Misplaced Pages

@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." 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." deleted The text is sourced to Grana 2014. You criticised the review on your user page.

"copper" deleted (I replaced it with another source)

The lede sentence was deleted twice.

"4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone and N-nitrosonornicotine" 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." deleted

"Aerosol" deleted

"Propylene glycol could produce propylene oxide when heated and aerosolized." 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 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. The text is clearly sourced in accordance with WP:MEDRS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential sock

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

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

Competence and civility issues with Koala15

• Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My latest encounter with Koala15 was on the Ted 2 page, where I fixed a fairly simple grammatical error and was blankly reverted on sight . I reverted back with the summary "Unexplained" and he kept edit warring with the summary "Go home, your drunk" . This happened again, until General Ization issued an EW warning on my talk page, and a civility warning on Koala15's page. Koala15 repeatedly refused to apologize or even acknowledge that he was edit warring, dismissing General Ization with sentences such as "Have a sense of humor" and "There is no need for you to get so worked up over this", assuring him that he matter had been resolved, when in fact, it was not - and still is not. I explained very clearly on my talk page why I performed said edit, which prompted Koala15 to respond with a guideline that directly contradicts his edit - which I also explained. However, he refuses to "get it", while writing replies on the grammar level of a twelve year old - which I extensively tried to explain within the same discussion, examples being seeing him "use patently incorrect expressions like "more clearer", open a sentence with "hence", miss punctuation, or consistently not capitalize "I" as in first person", not to mention his first reply to me via edit summary: "Go home, your drunk".

A quick look on Koala15's talk page will reveal that he has been taunting other editors for a while, in an abrasive and unapologetic manner. A few select examples: User talk:Koala15#Reversions... , User talk:Koala15#July 2015 , User talk:Koala15#No , User talk:Koala15#Redirecting . Another example of insisting on edit warring and being rude is here. I would like to finish this nuisance on the Ted 2 page and move on, but I would like to ensure that he doesn't spite revert me again. Please take care of this matter. Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to be about this at all. Thank you very much. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i tried to work with you, but you don't seem to wanna work with me. Most of the things you are linking from my talk page are simple misunderstandings. And i don't think you can report anyone for a 'lack of competence". Koala15 (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

How ironic... you have just given another dismissive and offensive reply. You are either not realizing it or deliberately insulting me, and neither case is welcome on Misplaced Pages. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I have had my own run-ins with Koala15, which can be seen at Talk:Penguins of Madagascar and Penguins of Madagascar. Koala15 had initially participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR over a copyedit tag about the article with a reason saying "And i do think an IP's suggestion is less valid, cause the majority of them are vandals.". Not all IPs are vandals. Some contribute with no issues at all. I find that comment uncivil and rather a POV statement. They persistently removed the tag until they reached 3 reverts. They stayed quiet on the article, but they removed it again but this time with reasons but not valid ones. There was still WP:Consensus going on in the talk page, which Koala15 dismissed. Instead of participating in WP:Discussion and ask for opinions, they removed the template again. I reverted them, stating that they weren't the user who added the template and to remove it from a user who disagreed with it in the beginning is very questionable. They started edit warring, making 5 reverts within a span of 12 hours, I believe. If they reached the 6th revert, I was going to report them. My warnings can be seen on the user's talk page and PfM's talk page. In terms of Koala15, I do think they make good edits and they help the community, but my only concern is the way they act. Upon disagreements they edit war and so on, it seems. I do agree that saying a user is drunk is uncivil as much as saying to a user they need help. It seems they have had run-ins with other people, excluding me, EauZenCashHaveIt and General Ization. I would suggest a warning about continuing disruptive editing but I'm not sure. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i apologize, i shouldn't have removed those maintenance templates without asking. And i don't think its fair to say i participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Koala15 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Per one of the bullets, "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental." You removed the template with this reasoning: "Uhm, yeah no." which certainly counts as you saying it's unnecessary without valid reasons and follows on of the statements "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." which you've given the impression (not even at this point) since the beginning and on the talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note for reviewing admins: here's the last "clean" version of Koala15's talk page, before he panicked and blanked it in order to invalidate the links I brought up earlier: . EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, it was time they cleaned their talk page (no offense, Koala15). It was so long, over 200 posts. They kept some stuff, so I don't think it would really matter since it's their talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The timing though... anyway, I've said too much already. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• First, 200 posts going all the way back to 2012 probably needs archiving (and no, archiving isn't just blanking all the warnings) but that's not the issue here. Second, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required which includes social competency. Koala15's edits are problematic. Insulting and being uncivil is a concern. Individuals who cannot corroborate effectively have been shown the door before. I'd say there's civility here but I'll let some others chime on what they think should be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Having had run-ins with Koala15 before, some of which have been referenced in this post, I thought I'd also chime in. While their edits themselves are not disruptive or problematic, aside from a lack of edit summary usage, Koala15's conduct towards other users is condescending, patronizing and downright rude in some cases. On multiple occasions I have been told by the user that I don't understand Misplaced Pages, ("You don't understand the guidelines") and that I'm a newbie who interprets policies wrong ("I understand that you are new here, but you seem to lack a simple understanding of the rules of Misplaced Pages."), which if anyone else has been on the receiving end of, would know that it's incredibly frustrating. Initially I thought I was the only one to be scolded as deluded by Koala15, but apparently I'm not the only one. A quick CNTRL+F searching for the word "understand" on an old revision of their talk page shows three distinct immediate instances where Koala15 downplayed other editors, brushing them off as not understanding some aspect of the project: I'm not even gonna bother responding to this nonsense, cause you clearly don't even have a basic understanding of Misplaced Pages., "Once again you show that you don't understand the guidelines." and "It sounds like you don't understand Misplaced Pages." and "You are possibly the most clueless editor i have ever met.". While Koala15's talk page only showed a few instances of their incivility, I imagine I wasn't the first to be insulted on their talk page or via edit summaries. A block doesn't seem appropriate to me, and would quite possibly chase Koala15 away, given how bitter and angry they already come off with a near-clean block log, but an assurance from the user that the'll try and be more civil and get off their high horse would be nice. Azealia911 _talk 10:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Koala15 care to respond? Azealia911 _talk 10:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well its easy to take my quotes out of context and try to me make me look bad, but in the context of the conversation they were more or less facts. Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines. Which is fine, it took me a while when i first joined Misplaced Pages. Koala15 (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh Koala15, you really are being serious aren't you? You're not even trolling, sigh. I guess that means no chance of an apology for being rude and condescending? (the latter of which is ironically displayed in your most recent reply). Azealia911 _talk 17:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well its definitely not my intention to be "rude and condescending" that's just how I talk. I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words. In the future, i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much. Now hopefully we can put this whole thing behind us and move on. Koala15 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we can't... at least not while you maintain these dismissive and unapologetic replies. Each and every one of those reinforces the incompetence claim. You've been told the same thing by everyone here: apologize, show genuine regret, and we will move on. Your telling everyone to move on while sarcastically dismissing every concern raised on this page is nothing short of offensive. Notice that it's you who keeps brushing off every opportunity to make things right. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I second EauZenCashHaveIt's comments, completely accurate. Koala15, your replies just demonstrate what everyone here is trying to tell you, you just seem to not be hearing us, replying with the behavior and tone that landed you here. Back handed comments like "Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines" don't do anything but frustrate me, and "I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words" is absurd, so it's our fault for getting offended at what you say? "i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much" you say, acting as if we're burdening you with actually being...nice?! Maybe take responsibility for your actions, genuinely apologize (which you have yet to do) and maybe then we can move on. Azealia911 _talk 18:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought i did apologize. But yes i apologize if i offended anyone, that was definitely not my intention. Hopefully we can move on now. Koala15 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for apologising Koala15, yep, that's all I needed, take care. Azealia911 _talk 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

jeez a bit hypocritical to talk about incivility when you're saying he has the grammar of a 12 year old. and why would you care about grammar on the internet anyway? poli 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering when the usual devil's advocate would make their appearance. This is an encyclopedia, grammar is a basic requirement here. And most importantly: while Azealia may or may not have gotten their apology, the general issue is still unresolved. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

obsessing over grammar is so pretentious. i promise you're not smarter than anyone else here so chill. poli 22:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you like your name to be added to the report? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

that's so petty. smh poli 02:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• EauZenCashHaveIt, what exactly are you looking to happen? Koala15 has apologized and said that they will be more thoughtful with their conduct. I say leave it, we've given them the rope, its their choice to hang themselves with more rudeness, land back here, and ultimately be blocked, or lasso their next edits with both hands (yes, that is literally the only analogy I could think of for positive things to do with rope). What else would you propose? Azealia911 _talk 19:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911: I am looking for a more permanent solution than an obviously insincere apology with no indication of any behavioral change. But hey, if there are no takers then I guess we both have better things to do than bark up that tree. If you are satisfied then I won't say anything, at least until something new happens. Sadly, I have a feeling I am not mistaken. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt I can also see us returning here, but that's up to Koala15. If required, bring it back here and I'll be the first to recommend implications. Azealia911 _talk 16:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• To me, Koala15's contribution to this new discussion on their Talk page suggests that Koala15 has learned nothing from this process. Still arbitrarily removing maintenance templates from articles without participating in the discussions they reference, a behavior just recently discussed with them here. General Ization 18:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Christ, didn't take them long, I really did think they'd be more considerate. General Ization what do you suggest doing? Azealia911 _talk 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know. I know I spent more time than I could really afford to trying to explain to them why this is a problem on their Talk page and here, and what mostly comes back is from the editor is I didn't hear that. I really think it's a competence issue. General Ization 18:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely seems like the case, considering their edits aren't specific to one or one set of pages, perhaps a short term block would be appropriate. Azealia911 _talk 19:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i make mistakes like everyone else, Jeez, i didn't realize my every edit would be under a microscope. Its also strange that you have my talk page watchlisted. Koala15 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Everyone whose edits cause them to be brought to this page will find their subsequent edits to be "under a microscope" for some period of time, especially while the case is unresolved. Most at least make an effort to not engage in the same behaviors during that time. And it's not strange at all – your Talk page was placed on my watch list when you and I discussed the matter above. General Ization 21:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It was my bad, i didn't know what the statute of limitations was on page a split discussion that had no responses. I realized it was a mistake after i did it. I will refrain from making edits like that in the future. I go on Misplaced Pages for fun, and i'm not here to start trouble or anything like that. I'm gonna try to stay out of things like this and mind my own business. Koala15 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Since the template was just placed this month (and says so within the template as any reader sees it), you might reasonably have assumed it had not expired; if you were unsure, you could click the Discuss link and ask. Your "No need for a discussion" comment linked above shows either a lack of understanding or contempt for editing processes here, not confusion over an expiration date. General Ization 21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Since Koala15 has decided to play possum, I am asking the patrolling admins to make the appropriate decision here. This discussion cannot simply vanish as stale. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely seeing Koala15's edits as problematic after going through the diffs. No specific action has been proposed yet, but there may be some lingering hope Koala can improve. My first thought was to just close this with the closer stating that if this kind of issue happens again, that would expedite a block by linking back to that decision. A short term block could be used instead of essentially a warning, but both would take a WP:ROPE approach. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 EauZenCashHaveIt, I'd be more lenient to go with a short-block, maybe as short as two weeks. Earlier on this post, I urged nothing to happen, giving Koala15 the rope, and within two days they were removing merger notices and playing the old apologetic "I'll never do it again" card, when it had been discussed with them before. I'm not sure how many times Koala15 expects us to take their fake apologies before doing anything. The block may be the wake-up call they need to understand their attitude and actions won't be at all tolerated. Azealia911 _talk 17:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Azealia911. In fairness, Koala15 has in fact seemed to "stay out of things like this and mind own business" (as they put it above) for the past week or so, but without a real understanding by Koala15 of why their (past) behavior is a problem, all it will take is one editor to object to/revert one of their edits (rightly or wrongly) and I expect we'll be right back here again. I haven't heard or seen anything here that makes me think that understanding exists as yet. General Ization 20:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My experience with Koala15 at Penguins of Madagascar was similar to User:Tokyogirl79's in February. This wasn't a controversial topic or sensitive BLP. The article's about a movie that features talking commando penguins. After some edits to it I later added a tag regarding prose issues and a thousand-word quotefarm plus explained the tag on the Talk page. Koala reverts with a derisory summary. I restore days later due to the encyclopedic text and non-free content concerns and post on his talkpage: Koala responds dismissively and immediately undoes my edit as vandalism. Only after multiple other editors become involved does he finally visit the Talk page.

He engages in IDHT--continuing to say he doesn't see the problem ("as far as I know this is how the majority of reception sections are written") and asking for suggestions on to how to fix it--despite multiple editors having already provided them, edit-wars over the tag, plus adds quoteboxes making the quotefarm even more glaring. We assume good faith and spend time explaining. Only later to discover it's all happened before. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed short-term block for Koala15

I'll repeat a comment I made above, earlier in this post, I urged nothing to happen to Koala15, giving them the "rope", and within two days they were removing merger notices and playing the old apologetic "I'll never do it again" card, when the same issue had been discussed with them before. I'm not sure how many times Koala15 expects us to take their fake apologies before doing anything. A block may be the wake-up call they need to understand their attitude and actions won't be at all tolerated. The amount of said block can be determined by whoever closes the post.

Pinging all past contributors who may not keep track of the post: EauZenCashHaveIt, General Ization, Callmemirela, Ricky81682, Kingofaces43, Politoed89, and most importantly Koala15.

