Hi Mystery Wolff! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Construction of electronic cigarettes into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Doug Weller (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If I read it correctly you have addressed this instance. There are not other instances. I will go to the original page and put in some attribution, and also on the new page. The intent of this page is to be the Greater Detail page. Even if E-Liquid is part of the "Construction of Electronic Cigarettes" page. E-Liquid sold without any hardware is a multi-billion dollar industry so it worthy of its own page. I have asked experts in E-Liquid to come on and contribute content, so hopeful it will expand. If there is anything else I can do....please tell me thanks. Mystery Wolff (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the question. The statement itself simply does not make any sense. There are two types of smokers, those that want to smoke, and those who want to quit smoking but are unable. There are no other types possible. Unwilling means they want to smoke. If there is something else that wants to be quoted out of the article that would stand on its own. It is just that item does not, and can not ever make sense to a reader.
The study in question is a review of other studies. There are some works that I have read that have said that Electronic Cigarettes should only be undertaken by smokers, and not new users altogether. This item was not saying that. In general a lot of commentary (not research) of early papers says there is no data. As time has gone by data is now available. Mystery Wolff (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can take it to the bank that QuackGuru will be topic banned tomorrow. I recommend letting him have his way for the moment. All the best—S MarshallT/C23:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. On Wikipedia, you can always safely revert someone once. Never revert the same edit twice. Never revert the same editor twice in succession. Words to live by. Hope this helps—S MarshallT/C00:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly endorse S Marsall's advice and just talking a break from the article and any argument others may want to engage in with you. Its really for the best. No sense arguing with QG. AlbinoFerret03:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed some of the comments on sources you have made. WP:MEDRS is the guideline for medical sources. You should familiarise yourself with it if you have not already done so. All of the health related stuff should use MEDRS sources. AlbinoFerret02:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe I understand the guidelines. If you are talking about Electronic Cigarettes, the US FDA is intending on regulating them on the basis of tobacco. This is not completed yet, but it is the direction. E-Cigs are not medical devices, Nicotine is not a created drug, it is a plant distillation. Tobacco is regulated not as food, and not as drug. Its it own classification. Nearly all of my cites are published in peer-reviewed journals, which corespond well with the MEDRS. I do believe there is some gamesmanship going on by QuackGuru. Mystery Wolff (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are a relatively new editor, and I just want to help you avoid problems. MEDRS tells us to use secondary sources, and to avoid primary ones. That doesnt mean they cant be used at all. But the only way they can come in for a medical claim is with consensus of the editors. Peer reviewed journals are a good sources, but look for reviews which are secondary sources. Studies and other things which are primary are best to avoid, if you think one is useful start a talk page discussion and see if there is consensus or agreement before adding it. AlbinoFerret02:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the MEDRS reverts with QuackGuru. I did use the UNDO button twice on that. I am not sure if you are talking about those. Or if you are talking about the Smoking Cessation. The one regarding Smoking Cessation, QuackGuru just reverted my edits. AFTER your comment immediately above. I do not intend to get into an edit war with him. He backs out my contributions through a mass of his edits. I do not believe any of my cites are not conforming to MEDRS. Mystery Wolff (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are using studies to argue against reviews, you added original research, you deleted text cited to reviews and you cut and pasted text directly from the source without rewriting it. QuackGuru (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A review needs to be at a time where the study was available. Pointing to 2013 when 2105 exists becomes problematic. No Original research was done. All items were and are cited, that I included. Suggesting that I was so true to the cited source that quoting with attribution to authors, is a copyright violation would be a laugh...if it were not for you causing myself and other editors all the unnecessary time to fight to have valid content remain in the page. Yes I read where you are proud that 90% of the content in this page was created by you. Whether that is true or not I won't check. However YOU DO NOT OWN THE ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE page. Even if you have a valid point in the Smoking Cessation section on an item, you have gone much father when you back out my edits. You usually do them with 10 edits. At least you did the last one with a full UNDO. I hope it make it easier for the someone to review on the merits. Thank you for that at least. Mystery Wolff (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Mystery Wolff the easiest way to revert is the undo button. We cant revert, or bring the page back to a previous state more than 3 times in 24 hours. Both completly reverting an editor, or even partially undoing an edit is a revert. Since your new you were probably unaware of this. In some cases even reverting three times can get you into trouble for "edit warring" thats where two or more edits keep reverting each other. Its best to stop after 1 revert and discuss things on the talk page and try and come to an agreement. Everything on wikipedia should be done with consensus or agreement. AlbinoFerret03:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
QuackGuru, I do not think you know the definition of OR, citing the conclusions of peer review journals in topic is appropriate. Again I saw your comments that you are responsible for 90% of the content in Electronic Cigarettes and that you don't want others to change things. Tagging something in error does not give you special abilities of control. When you claim copyright violations is over the top. When you claim the Journal of Addiction is not a credible resource, I think you are simply using gamesmanship. After spending time to correct problems, like content that has no relationship to the citations given. And to update 2013 information with information done in the last 2 years....it is zapped away by you. Yes I am frustrated by this. Mystery Wolff (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Electronic cigarette topic area, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
@L235: May I ask with which capacity this was done (here), if not as part of the arbitraion? Is their any association/rationale with other editors and admins, I should be aware of? I am aware that the topic has had an ARB on it. I want to go ahead and post this into the TALK page, so that all editors may also see it. It really should be put up for all, I think there is a section at the top to post it, or just as a new topic within the talk page. "Unpublished alert" is an oxymoron after all. Any concerns with me doing that? Would you like to go ahead and do that? Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes L235, I do have things I would like clarified.
