Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cantaloupe2

I cleaned up some of the temporary discussion, because I'm OCD, but feel free to revert if you wanted them up longer. CorporateM (Talk) 04:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sycamore's involvement
I might write a statement, but in case I don't get around to it (busy with school atm) my issues stem from the Pi Kappa Alpha article and WP:UNDUE concerns there. Sycamore (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like OVERTAGGING too. How's this as a placeholder? Just pasted your comment in. CorporateM (Talk) 04:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Avoid discussions in the request
We should avoid discussing content disputes in the request as RfC/U is solely about the behavior of editors, and attempt to discuss other matters on the talk page if possible to prevent clogging up the request. The last thing we want is another 60,000 character thread like the one at ANI. Also I strongly encourage Cantaloupe2 to help us find a solution to our issues, preferably by suggesting a compromise, I admit that my attitude towards him wasn't as civil as it could have been. However with the number of complaints here, you (cantaloupe) can't possibly suggest that you are not at fault at all, right? Please I strongly urge you to discuss matters with us, none of us to be involved this and I'm sure you don't either. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't claim "no fault". I'm suggesting that it takes multiple to engage in a battle and edit war, so if its community consensus that I've broke the rules on these, so have the opposing parties. If three others and I are involved in them and you were to argue that I'm involved w/ three incidents while others are only involved with one individually, I think that's like bullying. We have had 3Os and RfCs in iPhone 5 article and they didn't end with unanimous opinions in favor of you. What were you trying to accomplish at ANI? I felt that it was pot-kettle-black that you claim Civility when the ANI claim you filed in itself contained personal attacks and uncivility in and itself. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * These parties must have had issues with you prior to this incident, it's uncommon for one editor to attract so much attention in an ANI case, even if you had content disputes with them. You really need to keep in mind that none of them other than M0rphzone were notified, how they were led to the ANI discussion, I have no idea. My goal at ANI was to stop you from hounding me, it can't be a coincidence that 30 minutes after you left a hostile comment on my talk page, you edited an article on my user page. Honestly reflect upon that and tell yourself that that isn't suspicious, especially given your history. Why do you keep saying that no one voted in favour of me? - I can say the exact same thingabout some of the points you had. Even though I disagree with one of the comments left at RfC I have accepted it and article reflects it. I really don't want to say it but what you said is an example of WP:BATTLEground mentality. This page is not for content disputes, it's solely for discussions on the behaviour of editors. I don't believe my comments at ANI were uncivil, however I concur that my edit summary was not as civil as it could have been, ANI is watched by 5000 editors if I was out of line I'm certain someone would have told me. Civility is a problem that you've continuously had, assuming good faith is a core component of civility; though it's not the only problem. YuMaNuMa Contrib 23:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So, you're saying that "hasn't your mom taught you something" or some mock comment was within the scope of ANI discussion and your inclusion was appropriate? Your repeated accusation that my editing at 30 minutes based on your own Assumption of Bad Faith conclusion is tiresome. What you "feel" as WP:HOUND isn't hound. In YOUR evaluation, does this constitute hound? Why or why not? As the initiator of ANI, you can't blame me for every problem when you can not keep your provocative comments, snarky edit comments and such to yourself. Just in comparison I feel that Dreamyshade had been acting more maturely than you ever have been more willing to focus on contents and integrate 3O into consideration while you and CorporateM appeared to follow a pattern of participating in edit warring. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I know a hound when I see one, and you were clearly hounding me. I ask again, why that article and why then? You had numerous opportunities to edit it but why less than 30 minutes after posting hostile comments on my talk page? I don't have time to review all your edits to that article but if his edits directly conflicted with yours and were done soon after a negative interaction then yes. Your refusal to act civilly and failure to assume good faith was troublesome and most of these problems stem from your shortcomings - nobody else's. I clearly stated my problems with your edits and you refuse to reply to my concerns. I also warned you numerous times about assuming bad faith and informed you of my intention, yet you refused to change your behaviour and instead accuse me of deliberately adding bias information when at best the inclusion of the content could be disputed. I will accuse others of bad faith when I see it, certain of it and can back it up with evidence, it's my given right on Wikipedia and I will and shall exercise it accordingly. Please provide the kind people some examples of my snarky comments - besides the one you quoted and the edit summary. Hmm edit war, you mean the ones you repeatedly initiate after refusing to discuss issues on the talk page. YuMaNuMa Contrib 09:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If any editor feels that I have acted out line in any way when dealing with Cantaloupe, please let me know. YuMaNuMa Contrib 00:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know about you specifically, but from what I've seen most of us responded poorly, including myself. However, we have also responded the same way most people would to Cantaloupe's behavior. I mentioned that - from what I've seen at a glance - Dreamyshade has been very patient and is therefore a good person to lead the RFCU. CorporateM (Talk) 19:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, took a wikistress break for a day, but I think I'm ready now to help finish this up and get it moving. YuMaNuMa and others, consider explicitly including in your statements that you made your own mistakes and have x feelings about those mistakes - however you feel, which might be regret, feeling that they were small mistakes, feeling justified, feeling baited, etc. We can predict from Cantaloupe2's early responses at AN/I and on this draft that he will bring up those mistakes during the discussion as major points, so it's better to bring them up ahead of time with context/explanation. Also, YuMaNuMa, you might want to include more links to diffs for each of your statements about things that happened, so that RfCU reviewers don't have to look through edit histories to verify your explanation. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I added as many diffs as I could, however if more are needed please contact me via my talk page, as my school term has started, which means I won't have as much free time to browse for new messages on other pages. I'll still occasionally come to check up on the progress of this request, just not as often as before. Anyways, I just want to thank you, Dreamyshade for administering this request, I doubt it would have occurred as smoothly as it did without you. Cheers YuMaNuMa Contrib 04:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and sorry I was late on adding my own description! Dreamyshade (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