• Support as proposer – recommending a 2-4 week block. Azealia911 _talk 01:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Striking my support, may sound odd considering I'm the proposer. I've decided to give Koala15 one last chance, their recent behavior has seemed less aggressive and more open to discussion. Weather that lasts is up to them, but I firmly believe they'll reduce their negativity on the site for the foreseeable future. But this isn't an oppose, I'm staying neutral, I think comments from both sides are equally valid. Azealia911 _talk 22:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support per preceding thread. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 01:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per proposer's comments (thanks) and my comments above. General Ization 01:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see why you guys are so against giving me another chance to redeem myself. I admit I made a few mistakes, but I don't think we should overlook all of the good work I have done on here in the past few years. I genuinely promise to have a better attitude when communicating with other editors. I look forward to working with you all again in a positive way. Koala15 (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No one's against your having, or denying you, a chance to redeem yourself. If we were, we would be proposing an indefinite block (which none of us think is appropriate at this time). You will hopefully redeem yourself in any case. But it's precisely because you're thinking of this matter as so trivial that a block is appropriate. Many editors who produce good edits but cannot collaborate constructively with other editors have been blocked before you and many will be blocked after you. Assuming our proposal is implemented, please spend at least some of the time actually reading the many Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines we have tried over several weeks to get you to consider carefully. General Ization 02:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why a block is necessary, I'm not gonna learn anything that i already haven't. I am gonna make a change in my behavior on here from this day on. And if you catch me breaking any rules, than block me. Take me at my word on this one. Koala15 (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

To me, this attitude right here is the epitome of your problem. You don't get to tell us what is necessary and what is not necessary. You can ask, you can argue your case, or anything else that is genuinely collaborative. You are still trying to take the lead and dictate the outcome. This is why the block is proposed. Azealia911, General Ization and others - I am not sure how else I can put it. @Chillum: this should address your concern. Nothing has changed. Literally, nothing. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral. I have no preference on a short term block either way. It's clear that this editor will be back to editing in awhile even if they were blocked, so the the important thing for this conversation is to show that they are sitting on their last chance per WP:ROPE if the issue comes up again. Sometimes ANI closures aren't clear on this, so as long as that point gets across, I'm content with just closing this as such. A block will demonstrate that as much as a well-worded close (and may be warranted given the continued behavior that popped up, but I'm not digging further into this to evaluate that), so I'm fine either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The block would not be preventative at this point in my opinion. If anyone can explain how it would be preventative I will gladly reconsider. Chillum 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

My hope is that it will give the editor some (enforced) time, if they are so inclined, to actually learn how to be a better and more collaborative editor, rather than just editing in a vacuum. A "time out" if you will. We've been hearing a lot of I didn't hear that from Koala15, and my personal opinion is that it's because they won't stop editing long enough to actually read policies and guidelines and learn how to and why they should avoid this kind of issue. If they were not so inclined, then indeed all it would do is give them a reason to remember that incivility and disruptive editing have consequences. General Ization 03:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Chillum, it sounds more a punitive than a preventive block. Also, while Koala certainly had been sometimes rude, most of the differences above just document talk page discussions, but not the actual "incidents", or at least not the whole picture, so it is hard to judge who is really innocent here. Eg, it was linked at least three times (if I have not missed some other links) this talk page discussion as a proof of Koala's problematic behavior, yet it all started by an editor boldly redirecting a Koala's article a few hours after it had been created and then edit warring with Koala to have it redirected without any community discussion. The dispute eventually ended in an AfD, where the article was kept with no votes for deletion outside the nominator. The same with the Ted 2 incident, where the opener of this ANI discussion just showed some incompetence (he, not Koala), first battling to add a bizarre and non-standard "Elsewhere in the United States" in the infobox-date of release , then, after being explained why he was wrong, still trying to remove the premiere date with a poor rationale . Rudeness is not excusable, and Koala should be more collaborative and use the edit summaries to immediately explain his actions and not to attack other editors, but the context is important, and so far the "incidents" do not rise to a level requiring a block IMO. Cavarrone 07:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: it's a shame that the devil's advocate sometimes wears an admin's hat. In their opposing statement, Cavarrone seems to have turned the wheel around and accused me, Koala15's victim, of incompetence, having completely ignored a discussion which I cited earlier. There is a considerable difference between sheer unprovoked rudeness and a stern reaction to sheer unprovoked rudeness, but apparently, to them the two are one and the same. This doesn't look very neutral to me, but I will be more than happy to be proven wrong. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral, as stated in my intial comment above. Whilst I do believe Koala15 has good editing-related intentions, discussion-wise is a mess. I do believe that they are aware of the issue of civility and so on. They are being watched and if any further comments that are deemed uncivil, inappropriate, and so on, they will be reported once more and consequently blocked as they were given chances. And I will take their above comment "If I break the rules, block me." (not exact) seriously. I expect them to learn their mistakes and choose their words carefully instead of being rude and uncalled for. I choose to believe they will stop edit warring and stop engaging in OWNBEHAVIOR and start discussing in good matters. And that their competence here will improve. The way they type and what they say are supporting that issue. Thank you for the ping, Eau (I really don't know your username that easily) Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 20:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

Hi, I'm the editor who User:Callmemirela indirectly referred to above. I want to put this one to bed so we can all move on, too. Having looked into this a bit more, however, there're some additional aspects that should be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, it'll take me just a little while longer to put the details into a neat orderly manner, dot the i's and cross the t's so to speak, ready to post here. I'm pretty sure I can do so within 24hrs. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

While we wait, or to help us/admins decide whether we should, it would be helpful to understand your relationship to the case (since you are currently an IP with only this edit in your history). Are you the editor who formerly used IP 146.198.28.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 146.199.67.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (see contribs)? General Ization 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. (Powercut last night.) Incidentally, thank you for your application of meatball:DefendEachOther at the talkpage. Looking into this took a while (complexity and depth of the edit history among other factors) and, as we can see, a poll began in the meantime. It's preferable that reports here don't stay open for extended periods, so I can understand why EauZenC initiated it. 146.200.32.196 (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@146.200.32.196: Did you plan to provide us with some additional insight concerning this matter, as your post above suggested? If so, please do so quickly or if not, please let us know, so that either way we can move this case toward closure. It's unfair both to the subject editor and the rest of us watching this section to leave it in limbo any longer. General Ization 16:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologise to the community. In hindsight my 24hrs estimate was over optimistic. I misjudged the time needed wrt the large quantity of edits. Fortunately, having worked through the night, twice, things moved right along. I do intend to provide some additional material facts asap, so we can wrap this up. I'll come back here later today. Thanks. 146.200.32.196 (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Seemingly the IP's 72 hour estimate was also unrealistic. Move for closure, as at this point I can't imagine what revelations they could bring to the discussion that would make it worth our waiting any longer. General Ization 18:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I see now that the IP has added to the open discussion above today, though they do not offer a closing recommendation. So I again move for closure, but now because it appears all who have an interest in commenting on this matter have done so. General Ization 20:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP's entry only reinforces the view of Koala15 as ill-faithed (not sure if this is a good antonym for good faith) and a repeat offender that has not shown any signs of real regret for their actions. As far as I see it, they are a ticking time bomb. Closure without action is precisely what they are hoping for. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 09:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• List of Warner Bros. Films

Hello. I'm having an issue with the same user. He's deleting information that has been proven with citations from reliable sources. He's doing so on the basis of what he thinks is necessary on the page, whereas it's not entirely up to him. StephenCezar15 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

HOUNDING by Elvey

Sorry to bother you all. I cannot figure Elvey out. but he/she has taken a disliking to me and from time to time comes around behind me and argues against whatever I am trying to do. I have been putting up with it, but now he has started making a mess with a new editor who has a COI.

June 13: filed a COIN case naming me as an editor with a COI over Kaiser Permanente (where he has been hounding a disclosed representative of that company on the Talk page here and later here) and then refused twice here and here to make a case that I had a COI, or even to acknowledge that by listing my name in the posting, he had raised a concern about possible COI for me on that article. Incompetent, BATTLEGROUND behavior.

June 17: Followed me to articles he had never edited here (that one having to do with an editor working on the article about himself - so a COI issue) and here arguing against me randomly. I warned him to stop here.

July 8: Elvey went back to it here, seemingly randomly reverting my removal of content added by a blocked user, Nuklear and edit warred over that, and didn't stop until an uninvolved, chemical-savvy admin, Edgar181, explained to Elvey why Nuklear was blocked and that the content Nuklear added had an error in it anyway, and that my cleanup after Nuklear was OK with him. I gave Elvey a 2nd warning here about that.

Yesterday, a new instance. Doc James and Alexbrn and I are having a difficult but salvageable set of discussions with a new editor, ColumbiaLion212, with a disclosed COI who I advised not to edit the article directly, and who has made the newbie mistake of accusing us of a COI since we are disagreeing with him, but then Elvey showed up at ColumbiaLion's talk page and actually told ColumbiaLion that "Given the concerns you raise above (about other people's COI), I think it may be quite appropriate for you to continue to edit the article directly." This is not only incompetent and wrong but it is pure BATTLEGROUND baloney. I warned Elvey to back off here and they just came right back with more incompetent, BATTLEGROUND nonsense. I don't know if we are going to be able to get things back on track with ColumbiaLion after this bumbling.

I would like Elvey to be topic banned from discussing COI in Misplaced Pages (he is not competent to deal with editors with a COI as his behavior on Kaiser Permanente and ColumbiaLion's talk page show) and I would like a one way topic ban with regard to me since his HOUNDING of me is disrupting my work here and is harming WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Please impose a long cool-off block on Jytdog.

Response from Elvey

I twice responded to this editor's talk page accusations of HOUNDING: "Thank you for linking to that policy. In fact WP:HOUNDING#NOT says: 'racking a user's contributions for policy violations' 'is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly' '; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly.'." I ask that WP:HOUNDING#NOT be enforced. diff.

I don't even think there's a need for me to dredge up diffs showing his worst behavior because his diffs supposedly showing me at my worst actually make him look bad. But let me respond to each assertion:

1. His assertion re. June 13 seems to be a lie: He must know I never said he had a COI WRT Kaiser because we've reminded him so multiple times - the diffs Jytdog provided show me pointing this out and he's been told I did no such thing repeatedly not only by me but by others as well (diff) (admin User:SlimVirgin). To continue to spread this blatant falsehood here is blatant BATTLEGROUND obsessiveness.

2. Re June 17: Take a look at the 2 edits he's pissed off about and links to, where I told users he bullied, "You may continue to make appropriate edits directly to the article, Clockback, which the WP:COI guideline definitely allows, but discourages." and, "Way to follow WP:DR, be constructive and civil, SageRad." Were they good edits? I think so. Was this hounding? I already responded to that accusation on my talk page (excerpt above). That bullying is a violation of WP:BULLY policy, which Jytdog has been repeatedly chastised for, including by at least one highly trusted administrator entrusted to use powerful mops and broomsticks with care: User:Risker.

3. Re July 8: Look at the edit history and you'll see that his edit war accusation should BOOMERANG. He edit warred; I followed standard DR.

4. Re. "Yesterday", I was directed to review Jytdog's edits by another editor, and when I did so, I was troubled and responded appropriately, as the diffs Jytdog has provided show. Specifically, I went to User:ColumbiaLion212's talk page because User:Brianhe directed me there with this edit. So I wasn't following Jytdog there at all, let alone hounding him. And even if I had followed him there, I was pointing out that he was violating WP:NOEDIT, so WP:HOUNDING#NOT is far more applicable than WP:HOUNDING . --Elvey 00:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

5. He grossly misrepresents when he says ColumbiaLion212 "finally" disclosed working for a company that makes CES devices; User:ColumbiaLion212 did so a day after being asked - with his very next edit - his 9th edit on Misplaced Pages!

6. Jytdog sees what he wants to see in our CoI policy; he says here that he believes that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." is actually a "cannot". I suggest he be blocked until he is no longer delusional about what the CoI policy actually is, because he has disclosed, and demonstrated that it is his intent to attempt to enforce a nonexistent policy.--Elvey 03:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As you usual Elvey makes a garble of things. In my interactions with editors who declare a COI, I never say "cannot" and you will not find any diffs where I did. Editors with a COI are strongly discouraged, and the dif he points to shows that I understand that very well. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

6b. Sorry but here you are telling the respectable subject of a BLP that the COI policy does not allow him to directly edit his BLP. Re your comment about #6: I provided a diff, in which he indeed says "cannot" (without the quotes). And the rest of diff does show him expressing the opinion that I described. If there's a more clear and concise way to express that Jytdog says here that he believes that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." is actually a "cannot", I'm all ears. I note that you have not responded regarding #1, 2, 3, 4 or 5! --Elvey 05:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not responding to you point by point because most of what you write is incoherent. Others will be able to see that. Jytdog (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That's one way to dodge scrutiny. Snowded says my writing is perfectly coherent, so no he was not able to see that. Based on that, I would ask that any interaction ban apply to Jytdog, rather than be one-way on me. Jytdog is saying I should be banned because of the behavior defended in #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and yet Jytdog refuses to discuss it. That's not reasonable or fair. I've launched a solid defense of 1-6. Yet Jytdog demands I self-impose a ban for the behavior addressed in 1-6. --Elvey 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

no, i have asked the community to do this. if you just agree it will save a lot of drama but you are apparently unwilling. so on we go. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I note, again, that you have not responded regarding #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6b. Snowded says my writing is perfectly coherent. You have made no specific requests for clarification. Your refusing to respond is disruptive; respond or retract your campaign, Jytdog.--Elvey 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I note, yet again, that you have not responded regarding #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6b. Can someone else respond? --Elvey 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

When opening this case, Jytdog notified no fewer than three admins and two other users who take his extremeist view of COI and I ask that any comments from the canvassed users be disregarded and that our policy on canvassing be enforced with the requested block. A WP:Sham consensus may be the result of such canvassing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 03:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC} ) signed this additional bit of mess-making by ElveyJytdog (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware that when naming an editor in a post at ANI, you are meant to notify them? That is not canvassing. Alexbrn (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Snowded: Why did you add a canvassing template to my comment? I was not canvassed. Please strike or provide some justification. Alexbrn (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you talking about? ----Snowded 07:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Snowded, got my diffs in a twist: it was Elvey who added it, so - to Elvy: Why did you add a canvassing template to my comment? I was not canvassed. Please strike or provide some justification. Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If that's not canvassing, then the rule against canvassing has a giant loophole. Pinging users surely accomplishes what other forms of canvassing accomplish. But if you and Jytdog want to defend that use of the loophole, I won't fight you. The canvassing tag has been removed. --Elvey 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey of responses to proposal to sanction

• Note: A "Community sanction proposal" has been opened away below, below the closed subsection: here -- Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG 172.56.18.107 (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:WHY ? Acroterion (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

172.56.18.107 has been blocked with an expiry time of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Block user Elvey. The accusations in the COIN charge are vague, unsupported, and unhelpful. I have tried to follow this editor's diatribes without success. @Elvey: This discussion and my investigations make it appear that you are incompetent to edit here. Please correct me by providing one or more specific edits where user Jytdog has gone astray, and how you think that they have gone astray. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

After looking at Elvey's response (try following #6, for example), I reiterate my request that Elvey be blocked temporarily and in addition banned from COI topics indefinitely. Editor does not seem to be competent to have these conversations. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support COI topic ban I haven't seen WP:COIN recently, but an example of clueless COI enthusiasm is here. If there are other similar examples a topic ban is required because blundering around like that could tip the balance for some editors and make them retire. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Ugh. Normally I'd be quite supportive of attempts to root out COI, but the discussion that Elvey has initiated with regards to Doc James and Jytdog that have been linked to here have an unpleasant whiff of McCarthyism about them. It's not serious enough to warrant a topic ban yet in my view, but at the same time it's neither helpful or appropriate to have self-appointed COI cops wandering around demanding to know if someone is or has been a member of the COI Party. It very well could turn into a topic ban or other sanctions unless Elvey moderates their approach in the future, and that would be unfortunate. Lankiveil 04:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Lankiveil to be clear, the reason I asked for the topic ban from COI is Elvey's incompetent interference in ongoing COI management efforts, as with ColumbiaLion212 (which was especially bad), and his interactions with the declared conflicted editor at KaiserPermanente where he abused the Talk page with soapboxing accusations. As you can see Elvey is only pushing harder here; he does not appear to be corrigible. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Lankiveil - Re. "self-appointed COI cops wandering around demanding to know if someone is or has " - Are you not aware that Jytdog has been going around, bullying a great many users, demanding to know if they have a COI? Need more diffs? I've already provided some. --Elvey 05:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not talking about Jytdog here, I am talking about you. Jytdog may be a sinner or a saint, but that does not excuse your own behaviour in this area, which I regard as problematic. Seeking out COI is good, asking leading questions of editors without some proof to substantiate your suspicions creates a chilling effect that is not helpful. Lankiveil 10:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC).