1. When you said: " (I'm a arbitration clerk, but this is not taken in that capacity.) ", it was indicating you are an associated and interested editor in the Electronic Cigarettes section. I had not seen you actively editing there. So either you were asked to alert me by a different active editor there, or you are just monitoring currently. But you wanted to make it clear to me, that this notification is simply perfunctory and not part of the ARB process. (Maybe that is just a standard signature line. If there was another editor that asked you to notify me, for them or project based, may I ask who they are so I may find out directly from them what their concerns are. I would like to seek the source in all things.---> By way of clarification, an editor wrote to me in TALK... paraphrased to "we won't allow XYZ", --- I am trying to discern if your Alert to me, and not other editors....is part of that "we" he chose to alert me to.
2. Your alert to me is part of a sanctions process. So presumably everyone who has been recently editing Electronic Cigarettes, (and widely defined) should be receiving these alerts. I went to the ARB thing and found that other participants were not given similar notifications of Alerts on their pages. Meaning that I was being treated differently than any other editor of the page. Which again would point to your specific topic interest outside of your capacity of being an arbitration clerk, (Alert was instigated on your clock, and not on the proverbial company's clock)
4. Or does the alert at the top of the page which you have not placed in Talk, act as the official aware.alert to all. I don't think it does, because it would mean one here is an alert.dup and we don't want to do that. Which makes me think that either one of us needs to go through the list an notify all recent editors of both Talk and the Article pages.
5. I don't think the alert at the top of the page may be effective, without used in conjunction with individual notices. At least in the form of the actual ramifications of the alert.
6. Independent of all this, but integrated. The ARB called out for Electronic Cigarettes widely defined. So the for it to be effective it needs to be propagated out to all the those other pages. Correct? Here is my list of those. Regulation of electronic cigarettes -- Nicotine replacement therapy -- Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes -- Construction of electronic cigarettes -- E-Liquid. Who should do this? Should I?
I'm not an involved editor by any means. I had been acting in my role as an arbitration clerk to complete most of the requests at Lankiveil's talk page, and saw fit to just notify you. Notifications/alerts are not an implication of misconduct and can be made by anyone, and are simply that – a notification, a procedural safeguard so that no one gets hit with sanctions without knowing that sanctions exist. To be clear, this notification is most certainly part of the "arbitration process"; it's mandated by ArbCom procedure. I just hadn't been acting in my role as an arbitration clerk in this instance.
Everyone who edits within the scope of the sanctions ("Electronic cigarette topic area") may be alerted, provided that they are not considered "aware" for another reason, such as having given a notification, participated in an AE request related to the sanctions, were previously restricted under the sanctions, or had been named in the final decision.
You may alert anyone who is not already aware for another reason and who is actively editing in the topic area.
The box on the talk page is a courtesy and does not count as an alert for the purposes of WP:ACDS#aware.aware.
If you'd like to propose a change to the {{Ds/talk notice}} template, I cannot do that myself. Substantial changes fall under the Committee's (and perhaps the clerks', as a whole) remit, and unilateral changes aren't allowed. (Post at WT:AC/C or WP:ARCA to propose changes.)
Usually, uninvolved admins add the notices, though I'm not aware of any hard-and-fast rule about not adding the {{Ds/talk notice}} template to those pages.