YuMaNuMa's replies to Cantaloupe's response to YuMaNuMa's comment
Nor did I say I was innocent, I made a few mistakes in my time at Wikipedia and unlike you I'm willing to admit it. At best what I wrote borderlines a personal attack and as for me "assuming bad faith", as I said before when evidence piles against an editor it's difficult to assume an editor performed a certain task in good faith - I honestly and sincerely tried to believe that but I failed to. I think I actually admitted that I was assuming bad faith in the ANI discussion. Also the diff you provided doesn't depict me assuming bad faith at all, asking you to take your delusional interpretations elsewhere is not assuming bad faith. Perhaps you should read up on that concept here - WP:AGF. As I previously said somewhere in that ANI discussion, I've lost all patience with you, hence my remarks. In my opinion some of your edits are beneficial to the project, however your behavior towards me from the beginning is a concern, I'm certain that if you treated me with some respect and not shout we probably wouldn't be in this situation today. I don't believe I've ever been uncivil to other editors until I encountered you. YuMaNuMa Contrib 08:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "your delusional" infers expression of your opinion in the form of personal attack. Perhaps WP:AGF might not be the right policy. However, I definitely feel its personal attack and confrontational disruptive editCantaloupe2 (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cantaloupe2! I hear you that all involved editors need to be looked at fairly, and that's part of the nature of RfCU: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." But I'm worried that you directly commenting on this draft is likely to cause premature arguing. After this draft is finished and submitted, you'll have the opportunity to respond in your own section. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Messages were moved here from the request page

