, no matter how obvious, on what seems to be purely idealogical grounds (see, for instance, Talk:Jacob Barnett#Ordering of first paragraph). Moreover, it still seems that there is real work to be done there, but positively no meaningful discussion can proceed whilst Viewfinder continually derails things on the talk page. See, for instance, his most recent "proposal" to implicitly validate the relativity denialists, added at the end of a section where it did not belong (which followed a long discussion over a month ago already rejecting a similar such proposal). He does this out of an idealogical commitment to the subject, and that creates an extremely unpleasant editing environment for the good-faith editors there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I am mystified when I visit User:Sławomir Biały, seeing a notice stating the editor is "semi-retired", and then check their edit history. That says they haven't edited since August 6, 2013, but here they are, happily editing away. Can anyone explain why their edits aren't being logged in their contribution list? I am in general agreement with Sławomir Biały on the content issues, but their repeated hostility and personal attacks against Viewfinder are beyond the pale. I urge Sławomir Biały to cease the insults immediately. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
If I got this right, it appears that Slawekb is signing their posts as Sławomir Biały (and user Slawekb redirects to Sławomir Biały ). --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, User:Slawekb is a declared alternate account of User:Sławomir Biały. NE Ent 02:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
So, the insulting editor who declares they are "semi-retired" has made 500 edits since October, and their signature makes it exceedingly difficult for average editors to view their history. Seems odd to me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a very clear link in a large and obvious text box near the top my user page. I find the characterization that I have made it "exceedingly difficult for average editors to view [my] history" rather astonishing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Sławomir Biały, this should really be discussed at the article's talk page, but we'll look at it here as an example of consensus building instead of arguing (hopefully). That "latest episode" was an attempt to re-add (after you removed) "jacobbarnett.com" to the infobox on Jacob Barnett. A perfectly reasonable inclusion per Infobox person. That his mother is trying to sell a book about him on his web site is no big deal... lots of people promote their books on their web site and I know of no wiki-guidelines prohibiting that. The fact his mother is involved is perfectly reasonable as Jacob Barnett is still a kid. That said, could you support the inclusion if it were in External links instead? – JBarta (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I also don't wish to get into content discussions here, but the link clearly did not belong in the infobox (see {{infobox person}} and WP:ELOFFICIAL). Viewfinder continued to defend the presence of the link in the article, when the first paragraph on talk should have made it quite clear that the link was unacceptable. Halfway through the discussion, Viewfinder asks "Are you really claiming that the disputed link gives no additional, substantive information about Jacob?" Well, yes. That's obvious to anyone visiting that website. So why ask the question in the first place? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Part of consensus building is compromise. When two editors see things differently, and WP guidelines aren't egregiously offended either way, sometimes a little give and take goes a long way. With that in mind, could you now support the inclusion if it were in External links instead? – JBarta (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome to propose the matter on the discussion page of the article. I'm taking a time out from the whole affair, although I suspect there will not be much consensus for that either, given the responses regarding the original placement of the link. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking for a bit of compromise on this small point from you here now. Will you give it? – JBarta (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think that the arguments made on the discussion page by User:Agricola44, User:Tkuvho, and User:David Eppstein are soundly rooted in the WP:ELNO guideline and WP:NOT policy, and fairly conclusively demonstrate that the link does not belong even in the External links section. So, no: I don't think that, as a rule, guidelines, policy, and pretty clear consensus should be disregarded in the interests of appeasement. Having said that, I have removed myself from the fray there, and I will not object if things were hypothetically to go the other way. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
SB, you freely quote WP policy, NOT and ELNO, but what about all the insults? Will you stop these? 166.173.184.59 (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I am on a self-imposed interaction ban with Viewfinder. I do not see the future need to make any other further observations regarding Viewfinder's competence to edit Wikipedia, since there now seem to be enough outside uninvolved editors watching Talk:Jacob Barnett to guard against further disruption there. I expect that Viewfinder will also refrain from directly confronting me, O mysterious "anonymous" interlocutor. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would like to thank JBarta and Cullen328 for their measured replies here. Now that there are some outside observers at the Jacob Barnett, I think I will self-impose an interaction ban with Viewfinder. I do not think any productive discussion can be got from him, and the stress level of dealing with him is not good for me (or anyone else). Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Is SB going to stop insulting other editors? 