Elvey, asking about someone's relationship is not demanding. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support COI topic ban ColumbiaLion212 had gone off the rails badly but was being managed, but then Elvey came storming to their Talk page, apparently in furtherance of some kind of feud with Jytdog, and actually encouraged them to continue their COI-tainted editing. Elvey has not responded to questions about this and show no sign of getting a clue about how bad it was, so I believe a block is necessary as a preventative measure. Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps 172.56.18.107 is the same user that set up https://twitter.com/IndustryLapdog/with_replies! Wasn't me. --Elvey 03:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban between Elvey and Jytdog, and COI topic ban for Elvey. His arguments here make it pretty plain that he is engaging in motivated reasoning and that this has led him to a view of COI which leads to his making - ahem - unhelpful comments. I think six months should be sufficient. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose While Jytdog is annoyed with the other editor (who, AFAICT, made no accusations of COI about Jytdog per se), the behaviour does not, IMO, rise to the level where sanctions are called for at all. The tendency to ask for sanctions when there is a reasonable disagreement is all too common on Misplaced Pages at this point. I note Snowded's reasoning below. Collect (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't often agree with Collect ;-) but in this case I do. I suggest both editors reflect a little and try and find a way to see value in the others comments before we move to sanctions. ----Snowded 12:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - IMHO, seeking sanctions on another editor is the wrong way to go. But, if both individuals can't get along? then a 2-way IBAN would be best for them. GoodDay (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

To those opposing. This is about Elvey's behavior. Elvey is hounding me, not vice versa. And in the course of Elvey's hounding, Elvey inserted himself into a discussion with a new editor with a COI that was already going off the rails, and pushed it over a cliff. It is the damage to other editors and to the overall effort to manage COI in WP that led me here. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The best route here for you, would be to ignore Elvey. If Elvey were to follow you around, while you're ignoring him/her? then he/she would be viewed as harrassing you. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I do - I don't go fight about every harassing edit Elvey makes. But when Elvey inserts him/herself into a discussion as they did with ColumbiaLion and as they did at KaiserPermanente, they make a mess of things that cannot be ignored. Their incompetent actions on COI issues are what I am really after here. I want the one-way ban because that is what apparently drove these bumbling "interventions", and they are already fixed on me and this posting will only make that worse. Jytdog (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Claiming you've never followed me around is hogwash. The new editor hasn't been pushed off the rails; he's been scared off by Jytdog. Hasn't been back. WP:BITE, WP:BULLY etc, in action. You chased him off like a good guard dog. --Elvey 17:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have never followed you around and you have zero diffs to prove that. More nonsense. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support either a COI topic ban of Elvey per Johnuniq and/or a one-way interaction ban of Elvey regarding Jytdog per Guy. I think that the discussion has gotten considerably off-track, but I also think that the ways in which it has gotten off-track support the appropriateness of some restrictions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

If it is one or the other, I would choose topic banning from COI, as that is the most damaging to the community.Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

We know you'd like that, but we're trying to determine what's equitable and practical, not what gives the complainant what he most wants.  :-/  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  03:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish, if I've misrepresented policy, I'd really like to know how, because I don't want to do that. The only way they've been able to suggest I've misrepresented policy has been to misrepresent what I've said, and then reach false conclusions based on false evidence - which your 'per Guy' suggests has worked. Guy grossly misrepresented my positions and then accused me of having those bad opinions, and refused to address the misrepresentations. What the hell is OK about that? If I've pointed out a true policy that you don't want what you see as the wrong people to know about, I've, reluctantly, offered to stop doing so under the terms below, at #Proposal. Please consider endorsing it. --Elvey 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Since you specifically asked me to reply, I will. I've read it, and I agree with Guy. I don't see the problem as being about misrepresenting policy, but as exhausting the community's patience with the way you communicate with other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Just several days ago User:GregJackP and User:Minor4th said here that Jytdog should be banned from COI areas. User:Viriditas chimed in, "Jytdog seem to disrupt every article where the word "Monsanto" appears, have you considered voluntarily withdrawing from any and all Monsanto-related topics?" --Elvey 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Risker recently said of Jytdog, "I worry a great deal about the really shoddy way we treat the subjects of our biographical material." I do too. Right after the shoddy treatment Jytdog gave Clockback, a subject of our biographical material, and NEVER APOLOGIZED FOR, I responded with factually correct information, which no one is disputing, but some here nevertheless want to ban me for. What the hell kind of respect for the subjects of BLP is that? --Elvey 02:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't drag me into this - I'm not saying anything about Jytdog, one way or another. We resolved our issue. GregJackP Boomer! 04:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"Someone had a concern" isn't very helpful. I'd like to hear from those four editors or have specific pointers to the discussions of what they think the alleged issues with Jytdog are. Never mind, I found it. Jytdog having any COI-patrolling and civility issues of his own would not magically make Elvey's actions okey-dokey, but we may be looking at a mutual interaction ban, even a mutual topic ban or other action; Upate:I don't see a mutual issue. ANI is not a forum for one side to "win" with quicker and craftier argumentation or a bigger enourage. I'm not convinced a long topic ban is needed here, though, for anyone. If an editor has WP:COMPETENCE problems (which Elvey clearly does with regard to at least COI, CIVIL, and CANVASS interpretation), this is generally resolved with experience, which they cannot gain if barred from the area in which they need to develop better competence. If there's an interaction ban, set a time limit, like 6 months. Long-term ones are too easily gamed, are onerous, and usually don't serve any purpose but cementing a dispute forever instead of letting it naturally come to a "why were we even fighting?'" WP:DGAF realization, and become by-gones. Permanent topic bans are rarely useful except with regard to actual soapboxing POV-pushers, or "great wrongs" battlegrounders, and just serve to create martyrs-in-their-own-minds among editors who mean well but are "differently clued" at the moment. I do agree that the COIN filing by Elvey of vague, unsupported-aspersion casting should not go unaddressed, probably with a 3-month COI topic ban, regardless of other matters and outcomes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  03:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Updated. 05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SMcCandlish I was recently brought to Arbcom (case was dismissed) and at the same time to ANI (no action) over my COI activities. Elvey is having a field day quoting stuff from those events. I took a week off from dealing with COI issues to get feedback as advised at Arbcom and got some good feedback, which I've been reflecting on; I still have still not fully gone back to my former levels of COI work as I am still considering some things. Elvey keeps quoting stuff from those stale (and older) cases as though it is hot news.

The problem with Elvey's involvement in COI matters is that he is "intervening" in ongoing interactions with new editors who have or may have a COI (which are often delicate and require respect and diplomacy) and writing frankly incompetent things. Sometimes harassing the conflicted editors, and sometimes harassing me and encouraging bad behavior by the conflicted editor. There is no sense to it. This is really bad with new editors, especially, who are trying to learn how WP works, under pressure from their COI.

Anyway, I recognize that the community will do as it will. But working on live COI issues is not a training ground. Nothing will prevent Elvey from reading COI actions and getting their head on straight, and asking for an indef to be lifted when they can show they understand things better. But I need to stop responding to things here - have written too much already. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I'm interested in due diligence. Not every dogpile indicates consensus, but often bandwagon mentality, and every argument has at least two sides. Just because ArbCom or ANI previously didn't act on something doesn't mean it's not relevant, since patterns emerge over time. But I have no interest in fishing for one with regard to you; I just asked for clarification of what complaints others had raised (and it was the BITE one that caught my eye, not a COI one, but I treat all claims of wiki-wrongdoing with skepticism).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  04:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Reviewed Risker's and related material, saw GregJackP's disavowal of a current dispute, and don't see a major issue. The two arbs who made the point to you that COI and paid editing are more distinct that you seemed to think at that time, probably got that point across (that was much earlier in the month), and I don't see evidence they didn't. Absent a showing of really recent issues in this regard, or of newbie-biting that's also recent, I'm satisfied there's no boomerang of any kind here, but hope the message was absorbed, to get COI/PAID policy understanding in synch with the community's if you're going to be helping new editors who have conflicts of interest.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Recommendation: Elvey should be subject to a one-way interaction-ban from Jytdog, and a topic-ban from COI-related discussions and processes, for 3-6 months (concurrent) in both cases; long enough to learn these ropes and re-examine his approach. More than 1 year would be counterproductive and patently punitive at this stage. I'm particularly concerned about the aggressive nature of Elvey's approach to all this, especially the aspersion casting at WP:COIN, which can, as someone else said, "tip the balance" and drive incoming editors away. Because of the BLP connection, we have to be especially careful in this area. The sarcastic, lecturing tone of Elvey's responses here is not a good sign. WP:COMMONSENSE escape valve: Elvey should be able to report what he is sure is a glaringly obvious, unmistakable COI problem, to an admin, who could determine whether it required further investigation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What is our CoI policy actually?

Jytdog sees what he wants to see in our CoI policy; he says here that he believes that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." "is actually a cannot". I suggest he be blocked until he is no longer delusional about what the CoI policy actually is, because he has disclosed, and demonstrated that it is his intent to attempt to enforce a nonexistent policy.

Jytdog was ***roundly critized by two longtime arbitrators for his extreme interpretations of our CoI policy and treatment of User:Snowded - none other than User:Risker, who is sick of him and User:Newyorkbrad.

The diff above shows that:

Risker told Jytdog, "The ToU doesn't say what you think it says." at 10:02 am, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7)

User:Snowded told Jytdog his "absolutist interpretation of what is a guideline not policy does not help." I wish Jytdog would listen or be given some quiet time to think about it.

Risker told Jytdog, "Conflict of interest is not the same thing as paid editing. If you cannot understand that, you need to stop working in this area. Paid editing is things like Elance or other SEO organizations who specifically write for pay, or the PR department of a company. Conflict of interest is not the same thing. Again, if you insist that the two things are identical, which is exactly what you were doing in the edit I reverted, then you need to stop working in this area, because you misunderstand the basic premise." at 12:51 pm, 14 June 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen.

User:Newyorkbrad told Jytdog: "Let me see if I can help a bit here, because there is a widespread tendency to interpret the COI issue and related guidelines in a simplistic way, which is increasingly unhelpful for everyone. I'm a partner in a law firm. The firm is not notable enough for an Misplaced Pages article, but suppose I were at a larger firm and we had one. If I were to edit the article about my law firm, I would have a "conflict of interest" (the significance of which could be minor or major depending on the nature of the edits). However, I would not be a "paid editor," because my firm pays me to practice law, not to edit Misplaced Pages. Is everyone in agreement so far?" at 11:10 am, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen.

But Risker doesn't expect Jytdog to listen; I see a need for admin action is proven by this comment and driven home by Jytdog's actions leading up to this ANI dispute: "Thank you for your illustration, NYB. I am afraid, however, that it falls on deaf ears (referring to Jytdog's ears) for those who imagine themselves pure as the driven snow." at 12:56 pm, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen.

"Jytdog I strongly suggest stepping away from COI issues until you have taken on board the community's concerns (expressed well by Risker) regarding your editing in the area, if you don't then I would not be surprised to see a topic ban proposed at AN/I." -User:Thryduulf at 3:33 am, 12 July 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen or be given some quiet time to think about it, or made to heed this. Said topic ban is hereby proposed - probably where Jytdog got the idea to propose the same ban for me!

--Elvey 03:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Within the range of views that exist within WP -- which range from very strong opposition to editors with a COI even being part of the community, to opposition to dealing with COI at all and just focusing on content -- I have a moderate interpretation of COI - and above all a view centered on talking with people about what we all care about - namely good content. Additionally, we don't have a COI policy at all. We have a COI guideline. Elvey's post from its header on, is an incoherent ramble, cherry picked from various discussions, and a demonstration of what I mean about their lack of competence to discuss these things. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Elvey would you please add difs to your quotes above? I checked Risker's contribs and they made no comment at 12:56 pm, 13 June 2015. And, by the way, I took my time out as suggested at the Arbcom case that was declined with no action, and got some very helpful feedback. Jytdog (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I've put a few asterisks next to a diff that provides what you requested, Jytdog. (And times are UTC−7.) Here it is again, since you're having trouble finding it:

Jytdog was ***roundly critized by two longtime arbitrators for his extreme interpretations of our CoI policy and treatment of User:Snowded - none other than User:Risker, who is sick of him and User:Newyorkbrad.--Elvey 06:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The harder you twist, the worse you look. The "sick of him" is especially ugly, as what Risker was sick of what Atsme and I going back and forth. What would be useful would be if you would promise to stop following me around, and stay away from COI issues, which you are making a mess of. Jytdog (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Jytdog, that wasn't it at all. It was about you not me, and it's time for you to seriously self-analyze because your behavior is extremely problematic. Risker stated: "Enough, Jytdog; stop haranguing people. We're talking about half a dozen links, half of which are on pages that have already gone through community review and were deemed to be reasonable additions to the page. I don't accept this sort of thing on my talk page. You are not, under any circumstances, entitled to this level of personal information about anybody on Misplaced Pages, conflict of interest or no. Risker (talk) 1:23 pm, 6 July 2015, Monday (22 days ago) (UTC−5)" And with regards to you telling other editors to stop following you around - you need to self-analyze in that department, too. Atsme 06:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

OK, if there's a consensus that I need to

1. stop informing users who are told not to edit articles because they have a COI the truth - that the COI policy guideline only discourages users with a COI from editing but does not forbid it and
2. Stop informing users that if it applies to them, they must comply with the ToU clauses requiring disclosure of FCoI, then I will stop doing so.