Comment from 174.118.142.187 on Cantaloupe2's responses at ANI
Are his responses at the last ANI complaint not demonstrating a lack of collaboration and battleground behaviour? I mean most people with half a brain would recognise the stacked odds against them and at least state, at some point, "I didn't realise people were so concerned". He only counterattacks and accepts no fault, ever. Judging by his method of operation it appears he may have been a casualty of something in the past and now he is trying to, "sour grapes", shove the rules down everybody else's throat if they disagree with his edits. His constant "America-centric" obssesion has destroyed many fine numeric examples in many articles. He has been advised not to do this several times in R3O and other editors. Have a look at Compact fluorescent lamps where he removed any reference to American money in a chart somebody spent time to make up with a comparison in costs of different kinds of bulbs. He appeared to believe that Canada was part of America in some of his attacks on American examples. NEC was called spam in his removal edits. He appears to want to edit but the combination of his ignorance of subject matter and overboldness gets him into trouble and then he turns into a rule pushing and disruptive tagging troll. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The costs were removed for a reason and I've detailed it clearly in talk and you're the sole objector. talk on CFL. You did not offer comment in ANI in regard to you tampering with my signed comment by adding egregious comments. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment for YuMaNuMa and 174.118.142.187 from Cantaloupe2
WP:COMPETENCE that two of you have brought up. It's just an essay, but the very thing also questions the behavior of two of you. I've heard "I've lost patience with..." and have seen what appears to me as emotionally volatile behaviors. Ability to edit something dispassionately is part of neutrality and having a strong passion for something may be a COI as well. Within Competence essay here is my opinion:immaturity/social: lashing out at me, or having emotional temper tantrums. bias-based/ad hominem attacks. grudges. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to understand that we're not robots, we have emotions and do act upon them occasionally, though from what I've seen neither 174.118.142.187 or I have disruptively edited as a result hence competency is not an issue, we all came to the right place to report your behaviour instead of disruptively stalking others for the sake of proving a point or acting in retribution. Other than that edit summary I've have never lashed out at you before or made ad hominem attacks on you. Asking whether you mother has taught you two wrongs don't make a right is hardly considered either of those as it was a valid question given the situation. It was also no rhetorical, I wanted to know whether you understand that other's behaviour does not make you immune from your own shortcomings. You on the other hand seem to do things out of retribution. Patience is something that every editor has a limited supply of, and when that supply runs out due to another editor's stubborn behaviour, the editor may speak more bluntly than before as I have done so. YuMaNuMa Contrib 00:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mental health stability is one of the discussed topics in editing incompetency"Editors with disabilities that affect behavior or those that suffer certain mental health issues sometimes fall into this category."I disagree that your question was legitimate within the scope of ANI discussion. I believe it to be irrelevant, disruptive comment. By rationalizing your behavior as "we" you're making an inference that you're speaking on behalf of others as well. You stating that you will revert if no response is given and following through with reversion six minutes later, in my opinion, is a disruptive editing and unreasonable expectations. This is what *I* consider inability to resist your urge. (diff will be fished if needed)Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever, you've told everyone about that edit several times, it's barely relevant given the situation. I've explained why I made that edit several times to you and I'm not willing to repeat myself again. If anyone is interested in an explanation from me, it's on my talk page User talk:YuMaNuMa. Also, I'm speaking on behalf of humans who are not psychopaths - not that I'm implying that you are a psychopath... Your rationales for your behaviour are getting pretty ridiculous. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(The following is in response to "==For YuMaNuMa and 174.118.142.187==" and shall remain in that thread, and not refactored as if I started a new thread. This is a Talk page, but is not Cantaloupe2's Talk page. I've reverted Cantaloupe2's alteration of discussion flow) --Lexein (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Trolls try to trigger emotional responses in their victims, and thrive on them by celebrating the provocation, or mock-complaining that they've been "attacked." This is called griefing. The comment by Cantaloupe2 calls out "emotionally volatile behaviors" after directly provoking with a rather constant stream of problem edits & edit summaries & comments, combined refusal to admit error or lack of understanding, with more than 9 editors. AGFing, for a moment: Cantaloupe2, if it's not trolling or griefing, then it's ignorance or bias or unwillingness to learn or refusal to listen to advice, or just lack of WP:COMPETENCE as suggested elsewhere. Let's say for the sake of argument that I don't already know that it's trolling, Cantaloupe2: maybe you should just tell us: which is it when you mass delete content supported by RS (including 3 just-added quite incontrovertible RS) in your zeal to address 2 (count 'em, two) problematic sources? --Lexein (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the edit comment, your notation was that you reverted my edit 533519984, but in addition to that you inserted NBCnews and USA today which I missed it because you slipped it in under the edit note. The removal of NBCNews and USA today was not intentional . Now I want an explanation why you re-inserted dubious sources inclusive of but not limited to hiddendvdEastereggs.com,http://www.dvdEastereggs.com, coco25.com(open wiki, which according to item 12 in WP:ELNO, shouldn't be here) in this edit. As far as eeggs.com, you declared an intention of uncooperative behavior by asserting you undo [unilaterally] every removal of eggs.com in this edit and meaningless, confrontational, personal attacking edit comment "f off" as a means to express your disagreement is indicative of your battle ground mentality. McGeddon called you out on your interaction(which I would describe as belligerent) behavior as well. You're favoring one editor opinion expressed in 2011 RSN over 2010 RSN and chose to express the opinion you chose as a factual statement "because it was considered RS at RSN". This is factual misrepresentation, because opinion is not a fact.