Thanks @L235:for taking the time to respond. Some confusion remains in the not in capacity of clerk, but in capacity of help complete out the ARB....but I don't think I need to understand it any more than you have already explained. There has been some editors involved in that ARB who are tossing around terms like SockPuppets and people tag-teaming editing, in the TALK pages. Oddly they offered some of that out as assuming good faith. (Sort analogous to: I assume in good faith you have not been caught beating your wife.) I have nothing to do with any of that, and I don't want to be slimed by it, my style is very direct, and it could never be masked. I began editing after that ARB already made its decisions on the 17th. Obviously there were tensions caused by an editors, and several topic bans or conditions applied to them, out of the ARB. I feel I came into a finished fight....and I don't want to have their bad acts to be associated to me.---- Which is the underlying question I have which can be paraphrased down to "Why notify me, and not everyone else....and why not everyone else?"
--I realize Electronic Cigarettes is a topic that has a partial lock on it, and has ARB eyes on it......So all the good Wikipedia editing practices are needed, 5 Pillars all the rest....but I want to make sure that I am on the same level playing field as everyone else....and I am not starting off with some demerits or anything. I believe strongly in research and then have strong views......but I should have not demerits or yellow cards on me at all. And I want to keep it that way. Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please look over L235's points #2 and #3. Any editor who participated in the arbitration case is assumed to be aware of the discretionary sanctions, especially if they were an involved party or presented evidence. Since many of the editors who work on these articles participated in the arbitration case (which you admittedly did not), it can reasonably be assumed that they know about the DS while you may not have known. It is considered a courtesy to inform editors that sanctions exist so they are not surprised if an admin imposes a sanction upon them. It is an alert, a notice, not a warning. LizRead!Talk!21:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Liz, afterwards I was able to find the simple answer being: User SMcCandlish requested to Lankiveil that the Alert be posted on my Talk page, and L235 did the follow-through. I thought it might be something so simple. But I had neglected to click the link that L235 posted above for Lankiveil ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=693024964#E-cigs ). I did learn some WP process things by seeking the answer. Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was no reason for it. Should not have happened and should have been corrected faster. It was operator error and a series of errors, and my failing, I do apologize. --- I was writing a comment, my Firefox crashed. When I restarted, my text I was adding was still there. I thought I was lucky. So then I finished writing it, and updated. I moved onto a different open tab. Within 15 minutes I saw Müdigkeit had corrected the mistake of what got dropped off. I looked at the information on the site and thought the live version was correct, but I clicked Article and not the talk Tab again that I was already in. It looked like Müdigkeit had put everything back, although I was looking at the article and not the talk. So I used the thank button to Müdigkeit, in the history. Thought about where I should apologize for the mistake, and then left it. Only good thing is how easy it is to reclaim. Pure error on my part by a comedy of errors. Sorry.
This is not a topic for article talk pages, but it is something that can be shown on editor talk pages. You have come to the article at a point when troublemakers were on their best behaviour. If you really want to know the difference look here. AlbinoFerret15:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall is putting in tons of edits, and deleting items for no cause, and wrong cause. He has stated he has an agenda for the article, and is determined to see it, regardless of anyone reverting him....essentially saying he won't work with others or take feedback. How do you think that is a postive? How do you think that is a good plan? How is that fair to other editors? Why should 100s of edits be pushed over a 7 day span. S Marshall is acting exactly as QuackGuru did, as owner of the page.