166.173.62.223 (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. First, let me say I've never been big on this sort of administrative intrusion into an editor's activity, but it seems we all have our limits, and second, it would be good to keep in mind that we're not here to debate SB's conduct or editing habits. Those aspects can be discussed elsewhere. That said, the issue in my mind is not actually whether Viewfinder has made very many recent edits on the article. This episode actually flared because of a single edit regarding the mother's website that promotes her book and her speaking tours. Rather, the problem is the continual pushing on the talk page for cleansing the article of objectionable content (which, incidentally and unfortunately, is the only content that is supported by WP:RS). Why exactly is this a problem if Viewfinder is not actually editing the article? Two reasons: (1) Definite consensus has already been established regarding the nonsensical nature of the claims, the sources, the mother's website, and so forth and so on. (2) The talk page requires the ongoing attention of many of us in order that the pushed proposals do not become accepted via acclamation. This has become a real nuisance and it is not likely, in my opinion, that any real common ground can be found at this point because the gap is too wide. In particular, on one hand is a group of editors, many of whom (e.g. myself, SB, David Eppstein) have some familiarity with research physics, that insists on a conventional bio consisting of those facts that are supported by independent sources. On the other is Viewfinder, who insists on a romanticized article that paints a heartwarming picture of an autistic boy who rose above his doctor's expectations to take the world of research physics by storm. Unfortunately, the latter version is patently false according to the conventions of the research profession, i.e. that Jacob has never published a paper on besting Einstein, disproving the Big Bang, or any other subject, nor has he been tipped for a Nobel prize, etc, etc. The very nature of the sources, which are comprised entirely of idiotic claims of non-existent research accomplishments by Jacob, his handlers, and media commentators, make this article an inherently bad reflection on Jacob, but likewise the only reflection we can actually report here. As I said, I don't know if this is the administrative answer or not. But I do know that we could all certainly spend our time better elsewhere. Agricola44 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC).
This is not fair and contains factual errors. I have consistently supported the inclusion of links to articles published by the scientific community that state that Barnett did not disprove or significantly expand relativity or done anything else to merit a Nobel Prize. Agricola, who is part of the tightly knit group that appears to me to want to own the article, is calling for me to be topic banned for using the talk page to defend widespread international media coverage that he calls "idiotic". (That is his POV; no RS has been provided that uses that kind of language.) In any case, earlier today I stated on the talk page that I had set out my take on this matter and would not repeat it. Apart from defending myself rather than ignoring the personal attacks, sorry about that, I cannot see what I have done wrong. Has not the real cause of the problem been the persistent personal attacks by SB, which created a nasty atmosphere that undermined consensus building? SB has implied above that he will discontinue these. At the last AfD and DRV debates, I forcefully opposed the arguments for deletion put forward by SB and Agricola, arguments which were rejected by admin. It appears to me to be very likely that they want me topic banned before their next attempt to nominate the article for deletion. Viewfinder (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not the article talk page, so I apologize for responding to this, but it is a good example of what the "consensus position" is having to deal with. First, it is clear (or should be) that claims of multiple, enormous accomplishments in research physics (besting Einstein, disproving relativity, etc, as detailed above, in the AfD, in the talk page) are ipso facto nonsense, especially in light of the fact that there is no vetted research work published, much less submitted on these topics. The claims, and there are many of them, are what I called "idiotic". Conversely, if one carefully reads what Viewfinder just wrote, you see that s/he does not accept this. Viewfinder wants a source that discredits these. Nevermind the lack of basic familiarity of science, this position represents a lack of awareness of where the burden of proof lies. It lies with those making the claims, i.e. Jacob, his handlers, and the complicit media. There is no proof because there are no papers! Viewfinder persists in this bating and there seems to be no way of getting him/her to do a little homework to see how senseless his/her position is. Rather, View wants to romanticize the article because s/he has an admitted affinity to the subject, which is clearly clouding any objective consideration. This is making life difficult for many of us (the accused cabal) that are not willing to see this article made into a non-encyclopedic feel-good and completely false story. I will address anything further back at the talk page. Agricola44 (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC).
It seems that we are not about to agree about the media coverage, and as you say, this is not the place to debate it. But is that a good enough reason to get me topic banned? Viewfinder (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for both Viewfinder and Sławomir Biały being indefinite topic-banned from the Jacob Barnett article. And, given that editors can be blocked for behavior that is less disruptive than the insults made by Sławomir Biały, I favor Sławomir Biały being blocked for several days from editing Wikipedia. 107.19.108.233 (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Anonymous IP: while we are here, perhaps this would be a good time for you to clarify your relationship to I'm your Grandma. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), DoctorTerrella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), LadyLeodia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and the other two anonymous IPs earlier in this thread. You seem to be stalking me from your sockpuppet accounts. (Any checkusers around?) Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are me. Serial accounts, no overlap. Why? Several reasons, short fuses of admins, but mostly I find you intimidating. I have tried to contribute constructively. You have insulted me. So I moved on to a new identity. 166.173.184.59 (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This explanation doesn't add up. User:I'm your Grandma apparently "retired" as the result of being blocked for disruption at Global warming, an article I have never even edited. This was well after I had any contact with him or her at Talk:Fourier transform, where I responded rather curtly to some incoherent criticisms concerning that article. The same editor then apparently stalked me to WT:WPM concerning the featured article Euclidean algorithm and subsequently wrecked that article, requiring an RfC and the valiant efforts of a number of distinguished mathematical editors, myself included, to sort the mess out. Now User:LadyLeodia has suddenly appeared as a "new" editor at Fourier transform, followed me to ANI, and has introduced still more socks (obvious provocateurs) onto the scene. It's hard to see how that is a legitimate use of alternative accounts. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
SB, you are a smart guy, very smart. Your contributions to WP would be much more effective if you stopped insulting people. As for me, I will not, any further, explain my identity. I am, now, an anonymous IP. Good bye, 166.173.63.171 (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Abuse by TheRedPenOfDoom of fellow editor[edit]