 * this edit is a incivil and AGF failure


 * uninformative and provocative edit comment
 * Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I consider filling edit summary field intended to provide edit summary to all editors with gratuitous comments to vent personal issues of no editorial relevance is disruptive editing.
 * Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * On the former Crashplan article, Cantaloupe added a personal blog to add negative information where I had a disclosed COI. Considering Cantaloupe's normal editing behavior is to contest sources, be a deletionist, and uphold a disruptive level of standards regarding sources, I consider this kind of extreme double-standard to be a solid confirmation that it is intentional trolling and not a competence issue. He can't credibly argue he actually believed that was an improvement to the article.


 * That being said, we are all guilty of feeding the troll. Even in this very conversation. While it's only human to do so, that reflects poorly on us. Cantaloupe is also very good at making it sound like he genuinely believes his arguments in even the most extreme cases. In my view, bad-faith was confirmed here.


 * Since Cantaloupe is trolling and appears unwilling to change his behavior, the path for us is to pursue a ban. I believe persistent trolling is an acceptable ban criteria. However, to secure it, we will need to demonstrate better behavior ourselves. CorporateM (Talk) 14:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You admitted your earlier articles were overly promotional. I feel that your purpose and the mission of Wikipedia clash. I really should have retained all relevant diffs, but I did not maintain records as well as I should have, but will post diffs as I discover them. At one point, my recollection is that you were accused by another editor that you look the other way or minimize coverage on negative portions of reviews in pages you're writing for your client.


 * Two overtly promotional articles you participated/created fairly recently were deleted, which to me indicates you're using Wikipedia with advancing interest of your client more so than creating value for the encyclopaedia. So your PR work and my values inherently conflict. These are two non-notable(per community consensus) articles you've significantly contributed and deleted by the community Rokform, Tracx. Unfortunately, the talk page discussion is not accessible but I understand you said something in the effect that if its the community consensus, let it be so that YOU can let your client know that's what happened.


 * here a third party disapproved of your removal of "and also "Uploading backup data to CrashPlan's servers was slow". In his test result he reports that uploading 321MB during the initial backup took 4 hours and 7 minutes and noted that it stopped several times during the process and once in excess of an hour." from the prose, yet you never bothered to reinstate it.(diff of concern to be dug up)-Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is how COI is suppose to be done. I put something together for the company, but told them it was up to Wikipedia to choose if it deserves inclusion. I disclosed my COI and submitted them to AfC for consideration. One editor felt they were notable, others disagree - all part of the process. Both were done as personal favors to respective PR people. I think this is perfectly healthy for the company to put together what sources are available and let Wikipedians decide. Regular editors have their articles deleted all the time as well - it is not a sign of corrupt or disruptive behavior - it's part of the process. The content about Crashplan having slow backups was already in the article. I added it myself in the Talk page draft despite my COI. You added it redundantly along with other bad-faith edits. The admin you quote probably just didn't notice this. I don't know why I'm feeding the troll right now. Yes, OF COURSE where one has a disclosed COI they MAY have different objectives than Wikipedia, so they are encouraged to disclose their COI, be cautious, ask for input from other editors and use Talk pages. Having a COI or being an imperfect editor is not a good justification for harassment. Pointing out the faults of others (to which those others readily admit to some faults) does not reflect well on you nor excuse your behavior. CorporateM (Talk) 21:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Cantaloupe2, distort the facts as much as you like, it's all just evidence against you. I obviously "slipped" nothing in - my changes were transparently clear in the diff, if you had only looked. I also "re-inserted" nothing, I merely reverted your wild overdeletion of cited content (not just sources) twice, as too much at once without probable cause and without discussion, in order to deal with items and their sources one at a time, as explained in multiple places. The 2010 RSN was just ignorantly bad and shallow, lacking any proper examination of the site or its author. 2011 RSN was informed and more on-policy, with better analysis. The DVDwhatever source, I let go. The forum source, I let go, after trying to determine the author's bona fides, and I've pointed this fact out before, but you seem to forget repeatedly. The coco25 source, I let go because as a dead link, we couldn't verify anything! I don't believe it really was a wiki, but we can never prove that now, can we? Several sources, I refused to let go, as they are reliable, and remain so, for a variety of on-policy reasons which you and one other are simply "in denial" about. Your continuous misrepresentations of my edits won't help your case, so you would be better off to just stop it. Your obvious failure to contribute to the article by not even looking up one source, and deciding with zero research that sources are unreliable is just sad. Harsh edit summaries constitute nothing more than simple incivility. --Lexein (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So, you're admitting to doing a blind reversion inclusive of re-inserting bunk sources rather than reverting portions you disagree with. You also explained your conduct was due to "past bad experience" with deletionists. I essentially see it as carry over lash out. As I've already said; removal of USAToday and NBC was not intentional. You were called out for your conduct HERE Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * , "blind reversion" is not what happened, though you're free to try to misdirect, exaggerate and lie your way out of it. I reverted you twice, because you deleted content twice while deleting RS, and you did not bother to vet sources before deletion. My edits were solely to address your aggressive, "blind" (to use your word) deletionism, and were not to favor unreliable sources. Give it up. Falsely accusing people of that, and of being paid or COI editors, is all bullshit, and has no place here. You haven't yet explained why you deleted any content. Or why you didn't check these before deleting them: TIME, Supnik/SIMH, F-secure.  My conduct was fine: I disrespected your ill-informed actions, not the encyclopedia. This overreaction by a too-easily offended editor didn't bother me then, and doesn't bother anyone now. You fail to note that I let one-at-a-time removal of unreliable sources here, here, and elsewhere go, because they were one-at-a-time, and individually (if insultingly) edit summarized. Sorry you weren't paying attention. --Lexein (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