Perhaps you have time to babysit this article from POV vandalism, I do not. S Marshall deleted an important study with proper citation. I had to revert, I explained my revert. Only to have him go back the next day and do the very same thing, with a different edit summary. So how do you figure, that is being edited as it should??? Do you know what S Marshall means when he says he is removing all of QuackGuru's edits....is there a list? There is a problem, and I don't want to play games about it. I don't want hours of work to be reverted because some a POV editor(or set of) thinks they own the article. Mystery Wolff (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue to disrupt the talk page. If you refuse to drop the stick on that page and bring your concerns to the appropriate dispute resolution pages mentioned to you a few times already, then I will be forced to bring you to WP:AE. You are a WP:SPA and your actions are dirupting the article. In violation of the Arbcom findings found in E-cig conduct. AlbinoFerret18:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are hereby topic banned from all articles in the electronic cigarette area broadly construed for six months. This is due to your ongoing personalisation of editing disputes. I suggest you find another area to edit that is less contentious and learn how to get along with other editors - hint - discuss the edits not the editors. SpartazHumbug! 06:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Struck, see new section below SpartazHumbug!08:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Spartaz: What specifically are you pointing at? Innuendo and hinting, is not helpful in supporting your action here. Nor have I been asked or given me any opportunity to respond to these amorphous assertions. At best you have heard (or listened to) only one side. Why? Mystery Wolff (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the last straw was your recent edits on talk e-cigs. Your interaction style was unduly aggressive and personalised - which is a high tension area subject to discretionary sanctions was not acceptable. You must have seen from the admin commentary that your interactions were concerning but i saw no improvement and your input was not constructive because the animus that your style of blaming the editor rather than discussing the edits creates. I left a further response on my talk page but the first step has to be for you to consider whether changing your interaction strategy is going to be a more productive way of engaging with people you disagree with. SpartazHumbug!14:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of my last edits on the talk page were regarding the merging of a E-Liquid page that I created, to be combined with another. I followed that through to completion. It was actually with AlbinoFerret. I also suggested another user go to article called Vape Shop for the content they had. There was also this thread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Smoking_cessation I am not sure if you have read all of that. But I certainly do not think I am be treated fairly, I am being utterly dismissed. You have to read the whole thing. And read the quotes in bold I have from S Marshall, who is saying he can not work with me. To understand this thread you need to know that I reverted S Marshall when he took out a very important study on cessation. I reverted it, he said he would not come back to it, he would move on. He then after the AE was begun, created this section for drastic changes. Including removing again what I had reverted, and improved. Doc James looked at the same text S Marshall is now wanting gone, removed it, looked again, found it valid and put it back in. A third RCT in 2014 found that in smokers who were "not interested" in quitting, after eight weeks of e-cigarette use 34% of those who used e-cigarettes had quit smoking in comparison with 0% of users who did not use e-cigarettes, with considerable reductions in smoking found in the e-cigarette group. "
That happens to be an important study, and something I had not seen until I found it on Wikipedia. Look at what I say and look at what S Marshall says. I think I am being reasonable in the face of what is being said about me
Regardless of all that, AlbinoFerret is now asking for enforcement on CFCF, who I know little about except he was in a ARB. WHY Why is it the first reaction is to run to the AE, instead of all the other options. I get accused of being a sockpuppet, why do they not check that out, by request. Why are all of the other avenues skipped? Does this core of users own the page now?
Every other option was avoided. Why not mediation? What not any number of others. Why am I in an AE, when I have no sanctions on me, nothing to enforce. Why again are the other options not tried.
Look at my edits in the ARTICLE space. They are not being reverted. Doc James is looking at them. I am not gaming the system. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mystery_Wolff&oldid=692905835#Letting_it_go I don't see this as being fair. And I was never afforded an opportunity to respond to what was being asserted. If I say nothing in TALK SM will wait for 3 days and move it in. If I object, I get taken to AE. From ZERO to 6 month Ban is tremendous overkill, you should retract you action entirely, or reduce it to 1 week max. The opening action for a person should not be 6 months....and the AE had editors pointing that out too. Not just me. Mystery Wolff (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I parsing your comment right, you are essentially saying that you are right and should be allowed to make any changes you like because of that. That's not how it works. The problem is not what you are trying to edit in, but the way you go around it. Admins do not police content, they police conduct and that is what you got the topic ban for. If you want a shorter ban you need to start by analyzing your conduct towards other editors and changing the behaviors that were causing problems. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any evidence that you are prepared to put in the necessary self reflection to do that. What would be the point of a week if we are going to back to the same behavior 7 days later. That's why its 6 months.SpartazHumbug!21:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz:
1. You are not parsing my remarks correctly. You assertion of what I have said it simply wrong. It's also the premise by which your entire statement flows. So its a critical interpretation that is mistaken.
2. I am NOT saying I should be allowed to make any changes I like. In fact the changes I am making to the article are well received and reviewed.
3. I have not asserted "that is how it works"
4. I am not going "around" anything as you say above. You seemingly do agree that my edits to the Article are NOT a problem.
5. I have zero conduct violations prior to your first action against me. I have not had any of the dispute processes raised on me, I have not edit warred, I have not been asserted to have edited in POV content. And my edits are proper. Leaving only the TALK page. For that, I am unclear, and it has not been stated what I have done wrong. Creative friction is a logical outgrowth of any collaborative effort so you surely understand that mere existences of a dispute is not a problem. This is why there is an entire dispute resolution tree. Here Spartaz you have skipped utilizing all those items in favor of a rather of an incredibly presumptive conclusion of what you believe I think, and what you believe you think I will do. And its all exacerbated because an AE was opened on me, for which I have never been subject to Arbitration.