If you think I should to stop doing that, or shouldn't, please indicate that below. But please also explain WHY I should or shouldn't stop doing so (optional). --Elvey 06:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have already indicated it above. I can tell you from long personal experience of handling emails at OTRS, and as an admin for nearly ten years now, that your advice to these users is profoundly unhelpful and the most likely outcome of their following your advice is that they will end up blocked or banned. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, so Guy is on record saying that users (this user at least) must not inform users who are told not to edit articles because they have a COI the truth - that the COI guideline only discourages users with a COI from editing but does not forbid it and users (this user at least) must not inform users that if it applies to them, they must comply with the ToU clauses requiring disclosure of FCoI. I hear you when you say that this true advice is nonetheless profoundly unhelpful. Anyone else agree? User:Jytdog? Say so here and I'll stop. --Elvey 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That is mostly incorrect and incoherent, Elvey. I don't tell people not to edit articles; I ask them not to.

And there are lots of perspectives in the community about how the ToU applies to editors with a COI. Some interpret the ToU as applying only narrowly to say freelancers who are literally paid to edit or create WP articles, and would not apply the ToU to a company employee writing about their company of their own volition. Others interpret the application of the ToU more broadly. Also, the ToU only requires disclosure - it says nothing about editing WP articles. Your discussion is all confused, and you are trying to draw lines through that stew. It can't be done. So I cannot affirm or deny what you write.

I will say that your emphasizing what people with a COI can do (which is not clear in WP) instead of what they should do (which is clearly described in the COI guideline), is a destructive thing.

And what is profoundly unhelpful is your fiercely bringing your confused ideas and your beef with me (whatever that is) into ongoing discussions with editors who have or may have a COI. What I have asked for, is for you to say away from me, and stay out of COI issues. Will you agree to do those two things? Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I expect your behavior won't change, despite what Risker, Newyorkbrad and a dozen other folks have told you, so yes, I propose we avoid each other. I've offered the proposal in this section as a solution. Clearly there's lots of feedback for both of us here and on the huge thread on Risker's talk page on how we could improve our approach to COI issues. I intend to change my behavior accordingly, and you have said that you will too. Progress, I dare say? --Elvey 17:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No progress. Your ideas still appear to be as confused as they were before and you have not acknowledged once here that you have made a hash of things in your pursuit of me. And again - you are following me around; if you stop doing that and let go, you will not find me in front of you anymore. I don't want to interact with you; the fixation is yours. And nothing new has been to said to me here about COI, nor have I said anything new. Everything you have brought here about me is stale and dealt with already. Please just agree to stay away from me and from COI issues. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from sort of involved editor

Interesting. I agree with Jytdog that Elvey is cherry picking (although he is not incoherent) and I am also strongly of the opinion that Jytdog has the best interests of Misplaced Pages at heart. However I don't think Jytog has a moderate interpretation of COI. He has an assertive/bureaucratic approach to COI not a conversational one and acts (not just in my case) as if the guideline is policy. In the incident which gave rise to the above an article about a framework I created was subject to attack by a commercial rival. After a couple of rounds I (recognising my involvement) took the matter the Administrators Notice Board and an independent admin gave the offending editor an 'only warning' and the issue appeared resolved. Jytdog then arrived and the situation escalated for some time with multiple notices, postings, warnings and the like. In effect a guideline was acted on as if it was policy.

Based on that experience and monitoring other COI notices by Jytog and others, I've been meaning to write up a suggested guideline for the COI notice board when I get time. But given this has been brought up I think there are a few points that it would be useful to discuss:

1. Any editor getting involved in issuing a COI notice needs to make a very clear distinction between a 'paid' editor and one who has an interest in a page. There is a radical difference between getting the odd lecture or consultancy fee and being employed to directly edit Misplaced Pages.
2. The COI notices used tend to take a all editors with any COI however remote are all sinners' approach which can have a chilling effect. We could do with two different notices: One for those paid and the other for those with some interest. In fact templating should be discouraged in the latter case
3. It is clear that in respect of an academic framework the creator of that framework is also a subject matter expert. Any notice should make that clear. Asserting that an editor in this situation should not edit the article (per Jytdog) is not policy and should not be asserted as such
4. In general any editor taking a COI monitoring role should exercise care not to (i) inflame a conflict and (ii) not to come across as a bureaucratic enforcement agent. In this case Jytdog could have acknowledged that I had not taken part in an edit war, despite the posting of a false statement, but had brought in a neutral admin pretty quickly. I asked him if he thought I had made any edits against policy and got no reply. I'm an experienced enough editor not to have taken offence but I can think of a few academic colleagues, not familiar with some the 'guideline bureaucracy culture' in some parts of Misplaced Pages might have taken it differently.

So regardless of the cherry picking and/or Jytdog's accusation of incoherent rambling (not helpful) there is an issue for the community here. ----Snowded 06:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion belongs at WPT:COIN or WPT:COI not here. The issue is the editor's conduct towards each other, not the minutia of what the technical grounds of a policy are or are not. And we have a policy that no one really follows and there's little support for, then it's time for the policy to reflect reality not the other way around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

And at some stage I will move a more elaborate version of it there, but the comment was relevant in so far as it reflects a wider problem that undiscriminating COI enforcement can create. As to your comments on policy and reality, the solution to that is not the current COI practice which needs more development - then it might be possible for it to become policy. ----Snowded 07:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Snowded Thanks for your remarks! The policy issues that came into play in our interaction were WP:NLT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:BLPCOI (BLP applies to talk pages too) all related to your real world disputes with the other editor, that the two of you carried into WP. I have only run across a few (maybe three) situations where two editors, each with such clear COIs of their own, also were in conflict in the RW and carried that into WP. That is not a common situation - a double COI in a way (your own, and the conflict with the other editor, and the same for the other editor) - and my interactions with editors with potential or already-declared conflicts generally do not get near so intense; those three policy issues generally don't come into them. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you just further illustrate the point I was trying to make Jytdog. There was a RW conflict, what you failed to realise was that I had responded to the wikipedia conflict by pulling in a neutral admin to avoid escalation. You then arrived and created the conditions that allowed an unnecessary conflict to escalate. My points above about handling different types of COI was meant to try and prevent that sort of thing. It was made worse by your subsequent attempt (the Elvey extracts above) to challenge my right to even talk about the issue. Fortunately you were overruled by two former arbcom members. You continue to see COI as black and white rather than understanding the difference between paid editing and legitimate interest even subject matter expertise. Until you engage with the issue of the manner of your interactions you are going to end up in more conflicts. I can see that Elvey's behaviour is problematic, but so is yours. ----Snowded 12:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Snowded, this is where COI issues get so difficult - even now you still seem unclear on your own COI. You have academic claims of ownership of the concept, you founded a company based on the concept and serve as CSO of that company and make money lecturing about it etc (direct financial interests) and you have an external conflict with another editor who has a competing company. If only the first were at play, our interactions would have been very, very different. As I wrote above, having two editors in conflict here in WP each with their own COIs and in RW conflicts with each other is rare, and you still don't seem to recognize how locked-in to that conflict you were. Also, I never challenged your right to talk about it - I thought you should disclose that you had a COI in articles you write about, when you posted at WT:COI. Risker disagreed with how I expressed that. Also, my views on COI are laid out on my Userpage and what you will find there, is very far from black and white. Finally, I highly value subject matter expertise in WP, in line with the wider WP community. Our very valuable essay on WP:EXPERT welcomes experts, and warns experts not to use WP as a platform to promote their own ideas and publications. That is how I treat experts as well, when that is the only issue. Look at my interactions with User:Gjboyle on their talk page, for example. The picture you are painting of me is not accurate. It is very much shaped by our difficult interaction which I have acknowledged I could have handled better. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I fully understand the exact nature of my interest in that article and the nature of the conflict. I go out of my way never to do a primary edit on either of the two articles I am associated with so the idea I am using wikipedia as a platform to promote my ideas is a nonsense. I have a framework which has revived multiple awards and citations therefore I have an interest in that article. I didn't found a company based on that concept, its one framework and our main focus is software. You've been told that but you don't listen. The fact that you refuse to see any different between that and a paid editor remains problematic. The fact that your response to any editor who disagrees with you on something is to tell them they don't understand their own position when you have at best surface knowledge is a problem. What you fail to see is that your attitude and method of engagement is a PART of the problem. So whatever your intentions you are creating problems. In the case it question it was your intervention that caused the conflict and you still can't see that. Now this is probably not going anywhere so having made the point I will leave it. I hope when I bring proposals on this to the COI notice board we can find a way to work together ----Snowded 14:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Snowded. I did take a break from COI work per the advice at arbcom, and I did get valuable feedback on my talk page. I have heard, that I can come across too stridently. I have heard that. And we will probably continue to disagree about what happened at Cynefin article; I do acknowledge that I got too harsh there and was part of the problem; that is why I apologized. And as I wrote at Risker's page, there is a difference between paid editing and other forms of COI. Paid editing is a subset of COI which in turn is a subset of advocacy, and it is advocacy that shows up in bad WP content. The ToU apply only to paid editing. So please don't misrepresent me. I also ask you to reconsider your !vote above. Whatever you think about me, Elvey's behavior has been very out of line. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

(Belated requests: Jytdog, stop attacking Snowded here. It's derailing the discussion. Snowded, don't feel the need to defend yourself here.) Jytdog says above, "I have heard, that I can come across too stridently. I have heard that." I am happy to hear that. However this diff and the interactions Snowded points to suggest the behavior hasn't improved. That recent threatening of a new user with an indefinite ban like that appears to be calculated to maximize Chilling Effects. That's why I got involved. But apparently, consensus is building (as shown by the support votes here) that those chilling effects are just dandy and I'm not to interfere. --Elvey 17:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

He isn't attacking we have a difference of opinion. I seriously suggest you just back off for a bit. At the moment a few of us think that this should just be left and there is no need for an interaction ban or a topic ban. I still think that but if you get into a Battleground mentality some sort of restriction will be needed. Per my suggestion on your talk page I think you should just stop for a bit and ping me or another editor if you something is wrong and we can look at it. ----Snowded 18:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support ban from all COI-related discussions for Elvey. This is an issue of WP:CIVIL and WP:OUTING policy not COI. Elvey doesn't care about the COI policy, and just seems to use the COI policy as an excuse to lord it over people that have identified themselves in some way. If the dispute is about WP:COI policy, then the discussion belongs as that talk page not at ANI (or at WPT:COIN). Arguments about policy here aren't going to go anywhere. Here, we can discuss your individual ability to respond to potential COI issues and how in particular you act with each person you have concerns about. The problem is Elvey seems to use potential COI issues as an excuse to attack people. If you can't be civil with potential issues, then you'll be stopped to prevent extra work for the rest of us. This comment is less about COI issue and is based someone using their ability to know a person's identity to make a snide off-topic uncivil remark. There was no discussion about drug pricing, not even something that the representative brought up, just an excuse for Elvey for start a fight. This discussion is basically the same as WP:OUTING people to win fights. Frankly, Elvey is getting close to WP:OUTING issues and I think an outright indefinite block may be needed if the editor insists on just hunting around for fights. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue User:Snowded raised and you seem to want to pretend doesn't exist, Ricky, is that of Jytdog's uncivil behavior toward me, Snowded and many others. Don't try to hand wave it away as off topic for ANI. Holy shit! There are 113 mentions of Jytdog's name on this page, and only half of them are in this ("HOUNDING by Elvey") section. Jytdog seems to live here.--Elvey 07:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Snowded, I extracted the relevant comments from a single conversation. If that's cherry picking, then I picked cherries.

Yes, he acts as if it's policy that an editor must not edit an article if they have a CoI. There is no such policy. But that's not all. There's no such guideline EITHER! There's been a HUGE push to get the COI guideline changed to say that an editor must not edit an article if they have a CoI - there have been 4 huge, formal RfC campaigns. But they didn't succeed. I voted for 'em. But it's dishonest to go around deceiving people into believing CoI says what it'd say if one of those campaigns had been successful. so I don't do it.

1. Yes! I mistook one for the other recently, but unlike some users, I'm willing to recognize my mistakes.
2. Yes! I recently proposed a new template just for when a FCoI disclosure notice is not adequate.
3. Absolutely!
4. Yes, I tried to do that when I approached DocJames, and he was entirely cordial in response (though perhaps he's infallibly cordial). I still got attacked here for doing so. Refusing to address the concerns I've raised other than to dismiss them as "incoherent" is not in accord with policy, which requires that users respond when reasonable concerns are raised.

Thanks for piping up. --Elvey 07:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not behave as though it is policy. Most people, when approached respectfully and informed about the COI guideline and its advice, are happy to comply. Which has been a really pleasant part of the doing the COI work. Even editors with a COI understand that if WP lacks integrity, the public will stop trusting it, and it will become useless for people to learn anything about whatever their external interest is. Jytdog (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I genuinely don't think you intent to behave as if it was policy, but having looked at your interactions not only in my case but others I think you come across that way. Fast templating, assertive statements without qualification; threats of ANI referral; all create that impression. Your call if you want to listen to that or not. ----Snowded 12:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Snowded, I tell people I will bring them to ANI when they violate policy and I have some actual case to make here. I have not told anyone I would bring them to ANI for a COI issue per se. I never assert that someone actually has a COI unless they have already disclosed it. I do make assertions about behavior and editing that are always 100% supportable. I do ask questions. I do ask people to follow the COI guideline. I did get way too hot with you and with Atsme, for sure, for different reasons. I apologized to both of you. I did push too hard there. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks for the acknowledgement it gives a way forward. I would suggest that saying that if someone doesn't do what you want you will take them to ANI and that you have a successful track record is probably an intervention of LAST resort. Better to explore understanding of what has happened and policy before jumping to the threat :-) ----Snowded 14:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is not helping Snowded. Elvey, I'm not particularly concerned about any incivility towards you. I'm concerned about you attacking other editors out of the blue under the justification of "good intentions" to advocate for the COI policy. Again, I look at the Kaiser talk page post and see someone who seems out to find a fight to win. Everything else falls from that. Are you capable of offering a moderate incremental discussion (namely, if you think there's a problem (a) post a discussion on the article in question; (b) bring it up at COI; or (c) at the very least communicate to the people you accuse without presuming their guilt ahead of time) or is it just "let me do what I can or else I can do nothing at all"? WP:OUTING is a policy too and I've never felt that harassing individuals to protect us from some hypothetical COI is a long-term solution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This is some new definition of 'sarcasm' is it Ricky? If you misinterpret that phrase you might well have misinterpreted others. Maybe you could help by pointing me to the diffs that indicate a possible outing? ----Snowded 19:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Policy status

Elvey is right that the COI guideline is a guideline not a policy. It offers guidance for users on how to edit a subject in which they have a vested interest. He is wrong, however, to assert that ti does not have the force of policy. In fact, the COI guideline exists to help people avoid a global site ban from all WMF websites. The WMF Terms of Use say:

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

— Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use

Obviously there is scope for Elvey to wikilawyer about the precise meaning of compensation, but policies are interpreted using Clue, not weaselly lawyer speak. Anyone who edits in a way that may result in personal gain, or who edits Misplaced Pages on their employer's dollar (i.e. while at work) risks falling foul of this bright line rule.

