Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cantaloupe2

I have asked the aforementioned IP editor(however, as they continue to not register a user account, it can't be concluded it is the same person or it's a group of people) to cease adding anecdotal claims and originally publish their personal experiences. In this edit the person behind the IP address changed an unreferenced claim with another unreferenced claim that was incorrect and I had to change it back to the previous claim(which was correct) and add reference. The kind of alteration made by the IP editor with disregard for

Insisting that the Controversy section goes near the bottom was pretty silly too. After a discussion, the suggestion that came from a third editor was that rather than focusing it as a section it should go in within prose. Pot kettle black He also admits his earlier edits were of promotional nature. When a

WP:HOUND and I understand that he agrees with that too. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Also see: WP:Don't call the kettle black. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) (coi) 10:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fine. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is not here to further the WP project but rather to damage it as much as possible without being caught. To do this he is very well versed in the policies and guidelines and attempts to stay within to right on the edge of them to delete or destroy as much maerial as possible for as long as he can. This appears to be the same complaint from all editors, here.

When confronted with his massive removals and resistance, Canataloupe2 then switches to attacking the opposing editor, attempting to hound him/her with Wikistalking, provocative or insulting edit summaries, ridiculous tagging, claims of COI, claims of too much previous technical expertise bias, and other methods all designed to be within the rules and policies known so well to him.

He avoids any real discussion of the content dispute. Various techniques have been used to avoid conclusion into a consensus by him. One technique I have witnessed is strawman arguments posting some weird unrelated subject matter for a response. Another is English language incompetency. Suddenly an editor with years of experience begins dropping all his articles and using verb and adverb tenses incorrectly. This has caused me to raise his English proficiency several times to which he never answers, classic of the next technique to be mentioned, silence. This is one of his most common techniques in a content discussion with Cantaloupe2. Suddenly he just disappears and isn't interested anymore. Usually by that time he is hot into dispute with another editor, at another article, so maybe he is too busy.

I always thought some compassion for this editor was in order to produce another good seasoned editor but in view of the same natured complaints here from so many editors, and my consequent conclusions I find this editor just needs to be gone permanently. Being able to apply for reinstatement of his account would force him to recognize, and admit, some of his editing behaviour faults and be the first step in a cure for tis possible contributor. This is based on his trolling behaviour, intentional destructive attitude towards the WP project, and successful avoidance of any behaviour modification by more of his evasive techniques. I see no attempt by Cantaloupe2 to even consider any input, anywhere. This is not an editor I want hounding me or any other reasonable editor. It shuns future editors from WP and injures the project. Look at the accumulated time spent on so many ANI and other attempts to correct his behaviour.

This endeavour needs to continue to completion. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was beginning to wonder why familiar names just appeared out of nowhere. It turns out, they're just not discovering this thread. They were notified. If the users are seeking out and only notifying users who've disagreed with me and anticipating favorable opinions, doesn't that constitute