6.When S Marshall said in the AE he can not work with me, why was that not seen as something that should be put into Mediation or any of the other avenues.
7.I have been analyzing my conduct and addressing it continuously. I created a page, QuackGuru closed it, I gave feedback on Vape Shop being closed as topic, I allowed my page to be merged into another by giving agreement and suggestions. I am truly unclear to what you are pointing at. I am well aware of my edits. I am well aware of my dialogue in chat. I am also well aware of what other editors are saying to me to which I am replying. Spartaz, I have no confidence by what you say, because you have assessed me so untrue to what I think and believe, that you have looked at this situation with any depth. I fear because you are modified wikibreak, and not spending much time here, that your decision is not objective. I fear that your decision is more based on expediency. The picture on your home page says "Oh Jeez not this shit again" implying that you have little tolerance to hear both sides of the situation. I fear this is why your first action to me would to be skip all the other actions and dispute resolutions to dispense a 6 month ban. I FEAR the WP:BITE of an aggressive administrator who tags himself with Humbug, which WP defines as "deceptive or false talk or behavior". It's bad optics. It leaves an impression. I am not beyond reproach at all, and I do modify my actions.
8. You have not given me any opportunity to change any behaviors. Not that I did not. But in a sweeping AE assertion on my, that was updated often, without any clarity, with banter of banning me for 6 months because I reverted tags....and much much more. Where it was updated so often I could never respond to it fully without being told TLDR. A ranging AE without scope or limitations. That was the backdrop of what you wanted to see change in? A place where if I explain what I was doing, I get called on for fighting. It does not make sense.
9. You see clearly that I did change my editing from the start of the AE though....you can see the unequivocally. I made at least 15 edits in the pages without any fuss, without any complaints, and with a strong MEDRS review by Doc James who kept it in. Why is Doc James not queried at all in the AE? Why did AlbinoFerret notify only certain editors on their talk page. Spartaz do you see what I am addressing here? Its is not some sort of mindless I THINK I AM RIGHT SO I CAN DO WHAT I WANT. Emphasis on not. When you presume it upon me it shows you really have not idea of what I am thinking. Which is alright.
10. An admin can not see evidence, if they have not looked for it. And that is the case here. Picking up the end attempting to work out a dispute BEFORE it reaches an AE, should not be the domain for the AE to attempt to act as if they are out of Phillip K. Dick's Minority report. In the case the AE took up actions for which other resolutions methods have not been attempted. That is to say that the AE is interjecting itself without using all of the other processes. In this case the AE appears to have exceeded even what it is authorized, (I need to check that, but there is a high chance its rogue) Now admins in the world of the internet have all sorts of unique aspects, one of the most noteable is becoming subject to the same folly as the guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment.
11. If you look at my edits, in the Article you will see them valid and well placed. You can review how I was attempting to avoid an Edit War by using TALK, you can review all of the AE actions, and how the canvassing is being done there. And Spartaz, you can test your theory by actually giving out the first warning to me, and then seeing what will come to be. I do not accept your conjecture on me, I know it to false. The assuming of bad faith upon me to dispense a 6 month ban is extraordinary. I urge you address his. Correct it. If its TLDR, its because of the impact of drastic action. I wish you would have read the context and not just the complaint. Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very nice but is all predicated that your are right and other people are wrong. So in a collaborative environment, discussion quickly derails when your conversation is reduced to why one editor is an idiot and another is a genius. Suboptimal interactions quickly lead to entrenched immovable disputes. Its much better to stick to discussing the content purely, so if Blogs says something stupid you have a choice of either A) telling them they are stupid and questioning their motivations or B) calmly referring to the source and policy to show why they are wrong. please stay in the top three tiers Graham's Hierarchy has it about right.
So, analysing your talk interactions, ask yourself how many of your comments are in the top 3 tiers and how many are at the yah boo playground level? There were too many of the latter which is why you got a TB. You learned nothing from the initial discussion at AE and quickly resumed the personal commentary so there is no clear evidence that you will quickly turn your interaction style round so got a lengthy ban. You still seem entirely closed to learning how to improve your style despite my already indicating that I would review if you did this.