ARBCOM ISSUE
Please contact one or both of the case clerks listed at the top of the page , Ks0stm and/or Sphilbrick, for assistance NE Ent 10:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop&diff=639643141&oldid=639642361

A bit too ad hominem/abusive for WP, I think. Happy holidays. Bramble window (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


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

Weeks-long vandalism to multiple articles[edit]

RESOLVED
blocked by NF NE Ent 10:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following account and IP addresses are one person; all IP addresses are based in New Jersey and involve similar editing patterns and goals (sorted chronologically by editing):

Over the last few weeks, this person has been repeatedly inserting false and unsourced information into a multitude of articles. Their IP addresses change day-to-day and they appear to edit from two locations, so blocks have proven unaffective. Placement of misinformation tends to be on The Game Awards (now protected), American Ninja Warrior, Hess Corporation, and other game show, band, and TV-related articles. Blatant misinformation include small things like incorrectly changing band dates and the number of shows in a TV series.

Any attempts to warn and contact have been unsuccessful (with the exception being at Talk:The_Game_Awards, including a personal attack). User doesn't seem to let up despite warnings, blocks, reversions, and multiple attempts to contact from multiple editors.

Any possible action at this point? Not sure how plausible a range block would be; protecting targeted articles has been done with The Game Awards, but I'm not too fond of protected other articles yet. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Range blocked for a month (2601:c:4180:51c::/64). One good edit in last two months compared to overall edits. NativeForeigner Talk 09:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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

How to deal with a persistent long-term vandal[edit]

A British IP user, sometimes known as the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Martial arts vandal or Burton-on-Trent vandal, is known for extensive edit warring against changes to push articles into MOS compliance, genre warring, content blanking, and generally disruptive behavior on martial arts-related articles, especially Hong Kong action films. He's been active for perhaps six years now, and I've tracked his IP numbers back a few years in the linked LTA report. Among other requests for administrative action, a range bock and community ban were floated. Both were declined, and the LTA report was written instead. Over the next few months, I tracked and reported him to AIV, and he was blocked fairly quickly.

In the last report, however, Ronhjones declined to block him. In a discussion on his talk page, we discussed alternatives, such as permanent semi-protection of affected pages. This works, but it doesn't do anything to stop the vandal's disruption from spreading to new articles. As a compulsive edit warrior, it's kind of pointless to revert the vandal unless he's been blocked, as he will sometimes edit war for hours to keep his changes. While I and the involved vandal fighters obviously welcome any semi-protection or alternative proposals for dealing with him, I think the vandal still needs to be blocked to limit his disruption. However, if we're not going to block him, then I think we need to find consensus for an alternative proposal, hopefully before he can disrupt too many more articles.

Rather than re-submit to AIV, I've taken the issue here, so that a discussion can happen. Besides the Whac-A-Mole at AIV, two other possible solutions were offered a while ago: contacting his ISP directly (abuse@sky.com) and an edit filter. Recently, discussion of both took place recently on my talk page after the vandal blanked conversations about his disruptive edits. Would an edit filter be a good idea? I've tried to incorporate enough data in the LTA report that an edit filter would be possible. I'm not familiar with the edit filter itself, but I do have some recollection of regular expressions from back in college.

Oh, the current IP is: 90.197.99.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Contacting his ISP is pointless. An edit-filter would be the way to go. You've got IP ranges, the articles are generally in two categories ... that should be enough. You'll need to include as much detail as possible at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Knowing the ISP is Sky - there's definitely no point - Sky will not be interested at all. It's probably a Sky customer, who gets broadband as a package with their Sky TV network - they are not going to stop him paying his £30-£45 a month fee. For the same reason a rangeblock is impracticable - it will hit many thousands of people. An edit filter is an interesting idea, I'm not sure if his edits are similar enough to trip a filter, but it would be worth a trial. There's very little else that can identify him once he starts from a new IP address - the UK system cannot geolocate the user by the IP address, all the IP address as UK wide. There's ten pages he seems to like, semi-protected for now - maybe we need a combination of semi and filter... Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I guess there's no point in contacting Sky. Maybe I can put together an edit filter proposal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cig editors[edit]

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

User:TheNorlo[edit]

This user has referred to me as an Idiot here and a moron here. And than refers to me as a troll here. This makes it clear that he and User:FergusM1970 are referring to me [5].

This user is a WP:SPA who only edits material regarding electronic cigarettes [6]. They were previously warned about edit warring here and were at ANI for incivility here [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

  • "Right now, the bottom line is that we need to remove the statement that says that there is no evidence.... Which is false, period.TheNorlo (talk) 6:01 pm, 17 December 2014, last Wednesday (5 days ago) (UTC−8)
It is false! The studies did find some evidence... Not strong evidence, but evidence nonetheless. See hereTheNorlo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "The new RfC is WP:DISRUPT and I suspect that his is intentional. Doc James opens up the conversation by saying that a Google search shows that health articles comprises the vast majority of articles, this is an outright lie. This entire RfC is based on a lie."
These are my basis to say that Doc James is lying, now I agree that it isn't very scientific but on the other hand, Doc James claims about google results showing that " If one does a google search one finds that by far the large majority of the articles discuss the potential health implications primarily were not more scientific. I have posted this in the appropriate section of the talk page.
I just did a quick google search in the news section using "Electronic cigarette" in the search fiels, and then complied the numbers of articles of the first 9 pages of google and I divided them in 3 main categories (Health, Regulation and Usage) plus one category (other), this is what I found:
  • Health: 23 Articles
  • Regulations: 22 Articles
  • Usage: 10 Articles
  • Other: 25 ArticlesTheNorlo (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In a discussion, mischaracterizing my position with a straw man argument: "Let me get this straight.... Formerly 98 oppose the proposal because he dislikes the title of this talk section? If that's the case, we have to disregard his opposition."
  • "You did not provide any other reason for opposing the proposition other than the fact that you were offended that I called the Grana review "nonsense" (I should of said garbage) how exactly did I mis-characterized your position? Opposing substance because you don't like the form shows a blatant lack of arguments and makes your opinion irrelevant."