• We're not here to vote on anything, so I doubt notifying others constitutes vote-stacking. If anything, the more users involved the better as we will be able to reach a long term agreement across numerous articles. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is in the context of cherry-picked notification. Only those who disagreed with me in the past have been notified, not every editor I've interacted with. It's an attempt to shift consensus by deliberately chosen pool with foreseeable opinion. This is discussed in
  WP:CANVAS-Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I think you're mistaking this process for a binding agreement such as ones at ArbCom and ANI. It's pointless to notify users who've never had issues with you as the objective here is for users who disagree with your approach to reach a compromise specifically with you not with other parties or editors. If you disagree with the proposal then another one has to be created, it really doesn't matter what others say, if you disagree, the proposal will not work, hence we're not here to reach a consensus, we're here to reach an agreement with you. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Cantaloupe2, I believe I've only ever posted notifications of the two RSNs we've been involved in on the Cycling WikiProject page. I don't know what good it would do, nor if it is allowed, but, at the risk of annoying everyone involved, I would be fascinated to see what editors you can drum up in support of your editing. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This comment you left on Jehochman's talk page was in a highly POV tone. I think it is vote stacking, because you're looking around specifically for editors I've disagreed with known perceived opinion which is what vote stacking is about. Campaigning? Check. Jehochman follows his friend's company's page SEOMoz, which I edited as well.CorporateM followed me into that article by
  WP:HOUNDing. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ha! that's a funny one: that I shouldn't use a POV tone when leaving a note on another editor's talk page. Yes, when you have negative interactions with a lot of editors, it is possible that some of them will mention you in not the most positive way when writing to each other on each other's talk pages. However, if you were to look carefully, you would find that I left my note on Jehochman's talk page after he added his name to the list of users endorsing this cause for concern, so you would need to invoke time travel to accurately accuse me of vote stacking. In the meantime, as I've already mentioned, it would be enlightening to hear from editors who have something nice to say about you. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• An editor responded to my question about this on the RFC talk page. User:WhatamIdoing's comments included "You can generally invite anyone you want to help you draft the initial RFC/U page, even though they are likely to support only "your side"", "If the RFC/U is prompted by a specific, recent incident or two, then you probably should invite all of the participants in those recent discussions, regardless of which "side" they're on", and "The way we make this fair is by allowing the 'accused' editor to do the same: He may, for example, contact people to help him draft his response to the accusations, leave notes at pages where the dispute played out, mention it on his own user talk page, or contact a WikiProject or other groups of people who are familiar with the issues." This seems very helpful. Cantaloupe2, if you take into account the guidelines WhatamIdoing provided, do you still consider this discussion inappropriately vote-stacked? Dreamyshade (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PR related users campaign?

• gigs
• Nouniqueusername
• Lexein (after reviewing their user page)
• Eclipsed, whom appeared to work closely with CorporateM

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• NOT User:AndrewDressel. Never worked in or for PR or marketing. Probably never will. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Noun and Gigs probably fall in that category as well and Eclipsed and I have only worked together on a couple articles where I asked for his second opinion. Cantaloupe seems to raise canvassing concerns on every article where he has a dispute, so I've added it to the list of concerns. I have a hard time believing such concerns are raised in good-faith, and is not just an example of more battlegrounding. CorporateM (Talk) 01:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not User:Lexein either. I have never worked in or for PR or marketing, nor have I been (nor am I) affiliated with any source I have ever cited. What a desperate, obvious troll move for an obvious troll to make. See my User:Lexein page, everyone. --Lexein (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of details to help evaluate concern

In order to help us evaluate canvassing concerns, here's an attempt to gather all the details into one place for inspection, sorted into these categories: "not notified, as far as I can tell" (5 editors), "notified with the stated reason of being mentioned in discussion" (5 editors), and "notified due to other editors noticing past interaction problems" (5 editors). This includes details about the AN/I too since the RfCU grew out of it. Please let me know if I missed any notifications.

Putting on my analysis hat and looking at the "Appropriate notification" chart on WP:Canvassing, this seems to be a reasonable number of notifications (no involved editor notified more than a few others), the notification messages were acceptably neutral, and the transparency seems to be OK (it's plausible that the not-explicitly-notified editors were watching the talk pages of one or more involved editors). That leaves the question of whether the invitations were unacceptably partisan, and this is a difficult question to answer, because by the nature of Wikipedia editing, it's much easier to find unhappy editors than happy editors - editors who agree with your conduct aren't as likely to have had long discussions with you on talk pages and noticeboards.

Since I don't have an answer for that question, here's a thought experiment. What would happen if uninvolved editors looked at these notifications and considered them somewhat against the spirit of the canvassing guidelines? Would that invalidate this whole RfCU? I don't think so. I think this would still be a useful RfCU - it would just mean that involved editors will need to be extra careful to pay attention to outside views - to carefully evaluate the reasoning of outside editors and not assume that the number of complaining editors outweighs other opinions. (In other words, I think that concerns about votestacking could inadvertently distract us from evaluating the core issues here, so we should try to move on despite the possibly imperfect process.) Dreamyshade (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for neutral ways to invite outside editors?