So where does that leave us? I have explained my reasoning, I have listened patiently to your objections. I have also indicated the ways forward - improve&request review or appeal. I'm afraid I'm not spending my Christmas re-litigating this decision with you. Feel free to tell me when you have improved your conduct or lodged an appeal but otherwise, I'm afraid I'm done here. SpartazHumbug!10:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see me saying other people are wrong? I have not been making declarations like that, much less asserting anyone is an idiot. Do I believe the edits I am making are well intended, certainly. Your entire focus seems to be on the TALK page. You say I resumed "personal commentary" just exactly what is that. You have not even pointed to it. You have not even shown what the basis is of that. Now there is an editor who stated his objectives for the article after you banned another editor. I have quoted those. QUOTED those. Are you saying that when a editor says they have a goal, and I quote it verbatim, that is something at all personal? Its talking about what one editor is proposing on doing. I have not insulted anyone. You are assuming so much bad faith upon me, and you are just not right to say it. Please show me what you are talking about, without my question to see it be case in point. Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed my action on imposing a topic ban. I have concluded that my ban was harsh. Your interactions after your short break did improve and there were no personalising comments. the TBan is hereby rescinded. Please accept my apologies. I can only assume that I misread the date stamps of some of your earlier comments when reviewing your edits after you returned.
That said, your earlier conduct was too personalising leading to tension and disruption to the article talk page. As such, I am giving you a final warning that further personalisation of edits will lead to sanctions, If in doubt read your comment before you confirm and check if what you wrote concerns the edit or is a discussion of the other editor's intentions, motives or personality. If you have any doubt do not confirm the edit. I have also stated categorically in the AE close that you are not a sock.
Finally, you are a relatively new editor and you do need to learn how wikipedia works to enable you to function effectively as an editor. I repeat my earlier offer to listen and advise on any questions or concerns you have. I also encourage you to edit in less contentious areas to build up your experience and learn how it works in a less stressful environment. SpartazHumbug!08:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can only applaud SpartazSpartaz for finally agreeing with me :P. More seriously, I echo Spartaz in saying that MW will benefit from diversifying at least a little, and getting some experience in non-contentious areas. Editing on Wikipedia is not always easy, especially in areas where discretionary sanctions are in effect. Finally, I advise MW to read WP:TLDR (at least twice) and WP:GLUE. Kingsindian♝♚09:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, I thank you, and I accept your feedback.
Process wise I do believe the AE board is being gamed, and has become the option, of first resort, for some. My first take is the AE should be for actions on users specifically named or participating in from ARB outcomes. For generic discretionary sanctions they should have their own board to take requests. AE is probation violations. DS is in increased policing and special laws category. I take both yours and Kingsindian's feedback and am happy that I have finally gone through the full rabbit hole now. Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Here is some unasked advice about your topic ban:
The main point is to simply let it go. Take a break if needed.
It is tough editing in areas with discretionary sanctions. You should not take the topic ban personally.
Topic bans apply to all pages, including your own talk page. You should avoid any mention of the topic anywhere on Wikipedia. Don't try to test the boundaries by editing some closely related page.
Wikipedia is very big. You might want to work on something else, preferably something less contentious so that you can get some experience. Good work elsewhere is looked upon favourably when appealing or coming back after a topic ban. It will also alleviate concerns about WP:SPA.
Thank you, and I also appreciate the comments you said at the AE, which I do not believe were considered. Perhaps you can explain how I was subject to an AE, when I had not actions taken against me ever. The AE had to be corrected at the start. I maintain that all of the other processes involved to handle discussion in the talk pages were avoided and a massive end around was done to push it into AE. In the AE I am alleged to be a sockpuppet, however no sockpuppet investigation is ever done. Neither is any attempt at mediation. What happens is an incredibly involved editor, creates a dispute with me on my Talk page, warns me of boomerangs repeatedly, and takes it straight to the AE.
How is it the punishment arm of the process is now SKIPPING all of the investigation, and involved and wikibreak administrators are dispensing 6 month topic bans as if they were lumps of coal with a round of baaaaahuuumbug?? Who is this? Because it looks like the entire process is hijacked.
I have subject matter knowledge of electronic cigarettes. I choose to edit it, I am not looking to wikipedia a generic endeavor and I do not want to research and look into items I have no interest in. I do absolutely being in NPOV. And my edits will reflect that. You can as Doc James, who is on the edits of the Article and not much in the TALK of it.