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

Well, Why have you never countered my "straw man argument"? because it wasn't one. My arguments were valid as you guys can see here.TheNorlo (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
More content disagreements. AlbinoFerret 19:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
No. This is not about a content disagreement. You are being disingenuous. This could result in a WP:BOOMERANG block/ban for supporting disruption. I think admins want to cut down on this kind of behavior. User:AlbinoFerret is one of the problem e-cig editors. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:AlbinoFerret. QuackGuru (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

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

@QuackGuru No, this section against TheNorlo is over a content dispute QG. If you have some proof that it isnt, provide it. Secondly, that section you keep linking to was closed long ago with a finding of no consensus, and you forget there is a long section on your disruptive edits to go along with the dozens of others you have been blocked/banned over time. There was no finding of a problem with my edits even after a month, but if you continue to bring it up, I will start a section here about your slanderous comments against me. AlbinoFerret 08:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Response to User:AlbinoFerret.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&curid=42877829&diff=637458479&oldid=637418234 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "remove pure health related claims from a page on regulation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=637569001&oldid=637568901 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "the specific adverse effects are medical claims and not legal in nature".
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=637681446&oldid=637668408 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638529647&oldid=638526634 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=next&oldid=638536969 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=next&oldid=638606344 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638827743&oldid=638815324 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638907061&oldid=638608587 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=prev&oldid=639381769 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page?
Most of the paragraph is not found in any other article. So why is it being deleted when the text has nothing to do with legal status; it's just shoehorning in health claims.? Isn't the Safety of electronic cigarettes page about health claims? This is what User:AlbinoFerret deleted from another page where he stated the text does not belong.[8][9] If User:AlbinoFerret believed the text he deleted the Safety of electronic cigarettes page belongs in another article then why is he not moving it to another article? These are the facts. User:TheNorlo is a saint compared to User:AlbinoFerret. User:AlbinoFerret wrote "There was no finding of a problem with my edits even after a month." How about now? QuackGuru (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Why are you posting the details of your content dispute with AlbinoFerret at ANI? In a section about the conduct of TheNorlo?Levelledout (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a behavior problem claiming the text is not relevant to the Safety of electronic cigarettes page when it was deleted the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page. User:AlbinoFerret claimed in his post above "There was no finding of a problem with my edits even after a month." I was responding to his comment. I provided evidence his edits are a problem. QuackGuru (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
An editor deleting text from an article because for instance they didn't think it was relevant and you disagreeing with them is definitely not a behaviour problem, it is the definition of a content dispute.Levelledout (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
User:AlbinoFerret claimed it was not relevant for the Safety of electronic cigarettes page but then he deleted a lot of the same text from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page. The text is relevant but he claims it should go in another article. But he did not add the text to another article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for proving all of this is a content dispute. You have taken summaries from other daughter pages of Electronic cigarette and placed them on Safety of electronic cigarette. Thats the process of creating a WP:POVFORK. If the information is relevant, it should be on the daughter page with its topic. You just dont seem to get it. The material is off topic for that page. AlbinoFerret 11:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You deleted this.
The emerging phenomenon of e-cigarettes has raised concerns among the health community, pharmaceutical industry, health regulators and state governments.[17] A 2014 review stated that e-cigarette regulation should be given consideration because of the "reported" adverse health effects.[27] For example, they found that "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that e-cigarettes contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals, such as nitrosamines and diethylene glycol, which have potentially harmful effects on humans."[27] Additionally, a WHO report in 2009 cautioned that the "safety of e-cigarettes is not confirmed, and e-cigarettes are not an appropriate tool for smoking cessation therapy."[27] "In a nutshell, the WHO report shows that e-cigarettes and similar devices pose threats to public health," said Douglas Bettcher, director of WHO's prevention of noncommunicable diseases.[41] In several countries advertising for e-cigarettes has been monetarily restricted until safety and efficacy clinical trials are conclusive.[35]
Almost all of the text is specifically about safety. You have not made a reasonable argument to delete the text about safety. Rather than delete it you could of tweaked the text. QuackGuru (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

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

More content disputes, keep posting them QG, it only proves my point that this is all about content. AlbinoFerret 14:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for TheNorlo[edit]