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 WP:V in my opinion is disruptive. The addition of personal reflective contents by the IP editor which I see as being contrary to WP:OR with an apparent expectation that others go scrounge sources for them had been a source of conflict between this editor and I.-Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2's note on CorporateM
He states "Insisting that the Controversy section goes near the top on the PRSA article was pretty silly as well."
 * 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:ADVERT issue is identified and an editor appears to be related in creating multiple such articles, following it for the purpose of neutralization is not WP:HOUND and I understand that he agrees with that too. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also see: WP:Don't call the kettle black.  -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) (coi)  10:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * fine. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Cause of concern
I have moved this comment, and its reply here from the Statement of the dispute section per the instructions that "Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section." -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This summary is supposed to be written neutrally as DS(Dreamyshade}suggested. It's an issue when this RfCU is written with POV statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs)


 * Hey Cantaloupe2, please give us a chance to work on this before pointing out problems. It's just a draft right now. If the RfCU is still badly POV when it's done, that'll be important for you to point out in your section. Commenting directly here when already politely asked to wait isn't necessarily going to help counter feelings that your editing patterns have problematic elements. :( Dreamyshade (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I was the one who suggested that we should write out this RfC from a neutral point of view, though it's not a requirement according to the RfC/U guidelines (as mentioned by AndrewDressel). YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to Dreamyshade's point, I don't know who DS is, but I can't find where it is written anywhere in RFC/U that the statement of dispute or cause of concern sections are supposed to be written neutrally. In fact, Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance2 suggests that the only text allowed must be either a view, a proposed solution, or an endorsement. Obviously, each point needs to be supported with diffs, as instructed, but none will be supported by a non-wikipedia third-party source, and so they are all just views. -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (I believe Cantaloupe2 meant "Dreamyshade" by "DS".) Dreamyshade (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * that I did. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

174.118.142.187's conclusions about Cantaloupe2
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)

Cantaloupe2's concerns about selective notification
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 vote stacking? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

PR related users campaign?
Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * gigs
 * Nouniqueusername
 * Lexein (after reviewing their user page)
 * Eclipsed, whom appeared to work closely with CorporateM
 * NOT User:AndrewDressel. Never worked in or for PR or marketing. Probably never will. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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.

Not notified, as far as I can tell: User:YuMaNuMa (initiated AN/I discussion), User:Dreamyshade (I saw YuMaNuMa's notice on Cantaloupe2's talk page and I later initiated this RfCU), User:Nouniquenames, User:174.118.142.187, User:Eclipsed.