Since there don't seem to be many volunteers watching RfCU requests, it looks like we should try to actively invite some outside opinions. According to this editor, options for RfCU notifications include article talk pages, noticeboards, and WikiProjects. In this case, posting to article talk pages seems more likely to invite involved editors than uninvolved editors, so I think that option is out. The available noticeboards seem more suited to content issues instead of conduct issues. So, WikiProjects. My current idea is to post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention inviting people interested in that WikiProject to check out all the current RfCUs (since they all seem to be a bit neglected). Does that sound OK? Any other ideas for appropriate invitations? Dreamyshade (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the village pump is an appropriate place to invite editors from different areas of Wikipedia. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 11:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents. When RFCs and RFC/Us are filed, they're transcluded on to

WP:ANI to the right of the pages. Any editors who frequent those two pages (such as myself) and take an interest will visit them. Given the number of watchers of AN and ANI some will inevitable pop in (again, such as myself). However, I should also point out that RFC/Us can be torrid affairs and as often as not many editors, outside of those listed in the certifiers and the subject of the RFC/U, are not likely to contribute much. This one would be a candidate for a "torrid affair". Blackmane (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Being fairly unfamiliar with dispute resolution, I'm just gleaming through some of the RFCU rules and an example of an archived RFCU. Looking at the example, I wonder if the RFCU should be in a different format. Not sure... Maybe we should just leave it until someone experienced in RFCU slaps us upside the head. CorporateM (Talk) 01:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Creation#General user conduct - it provides two options for starter templates, and I chose the "alternative template example" since "redesigned from the original to try to focus more on discussion than conflict" sounded helpful. I'm OK with changing around the format if you like though. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nm, just ignore me ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 01:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading the instructions correctly, after the RFCU has been "certified" by at least two editors, it needs to be moved from a Candidate page to a Certified page here. I Think we have about 10 certifiers and only two are required, so it should be moved? CorporateM (Talk) 21:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about this too, and I found a relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList#Certification: "It's manual, but it's best practice to leave it; another editor usually looks at it and is probably in a better position to be sure that the certification requirements have been complied with." Sounds like we should wait for an uninvolved editor to move it. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC/U seems to be grinding to a bit of a halt. So let's think for a moment about what it's here for, and what it's trying to achieve.

From what I've seen of Cantaloupe2's editing, it follows the same pattern, and has repeated this pattern across a number of disparate topics.

• Roll up at a new topic. Topic knowledge is not needed.
• Blank large sections of articles. Blank things as "unsourced" according to strict policy, but without any effort to source them for himself. Most content in most articles is unsourced (see
  WP:IMPERFECT), so this isn't hard to find. However, of that unsourced content, much is either easily sourced, uncontentious, or self-evident. By "self-evident" I mean deleting the statement [2]
  , "there is no evidence that cannnabis vodka has any actual cannabis in it" as "unreferenced and questionable". No - this challenged claim is the one that has no evidence for it, and such is unquestioned. Its antithesis or contra-statement is the one that would then need sourcing.
• Stir up argument with other editors trying to re-instate that content. Challenge their behaviour (truth or sourcing is not a requirement for this), challenge their added sources, challenge the notability of external sources and the accuracy of writing internal to the project. Most of all, keep the volume up (in both senses) – few editors other than a hardened flame warrior simply have the time or energy for such a conflict.
• Move on. After all, with no evident interest or commitment to a particular topic, all topics are equally ripe pickings for this behaviour.