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


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

  • Support Just to be sure it gets counted, I'll make the obvious statement that I support my own proposal. Formerly 98 (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
You guys are really on a seek and destroy mission to get rid of every editor that you disagree with it's incredible, is AlbinoFerret next? I never referred to WP:RS as garbage, I referred the study of Grana/Glantz as garbage 2 completely different things, a study that is frustratingly over cited by the article, +- 25 citations, that is almost twice as the other WP:RS source that we have there.
Please explain to me how this conversation here for example, shows me not trying to reach consensus? I could give you more examples but why would I? Just make your case and let's see how it unfolds. TheNorlo (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Circulation is one of the top medical journals. Hardly a "garbage" source. Lots of issues with incivility. Has been warned about them in the past. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Again I referred to the grana glantz review as nonsense, not circulation and not WPRS policies.TheNorlo (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
This comment you made on Dec 22nd at 13:49 is inappropriate [10]. You were encouraging the harassment of another editor. And this was after your apology here on Dec 22nd at 07:39. Also to that "apology" you later added the comment "I still think that you might be a troll". So not really an apology. This was also not appropriate [11]. You appear to be too personally invested in e-cigs and I think it would be best for both you and Wikipedia to edit in another topic area for a while. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Temporary 6 months topic ban on EC. Noteswork (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I am new to all this wiki bureaucratic procedures . Dont you get to say why you support or oppose, or is this only a matter of how many votes are pro\con? TheNorlo (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You have confirmed that you should not have insulted Doc James, yet you have also confirmed that you should have still insulted his comments. That's not even an apology. Noteswork (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I believe that insulting Doc James was an unacceptable behavior on my part, but attacking his comment as being stupid is justified. I still think that his argument is stupid. Doc James is a certified physician, stupid people do not become physicians, so I admit that the personal insult was out of line. TheNorlo (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Behaviour problems and non-neutral editing is well-evidenced above; the EC article is a fraught mess as it is, so this temporary ban would likely be a positive step in helping to improve that situation. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow, what non-neutral editing are you talking about? The article has been locked since the Big Bang. I am actually trying to improve this article, I am not the one engaged in edit warring, I am not the one that got this article locked. Whatever, ban me for six month and let's see how better and neutral this article becomes. TheNorlo (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • OpposeThis is a content dispute where one side is in disagreement with the other. Nothing pointed out rises to meriting a topic ban. This is an attempt to remove an active editor from a page that has a lot of disagreement over content. AlbinoFerret 11:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Note. User:TheNorlo informed User:AlbinoFerret on 07:28, 24 December 2014 about this before he commented here. This appears to be canvassing by User:TheNorlo. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I am not familiar with this whole procedure but I see that every editors that I disagree with are here supporting the ban, so I asked the other active editors of the article to drop their 2 cents here as well, If you dig deeper Quack, you will find that I notified more editors. If that's against the rules then I didn't know.... But something tells me its not really canvassing. TheNorlo (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@QuackGuru I have been involved in this discussion since December 22nd. diff I did not take what TheNorlo said on my talk page as asking me to comment here. I would have posted in this section regardless of his post on my talk page, because once I post on a topic I come back to it until the discussion is done. AlbinoFerret 13:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for what its worth. Some here claim that I edit in a POV manner but no one has presented any evidence of this. show me an actual edit that I have made on the article that shows a clear bias on my part. I dare you. I am the only one here that have admitted to be biased on the subject but I edit consciously so that I am as neutral as possible in the edit that matters I.e. the edits that ends up in the article. Again, show me where my bias as transpired on the article. As for the insults Doc James, I should not have done that, I should of said that your arguments were stupid, I should not have said that you were stupid, that was a mistake. You were saying that an ecig is only an ecig when its full of liquid and that it seased to be an ecig when its empty and therefor ecigs are drugs, that my friend is a stupid argument, espescially for a man as educated as yourself, as others have pointed out. TheNorlo (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. When User:TheNorlo was not logged in back in May he wrote "This is (Redacted) ridiculous! And they have the balls to keep removing the POV sign! There is no (Redacted) concensus!"[12] Rather than stopping this kind about behavior he has continued with similar behavior problems based on the evidence given by User:Formerly 98. He can't edit from a neutral point of view. For example, he wants to propose to drastically shorten the lede for the e-cigs article. The lede isn't especially long to begin with and the lede is readability for the general reader. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Come on Quack, This version, is number one, a work in progress, number 2 neutral, number three I am not the o ly one that thinks that the status quo is hard to read. If you think that it is to POV, you should comment in the discussion section so it can be fixed. This is clearly a content disagreement. TheNorlo (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban - Presumably its going to be said that I'm only commenting here after being notified but I have already contributed to this discussion and was going to make this comment anyway. I accept that TheNorlo has engaged in personal attacks which is unacceptable. However I'm not sure about any of the other evidence of conduct issues. I would support a warning for personal attacks which would give them a chance to correct their behaviour.Levelledout (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