Notified with the stated reason of being mentioned in discussion:


 * User:AndrewDressel - notified about the AN/I discussion by 174.118.142.187 with the text "Your edits were mentioned here as an example in this ANI discussion." Dreamyshade followed up with this RfCU notification: "are you interested in participating in the related RfCU drafting process (User:Dreamyshade/RFCU)? YuMaNuMa made a good-faith addition of your username due to involvement at AN/I, but I don't know if you're explicitly interested in being included".
 * User:CorporateM - notified about the AN/I discussion by Nouniquenames with the text "I brought up your IBAN request from before. Wanted you to be aware." Then notified about the RfCU by Nouniquenames with the text "You may want to take a look at User:Dreamyshade/RFCU. It may prove of interest to you."
 * User:Andy Dingley - not notified about the AN/I discussion, as far as I can tell. Dreamyshade added this RfCU notification: "are you interested in participating in the RfCU drafting process (User:Dreamyshade/RFCU)? YuMaNuMa made a good-faith addition of your username due to involvement at AN/I, but I don't know if you're explicitly interested in being included".
 * User:M0rphzone - notified about the AN/I discussion by YuMaNuMa with the text "I thought it would be courteous to inform you that I mentioned your name in an ANI case against Cantaloupe2." Dreamyshade followed up with this RfCU notification: "are you interested in participating in the related RfCU drafting process (User:Dreamyshade/RFCU)? YuMaNuMa made a good-faith addition of your username due to involvement at AN/I, but I don't know if you're explicitly interested in being included".
 * User:DieSwartzPunkt (not participating in AN/I or RfCU so far) - notified about AN/I discussion by Cantaloupe2 with the text "I'm an accused party by the IP editor at an ANI. One of the discussions I've added there is the sock puppetry accusation made towards you by the same editor. Perhaps you may find it worthwhile visiting."

Notified due to other editors noticing past interaction problems (not explicitly stated for first two, but both of them had recent disagreements with Cantaloupe2, so I think this is an acceptable guess; guessing about the third due to the section title of "An old quarrel"):
 * User:Lexein - notified about the RfCU by YuMaNuMa with a paragraph starting with "I would like to invite you to an RfC/U request regarding Cantaloupe2's behaviour on Wikipedia."
 * User:Sycamore - notified about ANI discussion by 174.118.142.187 with the text "You may want to be involved in this discussion regarding Cantaloupe2's editing behaviour." Notified about RfCU by CorporateM with the text "FYI, this discussion has now moved to an RFCU in-progress here."
 * User:Woz2 (not participating in AN/I or RfCU so far) - notified about RfCU by CorporateM with the text "You may be interested in Dreamyshade's RFCU here on Cantaloupe2."
 * User:Jehochman - notified about the RfCU by CorporateM with the text "BTW - regarding Cantaloupe2, this RFCU may be of interest to you. I noticed you two were interacting on the Search Engine Optimization page."
 * User:Gigs - notified about the RfCU by CorporateM with the text "Since you were involved in the edit-war discussion here I thought you may be interested in an RFCU Dreamyshade is working on for Cantaloupe2."

And some context from the AN/I discussion: User:Cantaloupe2 said (to 174.118.142.187) "I notified another editor that was directly discussed in ANI discussion you started, however it seems like you're looking for anyone and everyone who might disagree with me and notifying them even though they're not directly discussed." 174.118.142.187 said "Feel free to notify any other editors that interacted with you, as I have. I picked major contributors (easy find) to a few of the articles you edited. Perhaps you can find some to support your denials of any responsibilty in these conflicts." Cantaloupe2 said "I didn't solicit for your approval. I feel that you're votestacking by going out of the way to find someone who are likely to disagree with me even if they're not directly discussed or if they haven't raised the issues themselves in order to sway consensus and my issue with you here is that I feel that you're trying to interfere with consensus building by lobbying."

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)

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)
 * Perhaps the village pump is an appropriate place to invite editors from different areas of Wikipedia. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd throw in my two cents. When RFCs and RFC/Us are filed, they're transcluded on to WP:AN and 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)

Format?
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)


 * See Requests for comment/User conduct/Creation - 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)


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


 * 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)


 * I was wondering about this too, and I found a relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList: "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)

What's this RFC/U for?
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, "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.