I believe this post highlights the difference between the issues we've experienced. For me, the issue is that he has a tendency to question clearly reliable sources and claim that either they don't represent a viewpoint when it clearly does or it's unreputable when it clearly is according to RSN. In addition to that, cantaloupe may remove or tag content that's sourced with a reliable reference that doesn't disclose all the details behind the source. I believe I've discuss this with cantaloupe before on the iPhone 5 talk page, however he did the exact same thing at ipad 4. Given his past history I knew he wasn't going to allow editors to revert his bold alterations without discussing it on the talk page despite repeating previous instances of the same issue, hence such attitude towards WP:V and other referencing policies can be troublesome overtime. Of course if an editor is able to correct his/her behavior after being inform of the correct procedure then there wouldn't be a problem. His attitude to the policies may be an issue, however I'm more concerned with his behaviour and the way he settles differences. Im well aware of the fact that I haven't been the quintessential editor, however this does not excuse cantaloupe for his behaviour. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your contention to my edit at green dragongreen dragon, I removed that section that was labeled as "gimmick" because I don't find it relevant(and yes.. when we edit things, we do exercise our editorial decision to decide what is relevant). The discussed topic does not attribute the said purported "gimmick" to any respectable reference. It's also self-relevant that item in question does not contain dragon extract. I have to say adding "though it says dragon, it does not contain dragon extract" would be unnecessary clutter, as is adding a section titled "gimmick" to announce alcohol products that purportedly use the name Cannabis does not contain it. You're doing nothing other than expressing your editorial opinion in contrary to mine and you come across to me like "I'm right, you're wrong, because I said so". Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a turn-around. When an issue at RFC/U is about an editor, not a page, then your usual obfuscation technique flips around so that you still start banging on loudly about something unrelated, but in this case it's deflecting the editorial issue into a content issue. Nice technique.

As to that content editing issue, I'm sure anyone interested can follow my link and make up their own mind. Not your link mind, that's to the wrong page – a neat way to confuse and discourage the bystander editor even further. You're good at this stuff. Ever considered going into politics? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that you're still practising your technique of knowledge-free tendentious tagging [3]. Now you're even questioning whether Prussian Blue has any place in the treatment of heavy metal poisoning. Was this done on the basis of your ignorance of chemistry, or your ignorance of medicine? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm finding myself followed around by you on edits that do not pertain to you and it would appear that in my opinion you're on a bounty hunt.(possibly rel:

  WP:NPA). My understanding is that RfCU does not give you to take whatever jabs you want to take at me and rules of user conduct still apply to you and barring specific policy that say the subject of comment are barred from commenting, I shall be allowed to continue commenting. Please address any editorial concern on article's talk page. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• You've expressed your opinion before [4] that
  WP:COMPETENCE "it's just an essay". Some of us, those of us contributing to an encyclopedia, consider it as a little more important. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'd remind you that this RFC/U is about you and the damage you've been causing to articles. That's why there's a queue of other editors bringing it, because they have an issue with your editing, not mine. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder

"a neat way to confuse and discourage the bystander editor even further"

Notice how this whole section has become diluted by content dispute introduced by the master distractor and confuses the real issues, Cantaloupe2's attitude and non-collaborative behaviour with other editors. As identified by another editor... "troll" and polished at it. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is about how content disputes are addressed rather than the contents. You've conveniently forgotten to address some issues I have with that I addressed earlier. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have avoided your content disputes as your distraction technique to avoid discussion of the real issue raised with your edit habits toward others. Your methods of avoidance are well rehearsed and raises interest about your previous account. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you time after time to stop editing based on your personal experience and anecdotal evidence, because Wikipedia is not a repository of