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

I just told you that. Read above. As I said, Every single active editor on the article that I disagree with is here trying to ban me. So I have asked the other active editor to pitch in their 2cents on this ban proposal. Is this vanvassing? I don't think so but again, I am not familiar with the inner workings of wikipedia policies. I am learning as I go here, give me a break. TheNorlo (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Not too wrong because you have notified involved editors. Noteswork (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
User:TheNorlo notified the editors who mostly agree with him and almost always disagree with me. QuackGuru (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh! I'm sorry Quack, I didn't realize that all this was about you. TheNorlo (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
As I said, every editor that I have profound disagrement with are here already. The editors that I have reached out to are the other involved editors. I do not believe that these other editors are particularly partial to me, I have had some content disagreement in the past with some of them but we were able to work them out (I think) TheNorlo (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC).
This is not true. The following editors have participated significantly on the Talk page and in editing the article itself
  • Zad68
  • Wnt
  • CFCF
  • Cloudpk
  • Yobol
But none of these editors was canvassed. Only his closest allies. Formerly 98 (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this list Ill notify them later in the day. No body seems to care that I am new at this and didn't know that I could notify people..
And it is weird that all of you guys are here, every editor that I deeply disagree with are conveniently right here to ban, just like that, magically, without any canvassing. TheNorlo (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes the efforts at canvassing are unfortunate. Another reason that I support a topic ban. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is against WP:CANVASS. Your notice is barely neutral and you admit that it's only to get the votes you want. If you want to be taken seriously, you would notify all the relevant editors and argue on the merits here. I'm sure the closing admin will consider this not a vote and the fact that the only editors who opposed it were those you specifically sought out is clear vote-stacking and not helping you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I have never admitted such a thing, please don't put words in my mouth, thank you. I will not notify anybody else... I get it.... TheNorlo (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @QuackGuru, how can it be canvassing again when TheNorlo has not canvassed before? I was already involved in this discussion, on December 22 I made a comment above. diff. This is a subsection, the whole topic is one big section. SPACKlick has also made a comment in the discussion of these two editors so was aware of the section here. diff. While he may have canvassed the remaining two editors, its impossible to know all of wikipedias rules. TheNorlo is a newer editor, his first edit was in May of this year. He is taking this section seriously, as it should be, and looks to inadvertently broken a rule by informing two uninvolved editors. With the comments on the Electronic cigarette about this case with a link to it, I am almost positive all of the notified editors, SPACKlick, Levelledout and KimDabelsteinPetersen would have looked at this section and most likely would have commented, and SPACKlick and myself were already involved in this section on AN/I. AlbinoFerret 14:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Above User:AlbinoFerret opposes the ban and wrote in part: "Nothing pointed out rises to meriting a topic ban." User:AlbinoFerret wrote "But he appears to have outed you as one of his meatpuppet friends."diff I am debating on filing a statement on this on the sockpuppet board."[13] User:AlbinoFerret also wrote "Why did you and your secret friends do this?"[14] It appears User:AlbinoFerret has some issues with commenting on the talk page. That may be why he thinks it does not rise to the level of a ban. User:Ricky81682 warned User:TheNorlo for bias canvassing. User:AlbinoFerret, that is your opinion it was not canvassing. User:AlbinoFerret, don't be surprised if you get banned. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only one here that didn't understood a word of what Quack just said? TheNorlo (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
All I see is that QuackGuru just presented evidence that he himself and other editors were conspiring to edit (meatpuppets). If he isnt blocked for this, he should be permanently topic banned from all Electronic cigarette articles. TheNorlo was not involved in that so I question why he outed himself. I asked him for an explanation on his talk page, which he deleted and did not respond. I was thinking about coming here about it. I was also looking for another post where one of the named editors in a post replied with "We".
I never said it wasnt canvassing, but that it looks to be the inadvertent breaking of a rule by a newer editor. That the canvassing was really limited to two editiors because the other two named were already involved so cant be said to be canvassed. That the two who were would have most likely seen a mention of this section on the Electronic cigarette articles talk page and come here and commented anyway. AlbinoFerret 13:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Just to correct you, my first edit was the 26 of October 2013, a little more than a year ago. But as I said many times, I am still new at this wikilawering stuff. But I get it now... I will not notify any body ever again about anything. I just find it weird that every editor that disagree with me are here. I'm sick of this anyways.... Let them have their ways, Merry Christmas, I'll be back in 6 months. TheNorlo (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose And yes, it might look as if i've been canvassed to lend my support here to TheNorlo, but in fact i have/had read everything on this thread earlier. I am supportive of the ban below, but there was already a pile-up, and i couldn't see any reason to add more to that conversation. But in this case, i can't really see any reason to ban (topic or otherwise), because i can't see any real wrong doing or misbehaviour. We all as editors have views, and if we can't express these, such as saying that we (along with some rather eminent scientists[15]) find the Grana et al. review to be rather crappy, then you might as well ban me along with TheNorlo... There is some incivil language pointed out above, but really considering that almost every person who disagrees with QG, Doc James and Alexbrn etc. have been called socks, SPA's, unwitting industry shills, fringe supporters etc... then there should be a rather big ban-hammer going around - and maybe there should. But this isn't one of the cases. --Kim D. Petersen 20:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Kim D. Petersen "can't see any real wrong doing or misbehaviour." That is a problem when one of his closest allies supports the continued behaviour problems. I would recommend to the closing admin to consider banning the editors who continue to support the behaviour problems. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. TheNorlo (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: if you really want to discuss WP:BOOMERANG.. then we should discuss your behaviour as well - shouldn't we? But you can be relieved by the fact that i personally find this "lets try to eliminate editors who disagree with us on AN/I" behaviour to be rather dispicable and low. Please do not throw stones when you yourself are living in a glasshouse :) --Kim D. Petersen 17:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Doc James and Noteswork. Civility issues seem to be the main issue here coupled with potentially some competence issues on what constitutes a reliable source and blatant self-described advocacy issues a section below this. Since the user appears to only primarily edit E-cig articles and appears to be an WP:SPA at my quick glance, the best choice here seems to be giving them a break from the article either voluntarily or otherwise. Better for them to start out in less contentious topics to figure out how to approach things civilly.
