Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive894

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

Noticeboard archives



Pursuant to the discussion and consensus here, Stevertigo is indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia by the community. He may appeal this ban to the Arbitration Committee, as is standard. --ceradon (talkedits) 10:17, 4 August 2015 (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.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Block He is clearly not here to build an encycolpedia. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Temporary block This sort of incomprehensible behaviour is certainly problematic. That and the violation of sanctions justifies a block. Given this users long history of contribution I would like to see a temporary block. In my experience people who engage in these sort of bizarre ideas tend to have good times and bad times. Perhaps in 6 months this user will be able to contribute constructively again. Chillum 16:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that per the arbcom ruling I have deleted the pages this user created without sources. I also moved back a back that he moved out of the way to create Expressive power. Chillum 16:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support - (portion redacted, see below Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)) Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs, plus this user is clearly editing (adding unsourced material) in contravention of an active Arbcom restriction (to source all edits). In any of these cases, the best that we can probably do for this user is to indefinitely block and give the WP:STANDARDOFFER. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I suggest you redact your medical opinions. Collect (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
      • It could relevant to treating the situation with some sensitivity rather than annoyance. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
        • No, Collect is right about this, we have a strict policy forbidding specific medical advice. It wasn't so intended, but could be so interpreted, so I have refactored. In future I would take it as good faith if you were to refactor on my behalf if I step across one of these bright-line policies. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
          • I've refactored my comment as well — no medical advice there, but no need to get into that here. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no massive number of problem edits by this (interesting) person, and a block would be far more punitive than preventative. He has posted in the past year fairly infrequently, and making a "big deal" out of the (interesting) posts is not important in the "great scheme of things." Heck, I also routinely objected to banning (grumpy) editors who have been brought to this court. If the matter is not of substantial and urgent importance, it is not worth the paper we are using here. Collect (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have extensively examined this editor's editing history over the last few years. Almost all edits to articles are unsourced, and while many of them make do not seem to be problematic, a very large proportion of them add content which at best is personal opinion, and at worst is crazy. Many of the pages created are clearly about ideas the editor has made up himself or herself. This applies not only to the strikingly bizarre conspiracy editing, but also to articles which on the face of it look more natural and plausible. For example, the article Universal Ranking System (now deleted) was completely unsourced. I have searched, and failed to find anything anywhere referring to the sort of "Universal Ranking System" described in the article. What is more, the article's second sentence says "such a ranking system would have to use...", with the word "would" clearly indicating that this is a hypothetical concept, a system which does not exist. Reading the article as a whole, it is evident that it is not about an actual ranking system, but rather about Stevertigo's personal ideas about what a universal ranking system should be. This is a relatively mild example: other parts of Stevertigo's editing are much worse, some of them totally crazy.
  • We are not dealing with an editor who has made a few unacceptable edits, and created one or two good faith but not very good articles. We are dealing with an editor who had such an extensive history of totally unacceptable editing that he or she was placed under restrictions which required sources for all article content, but who five years later is still making numerous unsourced and unreasonable edits, including creating completely unsourced articles which are totally off the top of his or her head, unrelated to anything in real life.
  • Chillum says "In my experience people who engage in these sort of bizarre ideas tend to have good times and bad times. Perhaps in 6 months this user will be able to contribute constructively again." Maybe that "tends" to be the case for "people who engage in these sort of bizarre ideas", but it does not appear to be so in this specific case. Why should we think it likely that in a few months the editor will have changed for the better, since several years have produced no such change?
  • Collect says "There is no massive number of problem edits by this (interesting) person, and a block would be far more punitive than preventative." Collect must have looked at a very different sample of Stevertigo's than I have, because I have seen a very large number of edits which at best violate the ArbCom restriction, and at worst are total nonsense.
  • The ArbCom ruling says "he may be blocked for a period of up to one week for each infraction". On the basis of that ruling, I could easily block him for many months, without further discussion. However, I don't think that would be enough. The editor has been subject to discussion in (to my knowledge) at least eleven administrators' noticeboard discussions, and at least three Arbcom cases, and has had restrictions placed on his/her editing at several of those discussions. We did not get to the stage of Arbcom placing blanket restrictions on the editor and authorising summary blocks for individual unsourced edits until the editor had been a major cause of problems. Nearly five years later, the same editor is (a) continuing to produce large numbers of unacceptable edits (b) completely ignoring the Arbcom ruling, and (c) failing or refusing to recognise that there is a problem. What is more, some of the problems are on exactly the same topics which were causes of sanctions before, such as Barack Obama related editing. Problems have been going on for at least ten years (when the editor was repeatedly blocked, and then desysopped): to expect that the problems will now fade away in a few months is unrealistic. Time for an indefinite block, and probably a site ban. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In response to your question "Why should we think it likely that in a few months the editor will have changed for the better, since several years have produced no such change". The only reason I wanted to give this user a future chance is because they have been here 13 years and was once an admin. Clearly at some point they were productive. I am assuming that they were not disruptive for the whole 13 years. Regardless I do support a block, I just think the standard offer should apply at the very least. Chillum 16:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I tangled with Stevertigo years ago over his insistence that his personal analysis was correct at the article Perfect crime (what exactly does "perfect" mean?) He was wedded to the idea that his own original research was a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. The friction between us escalated to this textbook example of disruption to make a point. Discussion such as this one in September 2009 resulted in him being blocked. Later, at a Wikipedia meetup, I talked with him in person, and he seemed a reasonable guy, but this recent spate of work proves otherwise. Support site ban. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose blocking and site ban. If there is something wrong with the content on his user page, remove it or delete it. From what I can tell, his user page statement is less of an antisemitic one and more of a Christian one. In any case, while it is certainly quite easy to dismiss Steve as "totally crazy" per the above, he's always come off to me as more of an artist engaging in intellectual performance, such as the kind you might find in the local coffee shop or an itinerant orator like Stoney Burke. As long as Steve stays away from article and talk pages, he should be okay. I would recommend that he focus on art and only on his art, as we have numerous topics that need designs, illustrations, and graphs. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
"As long as Steve stays away from article and talk pages"? But he doesn't stay away from them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Er, what? What part of "as long as" is giving you trouble? Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think that there is the slightest chance that Stevertigo would take any more notice of an 'article and talk page ban' (which would presumably also involve him not inventing bogus policies and/or guidelines as well [8]) than he has of previous restrictions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand and sympathize with your confusion. Since you've only been here since 2010, you aren't aware that this entire site was created by editors "inventing" policies and guidelines, just as Stevertigo attempted to do in the above link. His worthy and valuable experiment at creating a "Ratings and rankings system" is no different than any other editor who has proposed to create a trust metric system. The greatest threat to Wikipedia isn't from editors like Stevertigo, people who think differently and march to the beat of a different drum. The greatest threat to Wikipedia is from editors and admins who worship the crushing bureaucracy of groupthink and hive mindedness, and who through their religious devotion to policy wonkery and guideline adoration, crush any attempt at creativity and innovation. I would rather see a million Stevertigo's who seem perfectly crazy and out of their mind than one more additional administrator or rules lawyer narrowly following a policy that drives this site into obscurity. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Far out man. That's some serious shit you're smoking. Peace and Love. Don't let the Man grind you down. Give Vietnam back to the Irish... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support site ban as WP:NOTHERE and a timesink for more productive editors. Miniapolis 22:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I think everything has already been said. If he's unwilling or incapable of creating comprehensible articles, then it's probably time to remove his ability to edit. The history of disruption and ignored Arbcom sanctions makes this an easier decision. If it's all performance art, then that doesn't belong here, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per JamesBWatson, Ivanvector, MrX, and others. Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite block: I have no idea what's going on here (CIR issues, attempts at inserting fringe views, trolling, a compromised account, editing by a very young user) but it's not productive. I have seen no productive edits by the user and plenty that seem like they could be offensive in some way (e.g. is his user page anti-semitic? It might be if I understood what it was saying). Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Enough editing time and virtual ink has been wasted on Steve's absurdities.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Site ban as clearly NOTHERE, Enough time, effort and patience has been wasted on this editor!. –Davey2010Talk 19:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support site ban on the time-honored principle "enough is enough." BMK (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support site ban, this user has had more than enough chances. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Jake Speight[edit]