At this point I hope that Spartaz, reconsiders. He should not take the first actions on an editor, with the presumption that the most harsh sentence they can muster fits the crime, they think at one day could happen. As I said in other places, I have no intention to edit in Wikipedia in other places if all my work can just be remove at the whims.
If, Spartaz, reject reconsideration...I will need help, or rather could use help on how to lodge a formal objection. While Admins may think, oh no sweat, they can do something else in a big encyclopedia, that certainly is not what all the dispute resolution and meditation options are designed to do. They are designed to resolve, they are not designed to drop the banhammer for poking ones head up. I will see. Again thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to challenge the topic ban, you can do it on WP:AN or WP:AE. See this for details. In my opinion, you have zero chance of success.
You are of course free to choose to not work on anything else, my suggestion was simply aimed at getting some experience before working in a contentious area. One does not need specialist knowledge to edit Wikipedia. I don't edit anything related to my subject matter knowledge - it feels too much like work. Kingsindian♝♚10:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is that Spartaz adjusts his decision himself. His description of what he thinks I will do, is not accurate. I have a lot of faith in myself. I have no history of disruptive edits in the Article in by all accounts, so there is little risk. If I were to go about acting terribly, it would be able to be addressed quickly, and with a perception of fairness at that point. BITE of editors is bad enough, a precautionary beheading seems egregious. I am asking Spartaz for fairness only. Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. You still don;t accept any feedback that your contribution style is suboptimal. I don't get beheaded from naything on wikipedia. SpartazHumbug!10:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I accept feedback, and I actually listed out feedback I accepted in the AE----in the AE text. No person is optimal, in that sense we are all sub-optimal beings. Honestly I am simply trying to work on the article and the content, and always address what people "are doing", and not who they are. The "millennial" phenomenon is confusing though. I see that you are looking at it....so I toggle on "wait mode" Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Common Sense Tribble Award We need more pedians like you!
Common sense is becoming less common, and what we need are more Wiki Tribbles to help maintain the balance. It's not an easy task being a mindful, considerate collaborator working to improve controversial articles for the benefit of the project, especially considering some of the mine fields one has to navigate in the face of relentless edit disruptions. It's not a simple Tiny TimTiptoe Through the Tulips, for sure. Thank you for your efforts - your common sense approach has not gone unnoticed. Atsme📞📧15:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop worrying and questioning whether EJ is involved or not. It will do you no good. He knows what he is doing; if he is "involved" he will say so. FWIW, I doubt he is.
"have you read WP:INVOLVED?" means "you need to read WP:INVOLVED carefully, realise that it answers your questions, and stop raising spurious concerns". See #1.
Your appeal is far too early. You should instead make productive contributions elsewhere, preferrably in a non-controversial area.
If you have no interest in editing in another area, your life here will not be happy (that is a prediction, not a threat).
@William M. Connolley: You do realize that your reverted out the edits, that became the basis of this very AE that I am disputing. After you reverted them out, I took the discussion to the Talk Pages....where it was being hammered out. 2 other editors prefered my version. I was asking for an RfC on the primary vs secondary. That AlbinoFerret went on Spartaz's pages and a long term sockpuppet from the actual ARB, reverted me, which DeltaQuad put back. So two editors other than AlbinoFerret did the reverts on what he wanted to open the AE on, and what he ultimately opened the AE on. I don't know why you reverted me, but I did not edit war. It however became the basis of the AE.
EdJohnston suggested I was a sockpuppet in the Ecig Talk pages, and I was forced to explain I was not. He said I had to explain, if I wanted an even playing field. So I did. I had to. And AE is created on all the same lines as his question to me in the public TALK pages. He then is the first to suggest I get banned for 6 months. That and several other items are why I consider him biased, and involved. At the very least, I believe I am entirely reasonable to think that an Admin openly antagonistic to me, suggesting large punitive Topic bans as my very first sanction.....has the appearances of conflict of interest. At that point he should step back.
The edits which were long standing by others, which I and other editors thought were important studies.....well those just got removed. So the interjection of the Admins has create a vacuum, and content, important content is being removed.