I'll also point out that aside from Noteswork and myself, we're left with involved editors in varying degrees. I'd ask the closing admin to be mindful of that. The drama from E-cig articles appears to have the community wanting to avoid it as much as possible. After following the conversations through boards for awhile, it does seem like there are pervasive advocacy problems among some editors, some of which are amongst the current opposes. That's not to say there haven't been some issues on the "other side". However, my read of all this over time has been that there's a group of editors who are very passionate about the topic and some appear to reach the point of defending E-cigs who dedicate a large chunk of time to the topic to say the least. This has resulted in other less involved editors having to dig their feet in to try to combat the amount of passion and time these editors spend on the article (sometimes over 18 hours a day). This is a hallmark of why WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI (in terms of passion, not for being paid) like behavior are so tough to deal with on Wikipedia. No idea how to actually fix that, but that's just the view I'm left with as an outside observer. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Kingofaces43 One thing I will agree with you is that the community is avoiding e-cig topics. Not just here but on other notice boards. This makes asking questions impossible. I have started or been involved on sections on the OR, RS, and NPOV noticeboards that have gone unanswered by uninvolved editors. How are editors supposed to find out if what they are doing or thinking is correct if no one answers them? I also disagree with the idea that some are involved in advocay. There are checks and balances in having editors who disagree on edits. This imho keeps the edits conforming to WP policy and guidelines. AlbinoFerret 17:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a little bit more of a user talk page discussion, but maybe it'll do some good for other folks to see it. The main issue I see at RSN, etc. is that you folks basically take over the board and continue the argument there when the board should be a place for outside opinion. Someone should post a question, and other involved editors are welcome to clarify or state additional info, but the primary goal should be to let other editors comment. Instead, the thread is swamped with the same back and forth between involved editors from the article talk page, and that essentially shuts down the ability for an outside editor to make an effective comment. In your case, I would say you are one of those editors that stands out sometimes. That's not me saying it's due to malice or anything like that, but simply that you comment a lot at those boards and need to learn to step back a bit. If folks follow that approach, that will open up the atmosphere for more outside comments, but some of the damage has already been done for the time being too. As for advocacy, I'm just saying that's what the behavior I'm seeing is indicative of. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Kingofaces43 Here is a perfect example of what I pointed out above. link There are only two posts, both on the same day and the second only clarified my question. It went unanswered until it was archived. TheNorlo was the other party to post. All that was asked is if it was a reliable source, no back and forth. I for one had doubts if it were but to prove it to myself I asked the question. TheNorlo wasnt sure, and I posted the question and linked to it to show him that there are places to go and ask questions without arguing. I also agree that it would be better if this were on a talk page, but its an issue that needs more eyes on it imho. AlbinoFerret 18:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I recall those threads pretty clearly. There had already been other threads previous where the issues I described were more clear. That was a point where I decided it wasn't worth it to comment as an outside party as I'm sure many others probably did to looking at the lack of response. It was actually threads like those that my damage is done comment was based on. I don't have a solution for that specific problem now other than hopefully time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, in the short term this creates more of a problem than it solves. On a contentious article like e-cig where there are editors who have not been exposed to such articles, it gives them no opportunity to learn outside of the articles talk page. Since the talk page moves so fast because of the total number of editors, there is no time. It makes arguments more likely to happen on the talk page, because no one answers the questions, the editor who asks questions is left to what they think is right. Outside editors answering questions can and does stop this. AlbinoFerret 19:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Kingofaces43 WP:ADVOCACY is specifically directed at editors who disregard reliable sources, and the overall gist of the literature in favor of their personal opinion - not editors who know something about the topic, have the time, or who are passionate about it. If we only measured editors more positive on how disinterested or how little time they put into a topic, then Wikipedia is lost. Or in other words: Since when has "passion and time" been a Wikipedia no-no in and of itself? It is the disruptive behavior, and/or the disregard of the literature in favour of personal opinions that is a problem - not time and passion. --Kim D. Petersen 18:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I was still talking about advocacy with the passion and time comment, namely when it reaches the level of being tendentious. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you have the wrong group of editors when you say it contains a tendentious editor(s). I dont see one section of any of that page that fits TheNorlo or any editor that questions what the medical group is doing (that being 90% one editor). AlbinoFerret 19:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Thinking about the "other group" I highly suggest reading this [16] if you're up for tongue-in-cheek humor by replacing version with editor or group. I like to do that to give myself a bonk on the head when I'm tempted towards fingerpointing in a dispute anyways.
Tendentiousness is a broad behavior issue, so it can be easy to overlook since it's at a more general level than just an isolated comment that can be diff-linked to. Disruptive editing, IDHT behavior coupled with competence issues, and others that can arise within content disputes are problematic and can give the appearance of POV-pushing. Those are some of the hardest behaviors to address here at ANI too. I'm seeing more of those issues stemming not from the med group (though one does have a history of really digging their feet in on some fringe topics) but from the other side of the court more often. That's been brought up to individual editors and at these boards, but it doesn't seem like the point has gotten across as there are combined editor behavior issues that are snowballing together to form the drama here. Either way, this is all my 2 cents at this point, so after reading this, I'd hope all involved editors take a moment to reflect on things they potentially didn't hear some time ago. Otherwise, I've given my thoughts on it all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
First of all, I woukd like to say that I have learned a lot from this little episode and that regardless of the outcome it's been very informative and will probably make me a better editor. That being said, I believe that the only thing that should warrant me to get banned is the insults that I have targeted toward Doc James, I accept that they were unacceptable and unproductive. I do not accept however the advocacy accusations. I believe that an advocacy accusation would require more proof than simply me saying that I am passionate about the topic. I would like to know which edit I've made on the article that leads to this accusation. I also do not accept the accusation that I disregard WP:RS. I am not the only one that thinks that a certain review article is being given to much weight in the article, even experts in the field says that this review is rather iffy. Calling it garbage might of been a little to strong but should not warrant a ban. Anyhow, I will tone down my language (as much as I can) in the future. TheNorlo (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite community and/or topic ban, per evidence presented by Formerly 98. ElectricBurst(Is there anything you need of me?) 00:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban of at least six months from all e-cigarette articles, broadly construed. The editor's "passion" seems to have clouded their judgment. The insults and canvassing seal the deal for me. Perhaps some time spent working on topics where they can be dispassionate, and observing the destructive effects of the unbridled passions of others, will enable them to mature into a productive editor. Perhaps not. Time will tell. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
If you guys think I'm going to waste my time editing articles I'm not interested in, you are out of your minds. I'm out, see ya. Congratulation to Quack, Doc and Formerly. Enjoy. TheNorlo (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970[edit]