User unblocked after legal threat was retracted. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:18, 4 August 2015 (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.

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

This is probably more a matter for WP:BLPN at this stage, but I see no harm in having the referenced content about his criminal conviction remain in the article. I'll also remind the user about WP:NLT. GiantSnowman 10:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I have blocked the account in question for continuing to make veiled threats, which followed this earlier legal threat and came after my warning for NLT. As a side note many thanks to @Collect: for tidying up the wording of the section in question. GiantSnowman 13:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Update: Huon has since unblocked the user. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Unhelpful childishness stroke trolling[edit]

Nothing to see here folks. I would also point out that this is an encyclopedia, not  Philg88 talk 06:07, 4 August 2015 (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.

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

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

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

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

I believe the comments were in jest, considering that "gobshite" would hardly be the sort of word that someone with a "posh accent" would use. Also, Bugs Bunny could hardly be said to have a posh accent.Blackmane (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as one who went to a school more than a thousand years old, I have no idea why you would want to change this. Unless you are Brian Sewell. Even the Queen laughs at his accent. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • We generally allow some humor within the tone of responses to the reference desk but it should not be at the expense of the questioner which I think these were. Fortunately, at one the other IP offered an appropriate response with a link to a google search. Would the computing desk be better than the language desk? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • (Non-administrator comment) To be fair... I, too, was under the impression the request was a joke and had myself a quiet little snigger... Kleuske (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the implication that I was calling the OP vulgar names. And I was sincere in advising the OP to study how someone talks and see if they can imitate the style. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

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

CFCF Not Here on E-cigs[edit]