I have:
: adhered to the purposes of Wikipedia;
: compliedwith all applicable policies and guidelines;
: followed editorial and behavioral best practice;
: complied with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
The request has been closed, so I can't reply to you there. My own advice is same as William M. Connolley. EdJohnston is not WP:INVOLVED in Wikipedia's definition. All of their actions regarding you occurred in an administrative capacity, which do not count for that policy. As to your other points, I can say that unfortunately you did not follow best practice. You repeatedly tried to make the edit in various ways, even after you were advised to open an RfC and not change the text. Everyone makes mistakes, and you should treat this as a learning experience. As many people have informed you, if you intend to only edit in this area and nowhere else, you won't have a happy experience here. Editing in a contentious areas is a tricky business, and at some point, people run out of patience, which is what happened here. Try editing in a less contentious area first. Kingsindian♝♚06:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsindian, I respect you words, however I feel that I am the only person that paid any attention to the facts of the matter. You are the only person to even remark on the edits of the AE. EdJohnston did not even examine them before he made his recommendation, and before he closed the case. I asked him, he refused to explain before closing on this talk page, refused to explain within the AE itself, and refused to comment in the Appeal. Would you say that is best practice? The edits in question of the AE are the very ones that William M. Connolley reverted, and asserted I was saying fairy tales. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&oldid=698089299#Your_interjecting_by_Reverting_of_an_item_in_middle_of_a_TALK_discussion.2C_without_explanation_and_discussing_in_the_TALK_pages_first William M. Connolley, is not a normal editor of the pages, however found himself reverting, me, after I given a warning to AlbinoFerret for edit warring. EdJohnston did not examine this at all. Did not review it, did not consider it. By the looks of the AE, all he did was go back to the first AE, ignore all of the differences. It's defacto wheel-warring.
The appeal was closed by NW prematurely...whether or not its circle the wagons and shoot anyone outside the circle, I don't know, but I can say that is what it feels like.
Kingindian, at the point of the AE closure that discussion was going on in talk, for days....I had asked that other involved editors take a look at the AE, as they were being represented by AlbinoFerret as being of a mindset.....something where they did not remark on.
The appeal was based on the edits 1, and the process 2. EdJohnston claimed he first came in contact with me on the AE board. its a very false claim, and it was done in the haste to seek that I get banned. However he knows he acted outside of any admin function when he posted on the talk page.
@EdJohnston: used his Admin priviliges in ways that are outside of all the guidelines I see. Consider what he wrote: "People who are still coming up the learning curve on Wikipedia should stay away from troubled areas. Up till now E-cig has been the only area he works in. So I'd make the topic ban from electronic cigarettes indefinite" Can you show me anywhere in Wikipedia that says editors must stay away from Topics? That is biting to the point of chomping.
EdJohnston put this out in TALK
AE is open to all, but it would be more effective to get proper discussions going here. Anyone who has been following the threads here for a week or more could have something useful to say. User:Mystery Wolff, per your talk page "..I want to make sure that I am on the same level playing field as everyone else". if you want to have a level playing field it might help if you would give us a hint of why you created your account on 19 November with apparently no prior Wikipedia edits but much knowledge of the arb case, just to edit regarding electronic cigarettes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Why should I need to justify the opportunity to have a level playing field???? It was quite demoralizing, and those are not the statements by an Admin functioning as an Admin. That became the basis of a AE for me being a Sockpuppet. That was an AE where EdJohnston began with an offering of 6 month ban, for the sockpuppetry he is asserting onto me. That is why he is involved. That is why he should not be participating and judging at the same time.
KingsIndian, I don't see any plausible reason why an admin would being making those assertions in a TALK page....as ANY PART of being an Admin. Do you?
At this point, significant studies that passed MEDRS are being removed from the articles. Tag Teams are operating,and the AE process is being gamed.
EdJohnston has refused to accept [WP:ADMINACCT], no matter how many times I asked. Failure to communicate – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought).
I asked
Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.
Recently you made a statement in an AE complaint about someone else. This is contrary to your ban from the topic of electronic cigarettes, which applies on all pages of Wikipedia. The only permitted exception is for legitimate inquiry about your own ban. Please remove your AE post to avoid a block for violating your ban. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I third them. For what it's worth, I agree with you this time, but you need to leave the entire topic area alone. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made this comment in good faith. [5] It relates only to a continuing editor that taunting me specifically, and not to the articles or the AE. If there was another option to respond to being attacked in public....I am not aware of it. If there is another venue to move it to, feel free to remove the comment, and give me directions where to place the same content to where the same audience received it. I do not expect I will need to post again on this. I believe my "Hey don't say that about me" in the place it was being said, is proper under all the rules. So its a heads up here only. Mystery Wolff (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Construction of electronic cigarettes into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Doug Weller (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