Note: the edit being accused of being WP:OR by Cantaloupe2 was a revert of his WP:Hounding (he follows me to articles, reverts and tags) edit containing an enyclopedia for a reference. He was called out on it and edit reverted back to the original text with this edit history: "(Undid revision 533153265 by Cantaloupe2 (talk)Other encyclopedias are not WP:RS)". I injected nothing to be OR. Cantaloupe2 likes to inject confusion by grouping his edits, making them non-revertible and they have to be manually undone. He was asked not to do this early in the game. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop accusing editors of crap like that, there's no proof that the IP above is operating a sockpuppet nor is there proof that he has any intention of doing that. By stating such sentiments you are clearly displaying a high level of bias against editors who edit as IPs, and discouraging IPs from editing at all. You're basing these entire ideas on several edits, which all appear to have been made in good faith. Furthermore you're not in a position to ask others to stop editing given the issues that others have raised regarding you. I suggest we move this to ArbCom over the next few days if progress isn't made, as Cantaloupe has clearly shown us that he is unwilling to work with us to resolve this issue, regardless of who's involved. It's been over a week since an official RfC/U request was filed and two since a draft was requested, and so far he has resorted to creating unfound accusations and deflecting problems by bringing in content disputes despite numerous attempts to inform him of the purpose of RfC/U. The purpose of RfC/U is to allow users to reflect upon their actions, acknowledge mistakes that they've made and reach an agreement with other users, Cantaloupe has done none of these things. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I don't wish to follow Cantaloupe2's diversion tactic into making this into a content dispute, the point over "inductive impedance being non-lossy" is a good example of a repeated issue here. Cantaloupe2 is right here (Google probably told him this much): inductive impedance is non-lossy. However this isn't an article on impedance, it's one on power transmission lines. Like any real-world example, there simply is no pure "inductive impedance"; it's reactive and will be lossy – the real world is diverging from the simplified textbook here. The IP (perhaps with some knowledge of this), or Wtshymanski (who certainly has experience of power lines) recognises that the simplified schoolroom textbook explanation just isn't the full picture. It's certainly no basis for Cantaloupe2 to start railing against IPs in general and throwing around terms like "contaminate". The text may need work. It might want expansion as to the difference between a loss-less ideal and the reality picture. It might want explanation that short lines in the UK are trivially close to ideal, whilst for long lines in Canada this issue becomes significant.

What it certainly doesn't need is a dogmatic, generalised attack on all IPs, based on nothing more than knowledge quoted from the first line of a Google search. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that modifying existing uncited contents with another uncited, and this time with incorrect contents is unacceptable. As for the inductive impedance, its the IP that introduced it from the first place.. and its the same editor that is basically making an argument that contradicts his own edit. It stated resistance before they came along. I'm guessing they made a precarious free write up without attributing to references. Follow the edit pattern and maybe you'll be enlightened to what I would describe as damage by that IP editor. Andy Dingley, as long as the claim is supported with

verifiable, it is what we go by, not what editors believe to be correct, but unverified. That IP editor repeatedly exhibited behaviors of inserting unverifiable claims. Here on Wikipedia, published, verifiable reliable references pulverizes personal experience. Personal experience is useful in knowing what to search to locate references, but the IPs repeated addition of anecdotes that are hard to verify without adding citations is leading to issues between myself and them. Contents dispute is now at article's talk page. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

"is unacceptable."

No.

It is an absolute pillar of Wikipedia that this edit is "acceptable". That still applies to IPs, despite your obvious dislike of them. It still applies to incorrect edits, even repeated incorrect edits. Yet again, this is not vandalism and if you continue to treat it as vandalism or "contamination", then it's you who is in error, much so than the editor adding it, even when they're wrong. If edits are wrong, then we fix them. Then we fix them again. We have to keep doing this over an over again if we have to, with remarkable demands on our patience. But we still don't get to describe the editors making them as "contamination". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I woudl think that fix/unfix/fix cycle is edit warring. What policies are you basing your argument on? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note how the conversation has been rolling the subject matter away from the mainstream issue? Observe the top of this section to see where the OP started and what we are discussing now. Classic trolling techniques use this by slightly taunting the unsuspecting victim(s) with controversial attacks to keep them engaged but not enough to alert them. Notice the complete avoidance of any self-responsibilty in any matter raised by so many editors now? There is no learning process here for this tenditious editor. He knows how to work the crowd and it has served him well since he opened this latest account. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey IP, what do you mean by "latest account"? It looks like you're another unwarranted sock accusation. I've already addressed with that your free write ups on anecdotal accounts are causing issues between us and you continue to make provocative edits and admit to using "revert" rather than manually handle points of contention. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was directed to this page because Cantaloupe2 was starting an edit war and vandalizing an article. Find details here: Talk:George Hotz#Cantaloupe2_edits. Relevant edits by him: [5] [6]. I'm anonymous here, but I can confirm that Cantaloupe2 has:

(all in George Hotz article)

• removed lots of important and relevant information
• changed a working link into a broken one
• Placed wrong information

For me this looks like vandalism. As an anonymous user, I won't comment any further here, but I'm glad not being alone. Feel free to use this information however you want. --84.72.38.126 (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]