The guideline has another very important purpose.

Any company or individual who edits Misplaced Pages with an undisclosed conflict of interest, risks substantial reputational damage. We have seen this already with the congressional editing scandal.

I wrote the boilerplate guidance to company representatives at OTRS, I also wrote the guidance to BLP subjects, and both of them make the same point: in order to protect your reputation and preserve your rights to edit, we strongly recommend that you follow the COI guidelines, which are designed to ensure transparency and facilitate engagement with the Misplaced Pages community to ensure rapid resolution of issues you might have with an article.

It's there for a reason. Elvey clearly does not understand that reason. Perhaps, having read this, he might. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So, in short, no, he still doesn't. I reiterate my support for a restriction. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd promise to stop asserting the foolishness you say I'm asserting, and so forth, but it would be very much like promising to stop beating my wife. You insist on grossly misrepresenting my position. What part of "I agree, users should follow the COI guidelines" do you not understand? That was and remains my stated position. Please stop mislabeling opinions that aren't mine. Shame on you for that. I'm a human being. Have you no shame?--Elvey 02:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Any vote! based on gross misrepresentations of my opinion should not be counted.--Elvey 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytog, you said last month, "Risker expressed objections and I took feedback on board and have adjusted how I operate." so how have you done that. I see no change, specifically: Risker told Jytdog, "The ToU doesn't say what you think it says." at 10:02 am, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7) HOW has your understanding of what the ToU says changed?--Elvey 02:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

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

COI needs updating or clarification

I'd recommend ya'll go to WP:COI, as it is the core of the above disagreements. GoodDay (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI is clear enough, the issue is Elvey's idiosyncratic interpretation of it. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The core of this ANI thread is Elvey's unacceptable behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If my interpretation is idiosyncratic, why is Risker getting on Jytdog's case about his misinterpretation? GoodDay is right - WP:COI is NOT clear enough. All these arguments are very strong evidence of that. If I'm wrong for telling people the truth about what WP:COI says, then surely that's damn good evidence that WP:COI needs to change to say that Paid advocates must not engage in direct article editing. Unfortunately attempts to change it to say that have failed, and attempts to get ArbCom to help (by others; I haven't tried) have fallen flat. Right, User:Coretheapple? --Elvey 17:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, not accurate. It is not clear what Risker's current stance on me is. Risker expressed objections and I took feedback on board and have adjusted how I operate. Please stop bringing up stale issues. And your confusion and your hounding and disruptive behavior, does not mean there is a problem with the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI should be put up for WP:MFD. Writing for Misplaced Pages is analogous to how scientists contribute to review articles, you must base everything on reliable sources, you cannot do original research. Your peers will check if what you write is up to standards. Now, in some less reliable discipines like e.g. medical science, you do have a problem with COI, authors are required to declare them in articles. But Misplaced Pages is much more like a hard science discipline like physics than a softer science like medicine. Count Iblis (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"WP:COI should be put up for WP:MFD." Poppycock. If anything it should be stiffened and made policy. BMK (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Which would mean that anonymous editing would have to end, editors would have to submit their CV's the WMF as part of a formal application to become editor here. Admins would have access to the submitted documents to check if the editors are sticking to the COI policy. Count Iblis (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there's no correlation between "stiffening COI" and IP editing having to end, that's pretty much a straw man, nor do any of the other dire results you predict follow in any logical way from the premise - it's all pretty much hyperbole, innit?. However I will say frankly that the project would be much better off if IP editing had been ended many years ago, since its downside far out weighs its upside, and it's mostly still here for political/philosophical reasons that have no relevance to the reality of life in the trenches. BMK (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally I would end IP editing as well for similar reasons. It means people can too readily hide an interest. But it is also the case that in many articles enforcement of the COI as interpreted by most of its enthusiasts would mean that subject matter experts were confined to requesting changes to articles from patrolling COI bureaucrats which would be equally disruptive. Banning ALL paid editing, restricting University projects to drafts that would then be reviewed would all be more helpful activities. Key is to stop the one size fits all COI approach currently being practiced and advocated. ----Snowded 05:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Community sanction proposal - Community Patience Exhausted by Elvey

Current results 14:2 14:3* 15:3* in favor of the proposal. We have had ~48 hrs and sufficient participation and supermajority. This is ripe for uninvolved administrator close and enaction. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed:

Elvey has exhausted the patience of the community and is topic banned from COI, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed to the community in six months.

• Support as proposer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• The discussion above shows six supports for a topic ban of various durations (Johnuniq + Alexbrn + Guy (JzG) + Ricky81682 + Tryptofish + SMcCandlish) and two opposes (Snowded + GoodDay). Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• More lies misrepresentation. (So what else is new?) Collect voted oppose too. With my !vote, it's 4:6. Way to use dirty campaign tricks, Johnuniq. Too bad there's no voting fraud hotline to call. --Elvey 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• My apologies for the accidental omission of Collect who opposed sanctions above (and below). The omission of Jytdog and Elvey was intentional as it did not seem useful to include the two protagonists. I listed the names specifically so others could check. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, but for it to properly stick absent community or arbcom sanctions we really need a formal proposal. Admins can't just say "I ban you", the community can... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support It is time to move on. If Elvey won't drop the stick on their own perhaps we should encourage them.--Adam in MO Talk 11:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per my comments above - my view is strengthened, in fact, because Elvey has shown no undertanding of why his intervention was so bad, and has instead mounted a belligerent defence of himself in which it seems only others are held to be at fault. Alexbrn (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support After reading through all of this I see no other alternative. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support, per what I said above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Any vote! based on gross misrepresentations of my opinion should not be counted. I shouldn't be banned for informing users of what WP:CoI says, which what this is really about. That's the behavior this is intended to prevent. --Elvey 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support as the OP. Elvey's behavior is only getting more disruptive as this thread continues. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Draconian measures simply do not work, and the evidence that they are needed in the case at hand is weak. If the stick is being dropped, let it stay on the ground. Collect (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything Draconian about a 6-month ban from a single noticeboard. Nor do I see a dropping of the stick with respect to the added comments about "dirty campaign tricks". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • What am I supposed to do? I'm supposed to be OK with the misrepresentation of the vote, the misrepresentation of my views, the double jeopardy, etc? I have to be OK with those things or I'm not dropping the stick? Seriously? You would be totally OK with it if a vote to ban you was mis-counted against you, your views were misrepresented, and when you asked that they be presented accurately, your request was blown off? Sorry, but I'm a human being. I have feelings. Despite all the misrepresentation, I haven't cursed anyone out. I don't see you accepting my request for someone work with me. --Elvey 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish to be clear, the proposal is a topic ban from "COI, broadly construed" - so not just the COIN noticeboard.Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right. But, as is becoming ever-increasingly clear, it is far from Draconian, in context. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

For the record, all the votes above were made before Johnuniq's false summary of the vote was noted or corrected. Also, there was just a !vote on this; which shows a 6:4 result. Holding another one because there was no consensus because User:Collect, User:Snowded User:GoodDay and User:Elvey opposed is unfair and a policy violation.--Elvey 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to note that I modified Elvey's formatting to make this section more manageable, but Elvey's reference to votes above refers to votes dated prior to 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC), so anything added subsequently to that time is after the response to the summary. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agreed to drop the stick, and have done so. I did:

1. stop informing users who are told not to edit articles because they have a COI the truth - that the COI policy guideline only discourages users with a COI from editing but does not forbid it and
2. Stop informing users that if it applies to them, they must comply with the ToU clauses requiring disclosure of FCoI.

The quality of the reasoning in the !vote so far is interesting. There isn't any. Proposals must be !votes. So I'd appreciate a succinct description from anyone voting support of what I've supposedly done wrong that doesn't (unlike much of what's come so far) grossly misrepresent what I've done, or ignore my defenses, or throw out [[WP: links without explanation and evidence. You want to ban me cuz I "exhausted the patience of the community"? What am I supposed to learn from that? Cuz right now, what I'm hearing is that the policies and guidelines be damnd; you can respect them and still get banned. Anyone willing to work with me to understand what I've done wrong, please say so here. Someone I can run some edits by before making them could work well. Johnuniq provided a reason for his !vote. (It was based on blatantly false evidence, yes, but at least he offered a non-circular reason, which no one else has.)

I hadn't read of any of Jytdogs promises to change his behavior regarding COI topics, and so I regret how I responded when I saw him misrepresenting policy again. --Elvey 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support This User talk:Johnuniq#Deliberately introducing incorrect information into an ANI discussion is not dropping the stick and reinforces the concerns expressed throughout this thread.MarnetteD|Talk 23:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What am I supposed to do? I'm supposed to be OK with the misrepresentation of the vote, the misrepresentation of my views, the double jeopardy, etc? I have to be OK with those things or I'm not dropping the stick? Seriously? You would be totally OK with it if a vote to ban you was mis-counted against you, your views were misrepresented, and when you asked that they be presented accurately, your request was blown off? Sorry, but I'm a human being. I have feelings. Despite all the misrepresentation, I haven't cursed anyone out. --Elvey 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Try not to yourself blocked entirely? That's why dropping the stick is about. There's more to harassment and disruption than cursing people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I asked what to do, not what to not do. I'm supposed to be OK with the misrepresentation of the vote, the misrepresentation of my views, the double jeopardy, etc? I have to be OK with those things or I'm not dropping the stick? You didn't answer that question. Please do. And see section below--Elvey 00:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support a ban on all COI-related commentary not just the board, as I said above. The antics go way beyond disruption at the noticeboard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record, I see that as a !vote about #6, because that's what you refer to, and hence a !vote in favor of Jytdog misrepresenting WP:CoI and against me pointing out what it actually is. I already agreed to stop doing that. So you're apparently voting for punitive measures. --Elvey 00:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • No, I'm voting that based on your inability to conduct yourself when there are potential COI issues. Your false dichotomy routine of either I support your antics or I support Jytdog's views on COI policy don't work on me. Let the closer determine how my vote goes, not your personal opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support ban as stated by Ricky81682 and per MarnetteD. Having read through this, really quite lengthy, thread, it's obvious that Elvey just doesn't know when to stop. The explosion at Johnuniq for an easy to make miscount and the subsequent histrionics at GWH's talk page is evidence enough that Elvey needs to take a step back, whether it be voluntary or imposed. Blackmane (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support as proposed. I have, i think, read the whole of this, and followed it down several rabbit holes, and i cannot see any further editing by Elvey on the topic of COI ending well until he takes the time to understand all that he has been told. Honestly, i feel he's lucky to be getting off this lightly, as some of his actions (to my mind) clearly reach extremely poor levels and he's been flirting with a longer-term block. Cheers, Lindsay 09:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support- I don't really see any alternative at this point. This user simply won't drop the stick on his own and also seems to have suffered a near-fatal overdose of IDHT. Reyk _YO! 10:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support: I see all kinds of red flags in Elvey's combative, "everyone else is at fault" mentality here; even after a warning it took a block to force them to stop disrupting this thread with their repetitive wikilawyering about vote process. Elvey's counter-proposed solution is more "you guys are wrong but I'll go along with it" rather than owning that they are the one that is wrong, as many users above have strained to explain. None of that points to a user who will drop the stick, so I fully support a topic ban from the subject of COI which they don't understand/refuse to accept. Furthermore, clear evidence has been presented that Elvey followed Jytdog to several articles expressly to WP:HOUND them, so I support the suggested one-way interaction ban as well. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. My patience is certainly exhausted, thanks to WP:IDHT here in addition to issues already noted above. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose but with qualification. I can't see any real progress here and while I think there are wider issues around COI I can see that Elvey is his/her own worse enemy. If Elvey will accept a voluntary withdrawal from direct editing but with the right to raise concerns with a third party editor for review then that might work. If that is not OK then I would support a three month topic ban ----Snowded 21:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Clearly there are broader issues here with regard to Elvey becoming needlessly combative and retreating into IDHT stances in any area where their behaviour has come into question, but what concerns me most are the original (and to my mind, substantiated) claims of hounding which set the discussion off in the first place. I'm sure plenty of people can relate to Elvey's no-love-lost disposition towards pharmaceutical reps, but Misplaced Pages is not meant to be a tool for editor's personal political crusades. These comments were clearly off-topic, hostile, and in no way involved with or relevant to the improvement of the project. I echo the sentiments of Ricky81682 and others that Elvey's has used COI and other policy principles as cover to harass or otherwise adopt needlessly adversarial and disruptive behaviours with regard to other editors on issues to which said policies do not really apply. And given their resistance to accepting a clear consensus of their fellow editors here that this and other of their behaviours are inappropriate, I think we can trust they will not re-examine their behaviour with regard to the relevant policies of their own accord, so they ought to be removed from the areas in which they cannot conform to community expectations. Frankly, I'd have proposed an indefinite TBAN with a chance to appeal after a year, or even a block, but we can hope the current measure will suffice. Snow 08:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Vote results

Proposal evaluations must not be mere !vote counts, but rather argument evaluations. So I asked for a succinct description from anyone voting support of what I've supposedly done wrong that doesn't (unlike much of what's come so far) grossly misrepresent what I've done, or ignore my defenses, or throw out [[WP: links without explanation and evidence. You want to ban me just the same, do so based on something I can learn from. Cuz right now, what I'm hearing is that the policies and guidelines be damned; you can respect them and still get banned. Anyone willing to work with me to understand what I've done wrong, please say so here. Someone I can run some edits by before making them could work well. Johnuniq provided such a reason for his !vote. (It was based on blatantly false evidence, yes, but at least he offered a non-circular reason, which no one else has.)