This isn't new behaviour. Cantaloupe2 isn't the first of these editors. To some extent it's WP's own problem: behaviours are encouraged by the structure of organisations and arise accordingly. If WP invites with "anyone can edit", and some editors can't or won't build content, then we still offer them the opportunity to get involved by deleting content instead. WP's noble goals of quality and the need for editing have got to a point where we now emphasise "the positive need to delete everything in sight" more than we do to encourage writing content. I have a Twinkle toolbar in front of me with buttons to Prod, AfD or CSD articles, but not one to create an article. When rules like WP:BURDEN are set in front of those adding content, then clearly adding content is now against the rules. Thus an emergent class of patrolling hall monitors and parking wardens, who have no need and feel no need to write articles or content, but can still feel that they're "improving the project" by removing stuff. When did you last hear a WP slogan like "Stuff you don't trust must be DELETED" and when did you last hear "If you don't like it, make it better"? We've built this behaviour, we've built it by lauding editors by edit count, not by word count, we've built it by ignoring article educational quality over article star ratings. Then for those who can't even edit an article, there's WP's very own Facebook of AfD and all those !Like !votes you can post. You can't be the most popular cheerleader in class, but you can still vote to delete an article on some dumb, dull shit where you didn't even understand enough to read the words.

So what's to be done? Cantaloupe2 is a smart cookie and a wizard on understanding the legalistics of stated WP policy. So not surprisingly, there's little mileage in simply reverting or re-adding content, when it is indeed not sourced. However his behaviour to other editors is also far from according to the rulebook, and dear old ANI, for all its faults, isn't quite as dumb as it's made out. A WP:TENDENTIOUS editor still sticks out, and admins still know boorish, trollish behaviour when they see it. So give Cantaloupe2 his due: content needs to be sourced. After all, it's not that hard - if things really are simple enough that they don't warrant challenge, then they're simple enough we'll be able to source them too. It works the other way too – if Cantaloupe2 is to be a stickler for the rules, then we need to be too. His personal attacks are out, as is abuse of 3RR, and blanket slating off all sources by "I've never heard of it, therefore not valid" (of course he's not heard of it, Cantaloupe2 doesn't do content). This requires effort, and it requires effort by a lot of people. Consensus wins over 3rr brinksmanship, because one editor busy blanking (and quick to throw a single counter-editor to the wolves of 3rr) doesn't get to override a community of editors who can all recognise an adequately sourced statement and aren't merely there to get their jollies by playing at Important Editing Business. If he continues to talk crap, then we continue to remove it or replace content, as appropriate. And if we're all doing it, it's no longer possible for one editor like this to pick off articles one-by-one. It does take effort though, and it takes effort from all of us, acting together in the collegial way we're supposed to be espousing. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Responding to your contention to my edit at green dragon green 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)


 * 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)


 * I see that you're still practising your technique of knowledge-free tendentious tagging . 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)
 * 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:HOUND Marginalziing and minimizing others with accusation of "knowledge free" 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)
 * You've expressed your opinion before 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)

Cantaloupe2's comment regarding Andy Dingley
In my good faith attempt to contribute to address matters brought by the user Andy Dingley, I feel that I'm getting stone walled with accusation of bad faith (relev: WP:AGF) and put down comments directed at me. {relev: WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA). User Andy Dingley raised contention about this edit, so I have explained my reasoning. In a response, there was an error and the user criticized my error that occurred in my response made in good faith with the statement "a neat way to confuse and discourage the bystander editor even further. You're good at this stuff. Ever considered going into politics?". I don't see this discussion as a demilitarized zone to hurl personal attacks and I find his conduct unacceptable. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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 WP:OR. Here, you contaminated the article to an incorrect value without a WP:RS to verify the incorrect value. I had to go back and fix that. It is unacceptable to modify the article to incorrect information. Here is the very content contamination you've caused. It appears that you know that inductive impedance is not relevant in DC and this edit contradicts your very own edit earlier. If you were going to contradict your own edit, why did you introduce this in the first place? I understand you have nothing at stake seeing that you could simply hop onto another IP on a whim and I think that you've nothing to lose by starting a self-contradicting action that I would like to describe as non-constructive. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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 WP:RS, thus 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)


 * "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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

More Vandalism
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:. I'm anonymous here, but I can confirm that Cantaloupe2 has:

(all in George Hotz article) 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)
 * removed lots of important and relevant information
 * changed a working link into a broken one
 * Placed wrong information