Now redundant to the ongoing arbitration case. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 4 August 2015 (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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CFCF has made good edits to various e-cig pages. This should be closed immediately. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
This looks very much like abusing process to attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Admins take a bit of a dim view of that. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I have no intention of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. My desire in this would be for CFCF to engage in the collaborative process so consensus can be reached on the disputed content but nobody can force that. The issue I have is that when discussion is on-going and the nuance of consensus is being reached, whether in the direction I initially wanted or not, CFCF makes driveby reverts without reference to that discussion or any of the consensus and kicks the process back a notch. Hence why I've asked for a warning or a prod and not any form of ban/block/Tban/Iban that would limit CFCF's contributions.SPACKlick (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The e-cig pages have greatly improved as a direct result of CFCF's edits. That's what the evidence shows. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I see nothing in CFCF's edits needing sanctions. I agree with Guy. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Guy. CFCF's edits seem quite reasonable. This appears to be a content dispute and not sanctionable. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 03:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
[Some of] The edits would be reasonable if they responded to consensus but CFCF actively ignores consensus, ignores ongoing discussions, When he adds information and is reverted he immediately reverts back and ignores all discussion about the inclusion. Whether or not the content of his edits is good, and I won't weigh in on that here because there is content dispute, the lack of collaborative effort is a clear example of NOTHERE. SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Once again I'd appreciate it if someone could restore order on that page. I certainly don't think all of CFCF's recent edits have been 100% helpful, but he's far from the only offender and what's actually needed is a large injection of clue.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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

I disagreed. See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Off Topic about QuackGuru
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you think your edit improved the page? How about me? Do you think my edits improved the page? Don't massage anything. I want your unfiltered opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that edit improved the page, yes. Since you ask for my unfiltered opinion, I think your influence on the encyclopaedia as a whole is a net positive because you're relentless in dealing with bad faith editors and highly active, but I also think you have poor encyclopaedic judgment and you often don't understand words in the same way I do. I think CFCF is reverting good edits and bad edits alike and he can't tell the difference. I think the best editor at work on that page is Johnbod and I wish he could get a word in edgeways. And I think AN/I is an extremely bad place to have this conversation because AN/I only ever solves simple problems, i.e. the ones where you can point to a clear policy violation using diffs. You can't come to AN/I saying "CFCF has bad judgment" and expect anything positive to happen as a result.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you want me topic banned or "just reined in"? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive886#QuackGuru_and_Electronic_cigarette.
Rather than delete relevant text I consolidated two sentences to improve the readability. If you look at my previous edit I changed the word "abuse" to "addiction" to clarify the wording. The known unknowns cited to a MEDRS review is good information, especially when it is about young people. QuackGuru (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I know this was directed at S Marshall but IMO reined in, specifically passed through a copy editor. Most of the sources you find have good information and most of the information you want to add is good information to add. It's just how it's incorporated and where its incorporated that's usually where I end up with objections. If you could work closely with a strong writer who can keep things readable and increase the information transfer in the article, your net benefit on the encyclopedia would be significantly greater.SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • SPACKlick is pretty much a WP:SPA for e-cig topics per their contribs. The topic seems to draw such editors or turn otherwise useful editors astray. SPA warns about situations where there is "...evidence that a user is also editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus, possibly with limited interest in pure editing for its own sake....") On their userpage SPACKlick makes their advocacy position on e-cigs very clear (which is very "pro"): here. In my view SPACKlick should be trouted for bringing this groundless case, and should be warned to broaden their editing at WP, with a topicban per WP:NOTHERE, per SPA, riding on their failure to broaden their scope of editing. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

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

A brand new account reverted the change. Before that an IP reverted the change without an edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
As Quack points out another editor removed it after my above comment and CFCF immediately re-instated claiming consensus on the talk page. This is now bordering on Edit Warring Surely? It's ridiculous. Thats 4 reversions 1234 of the same hatnote with only 1 comment of non-engagement on a talk page where 4 editors (not including two who have removed the hatnote) have disagreed with inclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The new account only made one edit to Wikipedia so far. The IP made four edits to Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
CFCF again added the hatnote, calling its removal vandalism. Still has not engaged on the talk page, the discussion still not having come to consensus. That's 3 reversions in 25.5 hours. walking right along the line of an edit war. SPACKlick (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The new account might be a throwaway account. The IP is from Germany. The editor from Germany was banned and indef blocked. Reverting a banned editor is not a revert. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I suspect DaleCurrie is a throwaway account but it's misleading to link to Fergus there Quack, because while they are banned they haven't been shown to make either of these edits, if there's concern you want SPI. By the way CFCF doesn't just do this on e-cig pages. he reverted me on Domestic violence for a formatting fix pointing to a consensus on the talk page. The formatting hadn't been discussed even once on the talk page. I'm rounding on the conclusion that CFCF has a problem with certain editors and fails to follow AGF.SPACKlick (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The 89 IP is back. The IP numbers change but it still begins with 89. The previous edit was this by the 89 IP. The 89 IP made yet another comment. QuackGuru (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposed Boomerang topic ban for SPACKlick[edit]

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

@Cloudjpg: Are you proposing a topicban for yourself too? Your edit count shows a "bizzarro-sock" of SPACKlick and not one with a longstanding edit history.--TMCk (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This proposal is based on a fallacious and hypocritical comment by User:Jytdog, which itself seems a good justification for BOOMERANG. If SPACKlick can be considered a SPA, Jytdog should be as well.
Spacklick's top edited pages:

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


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

SPACKlick is surprisingly the only editor to speak out against CFCF's unsupportable redirect from "Electronic Cigarette Aerosol" to "Cigarette smoke". A read of the resulting talk page section (where QuackGuru seems to speak for CFCF, who is absent) should have uninvolved observers questioning why it is SPACKlick who is being portrayed as the problem. petrarchan47คุ 22:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Petra you are so dependable! As I wrote above, per contribs. The bulk of my editing on GMO stuff was mid-2012- mid-2013, with spikes when anti-GMO advocates come around, or back around as the case may be, and yes that has been an enormous amount of work. If you look through the past couple years, the edit count would look very different than the totals you present there.
Getting back to the topic, if you actually look at SPACKlick's contribs in the past year or so, he has indeed become pretty much a SPA for e-cigs; those articles cause people to obsess and e-cig topics keep causing trouble. My recommendation is above. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Of my last 500 edits, a quick and dirty analysis says that 60% are e-cigarette related (if there's a tool for better temporal analysis I'd appreciate the link), including talk page edits and user talk edits. but that may have missed some of them. If we go to the 500 edits before that, very few of them are e-cigarette related. It comes and it goes. And I won't deny e-cigarettes has been my focus recently, just s monty hall was for a while. I come and go from the project with certain dense posting periods. I still monitor a lot of RFC's and where I feel I can contribute, do so. I had hoped to get started on a long project in project tree of life but real life got in the way and another stellar editor had done the majority of the legwork prior to my return. I edit where my interest is at the time. E-cigs has been a focus for a long set of editing bursts because it still has major problems and I haven't yet found a tack that leads to productive improvement although progress has been made. SPACKlick (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
That User:SPACKlick finds the diffs listed concerning is I agree a concern in itself. Some time away from the article may due SPACKlick good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Of note, In all but one of the diffs I've posted above I have attempted, however (un)successfuly, to point out that my issue isn't the content of the edit but the context of the edit being ignoring, over riding or avoiding discussion between editors attempting to hash out consensus. The one I don't point to avoiding ongoing discussions relating to consensus is where he avoided BRD on a potentially controversial addition by unreverting his own edit. I also pointed out that this wasn't a major issue but it is an issue of disengagement from the process and the sort of behaviour I thought the general sanctions were supposed to nip in the bud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talkcontribs) 21:42, 8 July 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Comment. SPACKlick is well aware of the sanctions.[9] Me thinks SPACKlick repeatedly deleted sourced text.[10] See Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol#Re introduction_again for the current discussion. He was warned by the admin User:Bishonen to stop making personal attacks.[11] Back in April SPACKlick wrote: this previous section at the e-cig talk page: "It's almost like you're not competent to edit this page", "your ridiculous addition", "a ridiculously long caption", "it was pointy, tendentious or ownership", "you do not own this article", "You arrogantly inserted".[12] In June SPACKlick wrote "QuakGuru, whether or not particle size is medically relevant is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of this article which is about the CHEMICALS WITHIN E-CIGARETTE VAPOUR. Particle size, is not relevant to what chemical a particle is. You're nuts"[13] He was recently warned again about NPA.[14] QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

General sanctions are failing[edit]

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

  • Since this thread has attracted so little attention from uninvolved administrators, it should be archived without result.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I can try to referee if you think it would help, but I strongly suspect that my long-standing support for WP:MEDRS and opposition to pro-CAM edits will not sit well with the group that makes up the pro-ecig side of this war. In the absence of uninvolved admins, and given the clear need for some firm action, I guess arbitration may be the only option. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I certainly do think it would help. It shouldn't be necessary to go to arbitration over this; that's like going to A&E with a hangnail. I don't think I could produce diffs that would be of much interest to arbcom.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I can also take a look, but I have some notifications and an Arbcom case evidence to do over the weekend, so if it can wait a couple of days for another set of eyes as well then that would help. Is it deteriorating notably fast? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
      • No, it isn't. I'm finding the situation's improving, probably thanks to the extra eyeballs on the subject. Thank you.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. User:Georgewilliamherbert, please review the current atmosphere at the e-cig pages. I am not aware of "the extra eyeballs on the subject".
  • S Marshall is well aware of the sanctions. In your edit summary you wrote "tag-teaming".[17] You claimed "Consensus can change, and it will. I learned this when I got broad consensus to change the first paragraph of this article in many ways, and then started an RfC to discover that changes in the population of this talk page meant my consensus was no longer there. Wikipedia's a waiting game, QG. A quick look at your block log tells me there are pretty good odds that you won't be active on this talk page forever, and when you're gone it will be possible to make the fixes you're preventing. Don't get me wrong, QG, I do think you're a net positive to Wikipedia despite the fact that I find you very frustrating to deal with. I've argued in many discussions before that you should not be blocked, just reined in. My views in that respect have not changed."[18]
  • S Marshall, so why do you want me "reined in"?
  • Both SPACKlick and S Marshall deleted a 2014 MEDRS compliant review from the Addiction section recently. The 2014 review is relevant to the section, especially since it is concerning youth. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I want you reined in because I'm a mean and nasty POV-pushing industry shill, of course!—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Whew, glad we got that settled. <g> BMK (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Pretty sure E-cigs is going to need to go to ArbCom, since editors are reporting that GS are not working, and since there are or have been so many SPAs editing the e-cig articles. I propose that someone start to draft an ArbCom request proposal -- but it obviously shouldn't be drafted by QuackGuru or by one of the SPAs or virtual SPAs, past or present. I don't know that there is anyone editing the articles who is completely neutral about the topic, but perhaps Doc James might be willing to, as he has in the past edited on the subject, but has remained decidedly quiet when related subjects come up on ArbCom or ANI. If he or someone of his ilk would draft and post an ArbCom request, however brief, others could chime in on ArbCom with their opinions. Just a thought. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Will take a look in a two weeks as off to Wikimania. I am sure that some would view me as far from neutral. Especially those who continue send me hate mail regarding the topic. User:S Marshall has done some good work condensing the prose. QG adds generally well supported text. The discussion on the talk page get more snarky than it should be at times. Would be good if many of those involved would work more on other pages but of course we cannot mandate that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You're right. Someone reverting with a misleading editsummary to re-introduce utter unscientific fringe nonsense -- I sure don't have much (or any) confidence in them. Even less when the same supposed to be a scientist. But go for it anyways. It doesn't matter who is filing.--TMCk (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion on the talk page showed the restored text is well sourced. For example, see Talk:Electronic_cigarette_aerosol/Archive_1#Re_introduction_again. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I have started reviewing pages; I tagged one more with the talk page "under DS" notice. Still getting a feeling for how the conversations are going. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I recommend you check the archives too. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 24 and see Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 25. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Georgewilliamherbert: Are you still looking into it and intend to comment? Just wondering since it's been a while and problems on those pages have been "abandoned" before several times. Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but had other things I am working on as well. They're all watchlisted now and I am still reading histories. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Softlavender that e-cigs proabably needs to go to ArbCom at this point. After following the topic from afar, but purposely avoiding actually being involved from articles aside from RSN, my main concern is advocacy and (relatively) civil-POV pushing that's degenerating the topic into the state it's in now. ArbCom could cut both ways though and end up hindering editors who overall are trying to push back against these problems too and just lock the articles down into the state they're in now. Seeing this ANI with unfortunately nothing that appears actionable (it should probably be closed soon), how often it comes up here, and how many editors that have just given up on it, ArbCom seems to be the only thing left. Kingofaces43 (talk)
  • There are two things stopping me opening an ArbCom case. The first is that there's nothing blatant I can point to. There are lots of problems each of which is individually small but annoying, adding up to a great big annoying ball of sludge. I've got to say that the majority of editors from WP:MEDRS treat me like a POV-pushing industry shill to be closed down with the minimum effort, and I've been unable to make any substantive edits stick or to educate them in any article-building technique more advanced than "find a factlet in a reliable source, cite it and shove it in the article". The idea that competent editing involves removing text seems to be some kind of heresy... but what I can't do is provide diffs of the kind of smoking gun breach of the rules that'll solve it. The closest I can get is the inappropriate use of twinkle's anti-vandalism tools to deal with good faith edits by editors in good standing, inappropriate refusal to use the talk page, and some apparent language comprehension difficulties. I'm reluctant to go to Arbcom waving those diffs and demanding action.

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

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

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

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

    • Earlier this year I made a 16,000 plus edit. Some editors did not like that. I continued to add a ton of new sources to the article. I created Cloud-chasing (electronic cigarette), Electronic cigarette aerosol, and Vape shop. After I created the Electronic cigarette aerosol article things got a bit heated.
    • As for the hatnote I think I did help resolve the issue. I added to the lede "The e-cigarette vapor resembles cigarette smoke.[1]" See Electronic cigarette aerosol#cite ref-Cheng2014 1-1. User:SMcCandlish, this did go to arbcom previously. They tried to topic ban me. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Understood. I'm skeptical that anyone will be pilloried over adding sources and sourced material (unless it's WP:BOLLOCKS which I don't detect in that big edit), nor about disagreements over which data is put where in the article, unless someone's being a flaming WP:JERKs about it. There's a much more meaningful problem here, a campaign to keep genuinely reliable sources out of these articles, to push a POV against scientific coverage and treat this solely as a "lifestyle and culture" topic. There's a countervailing campaign to demonize the topic, and to spin primary sourced, largely preliminary data and a studies from journals as if there were a uniform, secondary-sourced view, and it's original research to combine them all into a "why e-cigs are the devil" message that steers readers to a conclusion. Both of these – exclusion of and misuse of pertinent, reliable sources – are wrong under policy. One might think they'd kind of cancel each other out, but it's not happening, just turning into a perpetual flamewar.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: To reply to a couple of your points. My big all caps point on the article was when the article was titled and moving towards "List of chemicals in" and QuackGuru was adding nanoparticles in a statement as if they were an additional chemical. That would be outside the scope of the article. As for my stance on MEDRS, I don't believe there's no MEDRS relevance at the topic I just don't believe the whole topic falls under it. How e-cigs are constructed and the social aspects of their use don't require MEDRS level sourcing and some of the sub pages are of limited health or medical relevance. I don't believe the chemical components of something is a medical topic, especially when it's explicitly split off from the medical effects of those components into a separate article.

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

According to the source "Blu lets me enjoy smoking without it affecting the people around me, because it's vapour not tobacco smoke," says Stephen Dorff, the scruffy heartthrob star of The Immortals."[24] Big tobacco has been very successful in marketing e-cigarettes as simply "vapour".
User:SPACKlick, you seem to have a pattern of deleting well sourced text from the new article.
"metal nanoparticles" and "When propylene glycol is heated and aerosolized, it could produce propylene oxide."[25] deleted The text is sourced to Grana 2014. You criticised the review on your user page.
"copper"[26] deleted (I replaced it with another source)
The lede sentence was deleted twice.[27][28]
"4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone and N-nitrosonornicotine"[29] deleted
"The nickel and chromium nanoparticles that was found in the vapor may have came from the e-cigarette heating element." and "Propylene glycol could produce propylene oxide when heated and aerosolized."[30] deleted
"Aerosol"[31] deleted
"Propylene glycol could produce propylene oxide when heated and aerosolized."[32] Please read the sources: When heated and vaporized, propylene glycol can form propylene oxide, an International Agency for Research on Cancer class 2B carcinogen,69 and glycerol forms acrolein, which can cause upper respiratory tract irritation.70,71[33] Thermal degradation of propylene glycol can generate propylene oxide, which is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a class 2B carcinogen.[34] The text is clearly sourced in accordance with WP:MEDRS.
"The delivery of nicotine from the vapor is inconsistent among products."[35] deleted
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive882#User:SPACKlick_reported_by_User:QuackGuru_at_Electronic_Cigarette_.28copied_to_WP:ANEW_by_SPACKlick.29 for the previous AN/I discussion.
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive286#SPACKlick_reported_by_QuackGuru_.28Result:_Editor_sanctioned.29 for previous 3RR report. QuackGuru (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't intend to get into a content dispute on ANI, that's not the venue, however your list of deletions goes (Scope dispute, Scope dispute, Failed verification, style dispute, style dispute, scope dispute, verification/relevance dispute, style dispute, verification/relevance dispute, Don't know why I removed the last one), the verification/relevance disputes are the same fact, which several people disagreed with including because the source doesn't indicate its relevance to the topic at hand. Yes I got angry and edit warred at your assertion an image showed what was clearly not contained within it. Because it is frustrating to deal with your poor grasp of english, to deal with your ownership, to deal with you not allowing any improvement to the readability and formation of the article, for your shotgun approach to expanding the article by adding overly detailed repetetive sentences. You are an incredibly frustrating editor to work with Quack. Do you understand that? And when someone disagrees with you, or your methods, you claw back through the same complaints, bringing them up time and time again.SPACKlick (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, with a heavy heart, I'll accept SMcCandlish's recommendation and open an Arbcom case. I would suggest that this particular discussion has run its useful course and can be closed.—S Marshall T/C 17:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I would also agree with S Marshall's question and have asked it before, do we need to adapt how we communicate with you because of a difficulty with English. It appears you misunderstand words often and are blind at times to matters of context or subtlety and so the question becomes relevant. Do we need to adapt how we interact with you to overcome the difficulty of not sharing a first language? SPACKlick (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Potential sock[edit]

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

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

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


Blocked by Yunshui per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298. Talk page access removed by KTC. -- KTC (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2015 (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.

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

Might this be associated with the above discussion on the same talk page? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Could possibly just be coincidental -- he was only involved in the Steiger infobox RfC because he had added an infobox to the article earlier that day [36] (which was in fact different from the infobox which had been there before and had been removed [37]). Although, honestly, why he would create an infobox for Steiger out of the blue is a bit odd; but he could have seen the discussion and decided to make a better one. What other disputes are you seeing that he has been in? Softlavender (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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