I might as well shut up now and take my beating or retire after some shady user closes this double jeopardy !vote, and not count the votes of User:Snowded or User: GoodDay, or make note of the changes I agreed to. I've said enough. Not going to change any minds no matter how valid my defence. --Elvey 00:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Simple question which you will sidestep I'm sure but how is this in any way useful in terms of fighting COI on Misplaced Pages? It looks like nothing more than you figuring out someone's COI and then using it to attack the entity you want to attack. You aren't Perry Masoning anyone there, just going for a cheap shot. Your goal seems to be finding problems with editors (COI being the convenient tool of the moment but civility is always a backup) so that you can lord it over people which is more destructive than any COI issues we could ever have. It's a grudge mentality that's the problem not your personal beliefs about policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, somewhere in the middle of User talk:Elvey (Elvey refactored the page but these are the relevant edits) is a response to this. Even though this was brought up at the start of this I think, the response there reiterates my concern that Elvey treats COI issues as a tool to take advantage of, which is far from our purposes. We are not WikiNews and we are not looking for another Edward R. Murrow. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Elvey blocked for 31 hrs for ongoing disruption of this ANI discussion

I warned Elvey on his talk page ( ) to stop disrupting the ANI discussion regarding his sanction as he had been. He wall-of-texted my talk page in response (acceptable) and continued here (not acceptable). I have blocked him for 31 hrs. I am concerned about a wider NOTHERE question after this string of behavior. I am not doing anything more than the 31 hr block, reporting that here, and noting my wider concern. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We're at a WP:ROPE crossroads here. Let's see where this goes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Update

Update - two of them, both at Snowded's page:

• Where's Elvey? He declared here that he saw no more point in continuing to discuss things here and took up Snowded's offer to review COI matters about which he has concerns.
• The effort to continue HOUNDING me has continued, now by proxy, for pete's sake, here also at Snowded's talk page (there is no COI stuff at Crop desiccation; Elvey had just followed me there in his hounding). There is no dropping of the stick.Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

and so, after I pointed out this further effort to hound me, Elvey deleted that thread (including others' comments), with an edit note that misrepresents why he went to that page and what the follow up was all about, which is stirring up stale, settled stuff on that page.Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a repeated habit: saying something and then blanking it and being accusational when people pull up old edits. Direct communication is more helpful than running around commenting and deleting the comments as if they should be erased from everyone's minds to avoid confrontation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

before someone jumps in here to accuse me, I also sometimes write hastily things I subsequently regret and remove them, or later redact them, all per WP:REDACT - usually with an acknowledgement that the original was wrong in some way and if necessary an apology. What Elvey has been doing here is different from that. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing: 188.78.134.205

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

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

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

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

No references?

Basque kingdom of Navarre;

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

Inigo Arista a Basque;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Xenophrenic's WP:TE at Talk:Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation‎

I call to your attention what I believe to be prima facie violations of WP:TE#One who ignores or refuses to answer ... by Xenophrenic at Talk:Ward_Churchill_academic_misconduct_investigation. Examples of these WP:TE violations:

1) In response to: "Justify including in the article information from a source that the source believes is absurd or manifestly untrue." You have not answered the question. How do you justify you edit?" Xenophrenic continues to not address the issue of "absurd or manifestly untrue".

2) There are a number of good-faith questions that I have asked that Xenophrenic has simply ignored; see the talk page. If you'd like I'll list them; let me know if you'd like me to do so. Deicas (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Observation from an uninvolved editor. I noticed that Xenophrenic responded to several issues that you raised.

• First, if you are going to ask a question, do so. That involves an interrogatory, not a declarative sentence.
• Second, your statements seem to be directive, as in "Justify," "hereinbelow provide," etc.
• Third, you are not entitled to an answer.
• Fourth, this appears to be WP:WIKILAWYERING.
• Finally, you may want to work on your communication style. GregJackP Boomer! 22:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

User:GregJackP: just above you assert "Third, you are not entitled to an answer." How do you reconcile this assertion with the Misplaced Pages policy described in WP:TE#One who ignores or refuses to answer ...?

Deicas (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:TE is not a policy, it is an essay. You are not entitled to an answer. No one elected you wikigod, nor is there any policy that states you are entitled to an answer. GregJackP Boomer! 00:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:GregJackP: I call to your attention, from WP:TE, "Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors.". Note, above, "How do you justify you edit?". How do you explain the failure of Xenophrenic to answer this question, which lies at the crux of the disputed edit, without seeing a violation of Misplaced Pages:Assume_good_faith obligation?

Deicas (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:GregJackP: with regard to your comments above "Fourth, this appears to be WP:WIKILAWYERING" and "No one elected you wikigod". Would you please either strike these comments out or justify your violation of your Misplaced Pages:Assume_good_faith obligation?

Deicas (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:TE is an essay. It is not a rule, nor a policy, nor a guideline. It is what someone thinks. No more, no less.

The cites you are making above are perfect examples of wikilawyering. After you requested I strike, I looked at your edit history, and since 2004 in your 450 edits, you have been repeatedly warned about wikilawyering. It's a pattern of behavior, and you are exhibiting it here, again. Please stop doing so.

In any event, you are not entitled to an answer from Xenophrenic, nor to a further answer from me. GregJackP Boomer! 01:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:GregJackP: With regard to your "WP:TE is an essay. It is not a rule, nor a policy, nor a guideline", above: in retrospect I should have cited WP:DR which *is* policy. Specificity: "To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page". I have difficulty reconciling this policy with your statement above: "... you are not entitled to an answer from Xenophrenic ..."? Would you please expand on your reasoning?

Deicas (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope. GregJackP Boomer! 05:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a routine content dispute, acerbated by: (a) a very minor edit war or slightly aggressive BRD-ing, and (b) some difficulty reconciling communications styles between Xenophrenic, who describes themselves as "shy" about talk page comments, and Deicas, who is fairly voluminous, pointed, and slightly odd in their talk page discussion style. All in good faith no doubt, each of us has our unique voice, it just looks like people need a little extra effort to try to communicate. It's only going to become a behavior issue if people make it one, otherwise that's what talk pages are for. Although perhaps a content issue there are some significant BLP and NPOV policy issues here because we have a prominent professor who claimed (falsely it appears) to be Native American and who was fired for academic misconduct, promoting or making up untrue but widely believed historical claims that American military committed acts of genocide by spreading small pox blankets among indigenous villages. The professor is still alive and still has defenders, so this topic can get quite heated. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Even the above statement can raise discussion. I'm no fan of the wannabe, but I would state that he was "promoting or making up untrue using unsupported, but widely believed historical claims. . . ." There are some others who have published along the same lines, and it is a matter of faith among the tribes (see Denzin). I don't think it is an ANI issue. GregJackP Boomer! 07:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's the weirdness of Misplaced Pages's PC policies, rule #1 about fight club history is that you can't discuss fight club history. Some person, rightly upset over historical events that could justifiably be called a genocide, starts making stuff up including that he is a descendent of the victims. Meanwhile, we editors have to tiptoe around the facts because of obscure policies that affect even our ability to discuss policy amongst ourselves. So we cannot describe people as frauds or impostors, even in the rather interesting space of — what do they call this now? — trans-racialism. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I agree with you that he is a fraud who took an honorary membership and went way too far with it. The problem is that there was genocide of the American Indian, but since that was one of his research areas, any proposal or position that he ever advocated is immediately attacked without ever going to the actual merits of the argument. GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic has repeatedly included information in the article deriving from Guenter Lewy's writing (ie. ) that Lewy describes as non-creditable (coming from a source that "manifestly does not suggest that the U.S. Army distributed infected blankets"). So I ask User:Xenophrenic why he's including information from Lewy that Lewy believes is not creditable. And I get no explanation. And I ask variations of the question. And spend more time. And I get no explanation. If I had a putative explanation for including non-creditable information then the content dispute is addressable. Absent an explanation then there is no content inclusion reason to discuss. Hence, I view this as a behavioural question. If as, Wikidemon suggests, this should be viewed as a NPOV issue then I'll happily agree.

Deicas (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Asked and answered above. GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Another way, resolving this issue as a content dispute, would be for user:Xenophrenic to provide a citation to Stiffarm and Lane for the claim that Lewy finds so objectionable. Then the portion of the article under dispute would look something like: "Stiffarm and Lane assert X . Lewy views X as not plausible because ... ".

Deicas (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That's content, not behavior. GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it is content, not behavior, but it may be a way to end the current dispute. Isn't that what we're striving for?

Deicas (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic just removed a portion of text with citations ] providing as the reason for the removal "(continued removal of Lewy assertion pending Talk resolution, as half of it was left in the article.)". The issue in dispute on the talk page is one, of multiple, uses of one of the deleted citations? How is this not disruptive editing? Deicas (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Would someone *please* persuade User:Xenophrenic to stop his disruptive editing? Please?

Deicas (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in a proposal that, if accepted, would resolve the behavior issue, close this AN/I, and roll the dispute back to a content dispute?

Deicas (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Stalled AN/I: User:Xenophrenic's WP:TE at Talk:Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation

Would an uninvolved administrator(s) please look at User:Xenophrenic's WP:TE at Talk:Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation? This AN/I seems to be making no progress. Note that the article on which the disputed behaviour is occurring is flagged as "The subject of this article is controversial". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs) 06:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not quite a stall but things seem to be gong in the wrong direction. Not a full scale edit war, but both editors in question are now at about 2RR in the last 24 hours or so. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I second User:Wikidemon's suggestion to "Please keep discussion in one place". I suggest that the disputed article section be rolled-back to the start of this dispute and protected until this AN/I is resolved.

Deicas (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I noted that Deicas reverted Xenophrenic's edits to his preferred version, Xenophrenic answered Deicas's question on the talk page,(, noting that Wikidemon was participating in discussions) and then Deicas refused to further discuss the content issue until the ANI was resolved (, because Xenophrenic did not "comply" with the demand of Deicas), which is, in my view, disruptive on the part of Deicas. ANI is for behavior problems, not content disputes. Either this should go back to the article talk page, or we should WP:BOOMERANG Deicas for his bad faith in resolving the content dispute. This seems to clearly be an example of WP:WIKILAWYERING, which he has been warned for on multiple occasions. , , where he was topic-banned from the Paul Krugman article for similar behavior. GregJackP Boomer! 09:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

As User:GregJackP has allowed editing of the article section to occur concurrently with resolution of this AN/I the situation has become very confusing and the BRD cycle is not being performed.

User:GregJackP: You you assert ] "Xenophrenic answered Deicas's question on the talk page,(]". I've asked a number of questions: which *specific* question do you believe Xenophrenic meaningfully answered? What text from Xenophrenic talk page edit do you believe is the meaning answer? Deicas (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

User:GregJackP: I observe that you have, yet again accused] me of WP:WIKILAWYERING. You've done this before and said that my citing of Misplaced Pages policy was an act of WP:WIKILAWYERING and refused further clarification. Would you please cite the policy or guideline that deprecates the citing of policy or guidelines? Your accusation is also contrary to theWP:WIKILAWYERING essay:

Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their opponent is a wiki-lawyer. This is not a good faith tactic and does not foster a collegial consensus-seeking atmosphere. Therefore, any accusation of wikilawyering should include a brief explanation justifying use of the term.

Deicas (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

User:GregJackP: You say I "*refused* to further discuss the content issue until the AN/I was resolved" this is not true. I engaged in wishful thinking that this dispute could be resolved in an orderly manner in a single location. So much for that wish. You accuse me of making a "demand". All I've done propose solutions that have been ignored. Deicas (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I also note the "the phrase 'You are wikilawyering' is an insult" and you also accuse me of "bad faith in resolving the content dispute". BAD FAITH? I'm just trying to persuade User:Xenophrenic to abide by the BRD cycle, thus avoiding the current chaos, and to meaningfully respond to questions about his edits and reversions . How are these actions evidence of bad faith? Deicas (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

: I've asked you a number of meaningful questions above. I hope that you won't again reply "In any event, you are not entitled to ... a further answer from me. "

Deicas (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This edit is an example of WP:WIKILAWYERING. I also linked to places where you have been warned about it in the past, and noted that you were topic-banned from the Paul Krugman article. Those diffs and links are called evidence, at least in the wiki-sense. Keep up this nonsense and I'll propose another topic-ban. Your call. GregJackP Boomer! 12:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Spaghetti07205

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

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

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

Could possibly just be coincidental -- he was only involved in the Steiger infobox RfC because he had added an infobox to the article earlier that day (which was in fact different from the infobox which had been there before and had been removed ). 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)

Misplaced Pages: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: . 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 _水 15:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Looks like a case of stalking after EC's edits. Those are really obscure articles! I share some interests with Eric, and I've never been to any of them. Definitely someone with a history. This is an interesting edit summary: - I wonder who the "we" - which they immediately deny - is supposed to be... Scr★pIron 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 , who already has a (now closed) ANI running right now (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: , ), and perhaps all of them are related and trolling. Softlavender (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Бучач-Львів

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC spamming, canvasing, cross posting. User: HughD

HughD for violation of guidelines on publicizing a RfC, namely and vote stacking. HughD opened a RfC to insert information into the article Americans for Prosperity.] This RfC was opened on July 9th and notifications were place in the following locations:

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics ]
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States]
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Organizations ]
• Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers ]

The initial posting may be WP:VOTESTACK because it was not posted to all the categories associated with the article and did include a category that would likely be inclined to support HughD's POV on the topic. The RfC should have also been posted in WikiProject Conservatism (a category listed with the article). The inclusion of Political activities of the Koch brothers may be seen as trying to stack the deck. HughD did not correct the failure to post the Project Conservatism noticeboard even after being warned.] - Note, warning dated July 27th

Later that day HughD added the following additional RfC notifications:

• Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ]
• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard ]
• Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard ]

Seven RfC (eight including a notice on the RfC noticeboard) seems more than sufficient.

As of July 17th HughD's proposal did not have a clear consensus for inclusion. Since that time HughD has published or bumped previous RfC 20 additional times. This includes adding new information which could be seen as biasing as well as targeting talk pages or noticeboards which he feels may be sympathetic to his POV while avoiding pages/boards that would likely oppose his view.

Postings at new locations:

• Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) ]

Bumps to original postings:

• Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard ]
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Organizations ]
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics ]
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States ]
• Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers ]

New postings at locations of previous postings:

• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard ]
• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (second new post) ]
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ]
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ]
• Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) (Original post was July 16th, 8 days prior) ]
• Talk:Citizens United v. FEC (This is a location that may find a sympathetic ear to HughD's POV thus is probably canvasing in addition to cross posting and spamming) ]

Bumps after being warned of excessive posting/canvasing (Bumps/posts on July 30th or later)

• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard ]
• Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard ]
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Organizations ]
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics ]
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States ]
• Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers ]
• Talk:Citizens United v. FEC ]
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (this is actually yet another new post) ]
• Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) ]

User was warned of excessive posting/canvasing HughD was warned on his talk page prior to making the July 30th updates.] The user had been previously warned in conversation by a number of editors. ], ], ], ] Additionally Hugh has asked that others be aware of Misplaced Pages policies on canvassing.] Thus he is unlikely to be ignorant of the guidelines.