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

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

They have a long block log [17] and have had previous unblock request declined due to incivility [18]

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

Sorry what? Outing myself? As what, me?
This is a Wikipedia noticeboard, Doc. It is not the Internet Police. What I say on Twitter is nothing to do with AN/I and very definitely nothing to do with you. And as for what VapeMeStoopid writes, take it up with her. I wish you luck.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 07:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Doc do you have any Diffs of specific incivility on wiki from this user? SPACKlick (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Twitter can't provide diffs.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I have not, to the best of my recollection, posted a link to my Twitter account on Wikipedia and I would much prefer it if other editors did not do so.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • FergusM1970, without actually putting myself fully into this I will have to play somewhat devil's advocate here. I don't like doxing or really bringing in one's personal social media accounts- I actually try to keep my personal social media accounts private myself. However at the same time I have to say that if you make comments on a social media account about an incident that you're currently involved in, odds are high that it will be discovered and posted on here- especially if it is particularly incendiary or comes across as you trying to rally others to come on to Wikipedia to help argue a case or a viewpoint. This may not have been your intent, but that's why you do have to be careful about posting on social media outlets and what you post. It's why I try to never mention anything on my personal social media accounts, because I know that these things can and will be brought up on here. This doesn't mean that I particularly like the idea that I have to censor myself off Wikipedia in any form or fashion, but if you do post anything off Wikipedia then you run the risk of it getting mentioned here if an editor thinks it may be applicable to an ANI case or incident. In this particular case you made a tweet on 4:05 PM - 20 Dec 2014 where you asked people to come to the talk page for an article you are editing and vote on a subject- something that is highly discouraged on Wikipedia because many of the incoming editors are often completely unaware of Wikipedia policies and their opinions may not fall within said policies- especially if you're asking them to vote a specific way. (It's also seen as WP:CANVASSING.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not objecting to him complaining about anything I said offsite, and I'm easy enough to find if anyone's interested enough to look, but I don't post links to my own accounts and I'd prefer it if others didn't either. I did ask current Wikipedia members to contribute, which I realize was suboptimal, but as the RfC has heavy undertones of WP:IDHT and WP:FILIBUSTER, being opened immediately after an identical one found no grounds for the layout Doc wants, I was somewhat frustrated. Doc has been very problematic at that article and has managed to get it locked twice in three days by starting edit wars.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 10:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @FergusM1970: I am quite honestly disappointed that you allege that Doc "refuses to engage constructively" yet you are involved in such childish behaviour. Honestly? Grow the fuck up. And I suggest you and TheNorlo read the relevant policies before I sanction you for your problematic behaviour. —Dark 10:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of canvassing? Please explain how. And pkease explain how my behaviour is problematic, other than the fact that I laughed at a joke and that I inderctly called Doc James an idiot and a moron, to which I've apologized. TheNorlo (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
He's doing his best to prevent any changes being made to the article, which is in a dire condition. As of yesterday there were a number of discussions and attempts to find consensus, some of which were making progress, but Doc started edit-warring to restore his preferred version and got the article locked again. Now he's repeating an RfC that was closed a few days ago. He seems determined to bring the article under the scope of MED, even though there are no obvious grounds for doing so, and to prevent any improvements unless that happens.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 10:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
SO that excuses your behaviour? —Dark 10:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I shouldn't have posted that link to TheNorlo.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 10:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
It was organized per WP:MEDMOS for a good 18 months [19]. Yes you managed to get a number of people to join this RfC through your hard recruitment. This user has since been blocked User:CheesyAppleFlake and it was closed as no consensus. Since than our WP:SPA pertaining to e-cigs have expanded in number. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
But the point is that it shouldn't have been organised per MEDMOS because it isn't a medical article. I know that you have some unconventional views on the subject but they are not supported by either general or medical sources, so the article shouldn't be organized according to them. Exactly one person joined that RfC at my suggestion and he made what looks like a moderate and reasonable comment.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 10:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

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

I doubt they do see what it says, because it's unreadable. Largely because Doc won't let any changes be made by anyone who's not coming from a MED position.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
This sort of "the other side is wrong and unreasonable because they refuse to accept my point of view" is typical advocacy behavior, and is not productive debate. This is exactly why we should not have WP:SPAs taking over our articles and using them for WP:ADVOCACY. Many members of this group are on the page pretty much 18 hours a day. It is impossible for anyone who is not willing and able to dedicate their lives to this article to engage in a meaningful way with discussions held among hardcore advocates and "consensus" decisions being made within intervals smaller than that between visits to the page of most non-WP:ADVOCACY editors. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that