There is a surprising overlap on some fairly obscure articles previously edited by User:Eric Corbett: [38]. I'm not for a moment suggesting that this account is related to Eric, but it may be an editor who has had some prior interaction with him. Yunshui  15:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The last blocked out editor that had overlap with him was a sock of User:Mattisse (User:EChastain). That is one place I would start to look. Dennis Brown - 15:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a case of stalking after EC's edits. Those are really obscure articles! I share some interests with Eric, and I've never been to any of them. Definitely someone with a history. This is an interesting edit summary: [39] - I wonder who the "we" - which they immediately deny - [40] is supposed to be... ScrpIronIV 15:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
In case it needs to be said then I'll say it: Spaghetti07205 has absolutely nothing to do with me. Eric Corbett 15:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Well the "we" is clearly Lukeno94 [41] [42], who already has a (now closed) ANI running right now [43] (can someone make that a permalink for when it gets archived)?. This Spaghetti character and his similars have an awful lot going on at ANI right now (these in addition to the preceding: [44], [45] [please make these permalinks]), and perhaps all of them are related and trolling. Softlavender (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note -- In light of the above, I would now render the Rod Steiger RfC null and void on the basis that it was established on the back of stalking. The current RfC should be shut down immediately. Would someone facilitate that please? CassiantoTalk 18:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Response – the "we" was a typo, as I noted in my edit summary, I meant to say "I". Spaghetti07205 (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, because the key "I" is so close to the two(!) keys "WE" on the keyboard. Funny how you also know about dummy edits after only five weeks and 250 edits. Softlavender (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's an impossible typo. More like a Freudian slip.--Atlan (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello? Can someone end this thread already? No one's commented for three days, and a CheckUser has been run and has confirmed there is no evidence I've used other accounts. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
A bot archives threads exactly three days after the last comment; now it will take three more days since you've added that post. There is actually no reason to close this with a purple box since nothing was either done or not done; the SPI is on hold rather than closed. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Is an SPI case ongoing? Guy (Help!) 22:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spaghetti07205. But it was put on hold a week ago, and there seem to have been no further developments. --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
JzG (Guy), I've been waiting for Cali11298 to weigh in on Liz's WP:RfA because of what he stated to me about his interest in WP:RfAs and becoming a WP:Administrator, and because he checks up on my edits and no doubt saw me commenting on Liz's WP:RfA. Spaghetti07205 (talk · contribs) has weighed in on Liz's WP:RfA, as seen here and here, which is why I spotted him. And looking at his contributions, I can confirm that his editing pattern is consistent with Cali11298's...with a few deviations (such as nominating articles for WP:GA status) that were likely made to make him look less like Cali11298.
The most recent Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet investigation started/ended on June 14; compare the evidence there to the evidence I list in this paragraph: The Spaghetti07205 account appeared on June 16. Just like Cali11298 is into politics, so is Spaghetti07205, as seen here, here, here, here and here. Just like Cali11298 is into gay topics, so is Spaghetti07205, as seen here. Just like Cali11298 is into comic book matters, so is Spaghetti07205, as seen here and here. Just like Cali11298 is into Internet topics (he tampers with his IP to try to avoid WP:CheckUser detection), so is Spaghetti07205, as seen here. Just like Cali11298 likes to frequent WP:ANI and weigh in on problematic editors and/or other problems, the same appears so for Spaghetti07205. Cali11298 is African American and is interested in African American topics; Spaghetti07205 is also interested in African American topics, as seen here (the Black-ish aspect) and here. Cali11298 likes to use smiley faces, and it seems that Spaghetti07205 does as well. So, yes, the odds that this is Cali11298 are very high. Even if the WP:CheckUser says otherwise, I'm certain that Spaghetti07205 is Cali11298. Flyer22 (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
First I'm a sock of someone names "Mattisse", now you're accusing me of being a sock of a guy called "Cali11298"? I have said that I'm not a sock of anybody. Reply. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, your suggestion that I "no doubt" saw Liz's RfA because I stalk your edits is false. I comment on RfA's sometimes. Two weeks ago I commented on this RfA as well. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: Just like Cali11298 prefers to use word the stalk or stalking when referring to his tendency to check up on my edits or follow me around, you can see that Spaghetti07205 used the word stalk above. Also note that I named more than one reason why Spaghetti07205 was at Liz's WP:RfA -- "because of what he stated to me about his interest in WP:RfAs and becoming a WP:Administrator, and because he checks up on my edits and no doubt saw me commenting on Liz's WP:RfA." His "I participated in a different WP:RfA" defense is no defense. And just like one of his latest WP:Socks liked to revert using the edit summary "rvt" instead of the typical "revert" or "rv," as seen here and here, Spaghetti07205 uses the same revert style; see here and here. So go ahead and bag and tag this account already. That he is bothering to deny to me that he is Cali11298 makes me yawn. I'm not even willing to respond to him directly. And once again, if he has found some way to get around WP:CheckUser detection, that does not mean that he is not Cali11298. WP:Pinging Yunshui, who has put the Spaghetti07205 WP:Sockpuppet investigation on hold. Flyer22 (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm thinking it's about time to take that SPI off hold again; there's been no further indication that this is Mattisse (and at least one editor who is familiar with Mattisse has suggested that it isn't). @Flyer22:, I'd suggest you compile a list of evidence at the SPI page. Whilst I can appreciate your conviction I personally think it would be difficult to make a sockpuppetry accusation stick on the basis of what you've provided above; however if you put forward a case at SPI with further diffs the evidence can be considered there. Yunshui  08:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Good! Then we can get it over with. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Flyer22: Actually, don't worry about it - I just did a bit more background checking, and I'm pretty convinced by the CU results this time. Spaghetti07205 is now blocked as a sock of Cali11298. Yunshui  08:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Yunshui, the evidence I presented above is hardly any different than evidence I presented in previous Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet investigations; it was enough for editors to go ahead with a WP:CheckUser run. Look at those previous cases I was certain about, where editors trusted me enough to use the WP:CheckUser tool. Trust me now. Spaghetti07205 is Cali11298. And the evidence I presented above, which I believe is strong enough, is all the evidence I have on this latest Cali11298 WP:Sock matter. That evidence cannot be chalked up to coincidence. Mathematically speaking at least. Flyer22 (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I just saw your "08:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)" post. Flyer22 (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Range block for long-term vandal using numerous IPs?[edit]

Rangeblocked. Sam Walton (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2015 (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.

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

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

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

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

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

Serial block evading sock/IP hopper[edit]

Sock put back in the drawer by NuclearWarfare. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:50, 4 August 2015 (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.

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

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

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

Disruptive dynamic IP at Europa League article[edit]

IP range blocked for 45 days by Rjd0060. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:48, 4 August 2015 (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.

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

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

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

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

Legal threat by User:DeBerryTexas[edit]

Administrative actions appear to have been taken care of; user blocked for legal threats pending an unblock if retracted and content removed from the article per WP:NOTNEWS. Further discussion seems to be warranted but should be taken to WT:NLT. Sam Walton (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2015 (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.

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

I was about to block for legal threat, however another admin got there first. Effort should be made to see if the information the person was complaining about constitutes undue weight, a BLP violation, or run afoul of any other Wikipedia standard. I am unfamiliar with the topic myself. Chillum 23:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd have to suggest that including it looks questionable, given the sourcing. No real evidence that it has any long-term significance for the town. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

How we handle these situations requires attention[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't particularly like handing out blocks in this specific situation but any changes to the WP:NLT policy will have to be carefully considered. Personally, I'd like to insert a step between 4 and 5, giving the person a chance to retract the threat with their next edit and avoid a block. --NeilN talk to me 00:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Can the reference to the murder be deleted out of sensitivity for the request of the family (not withstanding the inappropriate legal threat)? Also, LuisSantos24 should not have issued a civility warning when he was himself uncivil. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I deleted the murder (and an unrelated arson) from the article because I don't think they meet content policy. Geogene (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, legal threats must be taken seriously. Wikipedia:No legal threats states that the expected administrative action is to "ban the person who made the legal threat until and unless they agree that the legal issue is completely resolved and that they are sure they will not bring legal disputes into Wikimedia space" (I believe that the use of the term "ban" in the statement actually meant to use the definition of a "block", but I'm not completely sure). It's undoubtedly a very tough and saddening situation for anyone who is dealing with the loss of someone they knew personally; I don't believe that anyone here would disagree with that. However, legal threats are serious and must be treated as such. With this in mind, the block on DeBerryTexas was completely justified.
Luis Santos24 - Be mindful of your conduct towards others (especially legal threats). Your response here (specifically, "i am not afraid of you, if you present the others unfortunately killed, i will list them as well") wasn't necessary. Responses like these will only add fuel to the fire, and it will only make the dispute and the conflict worse. If your goal is to resolve the dispute in a positive manner, statements like this should be avoided. I just want to leave you my encouragement to be mindful of how you handle situations such as these. It's easy to get sucked into a heated argument. If you feel like you are, you should step away and ask help from the community :-)
Regarding the content: At first glance, I don't think that it is notable to justify that it be listed under the article regarding the city. It doesn't appear to have reached national headlines or sources, and my searches haven't come up with any sources other than those outside local (city) coverage. I think that the content can be removed from the article. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

  • I support a topic ban of Luis Santos24 preventing them from interacting with new editors except for clear vandalism (no vandalism occurred in the current case). The response to the new editor was disgraceful and shows a permanent inability to communicate effectively. Wikipedia should not be used for automated responses to every situation. Thanks to Geogene who has correctly removed the absurd text from the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) Johnuniq, a topic ban on Luis Santos24? If the sole reason behind your proposal is my discussion regarding his response to DeBerryTexas, then I disagree and I think that you're jumping the gun way too far. I see this as an opportunity to encourage positive and civil conduct in the future and nothing more than that. A ban on Luis Santos24 is not something I'd even consider supporting at this time. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I perceive no need for action against Luis Santos24 personally, as this specific situation seems unlikely to recur with him as a party—although I do ask him to refrain from interacting with DeBerryTexas in the future, in the unlikely event that editor sticks around. I'd rather refocus the discussion on the policy issues I've raised, as I continue to find our handling of these situations disturbing. (See also, for related discussion, WP:DOLT.)
I need to sign off for the night shortly. Would someone take on the task of writing a more personalized message for User talk:DeBerry Texas? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Newyorkbrad, i perfectly agree with your terms as to not talk or interact with DeBerryTexas, it was actually my intent to walk away from the situation due to me seeing the higher-ups take action. I appreciate the support. I love editing Wikipedia and me being banned is a worst nightmare. I promise not to even edit the article further, as there is no need.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abusive conduct by user User:Youssef Muhammed[edit]

Blocked. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:01, 5 August 2015 (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.

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

I got another stalker[edit]

Blocked. If it happens again, WP:AIV may get a faster response. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2015 (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.

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

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

Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films[edit]