HughD has a history of disruptive editing on this and related topics and has 3 recent blocks (June 23rd, June 10th, April 10th). The most recent two are for edits related to this article ]

This is an editor who should know better but is unwilling to work within the rules to get the changes he thinks are best. I'm posting this ANI as an outside editor who has replied to the RfC in question but has never edited on the subject.

HughD has been notified of this ANI. A notification will also be added to the article in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 15:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - For additional context, folks might want to check out this other recent ANI complaint against HughD (not much came of it), and Hugh's recent AE filing against Arthur Rubin (ditto). This all relates to a broader and rather ugly dispute over the content of Americans for Prosperity that's been going on for some time. As someone who's been involved in this debate, I'll just say the same thing I said when this came up before; as disruptive as HughD's behavior may have been, the NPOV problem that he's been trying to correct is a very obvious and very real one, and he's been up against an awful lot of battleground behavior and IDHT from other editors in this dispute. Not saying that excuses any disruption he may have caused, but I do think that the conduct of parties on both sides of this dispute should be scrutinized carefully by un-involved admins. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Initial statement of reported editor All publicizing of the request for comment Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds is conformant with WP:RFC "Publicizing an RfC", WP:Discussion notices "Best practices", and WP:CANVASS.

WP:RFC reminds us that WP:CANVASS "prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased." WP:VOTESTACKING clearly prohibits selective notification based on who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view. Please note that the option of notifying WP:CONSERVATISM was discussed at article talk five days ago 27 July 2015 and following, please see. Please note that the reporting user has filed an ANI report of canvassing, but has not themselves notified WP:CONSERVATISM. Please note that no editor has notified WP:CONSERVATISM. There is no deadline. If the consensus is that notification to WP:CONSERVATISM is conformant, and an editor was willing to place the notification, I would support a reasonable extension to the RfC period to allow additional time for comments from the participants in WP:CONSERVATISM.

"Bumps" WP:Discussion notices "Best practices" states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and that "setting a time for the discussion to end" is a best practice.

WP:RFC authorizes publicizing an RfC at the "talk pages of closely related articles or policies." Political activities of the Koch brothers and Citizens United v. FEC are closely related to Americans for Prosperity, as evidenced by the "See Also" section, please see. Hugh (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note 19:24, 31 July 2015 my good colleague User:Capitalismojo, on record in the Survey section of the RfC, deleted Citizens United v. FEC from Americans_for_Prosperity#See_also. Hugh (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Kindly decline this report. An important aspect of Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds is to solicit community-wide input regarding a local consensus regarding a local interpretation of our neutrality pillar. Your comments at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds are welcome by most of us. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Not seeing any canvasing, canvasing is by definition non neutral. What I saw was a neutrally worded message on multiple forums. I agree that this complaint needs to be dismissed. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see the canvasing links at the top of the ANI. There are two issues. The first, is that HughD has been selective in where he has posted his RfCs. The much bigger issue is spamming and cross posting. The excessive number of posts is spamming and against guidelines listed in the WP:CAN. Springee (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I am very happy to say that I support the right of HughD to post wherever and whenever he wants, just as I support the right of other editors to do so. "The solution to the problems caused by freedom of speech is more freedom of speech." This complaint should be dismissed post haste. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Any claim that the canvassing is "neutral" requires failure to understand basic English. Also, the postings should not contain the arguments for inclusion without including arguments against inclusion. Hugh's claim that reporting the RfC to WikiProject Conservatism would balance the canvassing is failed and irrelevant, unless Hugh is banned from the project and is unable to make the announcement. It's failed because the RfC has been going on with the unbalanced announcements for over two weeks, and irrelevant because it doesn't excuse Hugh's actions.

This is more appropriate on the discussion page of the RfC, but the only way the RfC could be perceived as not being hopelessly biased is for it to be closed, restarted with neutral wording, advertised ONLY to the projects, not the noticeboards or irrelevant talk pages, and the the current participants NOT specifically notified of the restart. I'd be willing to work with Hugh on neutral wording if he would agree not to make his non-neutral wording other than in the actual RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me Arthur, but I'm not seeing where Hugh made an "argument" for inclusion in any of the diffs provided above. What are you referring to specifically? Fyddlestix (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Commenting user @Arthur Rubin: WP:RFC says "one or more" and specifically authorizes notification of RfCs at noticeboards. On 9 July, after WP:NPOV was notified, you commented: "This is inappropriate WP:CANVASSing, especially since it's already been brought up on the reliable sources board, and consensus leaned against." May I respectfully ask, is it your interpretation of WP:CANVASS, that RfC notifications are limited to one and only one noticeboard? May I respectfully ask, is it your interpretation of WP:CANVASS, that an early local consensus at one venue, however weak, whichever direction, limits RfC notification at other venues? Hugh (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Commenting user @Arthur Rubin: WP:Discussion notices "Best practices" states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and that "setting a time for the discussion to end" is a best practice. On 31 July you deleted an update to the RfC notice on WP:NPOV setting a time for the discussion to end. On 31 July you deleted an update to the RfC notice on WP:ORN setting a time for the discussion to end. The RfC concerns a content issue at at Americans for Prosperity, a WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement related article. May I respectfully ask, do you believe deleting from a noticeboard, an update to an RfC notice setting an end date for a discussion of a content issue at a TPM article, was the type of edits our community had in mind when our Arbitration Committee relaxed your topic ban? Thank you for your thoughts. Hugh (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Commenting user @Arthur Rubin: on 24 July you deleted, and on 31 July you used OneClickArchiver to delete, an update to an RfC notice on WP:RSN, prior to the expiration of the RfC comment period. May I respectfully ask, do you believe deleting from a noticeboard, an RfC notice regarding a content issue at a TPM article, is in the spirit of what our community had in mind when our Arbitration Committee relaxed your topic ban? Thank you in advance for your thoughts. Hugh (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Commenting user @Arthur Rubin: WP:RFC says "one or more" and specifically authorizes notification of RfCs at the talk pages of closely related articles. On 27 July you used OneClickArchiver to delete an RfC notice regarding a content dispute at Americans for Prosperity, a WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement related article, from Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers, another, closely-related TPM article. May I respectfully ask, how in your mind do you reconcile this deletion with the spirit if not the letter of our Arbitration Committee's relaxation of your topic ban? Thank you in advance for your thoughts. Hugh (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing a canvassing or a votestacking issue. I am seeing a lot of effort to bring more outside views into a fairly obscure topic area, which is beneficial. More people being involved in the RfC should result in a more representative consensus. If some interested wikiprojects were not notified, that's easily rectified. If HughD were selectively notifying individual editors or wording the notifications in a partisan manner, then I would conclude otherwise.- MrX 18:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm honestly not well-versed in what is or isn't canvassing/campaigning, but if consensus here ends up being that this isn't a case of canvassing or votestacking by Hugh, then perhaps other editors' repeated repeated refactoring of Hugh's talk page posts to remove the RFC notices bears scrutiny: . These editors have been very aggressive about removing Hugh's posts and have accused him of edit warring for trying to restore his own talk page posts since this thread was opened. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm quite curious why Hugh posted the RFC notice multiple times on three of four related WikiProject pages (Organizations, United States, and Politics) while never posting the notice to WikiProject Conservatism. This seems like selective posting to me. When you couple this with the multiple postings to Citizens United v. FEC (the posting of the RFC notice to this page has been reverted by three different editors, and restored by Hugh four times), it looks rather odd to me. Hugh, could you explain your thinking behind not notifying WikiProject Conservatism? Perhaps if you posted the RFC notice there, it would help to clear up this matter. Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  I just notified WikiProject Conservatism. Are there any others that should be notified?- MrX 20:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  Posting to WikiProject Conservatism can be seen as canvassing. It clearly has a conservative bias while the other projects connected to the page are seemingly neutral. Even on the WikiProject Conservatism talk page, it says "please note that posting here in order to try to recruit editors with a particular political point of view is contrary to the intent of this project, and may be regarded as a violation of the WP:Canvassing guideline." The purpose of posting a notice there is to recruit people from a group with a conservative bias for input on a RFC and doesn't merely seek assistance in how to approach a discussion or seek editing help. Just because it's labeled as a project, doesn't mean it gets excused from canvassing efforts. Clearly, if there was an explicitly liberal project that Hugh posted to, while ignoring the conservative project, then these concerns would have merit.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Commenting user @Champaign Supernova: How long should we extend the comment period to accommodate full participation from our colleagues at WP:CONSERVATISM? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Commenting user @Champaign Supernova: you expressed concern regarding the notice of the RfC to WP:CONSERVATISM. There is no deadline. We will hold off on the close of the RfC until we hear from you. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• As an aside, should this ANI report be advertised on all the boards where the RfC was advertised? It would be helpful to get the opinion of editors who thought the announcement inappropiate but didn't know where to complain. I'm not going to do it without consensus, because it borders on spamming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  thumb|left|Yes Arthur, that sounds like a great idea!

• - MrX 21:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note well in considering my good colleague's suggestion above, to further publicize this ANI filing "on all the boards where the RfC was advertised", that no editor not previously involved in the talk page of Americans for Prosperity, none of the "regulars" at any Wiki Project talk page or notice board where this RfC has been publicized, has commented regarding so-called "excessive cross-posting", let alone deleting talk page comments and notice board postings. The only editors raising issues with the publicizing of this RfC are editors on record in the Survey section of the RfC, and also on record on one particular side of the RfC question. Understand clearly this is not an ANI complaint filed by annoyed notice board or Wiki Project participants. The regulars at the notice boards and Wiki Project talk pages managed to assume good faith. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Respectfully request quick close of this ANI filing, by an administrator please, since the target page Americans for Prosperity is under active discretionary sanctions. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see any real evidence of RfC canvassing. It seems clear that when Hugh gets into a disagreement about whether something is or is not WP:SYNTH, for example, he posts an announcement to a noticeboard with a lot of editors who are familiar with that policy. That isn't canvassing. I personally ended up commenting on the RfC in question based upon seeing one of his announcements on a notice board, and my considered opinion is that what Hugh is trying to accomplish violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (some commenters agree with me on this and some disagree, which is why we have RfCs), so any alleged canvassing attempts failed in that respect. I do think that more admins should keep an eye on anything related to the Koch brothers and apply discretionary sanctions as needed. I am seeing a lot of attempts to whitewash or blackwash the Koch brothers rather than treating the topic in a neutral and encyclopedic fashion. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's the third time the same RfC has failed to gain consensus. He's not getting the answer that he wants so he keeps trying to roll a bigger ball up a bigger hill. Heck, we even had the pre-RfC RfC for wording since it failed the previous time. Please make it stop. It's a long election season and starting the RfC dogpile on Koch brothers stuff now is just going to cause problems and entrenched positions later. --DHeyward (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Good point. A topic ban for Hugh on Koch-related articles would be too harsh. Perhaps a six-month topic ban on for Hugh on posting new Koch-related RfCs? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• DHeyward, would you please provide links for the two previous RfCs. I can't seem to find them. Thanks.- MrX 00:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• A short or medium term topic ban would be an appropriate solution in this case. HughD has shown "polite hostility" towards editor who don't agree with him while praising those who do. He also has 2 recent bans related to this article. A Koch family and related topics ban would allow him to work on other projects (and he seems to contribute in many cases) while avoiding what is clearly a family he wishes to blackwash. If others feel his proposed changes are worth while they may discuss and make them.Springee (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: If Hugh had held the opposite POV, this would have been deemed canvassing and he would have been sanctioned a long time ago. The apparent bias on Misplaced Pages is absurd. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• What HughD is avoiding discussing is the primary complaint. The rules tell editors to avoid . 29 posts as of the time of this ANI and he has since done a new round of bumps. Clearly he is unhappy with the results of his RfC and is now using spamming in hopes of getting people who will agree with him rather than accepting that his view, part of a clear blackwashing attempt, didn't get consensus. If over 30 posts isn't excessive what is? Why have the rule?Springee (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Springee, thank you for your question. Excessive in this context is indiscriminate and/or disruptive, please see WP:CANVASS. May I please ask again, which notice was in your mind indiscriminate? Can you please provide an example of what you believe to be disruptive publicizing, such as perhaps a notice board administrator or project participant commenting in objection to a notice or deleting a notice? Thank you in advance for your reply to this important question highly relevant to this report. Hugh (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (uninvolved non admin) I see no violation of canvassing and the diffs presented here seem to follow the advice on WP:RFC. The number of them leaves some concern, but original posts and the bumps seem neutral and only point out the RFC is applicable to the place posted. AlbinoFerret 12:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, the number is excessive and that is a violation of the RfC posting guidelines. Given the editors other behaviors including edit warring on this topic and specifically telling others to follow the RfC rules I don't believe he should be given a pass here. I do think that his was also trying to stack votes by publishing his notices selectively (avoiding the Conservative Project page despite the fact that it is listed as a page related to this project). However, I would consider that minor were it not for the obvious excessive postings (something the guidelines clearly state should not be done).Springee (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it was excessive, and I do not see a violation of the RFC guidelines. They would be a problem if they were not neutral. As pointed out above, not notifying the Conservative Project can be considered within the RFC guidelines as they have, by the projects own admission, a bias. AlbinoFerret 16:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

How many is excessive? His notice was neutral but his posting locations were not (though not radically off). The Conservative one should have been notified as the page in question cites it as a related project. Other pages such as Citizens United could only be seen as trying to find a favorable audience when his original postings failed to get the support he hoped for. Why post there if his intent wasn't vote stacking? I could see over looking the less that 100% clean notifications but adding to the list and reposing in old one when it was clear that things weren't going his way was a clear violation of the spamming part of the canvasing rules. Springee (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please produce a non neutral posting location. So far all I see are wikiprojects, noticeboards and the pump. All neutral locations. In fact he has avoided a non neutral location in the Conservative wikiproject. AlbinoFerret 17:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:AlbinoFerret, I believe posting the RFC at Talk:Citizens United v. FEC was non-neutral, as that page's connection to AFP is unclear (the page isn't wiki-linked or otherwise mentioned on the AFP page). I found it odd to not notify one of the WikiProjects (Conservatism) while choosing to notify this seemingly arbitrarily selected page (Citizens United V. FEC). I also found it troubling that Hugh continually reverted the RFC notice on that talk page after three different editors, including myself, attempted to remove it as an example of canvassing. Diffs of reverts: , , , . The RFC was certainly in enough places, so the four reverts on a seemingly unrelated page where three editors disputed the edit seems like a case of WP:IDHT. No rationale for choosing to post on the Citizen United page was ever given on that page or the AFP page. Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Champaign Supernova, you wrote "I believe posting the RFC at Talk:Citizens United v. FEC was non-neutral, as that page's connection to AFP is unclear (the page isn't wiki-linked or otherwise mentioned on the AFP page" Citizens United v. FEC was included in the "See also" section of Americans for Prosperity, and as such was specifically authorized for publicizing at WP:RFC as a "closely related article," that is, until it was deleted yesterday. Hugh (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC) How would you characterize the non-neutral bias you claim among the participants at Talk:Citizens United v. FEC that you claim was sought out by posting an RfC notice there? Hugh (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Champaign Supernova I'm sorry you do not believe Citizens United v. FEC is closely related to Americans for Prosperity. I did not add Citizens United v. FEC to the "See also" section of Americans for Prosperity.

1. 00:37, 8 May 2015 Citizens United v. FEC added to the "See also" section of Americans for Prosperity by BeenAroundAWhile
2. 19:24, 31 July 2015 Citizens United v. FEC deleted from the "See also" section of Americans for Prosperity by Capitalismojo, a few hours after the filing of this ANI report

Reporting user @Springee: you wrote "The Conservative one should have been notified..." There is no deadline. May I respectfully ask, how long should we extend the comment period of Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds to accommodate full participation from our colleagues at WP:CONSERVATISM? Thank you for your reply. Hugh (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Reporting user @Springee: you expressed concern regarding the notice of the RfC to WP:CONSERVATISM. There is no deadline. We will hold off on the close of the RfC until we hear from you. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, if your basis for posting RFC comments to pages was that the pages were included in the "See Also" section, why didn't you post to Mark Block, which is also in the "See Also" section? If you're picking and choosing which pages to post to from among similar pages (i.e., pages in the "See Also" section), it's going to look like canvassing unless you have a specific, shared rationale for why you chose the pages you did. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully request quick administrative close of this report with no action as the arguments get increasingly desperate. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Champaign Supernova, you wrote "...three different editors, including myself, attempted to remove it..." Thank you for acknowledging your role in deleting perfectly valid RfC notices, but you might have gone on to specify that the other two editors were our good colleague Arthur Rubin and a sympathetic IP. Hugh (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yay, more dripping condescension. Helpful. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

All noticeboards associated with the article should be notified. Conversely why notify ones that are not? Why notify the Citizens United talk page? Why not notify all up front rather than casting a wider net (and again avoiding all boards associated with the article in question) when it was clear that HughD's attempt to blackwash was failing? Regardless, if it were just the location of notices I would say is was only a bit biased. It was the volume that I think is the issue. This is especially true since the volume went up after it was clear he was not getting the consensus he wanted. The canvasing guidelines make it clear that notification should be limited in number.]Springee (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

"The Conservative one should have been notified" If you believed WP:CONSERVATISM needed to be notified, why didn't you? Hugh (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Reporting user Springee, you asked "How many is excessive?" Our behavioral guideline WP:CANVASSING at "Spamming and excessive cross-posting" makes no mention of quantity, but does mention "indiscriminate" and "disruptive." If you would like to pursue an answer to your question, kindly take your question to the appropriate policy talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Reporting user Springee, you wrote "the number is excessive and that is a violation of the RfC posting guidelines." Can you please be more specific about the specific policy or guideline you are alleging was violated? WP:RFC says "one or more." If you believe WP:RFC should include a maximum number of notices, please take your concern to the policy talk page. All the venues in which this RfC was publicized are explicitly authorized at WP:RfC, such as notice boards, associated project talk pages, or closely related article talk pages. WP:Discussion notices "Best practices" states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and that "setting a time for the discussion to end" is a best practice. Our behavioural guideline WP:CANVAS defines excessive as "indiscriminate" and "disruptive." Which notice was in your mind indiscriminate? Can you please provide an example of what you believe to be disruptive publicizing, such as perhaps a notice board administrator or project participant objecting to a notice? Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

HughD, the policy in question is noted in the opening of this ANI. Springee (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

May I please ask again, which notice was in your mind indiscriminate? Can you please provide an example of what you believe to be disruptive publicizing, such as perhaps a notice board administrator or project participant objecting to a notice? Hugh (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you may ask. You can also read above. Springee (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I took your suggestion and re-read the above. I'm sorry, but I cannot find an instance of indiscriminate notification. All of the venues in which the RfC was notified are specifically authorized by WP:RFC. All of the notifications discriminate in their venues between those venues which are specifically authorized by WP:RFC and those that are not, so they seem discriminate to me. What do you think? Also, I cannot find an example of disruptive notification. I cannot find an example of anyone at any of the venues objecting, through edit summary or comment, I mean of course other than those already on record as opposed back at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Please help. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Question for Administrator: The guidelines clearly state that excessive notifications (in number and/or location) are a type of spamming. How do we judge when the number or locations are spamming? That seems to be the heart of the issue here. HughD's posts were also not neutral in location (though how not neutral is up for debate) but I would like to start with the question of judging excess. Springee (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't need an ANI posting or an administrator to answer your question, please ask your question at WT:RFC, WT:CANVASS, or WT:Publicising discussions. I'm sure someone at one of those pages could help you with your question. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The above is an example of the bad faith behavior HughD has shown on the article talk page. The question I asked above is the core of this topic. The number of editors who have said HughD's actions in regard to this RfC means that it was handled in a disruptive way. Springee (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

What is the number of editors who have said the notification of this RfC was disruptive? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Reporting user Springee, a problem with excessive RfC notices sufficiently severe as to warrant an ANI filing, wouldn't you expect at least one noticeboard regular or one WikiProject participant to comment in objection to the RfC notice, or to delete the RfC notice with a terse edit summary? How about anyone that is not on record in the Survey section of the RfC in opposition to the RfC question? Hugh (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I agreed with you on the content dispute but I also think this may have been improper canvassing. This concern was raised by a large number of editors in good faith and you have stonewalled all of them. Your inability to listen and accept criticism has proven be highly disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Can you please be more specific about the publicity-related policy or guideline which was improperly violated? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC) This concern was raised by a very few editors, all on record in the Survey section of the RfC as opposed to Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds, and none from noticeboards or project talk pages. Hugh (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Question for Administration As I asked above, several editors felt that the notifications for this RfC were excessive in number and placed to appeal to a more sympathetic audience when it was clear the RfC was not going in HughD's favor. What defines excessive in this case?Springee (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Reporting user @Springee:, may I ask, specifically what is the specific location where a "more sympathetic audience" was sought through an RfC notice? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully request quick close with no action. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment "Since that time HughD has published or bumped previous RfC 20 additional times." After spending the entire morning trying to wrap my brain around this ANI - this seems to be the core argument of the original poster. No matter what attempts are being made to poke holes in his original argument (Hugh is INCREDIBLE at this, I will give him that) It needs to be determined whether or not 20+ comments is excessive. WHERE he placed the comments seems irrelevant, per BeenAroundAwhile's comment above. Now, back to the ACTUAL argument at hand. How can we determine what is, and isn't excessive? What has been deemed "excessive" in the past, and why? What hasn't, and why? Either it is excessive, or it isn't, that's it. I also think user:Fyddlestix hit the nail on the head here when he said "as disruptive as HughD's behavior may have been, the NPOV problem that he's been trying to correct is a very obvious and very real one, and he's been up against an awful lot of battleground behavior and IDHT from other editors in this dispute. Not saying that excuses any disruption he may have caused, but I do think that the conduct of parties on both sides of this dispute should be scrutinized carefully by un-involved admins." We have been spinning our wheels for a month now - someone, ANYONE, please help! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

One month is the default comment period for an RFC, please see WP:RFC. Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds will most likely close Thursday 6 August. There is no deadline and we can extend it if so desired in order to accommodate increased participation from our colleagues at WP:CONSERVATISM and others. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Comatmebro: you asked, "How can we determine what is, and isn't excessive?" Thank you for your question. We can determine what is and is not excessive by referencing policy and guideline. WP:RFC says "one or more." All the venues in which Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds were publicized are explicitly authorized at WP:RfC, such as notice boards, associated project talk pages, or closely related article talk pages. WP:Discussion notices "Best practices" states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and that "setting a time for the discussion to end" is a best practice. Our behavioural guideline WP:CANVAS defines excessive as "indiscriminate" and "disruptive." We should expect that a necessary precondition of a problem with excessive RfC notices, sufficiently severe as to warrant an ANI filing, would involve several noticeboard regulars, WikiProject participants, or article talk page contributors, commenting in objection to the RfC notice, or deleting the RfC notice with a terse edit summary, not just those on record in opposition to the RfC question. I hope this helps answer your question. If not, may I respectfully direct you to WT:RFC, WT:CANVASS, or WT:Publicising discussions, where I'm sure someone could clarify further. Thank you again for your question. Hugh (talk)

I seriously doubt that he was looking for an answer as to how much crossposting is excessive from from the person accused of excessive crossposting. Equally likely to be ignored is the person accused of excessive crossposting requesting that the ANI case be closed with no action. Perhaps you have a slight bias when it comes to these particular questions? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

All I was looking for was a number of posts that could be deemed excessive...10 posts? 15 posts? 100 MILLION POSTS?! But, I do appreciate your clarification, Hugh. Honestly, I am so over arguing with you on all of this - might just have to buy you a beer (or a barnstar) on the 6th to celebrate AN outcome, whatever that outcome may be :). Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Multiple personal attacks by user:Harald Forkbeard that derail a RfC

re: Harald Forkbeard (talk · contribs) Talk:Mat (Russian profanity)#RfC: How much "poetic license" does a translator of primary sources have in wikipedia?

I had a disagreement about article content which was not solved by 1-1 talk. I started a RfA, during which I deliberately did not present my point of view. Several people joined and we are carrying out a meaningful, calm, nonpersonal discussion. With the exception of Forkbeard, who obvioulsy has an acute grudge against me.

Three times I warned the user that wikipedia policies forbid personal attacks, but I was derided to "blind adherence" to "obscure policies".

• , issued after a long chain of statements about my mental incompetence
• insult during RfC
• Again reminded about disallowed insults
• Insult; false accusations
• Insult; false accusation (I didn't revert anything since the start of the RfC, seeking other opinions)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mat_(Russian_profanity)&diff=next&oldid=674034037 Third warning about personal insults]
• Continued insults

Normally I don't care how I am being called. I was even "Anti-Romanian antisemitic communistic vandal", I never complained, only chuckled. However in this case I think Forkbeard's multiple long diatribes about my negative personal qualities seriously derail the otherwise normal RfA discusson. Therefore I would like to ask an admin to take an action. -M.Altenmann >t 15:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

M.Altenmann >t>t has been acting in a hostile manner during the discussion on the Mat talk page. He has resisted all attempts to build consensus engaging in disruptive editing and obtuse interpretation of Misplaced Pages rules that only he holds to be applicable. He failed to make any meaningful contributions to the article choosing instead to clash with multiple editors and persist in his insistence on alleged rules. This position has been challenged by other editors. Instead of cooperating M.Altenmann >t continues to cause discord and disrupts others' work. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I might add that I am baffled by the allegations of personal attacks by M.Altenmann. His attitude has been unhelpful. Please review the talk page and edit history on the Mat article for details. It is clear to me that M.Altenmann has taken a very hostile position towards my translation of the original Russian text for the article. For some reason, M.Altenmann refuses to collaborate with other editors. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

False. Filing RfC is collaboration. Repeating that I am an idiot is not. -M.Altenmann >t 16:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

True. At no time did I or any other editors use personal labels you are referring to. You continue obstructing the consensus building on this Mat article. You are pushing your point of view and refuse to contribute to the article in any constructive way. This is not a personal attack, but a plain statement of fact. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Harald Forkbeard, Could you please explain the following two edits? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What explanation are you looking for? --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The comments you are referring to are an attempt to encourage M.Altenmann to get off the rules interpretation, and focus on coming up with a positive, tangible contribution to the article. To date, all he has done is criticize my translation without any constructive alternative being provided. This despite multiple editors explaining the situation to him, please read the talk page comments for Mat article.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

If you read the whole mess on Talk:Mat (Russian profanity), in combination with the invitation posted by M.Altenmann on Misplaced Pages:No_original_research/Noticeboard#RfC:_How_much_.22poetic_license.22_does_a_translator_of_primary_sources_have_in_wikipedia.3F, I think the handling admins should at least consider Misplaced Pages:Don't shoot yourself in the foot in this case. (Note that after asking for comments M.Altenmann responded on the first two comments of uninvolved editors with "<sigh> You are not addressing the concern" (to a comment by Diego) and with "You are wide off the mark" to my own first comment.) Arnoutf (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• (1) Please explain how the remark "you are not addressing the concern" is shooting self in the foot. (2) Please explain how Diego was in any way offended by it and how it damaged the discussion. (3) Please also explain how this remark justifies insults I am complaining about. (4) Please explain how you proved that the comment about "wide off the mark" was wrong. (5) Please explain why you took my remarks out of context here. -M.Altenmann >t 08:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• I don't know about you, but if someone told me that my dogged insistence on rules again borders on obsession, that other editors make sensible and highly valuable contributions but mine are a bewildering array of misinterpretations on various Misplaced Pages rules without any constructive contribution, accused me of personal bias, and told me to refrain from editing the page and find something else to do, I would not feel particularly encouraged.

As for the implied "it's OK to behave poorly because others did so first" argument, we are responsible for our own actions, and in my opinion the above diffs show a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality rather than the claimed "encouragement".

If anyone here wishes this noticeboard to consider the actions of others, please provide specific diffs rather than asking us to "read the whole mess". --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Harald Forkbeards reactions are not very civil. But I think this should include a look at the mainspace edits (and summaries) by M.Altenmann that preceded the debate (including a response on an uninvolved editor invited to the rfc). Arnoutf (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• If you think that these edits somehow justify massive attacks of Forkbeard, then you have serious issues with wikipedia civility rules yourself. -M.Altenmann >t 01:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• With due respect, the comments made by M.Altenmann are not very civil either. Moreover, his actions are disruptive and relentless persistence at pushing the alleged Misplaced Pages rules interpretation is entirely non-constructive. He has consistently failed to offer any alternative to my good faith translation. Hence, the recommendation, made by several editors, to provide an alternative translation or, in my comments, suggestion to simply walk away. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

For the benefit of Guy Macon, who is new to this discussion, I would provide some summary of what, in my view, happened to date: