Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:ThorLives and the Heathenry (new religious movement) page

In the almost ten years that I've been active here at Wikipedia I've never suggested that any editor be banned or blocked, but unfortunately I've come to the conclusion that it may be necessary in the case of User:ThorLives in order to prevent continuing disruption to the Heathenry (new religious movement) page. A self-described "Odinist" – and thus a practitioner of the religion that this article is about, a possible Conflict of Interest of sorts – it is clear from ThorLives' contribution list that this is one of very few articles that they actually edit, and that they have been active on it since opening their account in October 2011 (and thus they've had four years with which to familiarise themselves with policy). Thus, I do believe that their intentions are good, even if their behaviour of late has repeatedly and seriously violated a number of Wikipedia policies, including those on disruptive editing, edit warring, no personal attacks, and "outing", with no sign that they intend to stop.

The article in question was formerly titled "Germanic neopaganism", but in August 2015 a Requested Move resulted in the group decision that the page would be renamed "Heathenry (new religious movement)". Several hours after User:Sovereign Sentinel had orchestrated the move on 2 September 2015, ThorLives (clearly unhappy with this decision) created a fork redirect back to "Germanic neopaganism". Within the hour I had realised what they had done and undid their edit, thus restoring the page to "Heathenry (new religious movement)", pointing them to the recent Requested Move discussion in my edit summary. Unfortunately, they ignored that and simply restored their fork redirect. Only after being warned about their actions by both User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh and User:Sovereign Sentinel on the article Talk Page did they then undo their edit. This reflects not only an initial refusal to accept group decisions and a willingness to unilaterally act against them, but also shows that they are prepared to wilfully engage in edit warring.

The very next day, on 3 September 2015, they then proceeded to engage in a range of edits that removed much academically-referenced material and introduced content that was in part poorly sourced – consisting of self-published and other non-reliable sources – and in part not sourced at all. This was always going to be controversial. On 4 September I undid these edits, seeking to bring about the Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle. However, ThorLives then engaged in edit warring by restoring their edits. Also acknowledging the problematic nature of ThorLives’ content, User:Bloodofox then restored things to how they were, but ThorLives simply undid that too. On 6 September I once again restored the article to the established revision, but fearing that the edit warring would continue and that I myself might be accused of violating the three-revert rule, I successfully requested a three day full protection for the article, which was kindly administered by User:NeilN.

During this edit war, on the talk page I repeatedly requested that ThorLives engage in dialogue so that their proposed changes, which were both sweeping and controversial, could be discussed with other editors first. They ignored my requests, and in their response instead broke Civility policy by attempting to expose my identity, which is an attempt at "outing" and thus in very clear violation of our Harassment policy, which states very plainly that "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block". Since then, they have posted some rather odd comments on my talk page trying to "out" me further by linking me to a different user (and wrongly, as it happens) and making pretty uncomfortable accusations regarding my gender, and then most recently they've done it again on the talk page, this time making a personal attack by libelously accusing me of sock puppetry.

All in all, ThorLives has exhibited a pattern of disruptive editing, edit warring, and outing with no sign that they admit their errors and intend to cease. Attempts have been made to engage in constructive dialogue with them on the article talk page, all of which have proved fruitless. This has all been highly detrimental to the quality and stability of the article in question, and frankly has been unpleasant for me, and it has led me to the unfortunate conclusion (which I most certainly do not take lightly) that a block and/or ban (temporary or otherwise) on this user's ability to edit is necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I am completely uninvolved with this other than carrying out the requested move, and therefore I am abstaining from this discussion. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Update (14 Sep): As soon as the three-day full protection on the article ended on 9 September, ThorLives proceeded to make a number of additions to the article, including of non-reliably referenced material, which had to be removed by others. On 14 September, ThorLives again engaged in edit warring to restore information on pre-Christian religious movements, despite a Talk Page agreement from myself, User:Bloodofox, and User:Ogress that this information should not be included within the article. On the Talk Page they have also begun making accusations of "bullying" against myself, and accusing me of being unfamiliar with the subject matter (in clear violation of our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy). This is getting to be a real disruption for the article and the editors working to improve it, so it would be appreciated if administrators could take action. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Second update (16 Sep): Surprise surprise, but ThorLives is edit warring on this page again. As I specified above, on 14 September they restored a contentious reference that was being discussed on the Talk Page. Given that most editors involved in that discussion thought that this was damaging to the article (for various reasons), later that day their edit was undone by User:Ogress. On 15 September ThorLives simply restored it, ignoring Talk Page warnings that they should not do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Third update (18 Sep): Unsurprisingly, ThorLives has continued their edit warring over at the Heathenry page. Earlier today they added a Tag stating that the article's factual accuracy is disputed, and opened up a Talk Page discussion in which they repeated this accusation, without sufficient supporting information. User:Snowded, who has been otherwise un-involved in the article and its content disputes, removed that tag, explaining why it had to be removed. ThorLives simply then added it back in, (erroneously) accusing Snowded's removal of having been Vandalism. Yet again, the edit warring and incivility continues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives' response

From ThorLives — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorLives (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I suspected a "sock puppet." Midnightblueowl and Bhlegkorbh made the same edits and same arguments and disrupted the page in the same ways. If you check my edits, I was not deleting material: I was restoring material he deleted.

Both editors insisted that "heathenry" is the ONLY term for Germanic neopaganism. Folkish types do not like "pagan" because it has Latin and French roots.

Both editors deleted academic references dealing with medieval Norse Paganism. For example, who could object to the following, but both constant;y deleted it:

Our most complete sources for reconstruction are from Iceland. On the alleged existence of a collective Germanic paganism in medieval times, Professor Lois Bragg makes this observation: “But we have no persuasive evidence of any common cult, belief system, or even pantheon that might ever have been recognized among speakers of various Germanic languages across geographical, cultural, political, and dialect boundaries. While there are obvious commonalities, for example in the names of some deities (Odin, Woden, Wotan), these point to common origins rather than common praxis or belief. Compare present-dy Jews, Lutherans, and Mormons who share common myths (the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, the Moses cycle, the Patriarch cycle ) and who similarly name their children after the heroes of these myths (Adam, Aaron, Judith, Rebecca), but maintain distinctive cult practices and identities and even disparage and attempt to convert one another.” Lois Bragg. Oedipus Borealis: The Aberrant Body in Old Icelandic Myth and Saga Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. 2004. ISBN 0838640281

Both editors deleted saga, Prose Edda, and Poetic Edda references.n

Both editors deleted links and references to mainline pagan groups. This is the lede before the two removed it:

Heathenry or Germanic neopaganism,[1] also known as Ásatrú, Odinism, Forn Siðr, Wotanism, Theodism, and other names, is the contemporary revival of historical polytheistic Germanic paganism.[2] Dedicated to the ancient gods and goddesses of the North, the focus of Germanic neopagans varies considerably, from strictly historical polytheistic reconstructionism to syncretist (eclectic), Jungian, occult or mysticist approaches. Germanic neopagan organizations cover a wide spectrum of belief and ideals.

Much of Germanic Neopaganism's origins are in 19th century romanticism, as the aboriginal cultures of Northern Europe came to be glorified. In the early 20th century, organised groups emerged in Germany and Austria. In the 1970s, new Germanic Neopagan organisations grew up in Europe and North America, although a broad division in the movement emerged between the folkish movement, who saw it as the indigenous religion of the Nordic peoples, and the universalist movement, who opposed strictly racialist interpretations. As present, established Germanic Pagan communities exist in Europe, North America, South America, and Australasia. A few adherents can even be found in South Africa.

References to the Odinist Fellowship, Odinic Rite, Ásatrú Alliance, Asatru Folk Assembly, and so forth were constantly deleted by both editors.

Both editors constantly deleted references to Valhalla, a curious "conceit" on a page about Germanic paganism. (It makes sense, however, in a certain context. One small American group, who always uses the name Heathen exclusively, denies that Valhalla exists, and they argue that the dead continue to live in the grave mound)

Both editors deleted all references to modern Norse pagan leaders and their books, people such as Stephen McNallen, John Yeowell, and so forth.

I could continue, but you understand the point.

I should add that, in my opinion, an article on Germanic Neopaganism should be comprehensive, and should not promote a single agenda. It also should contain numerous links and discussions to help readers find related articles. --ThorLives (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorLives (talk • contribs) 04:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss content dispute, which seems to represent almost the entire gist of ThorLives' response here; they have neither acknowledged nor apologised for their repeated gross violations of various Wikipedia policies. All I can say in response to their above post is that I (and others) had good reason to delete the non-reliably referenced, in some some cases not referenced at all, often sectarian, sometimes irrelevant, and at times factually incorrect statements that ThorLives had insisted on repeatedly adding to the article (at the expense of concise, academically-sourced information on this new religious movement which they repeatedly deleted). Wikipedia has clear guidelines surrounding Reliable Sources which ThorLives disregarded time and time again.

As to the claim that I am sock puppeting and that myself and Bhlegkorbh are one and the same individual, I completely and utterly deny the libelous accusations 100%. I am not, and never have, edited Wikipedia using the "Bhlegkorbh" account (Bhlegkorbh appears to have thrown in the towel and left Wikipedia in July 2014 anyway). ThorLives' claim rests in its entirety on the basis that, at different times, myself and "Bhlegkorbh" have expressed similar arguments and opinions about how the article can be improved (primarily by adding in material from academic studies of Heathenry and deleting un-referenced and poorly-referenced text). However, similar opinions (which would, IMO, be held by anyone familiar with Wikipedia's Manual of Style), have also at times been backed by the likes of User:Bloodofox - so by ThorLives' reasoning I guess that that must be simply be another of my accounts too! Frankly, I suspect that the accusations of sock puppetry launched against me by ThorLives are in part an attempt simply to distract attention from their own behaviour. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives, why would anyone want a long quote about medieval or ancient beliefs (or in this instance lack of consistent beliefs) in the lead of an article about a modern revival? That kind of material MIGHT belong in later sections comparing modern/ancient or on the articles about the 'old'. I fear you are arguing from a different 'base' from WP guidelines. Pincrete (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments

This looks like a content war with some edit warring and mild incivility. Outing maybe, possibly but its not clear. I don't see any 3rr warnings on ThorLives talk page and you should exhaust process there before coming to ANI for a ban ----Snowded ^TALK 13:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would have waited until the edit warring got worse before bringing up the possibility of blocking/banning or anything like that, however when ThorLives started engaging in outing, which according to Wikipedia:Harassment is "grounds for an immediate block", I came to the opinion that the situation had become more serious and accordingly required a more serious response. (Also, in the spirit of disclosure for all readers, it probably is fair to say that myself and Snowded have had recent disagreements over content at Talk:UK Independence Party, which at points has become a little heated. That certainly doesn't invalidate their comment, but perhaps it is a factor that should be made clear - to use a colloquialism, we have history, as it were). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It just means I notice if your name comes up an ANI Midnight, its the way wikipedia works. Given that you seem well intentioned on the UK Independence issues I looked at this one to see if you needed any help, hence the comment ----Snowded ^TALK 00:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Reading the talk, I get the impression that 'Thor' doesn't fully understand how WP works, in the event of nothing happening here, might I suggest this is a candidate for dispute resolution. Pincrete (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Forms of dispute resolution, such as RFCs, have already been employed. ThorLives simply continued with many of their actions regardless, hence why there was the need to turn to the Administrators' Noticeboard. I agree with the statement that ThorLives doesn't appear to understand how Wikipedia works, however they have been repeatedly pointed to policies such as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources over at the Talk Page, so I do not believe that they can legitimately defend themselves through claiming an ignorance of policy. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's been over a week since I posted this issue and the problem is simply continuing. Can an administrator please consider doing something so that the article can advance without disruption? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Could we perhaps get administrative support for a Topic Ban, which would be less extreme than a wider ban yet would put a stop to the constant disruptive behaviour which is damaging the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

At the moment its a low level content dispute with some incivility from Thor who evidently does not understand how wikipedia works. I'm not sure he can be bothered finding out either but lets see how it plays out. This has come to ANI prematurely and should be closed. Normal process can handle it ----Snowded ^TALK 00:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

What about out WP:Harrassment policy, which states very clearly that "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block"? There can be no doubt that ThorLive engaged in attempted outing? Why are administrators turning a bling eye and the regulations being ignored in this instance? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

My only interest here is to prevent the additional degradation of the article on Germanic neopagansim. Midnightblueowl effectively rewrote the article using one book (see talk page), and I simply ask that other editors be respected. As to "outing," I am still convinced that he disrupted the article in the past under a different name. -- ThorLives (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives, either provide some proof that "he disrupted the article in the past under a different name" or remove it/strike it through. Pincrete (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives' claim that I "effectively rewrote the article using one book" is total and utter nonsense, as I demonstrate quite clearly over at the Talk Page. Their claims that I am the same user as Bleghorkbh are also entirely spurious, based only on the fact that – at different times – we espoused similar views as to how the article could be improved through the use of academic sources. Their attempt at "outing" was distinct from their claim that I am Bleghork and revolved around their attempt to name my off-Wikipedia "real world" identity - which if Wikipedia policies had been followed should have earned them an immediate block. Moreover, as their comment above shows, they continue to be totally and deliberately uncivil (using "he" when my profile makes it quite clear that I use female pronouns, etc). I'm genuinely bemused and frustrated as to why administrators haven't stepped in and acted on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism

Sandra opposed to terrorism has been making a lot of unnecessary and controversial edits on the 2015 Thalys train attack article, which have been reverted by me, Pincrete, Mezigue, and a number of other users. However, she continues putting those edits back into the article, and she has continued to do so despite ongoing discussions about them on the talk page. She also been making overly assertive comments in support of her positions regarding the edits. In addition, she needlessly criticized the quality of the article even though it's obvious she's the only one who has a real problem with what is being accepted as content. This is getting to the point of ridiculousness now and I think this problem needs to be addressed. Versus001 (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• [included user name Drmies (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)]

• You're going to have to be more specific. Which edits? I looked at a dozen, and while I can find fault with some of them, maybe, I don't see the problem. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The edits regarding the inclusion of Chris Norman being born in Uganda and the flags in the reaction sections, to name off the top of my head. Versus001 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. That will be the easiest way to get results. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There were so many incidents, and I've lost track of the history. Sorry. Check the article's talk page; there are a number of discussions relating to these conflicts. Versus001 (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. I can't go fishing for what I think you may think was against policy. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I need to bring attention to what's happening in this article somehow. Sandra's showing no signs of giving up on these useless edits she's been making! IF you talk to Pincrete and Mezigue, they'll agree that she's been a source of trouble as of late. Versus001 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

To me, Sandra is an inexperienced editor, with not very sound judgement, who has nonetheless succeeded in alienating most editors on the article by capricious, rather than vandalistic or PoV editing or behaviour. Individually, the edits (and edit reasons), are largely 'silly'. Sandra appears to get 'a bee in her bonnet' about an issue and invents spurious arguments to re-insert the wanted text. As an example, the majority opinion about a French actor, who happened to be on the train and who cut his hand trying to raise the alarm, but who was in no way in contact with the train attacker, was that he should be in one section of the article, where he is mentioned extensively, because of defending this argument, editors were accused of being 'anti-French', pro-American' etc.. Sandra was not winning the argument (she had none really, apart from caprice), so this message was left on French WP:Mort - Les Américains détestent M. Anglade . Ils ont retiré son nom de la liste des passagers. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, aside from the absurdity that a large number of are not US, but French or 'other' why 'Mort' ?

I could provide many other diffs, but will not do so, as I don't believe any 'ban' is called for at this stage. What would be useful is if someone could remind Sandra that if other editors object to an edit, one should engage on talk until at least the majority are persuaded, not simply leave a message on talk or in the edit reason that justifies the edit to oneself, especially as the messages and edit reasons make no sense to most of us much of the time.Pincrete (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I echo Pincrete's comments. The problem is that SotT's contributions to discussions don't make much more sense than her edits. I suspect this user might be a child, in which case I am not sure what the appropriate reaction is. (If they are not a child I know even less!) Mezigue (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Mezigue, individual comments would suggest to me 'young adult' or older in terms of age. Pincrete (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Either way, Sandra opposed to terrorism is a WP:SPA. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Not in the 'classic' sense of an editor who came here with a single PoV purpose. Pincrete (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. :) Versus001 (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Pincrete's statement in that I don't feel that any ban or action is required at this tine. I couldn't find any edits made by Sandra opposed to terrorism on the article to justify that any action is required. All users involved should be reminded to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. On a side note, Sandra opposed to terrorism - you should not close ANI discussions where you are involved, as you (did earlier) to this discussion. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to suggest a ban. I just wanted the higher-ups to be aware of the problem and give an appropriate response. Versus001 (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring again!. Where on talk is the discussion that justifies this Sandra? Where is the evidence that this info has consensus as being relevant? Because at least 4 seperate editors have expressed the view that it is NOT relevant, and only you think it is (though your reasons remain a mystery to all of us). You really do seem determined to prove to everybody that your editing is simply capricious, and that you are unable or unwilling to learn. Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I merely restored then improved on another editor's improvements. SEE Green Cardamom here [1] Your complaint is not an ANI (administrator's incident). Also supported by a third editor from Canada. [2] Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, unless they can verify their reasoning on why the edits should stay, we're going to continue opposing it, because so far, you're the only one actively defending your edits and you're not making a good case for yourself. Versus001 (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again another example of Sandra disregarding warnings and discussion. And an example of Sandra trying to implement every single detail that has to do with the article, regardless of triviality. Versus001 (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Lo and behold, another example of Sandra's disruptive editing. For the record, there is a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the length of that section, which she seems to have been unaware of. In addition, she has made some pretty strong accusations about the article being "gutted" and "vandal[ized]". This is getting REALLY alarming now. Versus001 (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

More examples of Sandra's disruptive behavior (continued DESPITE conversations on the talk page) here and here. Also, she has continued her accusations against the other editors for "gutt[ing]" the article AND Wikipedia itself here, all the while seeming to indicate more obliviousness (or perhaps unwillingness) to check another, more relevant section of importance. Versus001 (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Smear?

nb Sub-section heading added retrospectively Pincrete (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, the 'editor from Canada', at the time he left his post, had been an editor for had edited for the first time less than 4 minutes before, he had made no article edits and this was his 3rd, very minor 'talk' edit. Green Cardamom, has expressed no opinion on this subject either way, except that he thinks Daily Mail is RS on this (which isn't really disputed, especially as Gdn etc also say the same thing) - I don't know what GC thinks. Are those really the best justifications you have? Because, if so, I repeat what I said 'You really do seem determined to prove to everybody that your editing is simply capricious', and indifferent to the arguments of other, (mostly more experienced), editors. 'Ugandan' or 'African', is factually wrong, 'Born in Uganda' is mildly interesting, not very relevant, and I have no strong feeling either way about its inclusion. I DO have strong feelings about editors who aren't prepared to co-operate and respect others and argue their case in a rational way, and who instead edit in an 'I'll make a point now' way. It makes you look foolish. On WP, being inexperienced is no sin, neither is knowing less than others or making a few mistakes or … … BUT, not listening, IS a sin. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC) amended slightly, I was previously approximating Hickley80's inexperience, but have been challenged about the inaccuracy. Pincrete (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete is wrongly smearing another editor, saying he has been here for 4 minutes. No, he was here since November 2014 but may have had some contributions deleted due to the article being deleted. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Hickley80 I have written to Hickley so he can defend himself. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, your link is crap. Could you relink please? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Link works for me. It shows the log showing the creation date of the account. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Hickley80's contributions link is here, IF Sandra has access to proofs that I don't, then this is clearly an error on my part, not a smear. My suspicion is that Sandra is simply wrong (again) and desperately defending an untenable position. Sandra has not simply 'written to Hickley', but made PAs about me to this 'newbie'.

This is precisely the sort of foolish/careless behaviour that has alienated Sandra from almost all the editors Sandra has been dealing with. I, who came here defending Sandra, but hoping an admin would 'have a quiet word', now think that she is determined to prove herself 'beyond hope'. Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Re:Nat Gertler, now this makes sense, Hickley80's account was created in November 2014, but the only edits so far were made on 11th September this year. I hardly think that changes my comments about Hickley80's inexperience by one iota. He had registered as an editor 10 months before, but actually edited for the first time 3 minutes before! ... or what??

Now what exactly does Hickley80 have to do with Sandra editing capriciously against consensus? Because it looks like a rather inept attempt at deflection. Pincrete (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, what're you getting at? I just searched everywhere for the smearing you claim Pincrete gave this guy, and I have found absolutely ZIP. Could you provide the diffs, please? Otherwise, I will have to agree with Pincrete that you're trying to deflect the argument/make your detractors look bad. In addition, if you think Pincrete was indeed smearing this guy, couldn't you have started a completely separate discussion on here, or at the very least urged him to do so? Because this is EXTREMELY off-topic; we're talking about YOU and YOUR EDITS, not what Pincrete said to another user. Versus001 (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Versus001, clarification, I haven't said anything pertinent to Hickley80, I described Hickley80 above as an editor for 3/4 minutes (based on the edit history). In fact Hickley80 has been an editor for 10 months, and either never made any edits till 11 Sept., or all the edits have been deleted from the record. Either way, I don't believe I slandered Hickley80 by pointing to his/her inexperience. Pincrete (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I was merely saying that she needs to provide concrete proof that you were indeed smearing Hickley80, and that if she has it, she needs to begin a completely separate discussion. I do agree with you that this is anything but helpful to the discussion. Versus001 (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra Can I ask you please to delete this post on Hickley80's user page?, for his/her sake as much as mine. This person has hardly ever edited and doesn't need to get sucked into an ANI before they have started. I hope it is clear that YES, Hickley80 has been registered for 9 months, NO, as far as we know Hickley80 had not actually edited before a few days ago. Therefore there was no 'slander' or 'smear' on my part. Pincrete (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN has Sandra disregarded the current discussion on the talk page and made a few edits suiting to her own needs. On her first edit, she has also stated "as discussed in talk page, moving chronological events so they are together", but the aforementioned discussion had YET to reach any sort of consensus at the time of those edits. Versus001 (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

AND it's not the first time with this edit, but she did send me a cookie, which I guess makes everything OK. Pincrete (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

AND AGAIN !, virtually the same edit, already covered later in the article, despite clear opposition on talk to presenting the info here, or in this way. Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

AND AGAIN !, virtually the same edit, same objections, meanwhile we have WP:Canvassing over on an unconnected article. Pincrete (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

nb struck through as copied to and updated in section below.Pincrete (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

forum shopping

I brought this to DRN (dispute resolution noticeboard) and some of these complaining editors declined to participate. Them bringing an issue here is, therefore, forum shopping. Editors who forum shop should be blocked.

I explain my edits. I do not edit war but look for better references and give in to some ideas when a convincing reason is given. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware that such a discussion had been opened there at the time. In fact, I am sure I was blocked from editing during that time. Also, if you wish not to edit-war, then I urge you to stop what you are doing and discuss it with everyone else first on the talk page, so we can reach a consensus and THEN the edit can be accepted. Versus001 (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra ott, I alone declined to take part in the DRN, not 'some editors', and gave clear reasons, which I and others have explained. Briefly, they were that DRN should not be used till extensive 'talk' had failed to reach a solution. DRN is simply mediated discussion and it is slow. I have not brought this here, but even here you seem indifferent to the fact that 5 or 6 editors have exhausted their patience at times, because many of your edits seem simply capricious, though you are happy to re-insert them even when you know that they go against the broad consensus. You closed this ANI, because YOU decided it was 'forum shopping' (which it isn't). Even while here, you re-inserted 'born in Uganda' in the article (at last you understand the difference with 'Ugandan') giving a spurious reason (Daily Mail is NOT a better source thsn Gdn), the reason other editors don't want it is not because of the quality of the source, but because they think it is irrelevant (I don't care either way, but object to the behaviour). Your 'reason' for including this? Because 'African lives matter', that would be silly if he WERE African, but he isn't. Pincrete (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• The DRN case in question is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 122#2015 Thalys attack. Although I am a DRN volunteer mediator, I was not involved in this case and am expressing no opinion here. I am just providing the above link for convenience. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Reasons to close this discussion

1. Forum shopping by the original posters of the ANI complaint. It was in DRN and can be reactivated simply by Pincrete giving the OK.

2. It is a content dispute. Luckily it is not acid yet. There is multiple disagreements by multiple authors. GreenCardamom just sided with me as well as several other editors on at least some points. One issue is very basic. When writing a bio of a few sentences, their country of birth is important. One passenger who fought off the terrorists on the train was born in Uganda (Africa). Try deleting President Barack Obama's birth country and you WILL have a huge fight, from good Wikipedia writers, to Kenyan birthers, to occasional Wikipedia students, etc.

3. We can agree in time. The content disputes are minor compared to the issues that other Wikipedia articles face. These include the use of flags, listing the country of birth, short bios, national reactions, etc.

Let's have fun and write for Wikipedia and not create an acid environment. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, good advice is when you are in a hole - the first thing to do is stop digging. Good advice when you at ANI, is to show the slightest understanding of WHY, criticisms are being made.

The DRN cannot be reactivated by me, not simply for procedural reasons, but because the issue has been (fairly) amicably resolved on talk, what would we be disputing? Besides I'm not Versus who started this, if he and I and others agree about some things, that doesn't mean we are 'acting as one'.

You don't seem able to understand what 'forum shopping' is, if Versus didn't get the result he wanted here, and went to another noticeboard arguing much the same thing, THAT would be forum shopping, but Versus didn't initiate the DRN, nor is he using this ANI to solve a content dispute. If you REALLY want to start a new DRN about whether 'born in Uganda' should be included, no one can stop you, but why not wait to see what the arguments on talk are?

As far as I know, Obama was born in the US (unless his detractors have been right all along!), his Kenyan father/ siblings/ aunts/ visits, would NOT be mentioned where they were not relevant … … just as spending part of his childhood in Indonesia wouldn't suddenly make Obama Asian. Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Try removing President Obama's birth city from his article and there will be a huge fight against you. In the content dispute, some editors (not just me) have put back that one passenger patriot was born in Uganda. The article mentions where others were born, too, like USA or France. You are picking on me because you have already chased away others who made contributions to the article. Please don't keep doing this. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, Obama's personal article is about Obama. An article about something else Obama was involved with wouldn't mention his place of birth unless relevant to that subject. No one has defended the inclusion on 'talk', not even you except for reasons that make absolutely no sense. I don't care much either way but do/did object to it being represented falsely (Ugandan) and do object to edit-warring based on spurious analogies and foolish arguments. I don't know what the word 'patriot' refers to here. The article mentions where ONE person was born, for good reasons explained many times, which you don't seem able or willing to understand. Pincrete (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, what in the world does OBAMA have to do with the attack article? His scope of relevance doesn't extend beyond him calling those three Americans for a pat on the back. Versus001 (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra I also believe you have been a unintentionally disruptive editor. I think you mean well, but are continually making changes that are questionable. For example right after we had a article rename closure, you started a new discussion about renaming the article to something totally different (not previously discussed). I personally reverted every edit you made in a 60 minute period (it was like around 4 or 5) as they were so unnecessary. Many editors have expressed frustration with your editing. I would suggest limit the number of edits you make each day and take time to think about them beforehand. -- GreenC 21:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm going to ask again but is it possible for someone to actually provide diffs and summarize the issues here? We'll all volunteers here but if you won't spend the time to organize a simple summary it will likely be ignored. Disputes about general competence require a lot of evidence generally. It looks like the dispute is about 2015 Thalys train attack so would protection be a better solution? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, to summarise, Sandra opposed to terrorism, is editing against consensus over about 3 weeks. At least 4 editors here, User:Green Cardamom, User:Versus001, User:Mezigue, (and to a lesser extent User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi & User:Mathglot), and myself have repeatedly had to revert edits which just seem capricious or foolish. The only pattern/PoV to them is an apparent determination to place an actor-witness at centre stage of the article. I have put a sub-heading above "Smear" where the most recent diffs are listed (from 'ONCE AGAIN'), some of these edits happened after User:Drmies expressed agreement with the majority view on talk and later Drmies cautioned Sandra. We all came here prepared to have an admin advise Sandra, however, since being at the ANI, her apparent determination to act against consensus and to not meaningfully engage on talk has increased. There are also PA issues above in 'Smear' above and elsewhere, and minor BLP issues, but they are more 'silly' than anything. I'm afraid this has become an WP:IDHT, and WP:CIR situation because of Sandra's inability or unwillingness to meaningfully engage. Pincrete (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Pincrete: I'm as frustrated (1, 2(fr), et al.) with Sandra's edits as anyone, but you have to understand what Ricky81682 and others are saying about respecting process and providing diffs. Now I'm not an administrator, and I don't speak for them, but as frustrating as the situation is over at Thalys, you can't expect admins or other third parties to follow vague comments about an article they're not familiar with, without following process to the letter, and a large part of that is specific claims, backed up with diffs as evidence--lots of them. Most of the words expended here have been a lot of venting on both sides, and almost nothing the administrators can really help with. As this has become rather lengthy with almost nothing actionable here, I think you really need to step back and either close it and reopen another one, or ask the admins to hold this one open for a bit, while you take a breather to marshal your forces, read up on ANI process, and gather your evidence.

In the meantime, I'm not so familiar with ANI myself, though I've looked at a few of them, and I remember seeing some very well organized ones as far as process is concerned (though no less contentious, and sometimes a lot more so) so I'd like to ask @Ricky81682: if you would be so kind as to link a couple of "sample" ANIs (either open or closed) that you think are fairly good examples of process, wrt clearly stated arguments, proper use of bulleting, claims, evidence, and diffs, and so on, and link them here. Not looking for perfection--the nature of this beast is that they are messy, but something that might provide editors here a guide to process so they can better present something the admins can address, which is what we don't have, now. This might help all concerned. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Mathglot, my prev. message was written in a hurry, and quite a few diffs are given above, though the ones that concern me the most are those SINCE the ANI opened, since these show not simply inexperience, but a perverse dis-regard for consensus. The problem is that no single edit constitutes vandalism, rather a pattern of 'WP:IDHT, and so I'll just do what I want', regardless of what others think. I'd still be happy with some sort of admin oversight rather than 'punishment'.

I didn't open this ANI, so it would be inappropriate for me to close it. Though I have no objection to someone else closing it, perhaps with a reminder to those concerned, that when an edit is challenged, consensus needs to be established on talk BEFORE re-inserting virtually the same text, not simply by leaving a message on talk 'justifying' one's latest re-insertion to oneself. Pincrete (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not true. People other than the opener of the thread can close it. However, I agree that this thread should be closed. Unfortunately, I believe a few editors here are opposed to my edits because they want to attack me. Many of my ideas are very sound. One idea is to include things chronologically (some editors seem to dislike the French actor, Anglade, and want to exclude his account of the train crew running away). That's just one of many examples. Closing this ANI is the right choice. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, the reason editors want to move Anglade's account of the crew running away down the page, (not exclude it), is because he himself has withdrawn the accusation and partly apologised for making it. Knowing this, your representing his account as FACT, is grossly irresponsible and borderline libellous. Not even the (out-of-date) sources you cite, state it as fact. Pincrete (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, we are not trying to attack you. This is not personal or anything (if it was, all of your edits across the board would probably be reverted, not just the ones you're providing to the Thalys article). Your edits on that article are usually not helpful and seem to be made out of your own personal interest, you have been disregarded simultaneous discussions on the talk page when consensuses are not yet made, and your attitude has just made things worse.

As for the discussion about the diffs, at the time I made this section, there were just too much to count and I didn't want to scroll through an entire history archive to search for all the diffs. However, judging by what I've seen from the first couple of pages of the history as well as the talk page, it seems that the problems started since the beginning of the article (when I wasn't present), with Sandra's first attempts at implementing an irrelevant reference to The Wounded Man. Here is the discussion. Versus001 (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, what I'm saying is something like: Sandra is ignoring consensus because Sandra is conducting the same edits here[diff1][diff2][diff3] or is just being argumentative without thought as seen at discussion [here]. Provide the edits showing reversions. Are you saying it's one particular issue or just a series of Sandra wants the article to look a certain way and the other editors disagree? Are the edits vandalism? Blatantly against policy? Are they bad English, incoherent? There's a discussion about the fact that the article was allegedly "split" and Sandra attempted to merge them. There's consensus against that so the next step would be something at WP:DRR if Sandra wants to try that. Otherwise, there's issue regarding the insertion of a particular paragraph I see. Same thing: again, is this being discussed at RSN (I don't see it). Again, try to help me out here more than "here's a list of people, go review all their edits and somewhere in there you'll see an issue" and simply because Sandra is a lone individual in disagreement doesn't necessarily mean there's a conduct dispute here. It's not normally this difficult to discern where the problem lies. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring during this ANI

Ricky81682, copying from above, and ignoring all behaviour PRIOR to the last few days we have 1) ONCE AGAIN has Sandra disregarded the current discussion on the talk (left by Versus001) In all the cases, 'next', will show one of four editors reverting the edits, as they are against consensus and at times borderline libellous.

2) AND AGAIN !, virtually the same edit, on a topic already covered later in the article, … … 3)AND AGAIN !, virtually the same edit, same objections, … … 5) meanwhile we have WP:Canvassing over on an unconnected article and yet another article. Talk page shows there is widespread opposition to these edits, and no rationale for including these edits, nor in 'Ugandan' nor in an edit war over the spelling of 'spelt/spelled', (which I was not part of). Pincrete (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC) … … 6) the same edit … reinserted again since my post (note source says 'claim' the edit states 'fact'). Pincrete (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC) ... 7) and AGAIN, a shorter version of the same text, (based on withdrawn claims in out-of-date sources, yet presented as fact).Pincrete (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC) … 8)AND AGAIN, shortened (scroll down), version of same withdrawn accusation, presented as fact. Accompanied by another 'pet issue', the number of wounded, which is at best Synth, since this number is not supported by any source and is the subject of a seperate slow edit war. Pincrete (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC) … … 9)AGAIN, substantially the same material, later modified so as to be no longer libellous, which all other editors believe is UNDUE, and for which no arguments have been made on talk for retaining. Pincrete (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC) … … 10)AGAIN, substantially the same material + other edits which are opposed on talk, despite the edit reason, there are no arguments on talk apart from 'I want'. Pincrete (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC) … … 11)AGAIN, substantially the same material + other edits which are opposed on talk and removal of material agreed on talk. Pincrete (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The obvious problem is a content dispute and many the participants are behaving substandardly. Best to protect the article for a time; and advise no changes additions/deletions unless consensus for them. This has devolved to absurdity, with edits like this [3], where one editor reversed the addition of the year in the lede, with an edit summary that it is in dispute. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, the editor was not reverting the year, if you scroll down, he was reverting the disputed section, which is highly contested as to whether it is fact, and which is already covered, in context, further down the article. Removing the year was the accidental by-product of his revert, and his edit reason was correct. The accusation presented as fact IS disputed, has mainly been withdrawn by the accuser, besides being already covered in a neutral fashion later.

Also, I cannot see how 6-7 experienced editors broadly agreeing on content, with one repeatedly ignoring that consensus, can be described as a 'content dispute', rather than behaviour. To the extent that it is, it is up to that editor to establish (RfC or wherever) that they HAVE a legitimate case. Do you see any sign on talk or here at this ANI of them doing so? Pincrete (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• The year was ALSO reverted under the same explanation: a clear error. Indicating to me that edits are being made without due care and reflection because the editors involved are too quick to "undo" first and examine what they've done later. Page protection will solve that and enable the discussions about consensus to take place on the talk page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes the year was ALSO removed, and I try myself to be careful in such matters, however, the removal of the year (not essential in the same year as the event), is 'small fry' compared to removing the substantial, discredited, text. When one has had to revert the same edit/or umpteen times, explained why fully umpteen times, received no (intelligable) response umpteen times, I think making the small mistake of not noticing the year going is forgivable. Other editors are also human and eventually exasperated. Most editors here are, and have been very cautious, careful and responsible. Pincrete (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Carlossuarez46, Pincrete, the removal of the year was intentional on my part. I thought it was unnecessary at the time, so I removed it along with the discredited text. My apologies, I probably should've been clear in the edit summary. Versus001 (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Versus001, apologies for misrepresenting the 'year' removal. I don't know myself whether its presence was necessary/normal. My main point remains, that your 'error' - if such it was - is trivial compared to repeated, disruptive, edit warring with no comprehensible logic to it and no defence offered either on talk or at this ANI, and that therefore making all editors responsible for the problem is unjustified. Pincrete (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• I wasn't weighing whose editing and edit summaries were worse than who else's; I was merely pointing out that there is more emotion here than necessary. I am also not inclined to accept the invitation to move any discussion to my talk page, as has been offered. This is the right forum. As for why I haven't page protected the article myself, as asked on my talk page, the suggestion doesn't seem to have any traction. IMHO, perhaps the community is more inclined to allow you guys to waste your time edit warring than to read all this mess to figure out how or whether to stop you all, but who knows. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, with Sandra's attitude towards all of her edits being removed and her "reasoning" for her edits, I wouldn't be surprised if it's rubbing off on the rest of us. I for one have gotten pretty frustrated with Sandra when I have been trying my best to be neutral about this. But this seriously can't just be resolved like this. If left without a proper response, I can see this whole situation escalating into a bigger cavalcade of edit-wars than what is going on right now. Versus001 (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I added that Stone was awarded the Purple Heart medal and it was removed. This is an important fact and not a content dispute (anymore that it would not be a content dispute if editors were debating whether the George Washington article should mention that he was President of the United States). A content dispute is whether to include flags or not by the list of countries. It is lunacy when a debate on whether to remove the fact that the Purple Heart medal is being awarded. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The information was removed on the basis that it was not cited. It is always important to cite information once you put it in, otherwise it will be assumed to be useless information (probably even original research) and removed. Fortunately, you did cite the information again on the second try (albeit in a bare URL that I had to fill in), so it should stay up this time around. (I, for one, do think the Purple Heart's pretty important to note.) Versus001 (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Point of information, all the awards have been/still are in the article, the only information removed is a present of a 'Chevy' by a talk show host.Pincrete (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• The conversations on that talk page are just excruciating, and a good argument for a ban on articles on topics that happened in the last five years. Anyway, Sandra opposed to terrorism combines general disruption, editing against consensus, IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, forum activism, and just about everything else that we dislike. A block per NOTHERE is actually overdue, I think, and I would have done that already had I not edited the article a little bit. We don't need admins wiling to make a difficult block--we just need an admin to make an obvious block. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur. At this point, this is getting really frustrating and the only way this can stop is if Sandra is blocked. Versus001 (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I also concur with everything said by Drmies and Versus001, behaviour has gotten worse, not better, since this ANI and 'newbie' has now become NOTHERE. Pincrete (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've had enough of this. The ANI thread isn't attracting helpful attention; I've warned the editor on their talk page. ANI sometimes offers good suggestions, but not this time, and if this continues a block will be the necessary result. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This has not been helpful AT ALL, and it only served to open up another forum where Sandra and the rest of us can hash it out. Drmies, I wholeheartedly stand by the option of blocking Sandra, so do bring up the topic where it's needed. Versus001 (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Not surprised that you agree, Versus001. You have been blocked twice for bad behavior in that article. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's just once. And I don't see what THAT has to do with anything. I've learned my lesson from that block. YOU on the other hand are deserving a block as well, since you've been maintaining a disruptive attitude in regards to the article. Versus001 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the citation for you....Twice. Sandra opposed to terrorism Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

[Block templates from Versus's talk page removed--Drmies.]

Where's the citation? Never mind, I thought those were for you. But the question still stands: What does this have to do with why you should be blocked? Versus001 (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, if you have a complaint about Versus001's, or anyone else's behaviour, state your case, otherwise this looks like a pathetic attempt to deflect attention from your own behaviour, which is the subject of this ANI. Pincrete (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You are egging me on to a fight. I decline to fight because I an a good Wikipedian. However, this ANI thread is forum shopping as it was discussed elsewhere. Therefore, it should be closed unless people like Pincrete are trying to be punished. Let us do the best for Wikipedia and edit nicely, not edit badly or try to pick up fights. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Violation of NPA, POLEMIC, POVPUSH, CPUSH of by Nishidani

WP:NPA Personal attack – "arguing on behalf of organizations with an ethnic cleansing programme" and after I continuously asked him to delete. [4] [5] [6] [7] His answer was "it is impersonal, and does not name you" which I find more insulting then the original. Who was it directed to then??? It hasn't been deleted yet!

WP:POLEMIC Quotes such as "a convenient political story to allow people from Brooklyn or Moldavia with no historic connections to the area..." or "...the assumption that a non-existent God was a real-estate tycoon dispensing favours to non-historical figures like Moses and Joseph whose fairy6 tales..." might not be personal but I find them very offensive. To say they expose extreme bias would be an understatement.

Repeating violations of WP:NEUTRAL (WP:POVPUSH)

• Morally wrong POVPUSH – [8] [9] [10] [11] The assailant is presented as the victim. How about this – Two brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi were shot dead after (allegedly???) killing 11 people at Charlie Hebdo.
• Severe POVPUSH – "Regavim (רגבים) is an Israeli NGO, one that, according to its critics, is described as a 'settler-colonial NGO'.[1"] - I believe it speaks for itself. Completely off of any imaginable line.
• In editorials on Jpost two NGO members falsified Yaakov Havakook book. While the Regavim person was 'demonstrating the unreliability of Regavim', B'tselem person was found to have 'impressions of reading Havakook's book'. I can see no reason but PPOV.

Repeating violations of WP:CIVIL (WP:CPUSH) Is there a good way to give evidence for CPUSH beyond asking one to read the talk page?

• Demands other editors to quote policy for removal of material[12][13] but himself support removal removal based on lengthy explanations not based on policy.[14][15][16]
• On Susya#WP:OR again.Settleman for example I asked Nishidani help build consensus ("You are a big boy. Make a constructive suggestion") instead of removing material. Then again started a whole conversation about Regavim which was discussed on the talk page and RSN.
• Havakook's book (Hebrew), quoted by the UN, scientific publications and NGOs on both sides, was questioned again with some allegations of no oversight etc'. (This is from an editor who uses all kind of NGO material published on their site). At the end I had to translate for him an additional part of the book.
• In regards for Havakook (again in Hebrew which he doesn't read), He pushed me again and again on whether the chapter talk about Susya, which I had to answer several times. Then here he just drops in text that doesn't even mention the subject of the question (status quo on Temple Mount) and when asked about it give some lengthy explanations[17][18].
• Oppose 'pro-Settlers' info b/c it is 'generic'/'political statements' and edit-in 'anti-settlers' info b/c it 'has also been mentioned'.

I was debating whether to file this before or not but the double standards Nishidani has are just impossible to work with. He hold other editors to one strict standard, but don't hold himself nearly to the same demands, meanwhile, he just wasted my time. Then comes the NPA which he refused to delete and POLEMIC statements which really do not belong anywhere on wikipedia. Some of POVPUSH he exercise isn't just pushing a point of view but like the example above, presenting attacker as a victim is IMHO immoral.

Note - I prepared this for WP:ARBPIA3 but was told by one of the admins that it doesn't belong there but here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settleman (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 September, 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, if anything, a WP:BOOMERANG is in place. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you ...Settleman, who first start an article about said (hardly notable) "Yaakov Havakook" (Havakook does not have a PhD, and has never worked for any academic institution), then proceeds to push him as an "academic". This, while at the very same time "branding" David Dean Shulman (a professor at Hebrew Uni., ) as a  mere "Ta'ayush activist": here here, here, here, here and here. It is simple, really; if you support Israeli settlers on Palestinian West Bank and the expulsion of Palestinians from their land: then you are instantly hailed as a genius. If not: Booo: you are a "Ta'ayush activist" ..or worse. So predictable. Get over it, Settleman: however offended you are: it is still a fact that many (most?) people consider Israeli settlers on the West Bank as absolutely nothing better than thieves. Yes: thieves. And if people don´t want to be called thieves; that´s simple: don´t steal. (And don´t give me that history part: unless we want, say Romans to come to London, and kick Londoners out of their homes because "London was once ours!". Sorry, it doesn´t work that way.) Huldra (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, instead of so many words in a forum manner: let's be more simple and read his author page:

• "David Shulman is the Renee Lang Professor of Humanistic Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an activist in Ta’ayush..."

already existing in a "Huldra, Nomoskedasticity & Pluto2012 reverts" topic where you are nebtioned too. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Settleman is WP:NOTHERE. He is on wikipedia only to defend the image of Israeli settlers as proven by his edit war here or his pro-Arutz Sheva pov-pushing (here, here or here). He was warned for this. He also accuses other editors to be hypocrite at the ArbCom despite he was asked to avoid such attacks. There are sevral other exemples of WP:POINT and WP:POV pushing directly linked with this issue of pro-settlers [paid?] editing. At best, he has a deep conflict of interest. I add that I am amazed by the number of policies Settleman knows as well as the arcanes of wikipeida, this just after 6 weeks of editing. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI: the answer of Nishidani to this WP:AN/I request (Added by Pluto2012 (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)).

I strongly endorse Huldra's suggestion to consider this a case of WP:BOOMERANG. Zero^talk 00:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: A time-honored tradition here is that people who report someone have their own behavior looked at too. I honestly believe that you would not come out looking good from any dispassionate comparison of your editing with Nishidani's. Zero^talk 09:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Is it your private opinion or as administrator's one? --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Under the rules I don't have extra authority as an administrator in areas of the encyclopedia which I actively contribute to. So my comment should be taken as the opinion of an ordinary editor with experience of both people under discussion. Zero^talk 02:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

To all who criticizes Settleman: do I understand right that you have no claim to Nisidani (i.e. he did not break any Rules)? --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This user obviously doesn't understand the policies and guidelines he linked to above. I also support a WP:BOOMERANG for Settleman. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: @Pluto2012: @Zero0000: @Sturmgewehr88: - This has nothing to do with Shulman or WP:BOOMERANG. Except for 1 comment on Huldra talk page, he wasn't even part of the discussion (I accepted and remove similar LABELs from Arutz 7). This has everything to do with I wrote wrote above about Nishidani's behavior towards other editors. You comment are nothing but an attempt to derail the discussion from the real issues. Settleman (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: per WP:BOOMERANG, if an editor comes to ANI with unclean hands, they can also have sanctions imposed on them; i.e. It's not "derailing the discussion", it's pointing out "the real issues". ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 10:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pluto2012: I'm not pro-Arutz 7, I just think it is as reliable as Ma'an which Nishidani uses quite often. You are most defiantly anti-Arutz 7 as you falsified a source to title it Neo-Zionist (even on a good day it wasn't just OR. The source doesn't even mention A7 and neo-zionism in the same paragraph). For anyone who looked for a WP:BOOMERANG, here it is. Settleman (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: Huh? The interview is called "An interview with Arutz Sheva´s Yishai Fleisher", where Fleisher is introduced as their "director of programming"...and he defends "neo-Zionism"....and you claim it has nothing to do with Arutz Sheva?? Huldra (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: Again, you *really* needs to address this. You accuse Pluto2012 of one of the worst wiki-crimes there is (in my book): falsification of sources. But your diff does not back you up. So please explain, or withdraw your allegation against Pluto and apologise to him. Huldra (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: I stand by my accusation. A question in an interview with one staff member of Arutz 7 about another organization, Kumah, is completely irrelevant to A7 and thus consist of falsification of the source. Do you really argue it isn't? I removed it 3 hours before stating 'Not supported by source' and Pluto's answer 'Is there really a nuance ? That was supported by the source' which is false.

@Settleman: That is not how I read it at all. The way I read this, with that headline, was: here we get the official Arutz Sheva´s view. At most, the mistake was to say "In the media, Arutz Sheva defends the Neo-Zionist ideology by opposition to Post-Zionism," instead of specifying: "In the media, Arutz Sheva´s Yishai Fleisher defends the Neo-Zionist ideology by opposition to Post-Zionism." (Btw: your "ping" did not work: I have no idea why) Huldra (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: Your proposal fails OR, SYNTH and probably more policies I don't even know about. Settleman (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: I honestly do not agree. But I would like to hear "outside" opinion on this, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: You opposed titling Shulman as Ta'ayush activist when the book name in Hebrew is "Dark Hope: Journal of a Ta'ayush Activist" but you propose titling a whole organization b/c of the opinion of a staff member? And opposing post-Zionism does not equal neo-Zionism. By all mean, take this to WP:ORN. Settleman (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: If I saw an interview, in say jewishpress.com named "An interview with Ta'ayush's Shulman", I would assume that the opinions voiced were those of Ta'ayush (and presumably also Shulman), yes. But you are telling me that assuming that a jewishpress.com interview called "An interview with Arutz Sheva's Yishai Fleisher" has nothing to do with Arutz Sheva; more than that: you actually accuse Pluto2012 for falsification for making such an assumption. I think people can draw their own conclusions from this. Huldra (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: You might have been able to make such excuse if this was the 1st time the source was entered. We all do mistakes. But Pluto's edit was made 3 hours after I have removed the source and my edit summery says "Not supported by source". Pluto have read enough to come up with "Is there really a nuance ? That was supported by the source". Please, lets not be naive. Settleman (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: Again: I repeat; I find it a totally legitimate edit, even the 2nd time around. But then I share one thing both with you, and with Pluto2012: none of us, (AFAIK), have English as our "native tongue" (it is my 4th language) ...and none of us, (AFAIK), live in a English-speaking country. I would therefore like to hear what one of "the natives" (eh, native English speaker, that is) has to say about it, before I draw any final conclusion. I still think your claim of Pluto´s "falsification" is way, way over the line. Huldra (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I have left Settleman an A-I alert warning; discussion here made the need for that clear. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As for tendentious editing, look carefully at this, from Settleman: he use google books for finding books which have *both* the words “taayush radical”", (see here), and then puts the result into the Ta'ayush -article. Now, that an editor, who searches the net for certain biased info, accuse other editors of being biased; what is the word for that? Ah, yes. ---- Huldra (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: Let's not kid ourselves, stating that editors in PIA article has bias is almost like saying they are breathing air and your settlers=thieves comment above is an evidence for your own bias. I don't think this is an issue if you respect the encyclopedia and other editors. Even for Susya where I was very involved, I presented text that supported Palestinians (Albeck+int'l law) and on al-Tuwani (proof of village existance).

This complaint isn't about Nishidani's bias but conduct. So derailing the conversation to our different biases is just that, derailing. If anyone wants to give comments on my own conduct, I will be happy to get the criticism and hopefully, explain. Meanwhile, I didn't hear one comment on Nishidani's behavior. Settleman (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Settleman: you see, that´s the difference between us: I have never, ever searched the net for, say: Israeli+settler+thief ..and then inserted the result into Wikipedia articles. But YOU search the net for taayush+radical and then insert the result into a Wikipedia article. Huldra (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Just one comment. ‘Theft’ is how an expert on international law like (John Strawson) with Middle Eastern area competence describes the practices. That virtually all practices of dispossession in the West Bank contravene the Fourth Geneva Convention is well known. They are not acted on because of a technicality. UN Security decisions regarding the conflict are passed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, and hence not binding, as they would be were they passed under Chapter V11, due to a 'political arrangement'. We justly do not use such language in wiki articles, because it does not look neutral and Israel disputes this. But it is not a ‘bias’ to consider the colonial enterprise in these terms: far too much of the technical literature supports that view. The Susya article, where you are so active, is an exemplary case-study of the Kafkian rules: there, the Palestinians have legal title dating back to 1881, title recognized as valid in Israeli law. The justice of that title was acknowledged by the military run 'civil administration' in 1982. It was reconfirmed by another CA expert in 2015. Notwithstanding this water-tight case, everything they have has been smashed, cemented over, stolen, with the complicity of the authorities, and they have been uprooted and trucked out and dumped on roadsides, because the settler project wants them to disappear. Law even in Israeli terms is not binding in the 'Far West' Bank, where as that idiom implies, the natives are Injuns: deemed by an aggressive colonial constituency you support to be aliens in their own land. It takes considerable serenity to handle these issues fairly, with justice, even if it really works out to balancing Israeli myths and the Palestinian realities. Wiki demands neutrality even in the description of a clash between a violent party and its victim. That does not mean that everything relevant to the conflict, if injurious to the aggressor's self-esteem, must be underplayed. The sources you are habitually pressing to have recognized as RS, Arutz Sheva and Regavim (NGO) don't recognize international law or human rights. And now, I am off to Ireland. My absence should not hinder administrators from making any judgement they feel due, against my behavior or otherwise. Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman who writes: "Let's not kid ourselves, stating that editors in PIA article has bias is almost like saying they are breathing air (...)."

Once more, you prove you don't understand what is wikipedia.

We all have opinions outside wikipedia, and of course these opinions has consequences on the way we edit wikipedia.

But having a 'bias' is more than this. It means that our personal involvment in the topic is so strong that we cannot comply any more with NPoV.

Having opinions IRL doesn't prevent somebody to put WP:PILLARS above his own opinions because he is there to develop a project of free encyclopaedia first.

But when you edit areas in which you can be involved IRL, it is nearly impossible to put your interest above wikipedia principles.

You have been given several chances but you proved you are in the bad category:

• when you introduce material in an article in order to blame some Muslim women about their (fanatic) actions on the Temple Mount whereas you "forget" what is done on the other side (suggesting to bomb al-Aqsa)
• when you insist deeply to make A7 WP:RS despite its background
• when you add sentences defending the image of a group to which you seem to be affiliated (settlers).

It would be my decision, I would ask you to make 100 edits in introducing pro-Palestian and anti-settler material (only). But what is asked you is on any topic, to sort everything by yourself and add everything alone.

@Settleman who writes: "Meanwhile, I didn't hear one comment on Nishidani's behavior."

Nishidani is a excellent contributor who has been the target of many biased editors and as anybody who can lose temper but I don't see where he would have done it in the current case.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pluto2012: I believe my edits are NPoV and I welcome changes as long as they aren't just removals in order to hound me. What you describe is irrelevant content dispute that nobody prevented you from fixing. I added some later.

@Nishidani: The title for the land is far from proofing the existence of the village but this is a different discussion. I didn't removed any well sourced info that supported Palestinians and actually added some that supports Palestinian's position. But this complaint isn't about some content dispute but mostly the way you interact on the talk pages in addition to a few NPoV violations that go far beyond the definition of POVPUSH. Settleman (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Could we please have an admin issue a BOOMERANG for Settleman ASAP? WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, etc., etc., etc. What a fiasco! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I have no problem with being checked myself. I believe I will come out in pretty good shape though obviously not perfect. Everyone does mistakes.

• I can present the many times I took issues to the talk page when other editors disagreed with me and tried to build consensus. I have agreed to other editors suggestions even when I wasn't completely happy with them. Compromised.
• I initiated complete and well deserved overhaul to Susya from the state it was for some years.
• I went to the library to look at a book at Huldra's request.
• I presented photos of offline books and translated parts from Hebrew.
• I made a phone call to an NGO to ask for their source which then I used in the article.
• I started a new section at Temple Mount about status quo at Pluto's request, edited in 6k which by now grew to ~9k by other editors.
• I actively participate on WP:ARBPIA3 as though I am a relatively new editor, I believe there are many changes due.
• I have added meaningful pro-Palestinian information and on long text, I tried as much as I could to adhere to NPoV. For small facts like Ta'ayush being considered radical left (by Ta'ayush activist Neve Gordon and well know fact in Israel), my edit comply with WP:DUE.

I will probably not be online for the next 12 hours. Shana Tova. Settleman (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Huldra, sorry, but I deprodded the Havakook article--there's plenty of citations that prove the guy is notable. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Drmies, no need to say sorry, (I never edited the article): I just object to "promoting" a person with a MA to "academic"....while at the very same time "demoting" a professor to "activist". (I just don´t count just a MA as an "academic". Though this might be different in different countries: I recall as a mere Master-student, ordering some articles from Germany, and getting them, addressed to "Professor Doctor" me. Now, the Germans take titles seriously!) Huldra (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: Academic or not, Havakook book is RS. Settleman (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I also have found myself repeatedly at odds with Huldra, Nishidani, Zero0000 and Pluto2012, as well as IRISZOOM, who is so far absent in this discussion, usually with more than one of them at the same time. Would there be anything uniting these editors? Fairness forces me to admit, that I have been both right and wrong, although I always try to make the right edit and think I usually succeed in that goal, and I still feel that in some instances I was forced into a situation where I had to agree to a less than optimal version. I would dislike the idea of a group of editors teaming up and dominating certain articles or a specific issue simply by numbers. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Would there be anything uniting these editors? Yes, probably: They're not here to promote a maximalist ethno-nationalist political ideology.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

But are they here to demote it? Settleman (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop playing at "there's a cabal". It's the last bastion of editors with a childish attitude. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy As an editor who was once himself accused of being part of a cabal, in a ArbCom case many years ago, I want to stress that there is nothing illegitimate or childish about worrying that Wikipedia should not be unduly influenced. Otherwise, ArbCom would not hear such cases.

I am not saying thesse editors constitute a cabal. At the same time I must admit that, having been opposed at times by 2-3 of these editors, one can not avoid the impression that there is strength in numbers. Debresser (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Apologies for taking so long in responding. I wasn't ignoring you, but thought this AN was winding down. It would be dismissive to pretend that 'groupthink' doesn't play a part in particularly contentious articles, but Wikipedia is a huge resource with thousands of areas being covered. The reality for regulars is that as volunteers, while we work across the board to an extent, the majority of our work in within limited areas of our own specialisations and interests. We do have limited numbers of editors who have the tenacity and true resiliency to hold their own on content that meets policy and guidelines for truly egregious articles. Resultantly, the same editors do develop such articles and, just as you and I have done in the past, will agree and disagree on content-related matters. That is not a sign of a cabal, but a sign of editors being able to work through issues and form consensus (even though it can get, er... heated). For a new editor to jump into the deep end and cast WP:ASPERSIONS of this calibre is not only a highly deleterious sign of inexperience, but is disruptive to the nth degree. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The evidence presented shows nothing like what is alleged, as others have already noted. My own feeling is that such issues cannot really be legislated. Settleman's first "case" at ANI resulted in Pluto2012 getting blocked unilaterally by an admin - without a single editor supporting a block, let alone having a consensus. My feeling is that this has given Settleman some distorted ideas about how ANI works, and if this litigiousness continues, he will only get himself into trouble. This will only lead people to conclude that he has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I asked Pluto to self revert not once but twice before reporting him, same as I asked Nishidani 4 times to delete his NPA. Can you say you see nothing wrong with what I listed above? I appreciated your interjection and overall focused editing and to-the-point discussions but put yourself in my shoes, where another editor insults you and have double standards for the way s/he edits or you edit.

I'm yet to see one editor who actually justifies how Nishidani conduct is sensible and doesn't violate policies instead of putting a smokescreen by focusing on me. Settleman (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: I don't want to re-open the other case: the sanction has already expired. However, as anyone can see with the naked eye, there was no consensus, or even support for a block. As to people "focusing on you", that is standard procedure at WP:ANI. The conduct of all parties is investigated. Perhaps the reason people don't "justify Nishidani's conduct" is because they see nothing which requires justification. As a final thought, consider the following fact: In my whole editing history in WP:ARBPIA, I can't recall a single RfC where we both participated, and I didn't agree with Nishidani (roughly). Yet you have very different opinion of us. This suggests to me that the differences are in minor matters of style rather than anything major content-wise. In the talk page at Susya, often Nishidani made a long point with much background and digressions, and I simply rendered the main thrust in WikiSpeak. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

So you believe it is OK to insult another editors? Use polemical language? Present attackers as victims? have double standards? etc' etc'

You defiantly didn't think Nishidani's edits on Regavim was sensible since you changed the lead. I enjoyed working with you b/c you were clear, spoke to the point and didn't have double standards so even when we didn't agree (and I don't expect people to agree with me all the time) at least you were reasonable and consistent. Settleman (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: I was talking about RfCs above, not general edits. It would be hard to not disagree with someone over the course of a thousand edits (unless one is a meat/sockpuppet). As to the Regavim lead, I simply rearranged it, without any change in content, to be more coherent. It is generally a good idea to define a subject before tearing into it. While we are at it, let's look at the version which existed before Nishidani's edit. Regavim is an Israeli NGO dedicated to ensuring the legal, responsible, and environmentally friendly use of land, sourced to nothing, but presumably is a self-description. That's very neutral, isn't it? The article was a stub, had no criticism, no funding details, no background, no mention of connection with settlers. Almost all of the above relevant content has been added by Nishidani. I am not knowledgeable enough to do this, I recognize that what I did was mere WP:GNOMEing: anyone could have done what I did. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: The article was created less than 24 hours before Nishidani joined the party. It was a matter of (short) time before the pile of criticism/smear (some of which is due) will hit the fan and my experience from Susya told me, it will be done soon and with enthusiasm. I wasn't wrong!

Sometimes WP:GNOMEing is where the WP:WEIGHT is hiding. Lets repeat a trick that worked for us before - Can you look into my (virtual) eyes and tell me that putting criticism in the first sentence, even before a neutral description, isn't a glaring violation of WP:NPOV (and probably a few more guidelines I'm not aware of). How about the rest of the list. If anyone would have made the slightest attempt to explain why I'm wrong, why Nishidani's pratices are within the policies and guideline, I would have withdrawn this request but so far, nobody did. And we both know why? Settleman (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: This is a fundamentally wrong way to think about things. You yourself edited the article before Nishidani did, yet you did not see fit to change the unsourced, wholly misleading and hagiographic first sentence. Was that not a violation of WP:NPOV, by the same criterion? It is not the responsibility of other editors to dig up basic, but unflattering information on an organization and add it to the article. That way lies the WP:BATTLEGROUND. The information Nishidani added was well sourced, basic and relevant (almost all of it remains in the article). If you find Nishidani's edit jarring, just rearrange it as I did. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Call me an eventualist if you want and in this case, it was an absolute certainty someone would show up. I made a minor contribution to Regavim and moved on. When I created Murabitat which most sources about them write about clashes with visitors and the police, I believe I made a pretty good job of WP:NPoV before another editor took over. Settleman (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: Eventualism is just a fuzzy label, while WP:NPOV is policy. What I said above is simply a paraphrase of the following quote: Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. I assume we agree that the current state of the article (it seems relatively stable now) is better in respect to NPOV that the older one. Given the initial state of the article, Nishidani's edit (since almost all of the content remains) moved it towards this state. If you feel that it overcompensated, just rearrange it as I did. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: You blame me for an edit I didn't do b/c I contributed once to an article while protecting Nishidani's edit that even you, who usually agree with him and have very different (if not opposing) POV than me, felt it was violating WP:NPoV. We have interacted long enough for me to believe you don't really think that way. I respect the camaraderie but sometimes it is good to tell a friend - "Hi bud, you went too far". Settleman (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Just note the "policies" Settleman links to

• WP:NPA: not about Settleman: not an NPA-violation
• WP:POLEMIC—>WP:UP ..which is not relevant (.aaaaaand if you think what you quote there is insulting, try reading Donkey punch! (Warning: NSFW))
• WP:POVPUSH —> essay
• WP:CPUSH —> essay
• I think we can all(?) agree that this report from Settleman was without merit. I have not made up my mind about WP:BOOMERANG yet; what sort of "boomerang"? And Settleman: about Ta'ayush being considered radical in Israel: have you heard about Confirmation bias? Try googling for "respected+Ta'ayush": is not Tanya Reinhart Israeli? Oh, and Settleman: please don´t ever write "pr Huldra" again: when you have done that, you have mostly totally misread me. Please don´t hide behind me again: I´m perfectly capable of doing my own edits, thank you very much. Huldra (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: I have removed the NPA and POLEMIC claim. I think think they both extremely unsuitable in a discussion between people, just like your comment about settlers=thieves. I do not think that all Palestinians are terrorists, but how would you react if someone wrote that. is that constructive? Settleman (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The way I saw it, POVPUSH and CPUSH were code names to excessive violation of expected behavior from a Wikipedia editor. WP:Wikilawyering over what exactly are the violation is missing the real point. When editors act like WP is the Wild West and they can do whatever they want, admins need to realize, there is a problem. Several uninvolved editors who responded seem to see nothing wrong with Nishidani's behavior which is beyond me but maybe I'm naive. Right now, I feel like I'm editing in a Zoo. I can be pushed around with nonsense claims by people whose protested bias is as strong as mine if not stronger (I voted to the center these last elections). Again, WP:ARBPIA3 might address some of this.

WP:CPUSH has detailed suggested remedies and is basically part of WP:CIVIL. POVPUSH means excessive and repeated violations of WP:NPOV. If this isn't enough to look at the case and see the WP:WikiViolence, I don't know what will. Settleman (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: You've been quoting a lot of policies/guidelines/essays for a new user, but you've missed the mark. Take NPA and POLEMIC for example (and gladly you've struck them out). NPA equates to personal insults directed at other editors, i.e. "you are an ass hat". Talking about the subject of an article critically isn't a violation of NPA. POLEMIC would be gathering "evidence" or slander on other editors and storing it on-wiki. You yourself "violated" POVPUSH, and how could someone be a civil POV pusher and commit NPA? You need to reread WP:NPOV and think of how it relates to your actions, and maybe even WP:WWIN. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman:Thank you for removing this two first "charges" against Nishidani, but I´m still tearing out my hair in frustration about all the time we have to waste with your various allegations, Huldra (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: Now all left for you is to explain why presenting a terrorist as a victim or why having double standards in order to remove material one WP:DONTLIKE are sensible and do not constitute of WP:Disruptive editing. Settleman (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: Why, oh why, should I waste my time on this? Each time you have cried "wolf" before, and I have come running, looking for that horrible wolf, all I have found is at most a small dog. Or a *picture* of a wolf. Enough, Huldra (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: No Wolves and no dogs. You have avoided the main subject issue here since the beginning and instead turned the table on me. Well, it worked. Congrats. Apparently you support Wikipedia being a place where a request to look at the highly questionable conduct of another editor is punishable. At the same time, the original complaint get virtually no attention. Settleman (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: are you kidding me? The entire reason your report became a WP:BOOMERANG is because your "original complaint" was looked into and found to be comepletely baseless, while you, on the other hand, had unclean hands. Stop playing the victim. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: I understand then, you embrace having double standards or presenting terrorists/assailants as victims and think it is completely sensible to edit that way. I really hope WP:ARBPIA3 will deal with it. Settleman (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

As for my unclean hands, do you compare not contributing enough in a new article to the terrorist/victim example? And looking for "Radical Ta'ayush", search for it on google or maybe even better, in Hebrew and you will get thousands of hits. The article was (and still is) completely undue presenting the activists as a bunch of Kumbaya singers when they routinely clash with the police etc'. Instead of bringing some low-RS source, I found a book that has a quote by Ta'ayush member, high-RS. If this is unclean hands, I'm at fault. Settleman (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed WP:BOOMERANG for User:Settleman

• It's hard to see who it was who added this as a separate section, but it is more logically a subsection of the section immediately above, and I have adjusted accordingly. John Carter (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It was added here. Settleman (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Which, presumably, means that Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi supports such a sanction, as it is generally the case that someone supports their own proposal unless otherwise stated, but I guess clarification might help. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I gave you 'public thanks' for your edit User:John Carter, when you made this a subsection (well-spotted) assuming that would alert you ("Tis I Leclerk!" style). I am not directly involved in the discussion, but it has had much discussion. A new section for the proposed sanction would keep things tidy. I do think that User:Settleman was perhaps ill-advised to raise this here; but it's for the community to decide eh? It also provides an arena for the editor to argue otherwise? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Like I wrote earlier "I have no problem with being checked myself. I believe I will come out in pretty good shape though obviously not perfect. Everyone does mistakes."

• I can present the many times I took issues to the talk page when other editors disagreed with me and tried to build consensus. I have agreed to other editors suggestions even when I wasn't completely happy with them. Compromised.
• I initiated complete and well deserved overhaul to Susya from the state it was for some years.
• I went to the library to look at a book at Huldra's request.
• I presented photos of offline books and translated parts from Hebrew.
• I made a phone call to an NGO to ask for their source which then I used in the article.
• I started a new section at Temple Mount about status quo at Pluto's request, edited in 6k which by now grew to ~9k by other editors.
• I actively participate on WP:ARBPIA3 as though I am a relatively new editor, I believe there are many changes due.
• I have added meaningful pro-Palestinian information and on long text, I tried as much as I could to adhere to NPoV. For small facts like Ta'ayush being considered radical left (by Ta'ayush activist Neve Gordon and well know fact in Israel), my edit comply with WP:DUE.

I Joined wikipedia b/c the Susya article was embarrassing!!! No structure whatsoever! False information! Two completely separate communities have their information mixed, not to mention, nothing about Israeli view of Susya and more. I was faced with so much resistance and bias on legitimate information that I was amazed. I hope WP:ARBPIA3 will resolve some of those issues. Settleman (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support 3 month topic ban and mentorship - Nishidani has done nothing that Settleman accuses him of, the "policies" that Nishidani supposedly violated are either not policies or not at all relevant to Nishidani's actions, and it appears that Settleman is just a POV pusher who hides behind "eventualism" and ignorance. This whole report is a WP:CIR issue. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is a strange section and even stranger accusations. What the Boomerange should be, I have no idea. But it shouldnt be drastic. The account is about a month and a half old. They need to broaden their editing and learn more about WP. AlbinoFerret 03:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a warning along the lines of what John Carter recommends would be enough of a sanction. AlbinoFerret 18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions, given the very recent establishment of the account, pending evidence of sockpuppetry from other previous accounts of course, if that is found to be the case. I would however strongly urge him to either seek some form of mentor or otherwise get some assistance in dealing with the policies and guidelines here, particularly considering he seems to edit in a very heated, contentious area which has discretionary sanctions in place. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: Why did you bring up sockpuppetry? No one else has made that accusation. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Just covering all the bases. I have no reason to think that this individual is a sockpuppet, but there seem to be a hell of a lot of them around lately, and some topics seem to get more of them than others. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support 3 month topic-ban, from ARBPIA-articles. Yes: User:AlbinoFerret is absolutely correct, Settleman needs to "broaden their editing and learn more about WP." Though I would keep the pages connected to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 outside such a ban (it seems unfair that he should not be able to voice his opinion there, if he wants to.) Besides the fact that Settleman goes around, actively searching up sources which supports his views (see above), I am frankly sick of him "assuming bad faith" about everyone who do not share his views. The fact that he accused Pluto2012 of "falsification of sources" (an extremely serious charge, IMO), on the most flimsiest of evidence (see above), was the last straw, coming after the fact that he accused Nishidani of WP:NPA- when there was obviously no such thing. Enough. Settleman: please go and edit other parts of Wikipedia for a while, Huldra (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support 3 month topic-ban (per Huldra) with the provision that s/he actually works on other articles in order to gain valuable experience and knowledge of policies and guidelines. Working on the assumption that Settleman is a newbie, it's hardly uncommon for new users to come in swinging their 'righting great wrongs' batons in any of the ARB sanctioned areas presumably due to lack of experience. While it's uncommon for them to evolve into good editors, I've certainly seen this occur... but some things should be left as 'enough rope' issues. [EDIT] ... and suggesting that, judging by the continued all out warfare being continued by the user and a couple of others playing tag with him (below), the noose is getting tighter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)--Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Mentoring and three month trial period where Settleman proves he is capable of editing in a more moderate fashion. I would take up such a role with all party agreement, although my last mentoring attempt met with mixed results. Irondome (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wholehearted support from me. I am not much good as a mentor myself, but I would be willing to offer any assistance I can as I can at his request. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Moreover, I'd ask again (see. my "14:41, 14 September 2015" above) to escape for a moment from condemnation of Settleman and to give a specific analysis (yes / no / why) of his examples for the (possible) Nishidani's violations. Unfortunately, at the moment, this discussion seems me another attempt of the same "judges" to punish an editor who dared to criticize one from a current Wiki-establishment. That's the pity, but it isn't a first such case. If I am not mistaken, the last such Case against Nishidani lasted 37 minutes (!) till its 1st condemnation, and 10 hours - until its final closure.):) As I think, the current Case will be a good example too for a Palestine-Israel articles 3 discussion, because it characterized well a current situation in IP sector. I hope that has to be a way to repair its current status when Wiki isn't NPOV, and being only a spokesman for one of conflict's parties, only distorts an existing reality in the region. Sorry, but it's how I see it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a pointless dispute. Settleman is inexperienced, had piled Pelion on Ossa itself founded on sandy foundations, and the whole mess is unreadable. There is far too much wild citation of policy in obscure content disputes. Since he is new, he should be told to refrain from throwing round policy tags without showing much evidence of understanding how the guidelines are used in practice; to desist from using A/I frivolously. Simon, one of the steadiest men around here, has offered to mentor him, and that should be enough. I don't speak of a normal upfront control: but merely to ask Settleman to talk some issues through with Simon via email, and the occasional request on his page. If something like this can be organized this should be closed. Either that or just a warning to exercise more care and attention, and to focus on issues without multiplying them so that things get out of hand, as they have here.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no problem with taking some mentorship though editing Susya was quite a crush course. This whole procedure is like a reverse of case of If the judge said to a man, 'Take the splinter from between your teeth,' he would retort, 'Take the beam from between your eyes.Baba Bathra 15b My example of misconduct are like speeding through a red light and other editors throw at me violations of rolling stop. Shabbat Shalom. Settleman (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This whole procedure is like a reverse of case of

Throughout your editing you have adopted a rhetorical strategy that, rather than being resonant of an individual voice, smacks of Regavim. As I showed in detail on that article, exponents of Regavim are thought by scholars to have availed themselves of a strategy of mirroring what their 'antagonists' say:

• If 'rights' is used by Rabbis for Human Rights to defend the Palestinians, then Regavim spokesmen make much of the 'rights' of settlers. 'Human Rights discourse' is answered with 'Jewish Rights discourse'.
• If 'settlers' are spoken of as people who seize and settle on land that is not their's, then Regavim spokesmen say Palestinians are immigrant 'squatters', which is notoriously contrafactual.
• If RHR or B'tselem speaks of international law as a decisive element in securing Palestinian entitlements, then Regavim will employ its best resources to document infractions of Israeli law by Palestinians as a grounds for removing the latter. This 'mirrors' or mimicks the discourse of the 'other', while erasing the differences that defy all analogy. Why? Because Israeli laws are military instruments of an occupation (thus defined by Israel itself) which is, in international law, governed by international conventions, not by the national interests of the Israeli court system. Thus in Area C, the Israeli law says that Palestinians cannot build without a legal permit even on their own land, whereas Israelis can build on Palestinian land sequestered to that end. The practice is, in international law (RHR) illegal: the discrimination is validated by the violation of those practice under Israeli law.

When you wrote above:

When editors act like WP is the Wild West and they can do whatever they want, admins need to realize, there is a problem.

• Again I hear the strong resonance of the Regavim strategy. Settlers, in particular the extremist hilltop groups have long been described in Israeli newspapers as acting like sheriffs or guns-for-hire in the West Bank. It goes back to a prophetic remark recorded melancholically by Victor Klemperer in his I Will Bear Witness (1933 to 1941), the entry for November 2, 1933. What you have again done is to invert this standard trope, used against violent settlers, and relabel it as characteristic of 'pro-Pal' editors on Wikipedia.
• I could list numerous other examples of you using the process of inversion characteristic of the settler NGO's public and legal campaigns, which I have quietly noticed in our interactions. That is why I raised earlier on the issue of WP:COI: to me you are hewing far too closely to a known settler body's publicitarian project. The point is underlined by your choice of handle. You have mastered that system, but you have failed to understand wiki's system, and nearly all of your citations of WP:OR, WP:RS (Havakkuk is not RS in a strict reading - but no one is being intolerant by sticking to a strict reading of the law), WP:NPOV etc. are wildly out of focus. Those are two reasons why you need to have someone clarifying matters when you are confused, and Simon is a Zionist (no one has issues with that: it is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable position in the field), who has offered to help you on this. Were those editors you object to, with a decade of experience, as bad as you say they are, it is difficult to understand how they survived what is a very stringent, at times, system of administrative oversight.Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact you believe the Palestinians have the moral upper hand is your opinion only. Myself, I'm center when it comes to politics but what I've experienced on Susya, and peeking around on some other edit showed me how Wikipedia is used for propaganda. Duma arson attack‎ has quotes about settlers violation while it is general suspicion (if that. the suspicion is on extremists which correlate to some extant with minority of settlers) but a quote from Ya'alon in a briefing about Duma got harsh resistance from a few editors. Regardless, this will be discussed on WP:ARBPIA3. But a small request, can you explain how presenting an assilant as victim isn't violation of NPoV? How is it even moral? Settleman (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Support some form of administrative oversight here on Settleman. Okay. I've tried to be reasonable. I'm having second thoughts. You're gaming things. You went for UserPluto2012 and got a suspension for WP:Hounding, which is precisely what you just did a few minutes ago.

• I made an edit at ##14:58, 19 September 2015 partially involving a compromise between User:Pluto2012 and User:Settleman at the article Temple Mount which I have long edited.

• You asked me to justify it at 15:11, 19 September 2015.
• I duly replied.‎
• I posted a request at 15:11, 19 September 2015‎ for an AfD at 2015 re the 2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing article, which is an astonishing distortion of the sources (see talk page). Your attempt to delete a request for discussion by then changing the title from 'murder' to 'death' is no help, since the title still says what sources maintain has yet to be ascertained ('death by stone throwing'). Earliest reporters on the scene it may have been due to a heart-attack. This is gross POV pushing anyway it is phrased, until RS clarify and either charges are laid, an autopsy done, and a verdict rendered.
• A mere five minutes later you show up there, and revert me (15:16, 19 September 2015‎ I'm not sure if this is important enough but the removal seems premature. AfD is more sensible) at a page he has never edited.

There is no way that can happen except by consulting editor's contributions, and acting adversarily on them. In this case it looks like a good example of retaliatory reverting on another page. The article is, secondly a patent farce, and (as I requested someone who knows how to do it, I don't) requires a proposal for deletion discussion. This, you cancelled. So you track me, as you protested Pluto's putative tracking of yourself. You can't have it both ways. I think you need to back off, under supervision.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Compromise? You have left out most of what he deleted. And with no explanation whatsoever. As for the 'hounding', I changed the name of article as you suggested and wrote the editor s/he should rethink it. That wasn't meant to confront you and it is defiantly not a habit. Now, will you answer my question about attacker/victim misrepresentation? Settleman (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Come on. How did you get to that new page in just 4 minutes?Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Come on, answer the question you avoided twice. And yes, I saw you edited that page but I didn't edit it to confront and even changed its name per your request. Now, can you answer? Settleman (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Settleman, I'm curious about something. You seem to be concerned about morality. Editors in ARBPIA often seek to emphasize victimhood in the Israel-Palestine conflict based on ethnicity. I'm talking about things like this. Why do they do it, in your opinion? Do you think it is "morally wrong" for editors to focus their efforts exclusively on Israeli casualties or exclusively on Palestinian casualties of the conflict? Do you think it is a policy violation? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: If they stick to neutrality and give the facts as they are, I think it is moral. Not sure it fits WP, but moral - no question. I haven't participated in such articles deletion requests that were open since I joined wikipedia [19][20] though I saw E.M.Gregory was involved because I wasn't sure it fits. Now, picturing terrorist as victims? What do you think? Until now, everybody simply deflected the question and preferred to examine my edits with a magnifying glass. Settleman (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, well, I'm not sure I agree with you there because of framing/sampling issues, but never mind. As for "picturing terrorist as victims", I'm unable to see the 4 examples you gave the same way you see them. To me, they just very briefly describe some violent incidents in a pretty cold, nameless, context-free, matter of fact way, without taking sides and making moral judgments. Actually I don't have a problem with "Two brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi were shot dead after killing 11 people at Charlie Hebdo" either (setting aside it's ridiculous brevity). It's just a description of what happened. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: The four examples you provided are totally fine except for Nishidani's use of the word "allegedly" so often (if someone was "allegedly" attacked, then how do you know that they were "lightly" wounded?). However, it would require much more evidence that Nishidani was POV pushing to prove that he was. He is also not "picturing terrorist as victims", he is giving the facts as they are. If you can't handle the truth, that's your problem; just don't violate WP:NPOV to support Israeli settlement, as even your username implies. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Re 'alleged' (per the Palestinian sources) There are 2 POVs here, the Israel and the Palestinian. This, together with the fact that 4 out of the 5 sources customarily used on that page, provide the Israeli mainstream perspective, and the fact that there is no follow up on court cases involving these incidents, means that we have the Israeli 'a Palestinian did such and such and Israelis reacted' narrative, and the Ma'an reports, which follow English legal customs in using 'alleged' of police reports concerning incidents still sub judice. I'm always troubled by the lousy quality of both reports, and have to give mostly the Israeli version in a factual form, and the Palestinian 'alleged'. We don't know, because these sources do not do the work required of serious newspaper journalism, except in major cases. The 4 diffs illustrate the problem, for which there is no solution. But to imagine that every time an underreported incident of an assault which never went through any police or judicial review can be stated as factual because Israeli sources describe it thus would violate NPOV. There are book length studies of IDF/Border police as chronic liars (for example John Conroy's Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture, University of California Press, 2000 pp.48ff, passim and p. 212:'Justice Moshe Landau,( who had been the presiding judge in the 1961 trial of Nazi Sturmbannfuhrer Adolf Eichmann). . . concluded that GSS agents had systematically committed perjury for sixteen years, lying about the fact that they used brutal physical and psychological methods to get confessions and information. He quoted from an internal GSS memo, written in 1982, that set out guidelines about what sort of lies should be told.'. Nothing has changed much. A large part of our reports on violence are paraphrases in newspapers of what the relevant press releases from police or the IDF state, and their record for precision and veracity is such that one cannot take them at face value.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue here seems to be a dispute about content in the Susya article. Logically the article should be mostly limited to its subject, ie the archaeological site at Susya, with a short mention of the land disputes and surrounding communities. The land disputes themselves should be moved to an article dealing specifically with such issues, such as Israeli settlement. Even if it is true that Israel is in the wrong, I do not think it is helpful to Wikipedia to turn every article about West Bank locations into a prolonged grip about Israeli policies. Kwork2 (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This is about Settleman's accusation that I am a dangerous POV pusher over numerous articles, not about any one specific article, such as Susya.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Virtually every editor regularly involved in Israel/Palestine conflict articles is pushing a POV. The WP articles in that category have become virtual extensions of the actual conflict, with editors on both sides fighting it out here. How many times have you made an edit that reflects positively on Israel? Kwork2 (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

There has already been an RfC on the Susya talk page about this very issue (it expired recently, just needs someone to close it). You are of course entitled to have your opinion about what the article should cover, but that is not what this WP:ANI is about. And if you believe that "virtually every editor actively editing here is pushing a POV", then short of wholesale banning (which many people including some admins think should be done though I don't think that would solve anything), there is hardly a solution to this conundrum. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I had stated what I think is rational. RfCs do not always have a rational outcome. My main point is that virtually every editor involved on a regular basis with Israel/Palestine conflict articles is pushing a point of view, so for Nishidani to deny what is obvious is absurd. I do not know of a solution, because Wikipedia functions on the assumption that sincerer and conscientious editors (such as Nishidani) will not push a POV, and that is an incorrect assumption. Kwork2 (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Evidently you do not know my editing history since 2007 and you should have added 'and reflects poorly on Palestinians' (numerous in both cases cf.(Albert Antébi,Bruno Hussar, the work on synagogues or places sacred to Jews (Joseph's Tomb, Susya - I don't write re Palestine or Israel: I write of individuals.)Hebron:'Hebron was 'deeply Bedouin and Islamic',[138] and 'bleakly conservative' in its religious outlook,[139] with a strong tradition of hostility to Jews.[140][141])). And it is quite untrue to recycle the meme that several editors here, while having their sympathies, are like everyone, POV-pushers. Several go to great lengths and exercise extreme scruple in getting the facts, at whatever the cost. We don't hesitate, frowning over possible implications, if we find some crucial evidence that makes one side or another look 'bad'.Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, the issue is that that virtually every editor involved on a regular basis with Israel/Palestine conflict articles is pushing a point of view. That 'game' is played out extensively here on WP:AN/I, and WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, with the goal of getting the opposing team's players sidelined by blocks, the longer the better because it lowers their ability to enter unwanted content in articles. It is obvious, by observing which editors are acting as a claque to defend an editor from a block, or to advocate for a block, which side of the dispute that editor is on. The situation on WP:AN/I, and WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, allows editors to come here with the intention of eliminating as many editors as possible from the opposing side. That is deplorable. Kwork2 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Again you are making a strong generalization from a vague impression. In 10 years I have made an administrative complaint 3 times at the most, and only as a last resort, and never until 2 years ago. The game played out extensively on AN/1 and AE in my regard consists in dozens of complaints. I have been more severe applying my own suspensions for inadvertent rule-breaking (see my page) than has AN/I or AE. This last frivolous complaint is one of several made against me in the last year, all by editors who have been suspended or abandoned Wikipedia in disgust at a failure to secure conviction of an 'antisemite'. So please drop the generalizations.Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I described the situation as it exists among editors of Israel/Palestine conflict articles. My observations are not directed at you, nor even at editors one side. It is an accurate description of the situation. The editing situation of those articles is as dysfunctional as the actual conflict it claims to describe accurately. Rather than calling it neutral editing it might be better describe as re-enactment of the conflict. Kwork2 (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh'. Virtually every editor regularly involved in Israel/Palestine conflict articles is pushing a POV.' Disingenuous.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Malcolm ("Kwork2") has just come off a 6 year ban from Wikipedia for calling everyone who disagreed with him an anti-Semite. There are various blocks and bans related to this habit extending further back, but the history has been mangled by various sockpuppets, "rights to vanish" and the like. So when it comes to vicious partisanship, he knows of what he speaks. It appears that a condition of his unban was that he be topic banned from "all pages related to (a) The Israel-Palestine conflict and relations between Israel and Palestine; and (b) Judaism, both broadly interpreted." Dan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have explained the negative editing situation in the Israel/Palestine conflict articles. For instance, I wrote above that "The editing situation of those articles is as dysfunctional as the actual conflict it claims to describe accurately." Dan Murphy's ad hominem responses, illustrates my point perfectly. It would be difficult to find a better example of dysfunctional editing. Kwork2 (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kwork2: I see no ad hominem responses, and if you were indeed topic banned from Israel/Palestine topics, then I would cease commenting here if I were you. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It most certainly is ad hominem because, instead of discussing the topic I raised, or trying to refute my point, he decided to discuss what he thinks is wrong with me. Kwork2 (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kwork2: well in that case see Ad hominem#Non-fallacious ad hominem reasoning. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Nishidani: (16:04, 19 September 2015) "the 2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing article, which is an astonishing distortion of the sources (see talk page)"

As usual :( (and proving this Case), such you claim as "The whole article is preemptive in its judgement, fails Notability, and distorts by its selective use of sources.It should be deleted" isn't correct. See (only) such appropriate sources (including of Reuven Rivlin, Benjamin Netanyahu) in "What "fails Notability" & "distorts" and who does "selective use of sources"?"+.

I hope, it'll clear for you too, that after these RS & changing the title by Settleman, this claim is already not relevant. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• 3 months topic ban and mentorship during that period on other articles. I read Settleman complaining about double standards, morality issues, the idea terrorists would be presented as victims, hypocrisy, the fact that the settler's newspaper Arutz Sheva is not recognized as WP:RS on wikipeida whereas other sources are. He is WP:NOTHERE to develop an encyclopedia but just to defend the image of a group. Whichever this group, that's not allowed. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - A suggestion by an extremely involved editor who got blocked for hounding me. Settleman (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion by an editor extremely involved in the wikipedia projet, who has been here for nearly 10 years, who is a former Arbcom member from wp:fr and who wrote 7 FA and 1 GA. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment I have struck out the comment by Kwork2. He is topic banned from the I/P area, "broadly constructed", and has just been sent on a weeks "vacation" from Wikipedia, on account of the above posts. As for the rest, are most of us agreeing that Settleman ought to have a 3 month vacation form the area, together with a mentor-ship? What do you say, User:Irondome? (I can only say I think it is brave of you to offer to mentor him! From what I have seen from this report, I am not very optimistic,) Huldra (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - This hole conversation is an embarrassment. I have complained about Nishidani's conduct on an admin advise then come all Nishidani's friends (Huldra, Pluto and more from IPA and Sturmgewehr88 seems to aligned with him as well) and completely deflect everything back. What am I blamed for? NOT adding info to an article created 6 hours before and got 'balanced' within 24 hours by Nishidani and some nonsense about Shulman and Havakook. Pluto and Huldra are just as much at fault of NPoV violation[21],[22] claiming a result of WT about settlements can be used for an NGO.

The topic ban suggestion is not preventative but anywhere between punitive to revenge to an attempt to ban an editor some don't like. (This explains the lack of pro-Israeli editors. Someone gets in your face and when you complain, you get punished for that. great system.) Iryna Harpy, as far as I can tell you are the only truly non-involved editor who supports topic-ban. I urge you to check the conversation I have conducted on various talk pages and get your own impression. See how many times editors answer my questions or just deflect it. Also please check WP:ARBPIA3. Settleman (talk) 06:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I am taking a few days out with my partner in the lovely city of Chester. I apologise for not being on-line for some days. My offer still stands, if Settleman et al are comfortable with it. Have done an inadequate speed read of the issue since I left (above). Will reply more fully as soon as I am back. Cheers all. Simon Irondome (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think in terms of a period or topic ban, though had this been raised at AE the boomerang would have met some severer response. I'd leave this to an informal arrangement between Simon and Settleman, and suggest this not be closed for a week until this can be negotiated between the two, something along the lines of consulting with Simon whenever Settleman, as often, sees something that strikes him as requiring urgent action. A lot of futile clashing could be avoided with a wise word, or a suggestion of the proper policy procedure or even tactic to be taken in those cases. I should add that Simon knows he will find me more than ready to listen if he does find my own relationship with Settleman culpably antagonistic. This should work.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It certainly strikes me as being a reasonable compromise. As noted, however, this AN discussion should be kept open until Simon's return as it is contingent on Settleman's being prepared to accept it and work within proscribed parameters. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There is however one rather obvious problem. If Simon is gone now, he has a very good chance of being gone again, maybe in the near future. He actually has that chance anyway, whether we acknowledge it or not. If he isn't around when a problem arises, how will it be dealt with then? Under the circumstances, ideally, I'd like to see Simon have at least a few people to take his place in that event. As I indicated above, I could try to help out in his absence, but be warned, my prior efforts in that sort of thing haven't had very good results. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: Having a mentor is always subject to the problem of the mentor not always being available. I'm more concerned that Settleman hasn't agreed to being 'adopted' at this stage and is still actively editing. (As an aside, Settleman, I did not jump into this without acquainting myself with the issues, and I was most certainly following WP:ARBPIA3 as it went down.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I have answered about a week ago here and on mt talk page I have no problem with some help and guidance. Settleman (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I am back. I am asking Settleman if our colleague is indeed confirming that he would accept my, and perhaps John Carter's mentorship. For the record. I am a pro-Zionist editor, and I believe Settleman makes some relevant points in some of his concerns upthread. This a legacy of the sometimes bitter history of the I/P issue as covered by WP. I would ask Nishidani to slightly moderate your tone. It has become uncharacteristically acerbic of late. It's not your style Nish, and I suspect you are slightly still under the weather due to your recent health problem. Again, I appeal to all colleagues of good faith and whatever POV to all stick together in seeking an NPOV tone and a constructive and non-threatening atmosphere in this most difficult of WP areas. Our much missed colleague Malik Shabazz I suspect would agree. I have said my piece. Shalom/Salaam to all colleagues of Good faith. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess the only question which comes to mind to me, and I would welcome @Irondome:'s input as well as that of @Settleman:, is the kind of mentorship this is. I am not particularly involved in the I-P area in general, although I am I guess someone who leans toward the UN side, which is probably more or less consistent with the Palestine side. That being the case I wonder whether we would want to make this a less formal mentorship or whether we would be thinking of something along the lines of Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, which has the advantage to the mentors of making their status a bit clearer to others so that they can be contacted more directly or pinged if there is a problem away from Settleman's page which we might not notice otherwise. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking maybe a less formal model John. Any difference in POV leanings with two mentors sounds very balanced also, which can only be good! ;) Seriously, I would suggest that maybe @Settleman: might be amenable to having this mentorship placed on his user page, so that colleagues know, and who to contact so that any issues (I am hoping that in fact Settleman will grow and learn in WP experience and this arrangement will be short-lived) can be diffused with minimum hassle. Simon. Irondome (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing

user:Springee has been disruptively editing and wikihounding individuals over the past few weeks. Springee has wikihounded user:HughD by following him to multiple articles and reverting his edits in part or in whole, as well as disruptively tagging his edits. [[23]][[24]][[25]][[26]][[27]][[28]][[29]][[30]]. In all of these articles, you can extend the list to 500 edits and see that Springee only became involved immediately after an edit by HughD and Springee's involvement was either to revert HughD's edit, or tag them under the guise of "undue" or "notability". You can do a simple Ctrl+F search for "springee" to see exactly where the user became involved in the article and see what their first few edits were. Springee had no previous involvement on these articles and it's clear he only became involved to disrupt the edits of another user.

Springee has also tendentiously reverted edits under the premise of "no consensus", which is a direct example of WP:TEND. As per wp:TEND "You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first. There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article." It's one thing to object to material for RS, weight, or NPOV purposes, but to remove reliably sourced additions because "they didn't discuss it first and get consensus" is a direct example of tendentious editing. Here are multiple instances of these types of reverts by Springee [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. What's even more concerning is that Springee applies his "no consensus" reasoning selectively. It appears that edits he/she agrees with don't get reverted for reasons of "no consensus" and Springee even goes out of the way, in some cases, to thank and welcome the addition of material added without consensus [39]. On top of that, the user protects information added without consensus by citing "no consensus" for removal. This inconsistnecy and selective application shows that this isn't just a matter of not understanding Wikipedia policy, but a matter of selectively disrupting disagreeable edits. I have discussed this matter with Springee here [40], yet the user persists in this type of behavior. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• [Note, this is a later edit. Please note the date and time vs edits below. It is placed here to directly reply to the changes listed in the ANI accusation above]
• The first list of 8 references are simply links to page edit histories. I'm not sure how I am supposed to reply to that material. Yes, I edited on all those pages for various reasons.
• The second list of 8 references are to edits that Scoobydunk claims are WP:TEND. Note that this is a somewhat vague description and not a WP guideline. Scoobydunk claims I'm reverting (presumably solely) with the justification "no consensus". I'm putting forth that his claim is not true. I will go through all 8 of the edits in question to explain why.

1. [41] This is an edit in which I reverted a removal of content by Scoobydunk. Another editor had added the material and I agreed with its inclusion. The related talk section is here[42]. Note the discussion regarding the edits in question began before the Scoobydunk reverted Rjensen's edits which I added back to the article.
2. [43] This edit, like many relate to the changes HughD made to the Chicago-style politics page. On Aug 26th, 2015 an IP editor tried to return the article to the subject it had from its creation in 2011 through April of 2014 when HughD changed the topic to concentrate on a POV fork. The IP's initial edit is here[44]. I noticed HughD's involvement with this topic because this was during the same time period when he was attempting to insert a controversial Mother Jones article into a number of global warming related pages. In edits below I explain(ed) why I was involved in the MJ related content dispute. Since I am from near Chicago I decided to investigate the changes. That is when I saw that HughD had turned the article into a POV fork with no justifications on the talk page. The tag claiming the article was about a meme was simply not true historically and was added to justify removing other content. Thus I did have a reason for removing it that was related to the topic, not the editor. The topic shift was questioned in April of this year with no reply from HughD. The tag in question was only added after the IP editor tried to restore the earlier article topic sentence.
3. [45] Removal of the same tag as above. This time HughD added it back in without responding to questions about the topic redirection on the talk page. Here is my question regarding the article redirect[46]. The tag was restored by HughD at the same time [47]. Restoring a questionable tag when other editors have made it clear that the existence of the tag should be discussed is not constructive editing.
4. [48] This one is laughable. The editor in question was an "undercover" diarist at the Daily Kos. He was indefinately blocked shortly after this exchange [49]. The editor had added ~8k worth of content in a mass addition. Several editors, myself included objected to such a large and not well balanced addition. Several of us engaged in a discussion with the editor regarding the edit he was trying to make [50]. Prior to getting consensus and over the objections of the consensus of the talk page VVUSA/KochTruths added the content. I reverted it. For my trouble I was accused of being on the Koch brother's payroll on the Daily Kos.
5. [51] This was disputed content which had already been added by HughD then removed by Capitalismojo then restored by HughD before he even joined in the talk page discussion regarding the content. I was following the edit history of Capitalismojo (not HughD) when I saw this content dispute. I agreed with the reasons for removal and hence joined in the editing. Note that this Mother Jones content was added to nearly a dozen article and thus what seem to be a range of unrelated articles are all part of the same content disagreement in which several editors were involved.
6. [52] In this case, while there is an active AFD discussing both the Chicago-style politics and Chicago-style politics (meme) (the later a POV fork article created when HughD couldn't get consensus to keep the older article focused on the POV subtopic) pages with a likely outcome that the articles (the parent and the POV fork) will be merged, HughD adds a tag from the parent to the likely to be removed via merger POV fork. For the sake of article stability this sort of editing should be avoided hence I removed the tag. Note this was done after Fyddlestyx did a great job of restoring not only the older content that HughD had removed (see the article's recent edit history) but also did a good job of including mention of the meme content Hugh wanted to focus on. I don't think it was unreasonable to ask that we not put such edits into the article until the AFD and article mergers are complete.
7. [53] This tag (no material was removed) is related to the Chicago-style politics and associated CSP meme article. Another editor tagged the newly created meme page as an orphan. Hugh then proceeded to add questionable "chicago-style politics" references to several articles including this one. The additions were questionable and I put both questions on the talk pages and in the article each time the content was added. As an example, in the Halftime talk edit list you will see I am the second editor [54]. Thus the article tag was an invitation to justify a questionable content addition. The tags were not stand alone.
8. [55] This is an article which was discussing the Southern Strategy. An editor made a large 2.1K removal of sourced content. I reverted that removal and added a discussion page comment asking for justification for such a large removal [56].

• While I can see Scoobydunk doesn't agree with my POVs on various subjects I think he was looking for a reason to claim WP:TEND and thus when he found posts that appeared to fit the pattern he went with it and we are here. I would question how he can claim this isn't about the content when it appears he isn't actually following the content discussions. I will also reiterate my claim from below that I believe Scoobydunk has an axle to grind. Consider this accusation of dishonesty on my part that he posted in reply to my comments [57]. Springee (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

2. (above) This particular edit is as clear an example of the reported user's blatant edit war baiting and tendentious editing as any. Several editors including the reported editor and an SPA IP were understandably confused about the relationship between our Political history of Chicago and Chicago-style politics articles and were approaching Chicago-style politics as a POV re-telling of Political history of Chicago, so an {{about-distinguish}} article hat was a completely appropriate, constructive, helpful approach to building our encyclopedia. Within the hour, with no talk page discussion, the reported user reverted the addition of the article hat with his favorite edit summary, "no consensus," which to the reported user means "I don't like it." The reported user characterized their motivation as "Since I am from near Chicago I decided to investigate," but WP:HARASS includes no exception authorizing harassment of editors from the same geographic area as one's self. By "I noticed HughD's involvement" the reported editor means of course he was digging through my edit history looking for contributions to political, but non-Tea Party, articles. My edit history goes back to 2006 including some 15,000 edits, 70% article space, and multiple good articles so respectfully if the reported user's harassment behavior is not addressed we should expect the harassment to continue for a good long time. I agree with the reported editor's strategy, I am a deeply flawed human and reverting my edits on articles from my history very likely should have induced a reportable edit war, and advanced the American politics ban he sought, but it did not this time WP:GAME. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that Springee's edit above is another example of tendentious behavior since he clearly disregards proper threading, as I've previously mentioned on this notice. Springee is clearly trying to justify the fact that he was wikihounding and reverting editors' comments for the reason of "no consensus" which is an explicit example of tendentious editing. I'd also like to point out that Springee regards this ANI notice and the over 16 examples of his wikihounding/tendentious editing as "jokes" [58]. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? It seems like you are trying to attack me because of a content disagreement on the Southern Strategy article and perhaps left over resentment because I disagreed with you and argued against your claims on the Americans For Prosperity RfC that recently didn't go your way (RfC[59] and your frustration that it was not decided as you had wished [60]). You have disagreed with myself and a few other editors on the Southern Strategy talk page recently. Today I proposed making some changes here [61], the first edit on the talk page since Aug 30th. You personally haven't edited that page since Aug 27th. I proposed adding to a section that you have strongly opposed since it's inception. So today when I proposed additional changes, changes you oppose, you quickly reply (your first content related reply to any article/talk page since Aug 27th). Note that your only edits between the 27th and today were to attack me attack me on Sept 3rd/4th. In that case you were siding with a blogger who initially joined here under the name "KochTruths" and filed an ANI accusing myself and three other editors of being paid stooges of Koch Industries[62]. It seems odd that as soon as I propose some changes to an article you appear to be watching, changes you wouldn't agree with, an ANI pops up, an ANI almost exclusively about edits to articles that you aren't involved with. It seems to me you are trying to game the system by using a ANI to block edits you don't agree with. Springee (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not entirely fair, the concern that you were following HughD was raised by both Scooby and myself more than two weeks ago, in our comments on your edit warring report against Hugh. FWIW, there is pretty clear evidence of your following him too: especially to the Bernard Stone GA review, to Political History of Chicago, to Donor's Trust and to Chicago Style Politics. I was also concerned that you were one of several editors who seemed to be following Hugh, which is why I urged you (and Hugh) to avoid working on the same articles just a day or two ago. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The evidence of your wikihounding and tendentious editing is plainly clear. Please focus on the actual merit of the complaint instead of raising red herring arguments in the form of argumentum ad hominem. To address those concerns, I've raised these issues with you over the course of our discussions, and they've gone ignored. Now that the weekend is done and I have time to dedicate to addressing this issue, so I've raised a complaint here. It was specifically this edit [63] that prompted me to raise this issue. Again, you listed "no consensus" as part of the reason for removal, even after you were aware that removing material for that reason was tendentious behavior. Upon further review, I noticed "no consensus" in many other reverts of your's that I was unaware of before. This is continuing and prolonged behavior that needs to be addressed. I suggest you speak to the accusations levied against you, instead of trying to "shoot the messenger".Scoobydunk (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• In regard to the "following him to multiple articles and reverting his edits in part or in whole, as well as disruptively tagging his edits accusation the wide range of subject areas covered are: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Political history of Chicago, Halftime in America, David Axelrod, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, Karl Rove and Chicago-style politics. It seems reasonable that HughD is being followed but I am unsure in which direction tend is supposed to be in operation. GregKaye 19:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I mentioned this in a previous edit below but I will add it here for better clarity. There are two recent topics in which I and others engaged with HughD. The first related to the edit warring report I created related to a series of edits by HughD [64]. The pages in question were: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,American Petroleum Institute,ExxonMobil,American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity,Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley,The Heartland Institute, and FreedomWorks. You will see there were multiple discussions related to the attempt add a single Mother Jones article to all of those articles. As I said in the ANI there were at least three other editors who disagreed with the insertion as HughD had made it and as he reinserted it. One characteristic of HughD's editing is repeated insertions even as people are discussing the topic. That and the fact that he undid multiple reverts, not just by myself but by other editors who objected to the same article.

The second set of articles relating to HughD's edits all involve the Chicago-style politics article. This article got my attention as I was reviewing HughD's recent edits associated with the then active dispute over the Mother Jones article. Given the range of articles HughD was attempting to put the MJ article into and simply trying to keep up with all the various edits it was natural to check to see what edits he made recently. That is when I noticed the revert of an IP edit to the Chicago-style article (I'm from near Chicago originally so that also caught my eye). Then I discovered the history of the article. April of 2014 you will see that HughD totally changed the nature of the article without a single comment on the talk page [65]. The IP editor was attempting to undo that change. DaltonCastle also noted the change but his talk comment was not answered by HughD [66]. With the support of DaltonCastle I started to revert the article to it's earlier form. The result was HughD creating a second article as well as flooding the original one with edit tags. When an unrelated editor noted that HughD's newly created article was an orphan[67]. TO address this HughD added questionable references to other articles. Those articles include the ones I added "weight" tags to. The articles in question were Halftime in America [68], David Axelrod [69], Mit Romney [70], and Karl Rove [71]. Again these were all related to the same Chicago-style politics content dispute and were added simply to address the article orphan issue related to a newly created POV fork from the older article.

Scoobydunk did mention a few others that are unrelated to HughD (is original post seems to mix and match things). Some are related to the [Southern Strategy] article. This is part of why I think he is going after me as a way to address a content dispute. This one is Southern Strategy related [72]. I guess I'm wrong in thinking removing that much reliably sourced content without a talk page comment is questionable? Again the BRD cycle says if someone reverts it the next step is discuss. However, as that revert related to an editor other than HughD I'm not sure how this counts as hounding or much of anything other than the BRD cycle. Scoobydunk also listed this edit [73]. Well that is a content dispute with me on the Southern Strategy page. Note that I was reverting a removal of his, not adding/readding content of my own.

This final one is a bad joke [74]. That was my ONE revert of content added to all of the Koch Industires page by an editor who, as people suspected was a troll who was almost instantly blocked for the user name "KochTruths" then came back under a new user name and got blocked about a week later (indefinite block) [75]. The editor made a series of article changes, was reverted by another editor and then engaged in something that pretended to be discussion. When he went ahead and made changes that we had not agreed to in the talk section I reverted them. One of the charges made by Scoobydunk is that I was engaged in tagging edits or reverting edits without discussion or cause. That is far from true. I have extensively used the talk pages to try to discuss changes before editing the actual articles. Hence my edit history is heavy on the talk page end of things. For reasons that it can appear to look bad when one doesn't see how the edits I agree that I will avoid editing interactions with HughD once the Chicago AFD is closed out. But I can't help but question Scoobydunk's motives to get involved in something that in which he isn't at all involved. Why join in this boomerang ANI on the side of a trolling editor if you don't have an ax of your own to grind [76]. Springee (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

A couple of things to address. First, it is also outlined in WP:TEND that improper threading can also indicate tendentious behavior. Fyddlestix and I have already responded to GregKaye's post. If you want to respond to it as well, then your response would come after ours and be placed below our responses, in the correct chronological order. As per WP:THREAD "If you wish to reply to a comment that has already been replied to, place your response below the last response, while still only adding one colon to the number of colons preceding the statement you're replying to." If you are going to correct the placement of this most recent response, feel free to move my own response (this response), as well. Second, outlining your reasoning for the behavior is irrelevant. Just like the reasoning for edit warring is irrelevant to the fact that an editor was edit warring. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong in the addition/removal of material in an edit war, edit warring is seen as disruptive and comes with swift results. Harassment and tendentious editing is no different. Here we have multiple concrete examples of your following HughD around to multiple articles that you've never been involved in, and reverting his edits. We also have multiple examples of you trying to force people to get a consensus before adding or removing material from articles. There are valid reasons for reverting other users but the objection of "no consensus" is not one of them as identified and explained by WP:TEND. So it's not a part of the BRD cycle. The BRD cycle includes reversions and discussion that actually have to deal with WP policies, and gaining the approval of you or other editors is not one of those policies, as is directly expressed in WP:TEND.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Relevant context here is that Hugh was reported here multiple times (including twice by Springee) for his behavior on Koch and climate-change articles, and was topic-banned for it by Ricky81682 a few weeks ago. Springee has continued to follow Hugh since then, though, most notably to Chicago-style politics, which led to some squabbling between the two of them on the talk page, a spin-off article (Chicago-style politics (meme)) and this AFD. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're not sure about, so I'll repeat it more plainly. Reverting edits because there is "no consensus" is referred to as tendentious editing. Springee has made multiple reverts almost solely based on there being "no consensus" or "no consent" and has spoken this directly in the edit comment of the diffs listed above. I've addressed this issue with Springee, so he's aware that it's tendentious to require editors get consensus before adding/removing cited and sourced material from articles, yet he continues to do so.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's quite fair to claim Scoobydunk is attacking me due to a content disagreement. His posting of this ANI and the retort to my Southern Strategy talk comments were back to back. As for following HughD claims, well actually I agreed with Fyddlestix that it was looking questionable and thus once the Chicago article was settled I am planning on cutting back on editing in general for a while. I'm still rather frustrated by the external attack on me related to the Koch Industries page mentioned above. However, the claims of following all over are not quite right. In reality we have just two recent sets of edits. The first was the set of edits related to trying to insert a Mother Jones article into potentially a dozen articles. Those were the mid August edits. They all related to basically the same topic. I did accuse HughD of edit waring related to those edits [[77]]. Since this was a case of trying to insert a questionable citation into several articles it looks like I'm following to a number of articles when in fact it's all part of the same content dispute. I discovered the articles in question by looking at some of the activities of Capitalismojo and Arthur Rubin. I agreed with them that the edits were questionable. The Chicago-style politics article was one that I admit I found via looking through HughD's edit history. However, that is hardly the hounding Scoobydunk wants to claim. HughD was making lots of edits to lots of articles as part of what I saw as edit waring (again see the recent ANI). I noticed that he objected to some IP edits and immediately posted a "don't do that again" type message on the IP's talk page (one of the IP edits in question [78]). What the IP editor objected to was the way HughD had taken an article about the phrase "Chicago-style politics" and turned it into an article that discussed attacks against Obama. This was don't without comments on the talk page and against the muted objections of others. Sorry, that article caught my attention and I agreed with the IP editor as well as the editor who objected on the talk page. The details of that interaction can be seen in the following talk pages but they are on the up and up. After creating a new page of questionable value another editor tagged it as questionable for bing an orphan article. HughD added tags in several articles that were clearly of questionable merit simply to create links to the new article. That's the ugly history of that story. Note that I didn't go around reverting HughD's edits. I tagged them as questionable because I do think they are questionable. If editors have specific article questions I can answer them in more detail. Do note that what seems like a lot of different articles are actually related by just two edit/content disagreements, the inclusion of a Mother Jones article listing "the climate change dirty dozen" and the edits to and related to Chicago-style politics page and the POV fork Chicago-style politics (meme) including the addition of questionable links to the latter at pages like Halftime in America, David Axelrod, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 and Karl Rove.

Regardless, if it will make Scoobydunk happy, I won't join in any new content disputes with HughD for at least 30 days. That should show good faith and address concerns. I still find it odd that Scoobydunk decided to post this ANI right at a time that I'm disagreeing with him in an article unrelated to HughD. Why Scoobydunk decided to posted it instead of the aggrieved also makes me think this is a content dispute. Certainly he has shown strong and vocal disagreement with myself and at least one other editor at Southern Strategy as well as earlier during the previously mentioned RfC. Springee (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The opportunity to step back was when I first raised these issues. This is serious behavior since tendentious editing and knowingly editing tendentiously disrupts the principles of Wikipedia and the enjoyment of other editors. Wikihounding is also a serious form of harassment which is not to be taken lightly. I believe a more serious and long term admin sanction is required to cover the behavior exhibited by Springee.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above post) Sorry for breaking this up, I have been getting interrupted while putting these posts together, hence things are not as organized as I would wish. Anyway, to further my claim that this is something related to Scoobydunk using the ANI to attack me please note these WP:BATTLE posts to HughD's talk page. Scoobydunk is trying to coach HughD into feeling hounded: [79][80]. Hugh has filed a number of ANIs against other editors [81], [82],[83]. Why encourage this action against me by a third party unless there is a personal motivation given the third party is more than capable of posting the ANI himself. There was also this out of the blue attack on me in the ANI that had nothing to do with HughD (the KochTruth blogger ANI) [84]. Why make such an unrelated statement in that ANI unless your intent was somehow personal or content dispute related. Again, I think this point to an attempt to bully to resolve the content dispute related to my post earlier today. Springee (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Without commenting on the other claims in this case, this edit[85] certainly looks like an example of "let's you and him fight". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Guy Macon, I'd like to point this out as another example of Springee's tendentious editing. In the diff Macon linked to Springee says "Do not add the material again without going through the discuss part of the BOLD cycle." which is another demand requiring consensus and seems potentially threatening. Springee's attempt to turn the subject matter of this post on me is what he typically does against other editors to avoid responsibility for his actions. The real battleground behavior here is exhibited by sPringee in the form of tendentious editing and wikihounding. Suffice to say, I've well witnessed multiple examples of disruptive behavior from Springee towards other editors and offered suggestions to those abused editors on how to address the issue. It's no surprise that they haven't pursued the issue because Springee and others attempt to "shoot the messenger". This is not okay, and though Springee now attempts to levy accusations against me and my motives, none of this should take away from the harassment and disruptive editing he's exhibited on multiple occasions. Scoobydunk (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Why didn't you post this ANI a long time ago rather than just today when I proposed making changes you disagree with?[86] These are changes that you seem to be the lone, vocal hold out against. You could have easily posted this ANI in a more timely fashion. Would you have posted this had I not edited [Talk:Southern_strategy] this morning? Springee (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I've already explained this above and also gave the direct link to the edit that prompted me to raise this issue. Your edits since that last "no consensus" reversion you made are irrelevant to the fact that I've been monitoring this and have been attempting to address this behavior for some time now. I'll also note, that I have raised this issue before in other ANI posts, but it got completely ignored by admins. I've already spoken to this fact and this behavior is clearly something that shouldn't be ignored. I thought my mentioning this on other ANI reports against you would be sufficient, but since those reports have been closed with no action taken against your behavior, I'm left with no option but to raise my own ANI notice. It's quite simple really.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

So wait, you are now claiming this is a conspiracy between several editors to intimidate more than just HughD? "Suffice to say, I've well witnessed multiple examples of disruptive behavior from Springee towards other editors and offered suggestions to those abused editors on how to address the issue. It's no surprise that they haven't pursued the issue because Springee and others attempt to "shoot the messenger"." Who are these other editors and who are these other people we are intimidating? It was less than a week ago I was accused of being on the Koch brother's payroll.

Your edit that raised the issue wasn't today. You linked to quite a few edits. Which "no consensus" edit are you talking about? This one [87]? That would strongly support my view that this is an attempt to control content in [Southern Strategy]. Springee (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in my comment indicated a conspiracy and you can click the diffs supplied in the original complaint to see the different editors who you've tendentiously reverted due to "no consensus". The previous ANI notices with HughD and that Veritasvenci (SP) show you and other editors ignoring the content of the complaint to pursue accusations against the person who proposed the complaint. This doesn't suggest a "conspiracy", but there is ample evidence that editors have ignored your behavior to focus on others' behavior, and this is what I was speaking to. Also, I made a specific response to one of your comments where I outlined the specific example of your tendentious editing. You can find it here [88]. I'm not sure why I'm bothering linking it for you because it's clear you ignored it the first time to continue to pursue your red herring arguments.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That edit was the one that broke your camel's back? Well at least that was only two days ago... unlike most of this stuff, some of which is almost a month old. But why reply just after I proposed edits on the Southern Strategy page? Your ANI and your negative reply to my proposals were just back to back. Regardless, do you think the tag I removed was proper in the case of two articles that are likely to be merged based on AFD consensus? Why add a tag to the article that is likely to be gone in less than a week or from an article which is likely to be gone in less than a week? Isn't adding that, given that consensus is clearly that one or the other will go away it's own form of tedious editing? I noticed that you are the only editor who complained about that edit. None of the involved editors objected. You are of course welcome to join the discussion if you think that tag should have remained. I think if you look into the specific histories of the edits you have cited you will find that they are not unreasonable and I do listen to group discussion and consensus. But if you think KochTruth/VeritasVincitUSA[89] was just here to build a better encyclopedia you are certainly welcome to argue that case. Springee (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing red herring arguments. I think it's more telling that you're attempting to justify your wikihounding and tendentious editing, instead of taking accountability for it. Even worse, you're trying to pass the blame to other editors when you say "Isn't adding that, given that consensus is clearly that one or the other will go away it's own form of tedious editing?" What other editors do is irrelevant to the fact that you're editing has been tendentious. You've been told about it, it's been previously discussed, yet you continue to do it. I'm not interested in content disputes about the tag and we're not here to discuss content disputes. Also note, I'm not complaining about any particular edit, I'm talking about behavior that is evident across multiple articles. So please stop trying to distract from that issue. Scoobydunk (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment The reported user wrote above: "the third party is more than capable of posting the ANI himself." From my point of view it is very clear that the reported user has singled me out, is following me, and digging into my contributions to our project in my edit history in search of articles likely on my watch list, to multiple articles, and reverting and tagging my edits. To me the reported user’s intention is very clearly to cause distress and disrupt my enjoyment of participating in our project. The reported user's stalking is accompanied by tendentious editing and personal attacks WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Whenever I attempted to address this behavior with the reported user (01:11, 12 September 2015; 11:40, 10 September 2015; 20:22, 9 September 2015; 17:19, 8 September 2015; 13:45, 8 September 2015; 13:08, 6 September 2015; 20:24, 28 August 2015) the reported user ignores me or reminds me that I have been warned and name-drops his favorite administrator 01:24, 12 September 2015. The reported user seems incapable of discussing content without discussing editors. The reported user was unsatisfied with a topic ban under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement, unsatisfied with a hybrid WP:ARBTPM/Koch topic ban, and immediately following the imposition of the topic ban pursued an aggressive program of edit war baiting toward his goal of a joint WP:ARBTPM/American politics topic ban or more. When my contributions to our project dropped off in the wake of the topic ban, the reported user dove into my edit history seeking fodder for his edit war baiting, and found among others a WP:CHICAGO article I worked on in April, 2014. The reported user decided my edits of April, 2014 were without consensus and demanded that I justify the edits. The reported user is not here to work on our project; his project is me WP:NOTHERE. I felt so badly when he took his project to WP:CHICAGO article space that I apologized to my fellow project members on project talk. Respectfully request a review of the reported user's editting behavior and at a minimum an indefinite one-way interaction ban. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The reported user wrote above: "I didn't go around reverting HughD's edits." The report user pursued an aggressive project of edit war baiting across multiple articles, please see 14:18, 9 September 2015; 13:52, 9 September 2015; 10:54, 8 September 2015; 07:46, 5 September 2015; 13:04, 1 September 2015; 21:22, 28 August 2015; 00:32, 28 August 2015. That's just the first page of my notifications. More of the reported user's edit war baiting available upon request. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The reported user wrote above: "Scoobydunk is attacking me due to a content disagreement." This is a report of problem behavior, not a content dispute. The following series of edits is particularly telling in terms of demonstrating blatant edit war baiting behavior: I removed a tagged, unreferenced, irrelevant, original research sentence from a WP:CHICAGO article; minutes later, the reported user restored the content; the next day, a third party editor removed the same sentence; minutes later, the reported user thanked the third party editor at article talk. For me this exchange was particularly dispiriting. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The above are reverts after discussions were underway and related to material on the talk pages. Given your recent history of disruptive editing (your block log has 4 entries this year including edit warring) and given that your year long topic ban was due to misrepresenting facts as you were attempting to have sanctions brought against an admin, I don't think we can just assume your presentation of the material is at least somewhat self serving. It seems this is becoming a tit-for-tat discussion. That is exactly why I told Fyddlestix I was burned out and ready to take a break [90]. I agree with his last comment (though I realized I didn't actually reply to it at the time). Springee (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The edits above relate to your blitz to remove content that didn't support the POV fork you added to the article. I was asking only that myself and others be given the time to correct the lack of citations in the older content rather than simply blanking it. You didn't bring your disagreements to the talk page but instead made edits without discussion when it was clear myself and others were now trying to get some agreement on the article changes. The "third party editor" was Fyddlestix and again you are misrepresenting the events. The one line I restored was discussion the history of the phrase the article was about before you changed the entire article into a POV fork without a single comment on the talk page. Fyddlestix took the time to really rewrite the article to include the historic information with references. I thanked him for a whole sale rewrite of the article, not for removing or adding a single sentence. It seems very questionable to present the facts as you just did. Springee (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

HughD, you were topic banned for being less than honest in your dealing with an RAE you filed. You claimed you stepped back when in fact you were topic banned under protest [91]. I can't help but think your above post is a self serving, opportunist set of claims trying to make you look like a victim. For example, on the Chicago talk page why did you start by attacking my motives rather than justifying your edits ([92], [93],[94])? Why did you attack me instead of answer a topic based question? If you look at that talk section in general you will see that I was trying to discuss the article topic and ask why you changed it. You were trying to avoid that topic. This is hardly a case of you being a victim, instead this is you refusing to engage in a dialog about your edits. Do you think comments such as this [95] are productive or focus on the content?

Anyway, as I said in the Chicago-style politics talk page and will say again here, I'm rather tired of all of this myself and I'm happy to take a step back for a while. To avoid the look of impropriety I'm happy to stay away from any new topics you are actively involved with for at least one month. That should give both of us a welcome rest. [User:Springee|Springee]] (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:HARASS: "It is as unacceptable to harass a user ... who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to harass any other user." Hugh (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

But in the same section it IS considered reasonable to "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." and "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." The edits you were making were very questionable thus there was an overriding reason. I joined the MJ related articles after looking at what others, not you, were editing. The Chicago related articles were to correct the way you created a POV fork in the original article. To claim this was to hound you you need to show that your original edits to the Chicago-style politics article were reasonable. Even when asked on the talk page you never justified the whole sale change you made to the article. Thus WP:HOUND doesn't apply in that case. The same is true of the MJ case where a number of editors disagreed with you and I ended up working with another editor to try to come to a amicable solution to the problem. Springee (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

FALSE, reverting HughD's edits on the basis of "no consensus" is not an example of "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." As a matter of fact, using the reasoning of "no consensus" is actually, itself, an unambiguous violation of WP policy as per WP:TEND. So your reversions are not covered in the scope of exceptions for following a user and changing their edits and actually are part of the reason you're being reported for tendentious editing as well. Also, claiming that his edits were "questionable" is a further admission that they were not "unambiguous" because "questionable" inherently implies ambiguity and uncertainty. You also just admitted to having an overriding reason of "no consensus" which,in and of itself, is tendentious. WP:Hound clearly applies and this comment of yours only further proves it.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solution As a means to close this ANI out I propose a self imposed interaction ban between HughD and myself for at least a month. The only exception will be closure of the Chicago-style politics article and related page discussions. As I said to Fyddlestix I was ready for a break and this seems like the perfect time to take it. I hope that will satisfy all involved. Springee (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Solution - I believe HughD's suggestion of an interaction ban as well as a 1-3 month site ban should be sufficient in giving Springee enough time to reflect on the disruptive behavior. The interaction ban only addresses a single aspect of the issue, but ignores the fact that he's tendentiously edited against other editors. Interaction ban would be relatively minor considering that other accounts have been indefinitely banned for harassment, which is what wikihounding is. Springee has also demonstrated tendentious behavior here pertaining to not assuming good faith and accusing others of malice, both of which are outlined in WP:TEND. In just this ANI discussion thus far, Springee has implicated my motives are questionable, accused me of bullying, accused me of gaming the system, accused me of battleground mentality, accused me of levying conspiracy theories, and has accused me of having an ax to grind. Even when HughD offers his input on his feelings, Springee immediately attacks him as "self serving" and "playing the victim" instead of reflecting on the impact his own behavior has had on HughD. This is clearly not strictly about the relationship between Springee and HughD, but is clearly about Springee's tendentious editing, harassment, and attacking others instead focusing on the fact that there are over 8 diffs of his wikihounding and over 8 diffs of his tendentious editing. This requires much more than a self-imposed interaction ban.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree an interaction ban only partially addresses the serious behavior reported here. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

1-3 month site ban? Seriously? This again makes me think your intent is vindictive rather than anything else. WP states that blocks are not meant to punish but to protect the site. Thus if I agree to any self imposed limits and stick to them you should have no grounds on which to protest... unless your motives are vindictive. Furthermore, I provided examples of you trying to brow beat an admin with whom you had a disagreement[96]. Here was the last reply to you, "One of us is being aggressive and confrontational. It's not me. ... Guy (Help!) 22:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)". It seems I'm not the only one who would think you are confrontational and will try to brow beat to get it your way. Since you are attacking me with this ANI I am certainly free to call your motives into question. You did the same to me when I posted an ANI unrelated to you. You also did the same TOO me when KochTruth posted an ANI to attack me that resulted in a boomerang and indefinite block. It's funny that you accuse me of not assuming good faith yet you aren't willing to do the same with respect to the edits I was making. Springee (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, harassment is a serious issue. Also, I didn't question your motives, I simply raised the issue of your tendentious editing and wikihounding, thinking that an admin would be responsible enough to address those serious issues. Sorry, but I'm pretty sure "good faith" becomes a non-issue when there are over 16 instances of wikihounding and tendentious editing combined. I also already explained how your self imposed interaction ban doesn't address the issue of your overall tendentious behavior and harassment.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You did question my motives. When you said WP:HOUND you have to question my motives because part of the test for hounding is this "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason.". So do you think HughD's MJ and Chicago-style politics edits were "reasonable"? Understand that you weren't involved in those discussions so you probably didn't follow their developments. My "over all tendentious behavior" is a farce. You have only three examples, weak at best, that don't relate to the topic disputes with HughD. The Southern Strategy one is clearly a content dispute with you. One is related to Koch Truth (again, are you defending his edits as valid?) and one is related to a large scale removal of content without explanation. I reversed that removal. I don't see that other editors objected (yourself included). Can you make your case on just the three edits that aren't related to HughD? Springee (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I never addressed your reason for wikihounding nor even spoke to your motives. I only acknowledged the fact that you were wikihounding and have supplied 8 instances of it with other editors contributing more examples. Also, tendentious editing is not a farce and if you would actually read other peoples' responses, then you'd know that trying to defend tendentious behavior is irrelevant. Just like trying to defend edit warring is irrelevant to the fact that a user was edit warring. Making tendentious reverts citing "no consensus" is a violation of WP:TEND and is disruptive editing just like edit warring is, regardless of whether you think your were right/wrong with those reverts. Again, you continue to make baseless assertions and strawman arguments instead of accepting accountability for your behavior which only further shows that you have no intention on correcting this behavior.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that following another editor around Wikipedia is not hounding. It's only wikihounding if you do so with the intent to repreatedly confront or inhibit the other editor's work. There is a lot of disagreement over whether Hugh's contributions have improved the articles he has worked on, or made them worse. There is nothing wrong with those in the latter camp following him around to clean up the perceived mess, as long as it's done in good faith for content-based reasons. I am not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your broad brush assessment of my contributions to our project, I'm sure readers of this report will find your assessment helpful. I understand you would like to see me react in angry to your assessment. I understand to the reported user all my contributions are "questionable." I guess according to you my gross incompetence makes it impossible for anyone to WP:HOUND me and so it's open season on Hugh and I should just get used to it; after all, the reported user has yet to confront me with 2006 through 2013. By the way, I think I may have asked you this before, but I can't recall your answer, how many good articles do you have? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. This is pure straw man. I never said anything of the sort, and of course you know that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Dr. Fleischman - Thanks for your input, but the examples of wikihounding I supplied all showed Springee trying to "confront or inhibit" HughD's work. WP:HOUND does apply some caveats for fixing unambiguous errors, or small corrections, but it doesn't include tendentiously reverting someone's edits for the reason of "no consensus" or because of a disagreement about content. Sorry, but people subjectively considering his addition of reliably sourced information as a "perceived mess" is not excused by the wikihounding policy, and using a reason of "no consensus" is directly an example of tendentious editing, not to mention the repeated removal of reliably sourced information.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not say that Springee did or did not hound Hugh. I simply made an observation about the relevant policy since you appear to be misrepresenting it in this thread (suggesting that simply following someone around and reverting their edits is hounding, in the absence of any intent to confront or inhibit), as well as elsewhere. FWIW, I agree with you that "no consensus" is generally a bad reason for a first revert. It is one of my personal pet peeves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe repeatedly reverting a user's edits is plainly considered "inhibiting their work". If I'm trying to add content to an article and it keeps getting reverted, then clearly my work is being inhibited. I used different diction, but the actions are synonymous. I also believe that the few exceptions WP:HOUND mentions clearly don't apply to an edit summary of "no consensus".Scoobydunk (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Request Admin Action - I don't understand why an admin hasn't dealt with Springee's behavior. There are over 8 pages that Springee followed another editor to and reverted their work. There are also 8 instances that show Springee's tendentious editing by citing "no consensus" as the reason for his reverts. Since this notice started, Springee has continued to make accusations in bad faith against editors who don't share his point of view. There is absolutely no reason why this ANI notice has gone unaddressed by admins.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a perfectly good reason it's been ignored. These kinds of arguments also keep going to WP:AE (which at least has a word limit) and no one particularly cares because everyone can see what this is. I'm hardly uninvolved here but what I see is editors using ANI to snipe at each other to get the other side kicked out so they can take control of heavily political articles and whitewash or blackwash or whatever they want to do to them. ARBCOM gave you rules for those articles and gave you a method for it and it's not here. I suspect the cases at AE haven't gone anywhere so that's why you're here. Either way, while you're here, you're going to have to be more specific on what you want. Suggest an I-ban, a topic ban, a block, whatever and see where it goes. The fact that people watch the same topics isn't necessarily hounding and the truth is the whole lot of you have made editing here less pleasant for everyone who interacts with any of you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682 - I've already made a recommendation above, but I don't see why it's my responsibility to make a recommendation. Admins normally know what kind of action is appropriate. Also, you're making a red herring argument when you say "people watch the same topics" unless you can prove the Springee was watching all of those articles. The 8 different examples of wikihounding I supplied had never been previously edited by Springee before, so to suggest he was watching them and not following an editor is unsubstantiated and unreasonable. Regardless, he was still purposefully inhibiting the editing of a another contributor. Let's also not forget the 8 examples of tendentious editing on top of that. It is my understanding that arbcom deals with problems that have already been addressed multiple times in WP:ANI, but still persist. So I'm required to bring this here first and this is the type of behavior that's suppose to be addressed here. Your comment also confuses me because it's very clear that you had no problem taking action against HughD and that Veritavenci guy, even to the point of violating wp:involved concerns, but are doing nothing to other editors who have violated multiple WP policies. There are over 16 examples of WP policy violations by Springee in the form of wikihounding and tendentious editing and there are clearly defined by diffs and it's very clear that they are getting ignored and have been getting ignored. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Look, up to you. And no I did nothing "even to the point of violating wp:involved concerns", I'm sure I've never even edited all those articles. Other than taking a cautious approach to a problematic new editor, I issued a single article topic ban for two weeks on one individual and then expanded it when the concerns expanded, two things that no one has overturned. I consider myself uninvolved as I have little care about any of these actual article content (and barely any more about the editors). Otherwise as I said I haven't gotten more involved but the point is this looks like the same tit-for-tat fighting from various editors. No one here has edited remotely appropriately. Fine, I'll support Springee's proposal for a one-month interaction ban between Springee and HughD (including the Chicago-style politics article) whereby both editors agree to not revert the other directly. If there's a dispute, start a discussion and make an edit request and let an admin or anyone else be a third-party. Reject the idea of a complete site ban as overkill. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's grossly inconsistent to give VVUSA a permanent ban for harassment concerns and then support a 1 month interaction ban for Springee when there are numerous instances of harassment and tendentious editing. I've also already proven that Springee's behavior isn't limited to his interaction with HughD but has been directed at multiple editors and an interaction ban does absolutely nothing to address this behavior. No where did you address this fact in your support for Springee's recommendation and no where did you address the bad faith accusations Springee has levied against me in this Ani notice and how he's acted aloft to this serious evidence. I think it's also telling that you believe the actions of HughD and VVUSA get perma bans and topic bans, but when it comes to the side of their opposition you consider it to be "tit-for-tat". Not that I condone the behavior of the editors previously mentioned, but there is a clear bias in how admin's have been handling these issues despite multiple editors voicing concerns over Springee's behavior over the course of the last couple of months. Finally, my "involved concerns" pertains to your removal of Kochtruth's addition to an article. I know admin's aren't considered involved for behaving in strictly an administrative sense, but I feel your criticisms/implications of HughD's relationship to Koc/VVUSA create a strong case of bias and that VVUSA's block should have been left to someone who hasn't removed his content or made speculations about his username. I think issuing blocks on both sides of the issue would have removed any sense of admin bias, but that clearly didn't happen. Just my opinion and they're simply concerns.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please tell me I don't have to explain the difference between someone who's writing dailykos account of being an "undercover agent" here accusing editors by name and what Springee has done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This topic has twice gone stale (over 36 hours with no edits). I would like to ask that the 36 hour rule be applied and the topic closed. Springee (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Just as a point of order, there is "36 hour rule". The 36 hour time frame is when the old archivebot would move a thread to the archive. There is no solid rule as to when a thread is closed. If there are sanctions proposed, they should be properly closed by an uninvolved admin. Blackmane (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

We just need one more supporter for the Springee site ban and that's the majority here. 166.170.49.189 (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not a vote. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

one year site ban for Springee

These harassment accusations are no laughing matter. Interaction and topic bans do nothing. The only solution is to ban Springee completely for one year. If he learns his lesson then let him come back and edit here but content creators like HughD deserve peace so that they can work on building the encyclopedia. 166.170.51.218 (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You've only made a couple of edits on this topic. What ID do you normally edit under? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:HUMAN. Some of us don't register. 166.170.49.189 (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:SPA, for which you qualify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not an accurate assessment. The contributor that you've responded to has had an account since mid July and has contributed to 3 different topics. The one proposing a site ban hasn't had enough time to establish his/herself as an SPA.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs yet again attacks IP editors. Why isn't he topic banned? (Why, indeed, is he tolerated on ANI where his inflammatory but poorly thought out comments often make things worse)82.132.226.101 (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

topic ban ricky81682

It's clear from above that this admin is not neutral in this topic. The idea that Kochtruth was deserving of anything other than a welcome and that HughD should be topic banned for welcoming a new user shows the extent of this admon's bias. 166.170.49.189 (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You've come from out of thin air. What ID do you normally edit under? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't. I just reviewed the evidence here. 166.170.50.153 (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering why this IP seemed familiar. A user from this range has a very big bone to pick with Ricky81682 arising from a dispute on the World's Oldest People pages where they received near unanimous support for a topic ban, here. This IP, among others, is used by the indefinitely blocked user:Kochtruth, who was blocked by Ricky81682 back in August and has been raising all sorts of noise about him ever since. Blackmane (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

So is that an oppose? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Time to move on?

Wow this thread is still live? This seems pretty stale now - I suggest that as long as Springee avoids following or pestering either Scoobydrunk or HughD in the near future, and as long as everyone involved makes an effort to let bygones be bygones and move on, then there's really not much left to be said/done here. If the problem crops up again, it can be dealt with then. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Or not dealt with then, like it isn't being dealt with now, or hasn't been dealt with the past 2-3 ANI reports that have been filed by multiple users. That's just inexcusable. I'm not criticizing your view, but it's clear that these issues have been dealt with lopsidedly.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Now that this has become a Kochtruth IP dumping ground can we please just close this up? Springee (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

maybe only a 2 to 3 site ban then. Something in the middle. 166.176.59.124 (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hoaxing/Vandalism

Hi, a few days ago I reverted this edit on The Snowman. Pretty clear case of vandalism by misattributing credit for several production roles. I looked further into the IP's edits and discovered a hoax which was spread over several articles. It's about a show called the Joey & Fido Show which apparently doesn't exist. Here are a few examples:

[97] [98] [99]

I researched this "show" and the only references to it I could find were all related to this user's entries in the encyclopedia. There is one unrelated Deviant Art page. Almost all of this user's vandalism pertains in some manner to Martin Lambie-Nairn. I ended up having to give up fixing this user's edits after around 70 of them spread all over Wikipedia. Please feel free to review my contributions for a full list. It includes several BLP violations pertaining to Lambie-Nairn in particular.

This user has editing Lambie-Nairn's page each of the past three days adding in unsourced claims, and don't appear to be willing to stop: [100] [101] [102]

I'm in over my head trying to deal with this as I have very little expertise and only sporadic time to edit. I'm asking for some of you folks to please watch some of these pages, and am also concerned that if a user like this spread a hoax once they may be tempted to again. I doubt they'd have been caught if not for making the mistake of editing a popular page like The Snowman.

I apologize in advance if I reverted anything I shouldn't have but every one of those 70ish edits looked like vandalism after reviewing them. I'm posting this here instead of at WP:AIV because I'm not sure if the hoaxing aspect requires more attention than normal.

They primarily edit from an IP in the range of 88.104.x.x, but not always. This changes almost every day. I will go and place the notification on their two most recent accounts.

Thank you Zarcusian (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Joey & Fido. here's more Looks like a new-ish animation, utterly non-notable. Not sure if it is the same thing, but it exists. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, yes, that is related to the deviant art page artist and is unrelated to these edits, I checked many times. This editor even refers to the show debuting in the 70s and having a feature film, etc.. Zarcusian (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we need a rangeblock. There are a bunch of IPs that geolocate to Manchester, UK, and if we can get a handle on their extent, we can see how much collateral damage would come from a rangeblock. Here's what I'm seeing:

• 88.104.0.79 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.0.91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.0.182 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.0.193 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.2.114 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.2.233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.4.88 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.4.143 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.7.195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.8.65 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.8.11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.9.120 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.9.147 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.10.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.11.113 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.12.219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.12.234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.13.7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.13.113 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.13.216 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.15.25 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.104.15.210 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 81.141.193.150 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.150.172.185 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

There are a few outliers which are obviously connected, for instance 86.135.131.130 from nearby Heswell. But the main problem comes from the range 88.104.0 to 88.104.15. I think this should be blocked for a month. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• 88.104.0.0/20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is what you are talking about, 4096 hosts, which isn't so dramatic. I'm not an expert on rangeblocks but I'm more than familiar enough. I've manually checked half the range and don't think there will be much collateral damage, so soft blocking for a month. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  Excellent work. Thank you, Dennis! Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  Editor has resumed under the 86.xxx range. They appear to be mixing legitimate edits with vandalism. Maybe it is a different editor with a WP:CIR issue, I'm not sure. Zarcusian (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  Hard to tell. Probably need to keep an eye and see what IPs they use. It does look similar to the 88s, but I haven't compared to the other 86s. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

86.180.136.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) The same editor is back at it inserting hoax material into articles, seems to be on a static IP this time:

• Fake Acting Credit
• Fake production credit
• More fake production credits

Would it be possible to also block this IP for a reasonable amount of time? Zarcusian (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This IP has made five edits today, three of which directly inserted hoax material into articles, and two of which have re-inserted information into a BLP. This is the same editor who has been range blocked for a month. Can an admin please make a preventative block as I requested above? After the month long block has expired this vandal is going to resume. I really feel that this situation warrants more attention than it's receiving. Thank you. Zarcusian (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Was: IBAN. Is now: lame edit war

Frankly I think this edit and particularly its edit summary have strayed over the line into WP:POINT (to say nothing of WP:LAME). I can't make up my mind whether this is blockable idiocy or just idiocy though. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

So you're calling the editor an idiot, and wonder if you should block them... for what? A personal attack?! Is this thing on? Doc talk 08:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

For iBAN violations, Doc. And his comments were re editing behavior, not re a person. You're not helpful here and seem to want to kick up drama - why don't you shoo!? IHTS (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Not helpful to you maybe. That don't mean much to me. Doc talk 09:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy your two mentions of "idiocy" should either be clearly substantiated or struck. See idiot, idiot definition and WP:CIVIL. I find it painful that you start with mention of IBAN and then introduce discussion like this. GregKaye 13:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ask yourself this. Who does more to improve the encyclopedia, someone who finds original sources, cites them, and generally puts a lot of time and effort into improving an article, maybe even up to GA standard, or someone who interferes with this work by carrying on a 2 year old feud and sniping from the sidelines? Not to mention admin shopping, you're the third he's tried. Damn right it's lame, as is this thread. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ask yourself this: do we give a toss? Your edit comes across as petulant and motivated by the identity of the editor not the actual content. And, to be absolutely clear, the idiocy is bilateral: you are both behaving ridiculously. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

So you don't give a toss about improving the encyclopedia. OK. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I just don't give a toss about self-serving excuses. Every single restricted editor ever has probably thought at some level that they were improving the encyclopaedia. The whole point of restrictions such as IBANs is that the editors are engaged in good-faith editing - otherwise they'd simply be blocked. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

^ "...the idiocy is bilateral: you are both behaving ridiculously". What a cop-out. Keep calling editors "idiots", as an admin. It will make us all look swell. Doc talk 09:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh good, a one-man peanut gallery. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the edit in question, not only an intentional iBAN violation, was not an improvement but a disimprovement. (I have the hardcover, out-of-print book. I expect few others have it. In it, Lasker says Black's move 15...d2! is "better", not "probably the best". Any chessplayer knows the difference. So the edit actually is inconsistent with the source.) IHTS (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

So, despite what Guy says, you are not behaving ridiculously, and MaxBrowne is. That clarifies a lot! Doc talk 09:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, IMO, this thread just gets worse. This is not normal for AN/I. GregKaye 13:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

On 26 Dec 2013 IHTS inserted a wiklink to "Checkmate". On 28 Aug 2015 MaxBrowne removes it. WP:IBAN clearly states: editor X is not permitted to "undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means);" MaxBrowne has therefore violated a i-ban they requested. NE Ent 09:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent! Yay! Thankfully you've come in to save the day. You, frankly, rawk!!! Doc talk 09:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Somebody clearly has a lot of time on his hands. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

About that particular edit, I saw it too previously, but let it slide because it was so minor (and probably an improvement by the other editor). But the three incidents of overlaying text I added, I did/do object to, they haven't been improvements and now a disimprovement. It's true iBAN was never something I wanted, advising that it effectively can become a roving topic ban. (And duh, that seems to be the frustration at hand, then wanting to have it both ways.) IHTS (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"I want the terms of the IBAN, and the consequences of violating them, to be very clearly spelled out to avoid any gaming of the system. The terms being: (1) No posting to each others user page or talk page (2) No replying to each other in discussions (3)No referring to each other directly or indirectly anywhere on wikipedia. (4) No undoing each other's edits (but we can edit the same articles so long as we keep to the terms of the iban). Basically as described in WP:IBAN and WP:BANEX. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)". IHTS (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, by this stage I think you are both gaming the system. The IBAN should either be vacated or enforced, and in this case enforcement will almost certainly lead to blocks of both of you. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@JyZ/Guy, you openend this ANI on the basis of a revert which was intentional violation of iBAN (which was also, as shown, not an improvement but a disimprovement). How does one go about asking for enforcement of an iBAN they never wanted, when there is intentional flippant violation of it, without being accused by you of "gaming the system"? IHTS (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

All the edits complained about were made in good faith with the aim of improving the article, and were certainly not done with any intention of insulting, annoying or in any way "interacting" with the other editor. I don't think it should be necessary to search through the history of an article just in case an edit I'm about to make may overwrite some text written by an editor I'm in IBAN with 5 years ago. And for the record, I won't object (and haven't objected) if this editor in good faith overwrites some text I happen to have written in the past. Because I'm not petty like that. The point of an IBAN is to prevent disruption, not to enable petty point scoring and drama-mongering. The IBAN was imposed at my request because the constant sniping and outright abuse I was receiving from this editor was becoming intolerable. He is now using the IBAN as a weapon to snipe at me. The last edit I made to that article - sorry about that, but when you're working hard to make a good article and someone else just wants to make a nuisance of himself and start drama - it's easy to act hastily. Finally I note that this admin has previously told me "a plague on both your houses", and indicated that he "doesn't give a toss" about my content creation. He previously closed an ANI thread on the present issue inappropriately and prematurely, before it had been properly resolved. He is definitely WP:INVOLVED, and should not be the party to impose any blocks or even warnings. Neutral admin eyes are needed for this. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

MaxBrowne Can you see that an edit summary as: "Go to ANI or get lost" would better have been phrased differently? I see a potential here for a block having only considered the issue of civility but in a timespan of hours or days. GregKaye 13:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A single edit out of context does not tell the whole story. This is an editor who has intentionally violated and expressed his contempt for the IBAN numerous times. Despite the IBAN he has continued to find ways to niggle me. This current excercise in petty point scoring seems to be aimed at getting the IBAN lifted, which I vehemently oppose as I have seen no change of attitude from this editor, just the same petty argumentativeness. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I'm the one on receiving end of petty sniping in editsum, and in this thread as you can see above, besides numerous times elsewheres, by the other editor, all while an iBAN is supposedly in place. Also the edit at Chess included undos of texts I'd previously written, which I also let slide. IHTS (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary is clearly a violation of the interaction ban between MaxBrowne and Ihardlythinkso, and, thus, on its own, to my eyes is sufficient cause for a block of some length. It seems to be the first violation of the I-ban (correct me if I'm wrong, of course), so it could reasonably be a short one on that basis. Having said that, the at best dubious civility of the comment could not unreasonably lengthen the block. I might say three days in this case, maybe? John Carter (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If you ignore the revert, which was intentional iBAN violation, then might you be encouraging more of same in future? IHTS (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for the phrasing. I wasn't ignoring the revert. But, for the first violation of an i-ban, I think the threshold is somewhat lower. In this case, I guess I was figuring one day block for the violation. The language, over and above the factual reversion, is I think cause enough to lengthen the comparatively short first block. Of course, if others think that the "base" block of one day isn't long enough, and I can well imagine I am not current on such things, no longer being an admin myself, I could reasonably guess it might be longer, although I would still think that the language used in the violation is sufficiently concerning to extend the "base" block to some degree. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarify. I don't know why these iBAN violations can't be handled by admins independent of ANI. Why is wide participation needed when a single admin can do something to enforce iBAN when there are violations? I asked admin Blade for help to stop the violations. He didn't. I brought to attention to admin JyZ/Guy that the revert was inconsistent with his previous ANI close. In response he opens this ANI about the revert, then without cause changes course to bad-mouth and recommend blocks. When he was at liberty to simply take his own action, or discuss with me at at his Talk. People talk about the virtue of minimizing drama & disruption; however, their actual behaviors seem constructed to maximize it. IHTS (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The ANI thread I raised earlier was to complain about this edit, which was a direct revert of my edit and a clearcut IBAN violation. Despite my calm language, the admin, the very one who raised this thread, refused to take any action and told me "stop bickering". This edit also directly addressed me in the editsum and so is also a clearcut IBAN violation, and was a partial revert of this edit which I'd made. Sorry, I shouldn't have acted as I did, I guess I should have raised another ANI - after my last experience though I didn't have much hope that anything would get done. All of the drama is being initiated by the other party, and unfortunately facilitated by this rather uncivil admin, who should recuse himself from any further involvement in this thread. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

And you respond by continuing to revert right back. You are clearly an intelligent person, why are you unable to see that all you are doing is making it impossible to say that X violated the IBAN or Y violated the IBAN, but only that both X and Y violated the IBAN and are now behaving like kids called before teacher after a schoolyard fight? It is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The word "continuing" is not accurate here since I have not previously done that. You were wrong to close the previous ANI before the issue had been properly resolved; this led me to take things into my own hands instead of raising another ANI like I should have done. You were also wrong to initiate the current ANI given your "involved" status. You initiated this ANI with an incivility, and have continued in the same vain. If anyone deserves to be blocked from this whole sorry business it's you. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This forum (ANI) shouldn't be used by an editor in iBAN, to make derogatory remarks about another editor they are in iBAN with. That isn't "gaming the system"?! I'm not allowed "equal time", I have plenty to point out if I were, but also have no desire or taste to get into it. This one-sided slamming should be stopped. The editor did this previously in a previous ANI too, so much so that a neutral editor created a new essay about it, that an ANI about iBAN violation is no excuse for making incendiary comments about the other editor. (I can't put my finger on the essay at the moment.) IHTS (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Now the user is attempting to re-hash in this ANI, a topic (revert) addressed in a previous ANI (now closed) that they opened on it. (I'm supposed to respond all over again here, when I completely already responded there?!) IHTS (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It's real simple: iBAN disallows undoing one another's edits. (The editor has claimed they can ignore iBAN because they have been making improvements to the article, and even elsewhere claimed WP:IAR as justification for undoing my edits. But in the three cases of undoing my edits, two weren't improvements [just roughly equal quality copyedits], and one was a disimprovement [documented above]. And at any rate, WP:IBAN doesn't exempt undoing one another's edits if one editor is "trying in good-faith to improve an article". The editor has claimed that checking the article history prior to making changes is too burdensome ["I'm not going to check every edit to see who originally wrote the text 2, 3, 5 years ago. Because I don't care. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)"]. But I never suggested the editor do that. Even though, again, WP:IBAN doesn't exempt an editor on that basis. [Even though if in their shoes I'm sure *I* would check article history. Otherwise my expectation would be that I'd face an immediate block by an admin like Sjakkalle or Chillum who have shown partisanship when enforcning iBAN against me, even when what was enforced does not appear in WP:IBAN, and I carefully read WP:IBAN in order to be in good-faith compliance.] That is why I put sections up on article Talk, to draw notice that an edit was undone, so the editor could know, and facilitate them restoring it. But that didn't work. So I restored one of two edits which had been undone, drawing attention in editsum that the editor's undo was contrary to iBAN. That resulted in the user opening the previous ANI with complaint I violated iBAN. JyZ/Guy closed it as "no violation". Then the editor undid a third edit of mine at the same article, I put a notice on Talk again, and restored my edit, again explaining via editsum that I was restoring an edit of mine that had been overlaid contrary to iBAN. The editor reverted my restore, telling me in editsum to "get lost". I consulted admin JyZ/Guy about it, and without warning or clear purpose, they opened this awful ANI.) IHTS (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Even though the editor has clearly violated iBAN three times by undoing three of my edits, including reverting me when I subsequently restored one (Jyt/Guy's opening of this ANI), I disagree w/ John Carter that the editor should be blocked. (Blocking is supposed to be preventative, not punative.) Instead, the editor should simply be instructed where they fail to understand what can and can't be done re WP:IBAN. And the editor s/ be instructed to not interfere if I post to Talk about an edit they overlaid, and I subsequently restore it. (No plan like that is supported by WP:IBAN, I am suggesting to make easier so the editor needn't check article history, and needn't restore the overlaid edit themselves [even though they should; I know I would if in their shoes]. Have done this only when the overlay was either not an improvement, or was a disimprovement; again to make things easier. And as mentioned that is also something not provided for at WP:IBAN.) IHTS (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"I'd face an immediate block by an admin like Sjakkalle or Chillum who have shown partisanship when enforcning(sic) iBAN against me"? Really? I blocked you exactly once after there was a clear community consensus to do so. Not only am I not "partisan" against you, I had to look up what you were talking about because I did not even remember you. Chillum 17:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Bull, Chillum. You've shown extreme partisanship/favoritism. If you are that degree of self-unaware, you should resign your tools. IHTS (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Diffs please? A bit of evidence would do wonders to improve my awareness and the awareness of others. It is hard for me to show partisanship/favoritism when I forgot who you even were. Perhaps you are not as big in my mind as you imagine yourself. Chillum 15:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion you want doesn't belong here, Chillum. And please believe, if I ever get a notion of self-"bigness", it'd never be gauged by anything whatever to do with the likes of you. (The simple fact is, if *I* were an admin, I'd be organized sufficiently to remember, or easiliy find, extensive dialogues I've had, with anybody, big or small would be irrelevant. [But that's just me.]) IHTS (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The way forward

Let's address the central issue here. What may I or may I not do on an article that IHTS has edited in the past? My recent edits on the Evergreen Game article have been substantial and have been based on extensive research from available sources. With some more work, this article could become the authoritative source on this famous chess game. None of the edits I made were done with the intention of needling, annoying, or in any way interacting with IHTS. I don't think IHTS should be overly concerned about minor wording changes to text he wrote 2 or 3 years ago - that just looks petty to me. Nor do I think I should have to search the history of a page just in case I might be overwriting text he wrote 2 or 3 years ago. Can we come to an arrangement whereby I can continue to improve this article without worrying about this BS? Please? BTW if he could cite his Lasker source regarding 15...d2 I'd appreciate it - I can't find mention of that move in his Manual of Chess or Common Sense in Chess. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It's weird collaborating w/ you at ANI, when you seek my head on a platter at every conceivable opportunity. But here goes ...

"15... Qf5? (Better 15... d2! 16. Nexd2 0-0 +/− Lasker.)" Harding, Tim; Botterill, G. S. (1977). The Italian Game. B.T. Batsford Ltd. p. 45. ISBN 0-7134-3261-6.

(Where +/− is defined as "Clear advantage for White" at beginning of book. There is bibliography at beginning of book listing nine book and eight journal sources, but Lasker isn't listed as direct author of any of those [so I imagine the Lasker line is secondary source to one of those sources].) Please note it says "Better", not "Best", which mean differently of course. (So, "Best" currently in the article s/b changed to "Better". [My original paraphrased edit was: "Black does better with 15...d2! 16.Nexd2 0-0 according to Lasker, with a clear advantage for White." [103] [104], which was just fine of course.]) IHTS (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

OK I thought you meant you had a Lasker book where he recommends 15...d2. I think Lasker's recommendation was originally published in the London Chess Fortnightly in 1892 or 1893, I don't know which issue. Lipke refers to this in his article. There was a reissue of the London Chess Fortnightly in 2001 but I don't have it. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Could be. It's not listed in Harding's bibliography, but what it says there is: "We also looked at numerous journals, of which the following are noteworthy: British Chess Magazine (BCM), Chess, Chess Life and Review, Chess Player 1-9, Fernschach, Informator 1-19, 64, Shakhmatny Bulletin, Shakhmaty v USSR." IHTS (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

How about this, you go ahead and edit as you please on that article. I will not go running to ANI over wording changes etc so long as editsums are civil. Call it an experiment. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Damn, IHTS has gone and got himself blocked on an unrelated matter (unfairly in my opinion) so he can't respond to this yet... but if we can collaborate on this article without yelling at each other too much maybe we can look at getting the interaction ban lifted. I'm game to try it. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The block was lifted. But I think your idea is great. Behaviorally, I think we both have good understanding on what the other doesn't like. Let's play fair. The iBAN can always be reinstated (I would assume or guess), without a lot of red tape, at your request. Happy editing. IHTS (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, even though I'm sick of all the bullshit and drama, I am not yet comfortable with asking for the IBAN to be formally lifted. There are still a lot of festering sores. That's why I referred to this as an "experiment", a first step in that direction. You obviously care about the article too, so let's see if we can't collaborate on it. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to want full iBAN with exception that one article. Or creating whatever other gray area - confusing. You've also proposed lifting iBAN. (Which I agreed.) I don't think iBAN is as malleable as you want it to be. I think either the iBAN is there, or it isn't. I can agree with you to lift, but how can I agree to a modification I'm not authorized to, even if I did understand it? IHTS (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No change of mind, just a clarification. Call it a suspension if you want. This is already a big shift for me, just a few days ago I was saying no way do I want it lifted. Certainly I'll be quick to ask for reinstatement if things get uncivil. Besides, technical breaches are only disruptive if someone complains, which I've said I won't. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, it seems you want some sort of gray area. (I don't know any WP definition for "suspension" re iBAN. If that involves removing it, then acc. J Carter an AN thread is needed.) IHTS (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If you'll forgive me for saying it I couldn't give a shit what John Carter has to say about anything - very nasty and aggressive editor, prefer you don't mention that name. We don't have to be slaves to process and precedent. How about we find an uninvolved admin we can both respect to facilitate this? I suggest Callanecc. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, I have no idea what "this" means. I think either the iBAN is there, or it isn't. IHTS (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This was the history of the article immediately prior to MaxBrowne's (MB) 28 Aug 2015 indirect reverting of IHTS; the history clearly shows only two intervening, non-content changes by involved editors since both MB and IHTS's December 2013 editing. The WP:IBAN was placed at MB's request and its terms are clear. It's his responsibility to follow the terms and perform due diligence prior to editing: the state of Evergreen Game was such that any edits MB or ITHS to the article were likely to change some prior text the other had inserted.

MB says the ITHS concern about IBAN violation "looks petty to me" and then attempts to use alleged content improvement as a basis for ignoring their violation. The very nature of IBAN is pettiness; there are 120,533 active users and the overwhelming majority of them manage to edit without requiring the community to supervise their interaction.

As JzG / Guy states above, we need to either enforce the IBAN or trash it, as it's clearly not achieving the desired goal of ceasing chronic complaints about each others behavior from disrupting the community.

Note: Not that anyone should care, but it took me roughly 60 seconds to find the diffs showing the violation; article history -> diff first MB edit in August, find nature of change, use WP:BLAME tool to find insertion -- actually works reliably, not being hosted on WMFs tool labs -- done. NE Ent 12:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Your involvement is also unhelpful. You tried to prevent the imposition of the IBAN from the beginning, and any time I have complained about a violation you have muddied the waters - I can provide diffs if required. I am trying to come to a resolution here and your involvement is not helping. Please stand back. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This entire subthread is not only unhelpful, but pointless. If you want to change the nature or terms of the i-ban, you are of course free to do so. That would be reasonable and I believe allowed by policies and guidelines. Simply saying that that the existing i-ban, something that the editor making this complaint requested, seems to me inherently problematic, as no alternative is proposed. It also can not unreasonably be seen as perhaps an attempt to use the i-ban to personal advantage. If you don't want the i-ban in place, please request that. If you want to change the terms of the i-ban, please request that. But, frankly, this subthread comes across as, basically, useless. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Prior to this ANI, the editor had undone three of my edits. In all three cases I documented my original text at article Talk, to facilitate the editor to restore them, but this was ignored. So I restored my contents, with editsum indicating why re iBAN. In the first instance there was no conflict, in the second instance the editor opened an ANI on the basis of iBAN violation, admin JzG closed it as "no violation". In the third instance the editor reverted my restore, telling me to "go to ANI or get lost". I went to the closing admin JzG instead, who opened this ANI. (The content of the third edit has not been re-restored yet, even though I've explained twice in this ANI why the undo by the editor was a disimprovement.) Today, a fourth of my edits has been undone by the editor, at a different article. Again, I'm sure the undo wasn't intentional. (The editor has refused to ever check edit histories claiming it is too burdonsome to do so. I can understand that. That is why I have in each case updated article Talk as mentioned.) So I've updated article Talk again [105], expecting the editor to notice and restore my content. So far he has never done so in any of the four undos. What I want (to minimize people-involvement such as asking an admin to restore the edits each time this happens, or opening an ANI on these inadvertent undos), is the freedom to do as I've done in the first three undos - which is to restore the contents myself, with appropriate editsum indicating the iBAN. (So far I have not been able to do that - once it resulted in the editor opening the previous ANI, once it resulted in his revert & the nasty editsum.) OK, so what does consensus want to do as way forward? The third and fourth undos are so far unrestored, and a method for future is also unaddressed. I've no desire to be held accountable for iBAN violations, so can there be some direction given or approved? Thx for consideration. IHTS (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Re today's new undo, the editor has updated Talk, clearly justifying his undo on the basis that my add was unsourced. (First, iBAN does not say "Editors may not undo one another's edits, unless they are unsourced." Second, sourcing isn't generally required unless the content is challenged or likely to be challenged. [At the time I made the add, neither was the case.] Third, there is a source. [I could add it, and add the content back, but, the content s/ have never been removed per iBAN, a request for source could have been made to Talk instead.]) The editor seems emboldened to ignore iBAN at every step, even when acquainted with the facts of violating iBAN. Four times now. IHTS (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Complaint concerning the conduct of admin Guy/Jzg

Not sure if this is the best place to do it, but Arbcom is probably a bit extreme. I believe that admin Guy has handled an ANI dispute very badly. It is inappropriate for any admin to take a "schoolmaster", "you're behaving like kids" approach towards a dispute. This is not helpful to anyone, does nothing to resolve the dispute and is insulting to both parties. No admin should behave like this, however trivial the dispute may appear to him or her.

Please consider this thread. I complained about a very clear interaction ban violation by another editor, who reverted my edit and addressed me in his edit summary. He responded by accusing me of same, in that I inadvertently overwrote text which he had written some time earlier (although as even he acknowledges I was acting in good faith and not intentionally edit warring). Rather than addressing the issue of whether my edits to the article in question were in fact IBAN violations, JzG initially proposed that both parties be banned from editing the article, then just closed the thread and told us to "stop bickering", leaving the central issue unresolved. I was hardly "bickering" since my only post in that thread was to raise it in the first place. I wanted to nip the issue in the bud, not have it keep coming back. I raised my concerns with Guy on his talk page and was told "a plague on both your houses." I don't believe I did anything to deserve a "plague on my house".

When the editor continued on this train, I did something I shouldn't have done and have apologised for - I reverted his edit and told him to take it to ANI or get lost. I should have opened another ANI myself, but after my previous experience I didn't have much confidence in the process. After a bit of admin shopping by the other party, JzG opened another ANI, and opened it with an uncivil personal attack. He has continued in this vain.

I seriously question this admin's competence, and ask other admins to please review this situation. Thank you. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

So now you are doubling down? And that's supposed to demonstrate that IHTS is the sole source of the problem? Let me know how that works out for you, I'm on a plane for the next ten hours or so. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm complaining about your handling of the dispute which was highly combative and insulting from the beginning. This is not how admins are supposed to deal with things. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I was not involved in the original discussions; my advice would be for everyone to just drop it and move on. Nobody has covered themselves in glory there, and if this keeps getting dug up, sooner or later someone is going to get hit with a boomerang. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC).

Lanikiveil, I appreciate that you want to calm things down but I have raised a concern and I want it to be addressed before I "move on". There are right ways and wrong ways for an admin to approach an ANI dispute, and I don't think the schoolmaster "stop acting like kids" approach is the right way. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to say that I am becoming increasingly concerned regarding the extremely tendentious nature of MaxBrowne's conduct, and am coming to the conclusion that a much longer block for his violation of the terms of an i-ban is not apparently the only problem. Max has started a subsection above, indicating that he thinks the "way forward" is to apparently do something other than adhere to the i-ban he has been placed under, and now he is seeking to blame others for having the guts to call him out for his own extremely combative behavior. At this point, I'm thinking a one-week block of MaxBrowne for both the i-ban and his tendentious efforts to try to do everything but address the nature of the misconduct which started the discussion regarding him here might be the minimum called for under the circumstances. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw some positives in IHTS's post and was hoping we could come to some arrangement. This prompted my "way forward" section. please AGF. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The arrangement is for you to cease wikilawyering and actually abide by the existing sanctions. You, however, seem to be perhaps incapable of understanding that, and, honestly, I have a great deal of trouble in seeing how that would do anything but perhaps strengthen existing concerns regarding your conduct, and, potentially, the length of sanctions to be imposed, considering you seem to not adequately understand the main concern here, which is a rather obvious violation of an i-ban. John Carter (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I am glad you are not an admin anymore. From WP:PUNISH: "Some editors, even some administrators on Wikipedia forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of Arbitration Committee sanctions in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content. This is regrettable and problematic, not to mention contrary to the reason for blocks, bans, and enforcements as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines and policies linked in the previous sentence. When proposing or supporting an action that could easily be interpreted to be punishment, ask yourself, "Will this action help make the content on Wikipedia better?" If the answer is not an unequivocal "yes" and you still end up supporting the action, you may be an adherent to the punitive model of Wikipedia. This may also mean you enjoy the perceived "power" that you get from enforcing your will through the various features (or bugs) of the Wikipedia community." MaxBrowne (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think all of this is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on your part. You should be thanking JzG for being so lenient, because he would have been justified in blocking you for violating the IBAN, instead he's let you off with a stern warning not to do it again. I urge you to consider that you're digging yourself deeper into a hole before you continue your campaign, as every post you make is making it less likely you'll get what you want. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC).

Agreed. You have repeatedly done everything in your power to, basically, all but say you have done nothing wrong, and on that basis alone there is every reason to believe that you will have no reservations about doing the same thing again. That being the case, under the circumstances, a block is entirely reasonable, because there is every evidence from your own comments that you see nothing wrong with how you violated the i-ban and seemingly have no reservations about doing the same thing again. Under the circumstances, honestly, the only conclusion I can draw from your ongoing posts is that the block lengths that had been previously considered might not, given the nature of your subsequent posts, be long enough for the kind of WP:IDHT behavior you have displayed. John Carter (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

MaxBrowne, you must disengage here if you want to avoid getting blocked. IBANs are usually interpreted in a very strict manner and they are typically broadly construed. Getting into a ping-pong revert match at Evergreen game over a very minor matter is an example of what the IBAN is designed to avoid. Making a comment regarding IHTS on an unrelated matter here, even if your comment is in IHTS's favor, is also a violation of the IBAN. You should not have gotten involved with an AN/EW thread regarding IHTS and that has nothing to do with you. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sjakkalle good to see you here. I guess my post there is a kind of signal that I'm willing to consider lifting the IBAN if we can avoid the kind of nastiness that led to it in the first place. I indicated the same in the "way forward" subthread. A positive move for the encyclopedia if it can happen, yes? MaxBrowne (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Where on earth did you get the idea that the i-ban exists only on the basis of your own support of it? An i-ban is two-way, and, despite your repeated comments here, I get a very strong impression the person who has ignored it most is you. Of course you support removing any sanctions that could get you blocked, any idiot would. But the sanctions were placed by an administrator, not by you, and it truly amazes me that you are still incapable of seeing that, and that repeated failure to do so raises reasonable WP:CIR concerns. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

John C, I appreciate your clear eye on things, but my impression of the iBAN discussion is that is was mostly to accord Max what he wanted very much. (I didn't agree with that process, but that is water over the dam.) The fact is I'm happy Max sees now how the iBAN is problematical to both of our editing work, and, in fact iBAN is itself full of a lot of holes [shabbily defined, not a lot of history with enforcement issues], and who wants to spend time "creating new legislation" when a more desirable result is to put it in a drawer, if possible, and that seems to be possible for the first time, so I'm happy 'bout that.) Thx for your attention & consideration. IHTS (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If there is a reason to believe the i-ban should be lifted, it would, of course, be reasonable to discuss that, probably in a separate section. However, I as an individual can say that the conduct of the other party involved here in no way inspires me with any confidence regarding his own ability to edit collaboratively with others. Also, it would be very useful if the two of you indicated that there would be some other means the two of you would take, other than the behavior which evidently led to the existing i-ban, which would help resolve the issues that led to the discussion here. However, to be blunt, I believe the behavior of at least one editor here might be such that others might still question whether it would be in the project's best interests to withdraw sanctions. Also, personally, I think it might be best to start that discussion at WP:AN, where the existing i-ban was imposed. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the reason is, that both editors would like it lifted. To edit freely. As mentioned to Max, I think we each know by now, without getting explicit, what the other doesn't tolerate. (For me, am willing to discuss more explicitly if necessary, and I assume he is too, but is it?) If protocol is to start AN thread requesting lift, perhaps most convincing is if he initiated it, for obvious reason. (I of course would immediately become joint to that request.) IHTS (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC) The other editor has apparently changed their mind. IHTS (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to come late to the party. Guy's behaviour is indefensible. See the complaints at [106]. Guy protected the page so Jimbo couldn't rule on the complaint against him. Ihardlythinkso, if you study the diff you will see that Guy works in collaboration with Future Perfect at Sunset. Why not add him to the complaint and kill two birds with one stone? 78.149.127.86 (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The complainant (thread OP) is another user, not me. IHTS (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. You quoted a series of comments by CyclePat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who subsequently struck them and changed form oppose to support on my RFA, which was nearly ten years ago! Guy (Help!) 21:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I obviously myself see sufficient basis for some sort of administrative involvement, but I ain't an admin and so can't do anything in that regard myself. Yep, I talk a good fight but thankfully I don't have to actually make any of these calls myself. ;) I don't have the guts, basically. Anyone want to do something here, or should we start yet another separate subsection or more to discuss the various sanction options? John Carter (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• The material cited by User:78.149.127.86 above was removed as being from an IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change when User:2.96.189.207 posted it.[107] Both IPs geolocate to London, UK, using the same ISP. For some reason I am suddenly in the mood for some roast duck with a nice CheckUser sauce to smoke out any stealth accounts. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive move requests

Shhhhwwww!! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has nominated more than a dozen pages at WP:RM in the last couple days, many for specious reasons like [108]. At quick glance, these moves are being resoundingly opposed (see here and here, for example). These requests are being made shortly after he was blocked for disruptive page moves [109]. At this point, I feel the moves should be speedy closed as Disruptive and the user in question instructed to stop filing such requests. Calidum 23:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the editor has made specious WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC arguments for moving Syria, Armenia, Mexico, Samoa, Sudan, Ghana, Mali, Guinea and Benin. Looks like deliberate disruption to me. BMK (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This editor has a long history of disruptive move requests, not just at these articles but for language and ethnicity articles as well. During the summer he would propose a move and then when soundly opposed would argue for days and days without moving his position one inch or recognizing consensus. He is a wikilawyer and contributes very little besides endless move requests. On one day last summer he proposed 20-25 move requests. --Taivo (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor has withdrawn all the requests noted above, and changed his "Semi-retired" notice to "Retired". I propose a very short leash here, and an eye kept out for potential socks. BMK (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

He's done the "retired" tag before, while continuing to edit and argue. BMK is right. --Taivo (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No edits since he put the retired tag on his page six days ago, move requests have all been withdrawn, is there anything left to do here? I don't think so. Everymorning (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious and disruptive editing by User:DynEqMin

Note: I have taken the liberty of removing DynEqMin interspersed comments, which made the posting utterly incomprehensible. If DynEqMin wants to add rebuttals, DynEqMin should do so in a less-incoherent way --Calton | Talk 02:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

DynEqMin (talk · contribs) has been editing tendentiously to the point of disruption on B. Alan Wallace and its talk page. This user apparently has a bone to pick about the inclusion of some of Wallace's more fringe investigations of consciousness and mindfulness. A glance a Talk:B. Alan Wallace and User talk:DynEqMin will show paragraphs and paragraphs of invective about why the article is incorrect. The main problem appears to be that DynEqMin is not able to clearly communicate their ideas. They write in a style that is essentially incomprehensible, so it is usually impossible to tell what changes they would actually like to see in the article.

The issue has come to a head with this user placing a {{POV}} tag on the article, and subsequently placing {{POV-statement}} tags on several innocuous statements (such as "Wallace is a former Buddhist monk" or "Wallace's work focused on the relationships between science and Eastern philosophy").

When I asked them to defend these claims (i.e. to define why these statements or the article at large are non-neutral), they responded that they had already stated their claim (in the voluminous comments already placed on the talk page). When pressed for specific details of non-neutrality, they asked for an "adjudicator", so I sought a third opinion. Mark Marathon kindly provided his opinion (that the article appeared neutral, if of questionable notability), to which DynEqMin responded with yet another TLDR reply about all the ways in which Wallace was, of course, notable.

When I removed the neutrality tag from the article in response to the 3O, DynEqMin simply restored it. When warned by the 3O volunteer that this could be seen as edit warring, DynEqMin removed the 3O volunteer's comment about edit warring.

A quick survey of DynEqMin's contributions will show that they are an SPA: they have edited nothing but this page, another page that has since been deleted, and their own user talk page.

I'm all for improving the Wallace article with any pertinent, well-sourced information. I just think that DynEqMin is not the person to make those improvements. They are clearly too close to the subject. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: I invite @Mark Marathon:, @Huon:, @Collect:, and @Cwobeel: to voice their opinions on this matter, as other editors who have had interactions with this user. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

More of an example where the idea that articles must be written in readily understandable language appears a problem, I fear. More likely a suggestion from an outsider that they ask a person who is more used to writing in more common English phrasing might help a bit, but I find their current style a bit cumbersome to wade through. Collect (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC) (adding) the person being commented on has edited the BLP down to a "readability index" of 19 - meaning one needs a post-graduate degree to comprehend it. The version on 1 Sep 2015 had a readability of 25 which is quite sufficiently erudite, indeed. Ideally it would be made readable by the typical college student at worst. Large chunks of the article talk page discussion have readability at 6 or less. Collect (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have engaged this user regarding their writing style, in an effort to have them write clearly and plainly, to no avail. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I did point out on the talk page that the editor should refrain form using polysyllabic jargon and simply list the material that they thought was missing from the article. I received no response, or at least none that I could understand. I like to think I have at least high school level literacy, and I can not understand what point they are making in their edits. It's not just too dense for me, it is also so jargon filled that I would need to do hours of research to decipher the material.

My first knowledge of this editor (or indeed the subject of their edits) came about as a 3O request I provided less than 24 hours ago. Just based on what I have seen in that time, I have the following comments.

Assuming good faith, this user is presumably not capable of writing in a manner that an educated layperson can comprehend. If that is the case, no blame attaches and there is probably some valuable material hidden in their edits. However the edits still run contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and need to be altered, something the editor seems reluctant to allow, much less assist with.

I am less inclined to assume good faith in other areas. There appears to be an unwillingness to discuss disputes, stemming from apparent ownership issues. There is the continual dismissal of the concerns of other editors as 'antogonistic objections' , 'conflict-making' and 'lying about Wallace'. There is the lack of respect for consensus and the resulting edit warring. This behaviour, IMO, takes this into the realm of tendentious editing. We also have open declarations of Meatpuppetry, with claims that the editor is going to contact Noam Chomski in the hope that 'Chomski or others from his department will adjoin'. I don't believe for a second that Noam Chomski's office is going to join a Wikipedia discussion about an obscure academic (though it would be cool), but the fact that an editor is attempting to do so is concerning and runs counter to policies.

At this stage I can't see a lot of evidence that this editor is willing to discuss this issue and reach consensus. All that I can see are declarations that all other editors are wrong and they are right due to some deeper knowledge. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

These are wholly fibs, and what was written on the pages, and your editing just shows your quality in these endeavours. I have complained about you to the board. --DynEqMin (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This response in itself is a good example of the problem. Rather than engage the issue, DynEqMin has chosen to sidestep this process and go to "the board" (whoever that might be). As to the language issues, I think there is a line between densely erudite language (as is often found in philosophy tracts) and language that is attempting to be densely erudite and misses, thus imparting no meaning at all. I think DynEqMin has crossed that line with just about all of their lengthy edits, which is why I have pleaded (unsuccessfully) for more concise and plain language. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

All this is wholly untrue, and continue to be libellous, breaking every protocol in the book. Thanks--DynEqMin (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@DynEqMin: I'm not sure what protocol book you're reading, but this process is exactly the protocol that we use at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly talking about libel can easily be construed as a legal threat and this is not the smartest place to be making legal threats. Secondly after seeing this thread I took some time to go through the talk page of the article in question and it is apparent that the majority of your excessively lengthy comments there are gibberish. It is obvious that you are unable or unwilling to engage constructively with other editors and I therefore recommend that any admin reading this consider a block to prevent your continued disruption of the project. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I had a look at the article and did what could be best described as 'aggressive pruning'. I suspect the subject is notable enough for a bio, however the sourcing is generally not the greatest to demonstrate it. As for DynEqMins comments - they are comprehensible to a degree and in many areas not technically inaccurate, however they are not remotely close to what is acceptable when working in a collaborative environment. Far too obtuse, difficult to parse, meandering away from a point etc. There is also the subtle (and not so subtle) inference that they know better - which doesnt help when you use language that is not in common use to someone - it comes off as arrogant/aloof. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

DynEqMin's response, all 11,000+ bytes of it, collapsed for convenience

=== Replies To Accusations === DynEqMin (talk · contribs) has been editing tendentiously to the point of disruption on B. Alan Wallace and its talk page. Reply to not waste peoples time further, no progress what so ever has been made in the actual editing: This has already been answered. Continued: This user apparently has a bone to pick about the inclusion of some of Wallace's more fringe investigations of consciousness and mindfulness. R: Rude remarks already and meaningless. C: Look at your own words and yourself as a person. C. A glance a Talk:B. Alan Wallace and User talk:DynEqMin will show paragraphs and paragraphs of invective about why the article is incorrect. Yea, that contradicts your own words as usual. C. The main problem appears to be that DynEqMin is not able to clearly communicate their ideas. R. their: abuse. C. They write in a style that is essentially incomprehensible, so it is usually impossible to tell what changes they would actually like to see in the article. R. Wholly untrue. The issue has come to a head with this user placing a tag on the article, and subsequently placing tags on several innocuous statements (such as "Wallace is a former Buddhist monk" or "Wallace's work focused on the relationships between science and Eastern philosophy"). Every clause is speculation that was given reasons to. When I asked them to defend these claims (i.e. to define why these statements or the article at large are non-neutral), they they they they responded that they had already stated their claim (in the voluminous comments already placed on the talk page). R. Following is also a wholly misleading record: When pressed for specific details of non-neutrality, they asked for an "adjudicator", so I sought a third opinion. Mark Marathon kindly provided his opinion (that the article appeared neutral, if of questionable notability), to which DynEqMin responded with yet another TLDR reply about all the ways in which Wallace was, of course, notable. R. Personal again, no, I did not those were impersonal statements about the evolvement of efforts. When I removed the neutrality tag from the article in response to the 3O, DynEqMin simply restored it. When warned by the 3O volunteer that this could be seen as edit warring, DynEqMin removed the 3O volunteer's comment about edit warring. R. You know yourself all I did was remove the latter word as more antagonism. A quick survey of DynEqMin's contributions will show that they are an SPA: they have edited nothing but this page, another page that has since been deleted, and their own user talk page. R. Fibs, like here the waffle is clear. I'm all for improving the Wallace article with any pertinent, well-sourced information. R. No. I just think that DynEqMin is not the person to make those improvements. R. I already did. C. They are clearly too close to the subject. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC) R. No, you are wrong and disorientated. PS: I invite @Mark Marathon:, @Huon:, @Collect:, and @Cwobeel: to voice their opinions on this matter, as other editors who have had interactions with this user. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC) More of an example where the idea that articles must be written in readily understandable language appears a problem, I fear. R. Compare my edits to the ones previously and after. Continued: More likely a suggestion from an outsider that they ask a person who is more used to writing in more common English phrasing might help a bit, but I find their current style a bit cumbersome to wade through. Reply to colleague, I wrote outlines on this again and again on the collaboration needed. Thanks Collect (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC) (adding) the person being commented on has edited the BLP down to a "readability index" of 19 - meaning one needs a post-graduate degree to comprehend it. R. Well that shows a good contribution, and I did say this is tentative, and we are talking only of a few paragraphs it tool me a long time to figure. No, these statements were very concise outlines that were very well sourced. It is wrong to impute bias. I have not been aggrandising any of this. The version on 1 Sep 2015 had a readability of 25 which is quite sufficiently erudite, indeed. Ideally it would be made readable by the typical college student at worst. Large chunks of the article talk page discussion have readability at 6 or less. R. These are of the present editor, as I left his other comments there with meticulous notes at each stage of editing. Thank you for this. I also do not just copy the ISP style, it is 3rd-person valid and does not as you suggest need unqualified editors either. This complements the outlines I suggested. Collect (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC) I have engaged this user regarding their writing style, in an effort to have them write clearly and plainly, to no avail. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC) R. I have made this page look more formal than dogmatically wasting more editing time as all this is. I did point out on the talk page that the editor should refrain form using polysyllabic jargon and simply list the material that they thought was missing from the article. R. The editor: that must be me! No-one contacted me at all while I was editing all night, still it looked really good and I have a record of it. Still, this page is also waffle as shown. Yes, all lists are present and correct. Continued I received no response, or at least none that I could understand. R. Now you are also getting metaphysical, don't put yourself down! I like to think I have at least high school level literacy, and I can not understand what point they are making in their edits. It's not just too dense for me, it is also so jargon filled that I would need to do hours of research to decipher the material. R. You are talking of brief and concise text with great English that transpired as working document for others now hidden from view of course; and no jargon but the facts in acknowledging so many others concerned now and past. Cont. My first knowledge of this editor (or indeed the subject of their edits) came about as a 3O request I provided less than 24 hours ago. Just based on what I have seen in that time, I have the following comments. Assuming good faith, this user is presumably not capable of writing in a manner that an educated layperson can comprehend. R. Contradicts the replies I give here. Cont. If that is the case, no blame attaches and there is probably some valuable material hidden in their edits. However the edits still run contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and need to be altered, something the editor seems reluctant to allow, much less assist with. R. These are deeper aspects that tally with what was on these pages previously. This is really a decisive statement, and it perhaps insults your superiors as I mentioned to give then a chance to assimilate. Cont. I am less inclined to assume good faith in other areas. There appears to be an unwillingness to discuss disputes, stemming from apparent ownership issues. R. Yes, you have come in from the cold and follow the dogma of the editor. Cont. There is the continual dismissal of the concerns of other editors as 'antogonistic objections' , 'conflict-making' and 'lying about Wallace'. There is the lack of respect for consensus and the resulting edit warring. R. I wonder if you are aware of what took place previously on these pages for years. This behaviour, IMO, takes this into the realm of tendentious editing. R. And are you aware of the volume of inconsistancy in these denials and aspetions placed as above on this page. Cont. We also have open declarations of Meatpuppetry, with claims that the editor is going to contact Noam Chomski in the hope that 'Chomski or others from his department will adjoin'. I don't believe for a second that Noam Chomski's office is going to join a Wikipedia discussion about an obscure academic R. Now you are getting personal: I am a scholar, but that would be a complement if true. Cont. (though it would be cool), but the fact that an editor is attempting to do so is concerning and runs counter to policies. R. We are talking of qualified needs. At this stage I can't see a lot of evidence that this editor is willing to discuss this issue and reach consensus. All that I can see are declarations that all other editors are wrong and they are right due to some deeper knowledge. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC) R. This is not true in any sense. These are wholly fibs, and what was written on the pages, and your editing just shows your quality in these endeavours. I have complained about you to the board. --DynEqMin (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC) This response in itself is a good example of the problem. Rather than engage the issue, DynEqMin has chosen to sidestep this process and go to "the board" (whoever that might be). R. You ignore you know what I talk of here, and fail to acknowledge the plainness and politeness of my Talk page statements. Cont. As to the language issues, I think there is a line between densely erudite language R. Such as yours you really mean (as is often found in philosophy tracts) and language that is attempting to be densely erudite and misses, R. No, no you are pretending. Cont. thus imparting no meaning at all. I think DynEqMin has crossed that line with just about all of their R. Insult. Cont. lengthy edits, which is why I have pleaded (unsuccessfully) for more concise and plain language. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Respect you. All this is wholly untrue, and continue to be libellous, breaking every protocol in the book. Thanks--DynEqMin (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC) @DynEqMin: I'm not sure what protocol book you're reading, but this process is exactly the protocol that we use at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Firstly talking about libel can ealily be construed as a legal threat and this is not the smartest place to be making legal threats. R. What has gone on on those pages and now, I have made it clear that I am not doing that. Cont. Secondly after seeing this thread I took some time to go through the talk page of the article in question and it is apparent that the majority of your excessively lengthy comments there are gibberish. R. Wholly untrue. Cont. It is obvious that you are unable or unwilling to engage constructively with other editors and I therefore recommend that any admin reading this consider a block to prevent your continued disruption of the project. - Nick Thorne talk 23:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC) R. --DynEqMin (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC) I need to point out that this editor has now vandalised this discussion by editing and deleting comments made by other editors including myself. At this stage nothing more really needs to be said on the issue of tendentious editing. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

A readable version of the above

Replies To Accusations Complaint (C) DynEqMin (talk · contribs) has been editing tendentiously to the point of disruption on B. Alan Wallace and its talk page. Reply (R) to not waste peoples time further, no progress what so ever has been made in the actual editing: This has already been answered. (C) This user apparently has a bone to pick about the inclusion of some of Wallace's more fringe investigations of consciousness and mindfulness. (R) Rude remarks already and meaningless. Look at your own words and yourself as a person. (C) A glance a Talk:B. Alan Wallace and User talk:DynEqMin will show paragraphs and paragraphs of invective about why the article is incorrect. (R) Yea, that contradicts your own words as usual. (C) The main problem appears to be that DynEqMin is not able to clearly communicate their ideas. (R) their: abuse. (C) They write in a style that is essentially incomprehensible, so it is usually impossible to tell what changes they would actually like to see in the article. (R) Wholly untrue. (C)The issue has come to a head with this user placing a tag on the article, and subsequently placing tags on several innocuous statements (such as "Wallace is a former Buddhist monk" or "Wallace's work focused on the relationships between science and Eastern philosophy"). (R)Every clause is speculation that was given reasons to. (C)When I asked them to defend these claims (i.e. to define why these statements or the article at large are non-neutral), they they they they responded that they had already stated their claim (in the voluminous comments already placed on the talk page). (R) Following is also a wholly misleading record: (C)When pressed for specific details of non-neutrality, they asked for an "adjudicator", so I sought a third opinion. Mark Marathon kindly provided his opinion (that the article appeared neutral, if of questionable notability), to which DynEqMin responded with yet another TLDR reply about all the ways in which Wallace was, of course, notable. (R) Personal again, no, I did not those were impersonal statements about the evolvement of efforts. (C) When I removed the neutrality tag from the article in response to the 3O, DynEqMin simply restored it. When warned by the 3O volunteer that this could be seen as edit warring, DynEqMin removed the 3O volunteer's comment about edit warring. (R) You know yourself all I did was remove the latter word as more antagonism. (C) A quick survey of DynEqMin's contributions will show that they are an SPA: they have edited nothing but this page, another page that has since been deleted, and their own user talk page. (R) Fibs, like here the waffle is clear. (C) I'm all for improving the Wallace article with any pertinent, well-sourced information. (R) No. (C) I just think that DynEqMin is not the person to make those improvements. (R) I already did. (C) They are clearly too close to the subject. (R) No, you are wrong and disorientated. (C)PS: I invite @Mark Marathon:, @Huon:, @Collect:, and @Cwobeel: to voice their opinions on this matter, as other editors who have had interactions with this user. (C)More of an example where the idea that articles must be written in readily understandable language appears a problem, I fear. (R) Compare my edits to the ones previously and after. (C) More likely a suggestion from an outsider that they ask a person who is more used to writing in more common English phrasing might help a bit, but I find their current style a bit cumbersome to wade through. (????)Reply to colleague, I wrote outlines on this again and again on the collaboration needed. (C)the person being commented on has edited the BLP down to a "readability index" of 19 - meaning one needs a post-graduate degree to comprehend it. (R) Well that shows a good contribution, and I did say this is tentative, and we are talking only of a few paragraphs it tool me a long time to figure. No, these statements were very concise outlines that were very well sourced. It is wrong to impute bias. I have not been aggrandising any of this. (C)The version on 1 Sep 2015 had a readability of 25 which is quite sufficiently erudite, indeed. Ideally it would be made readable by the typical college student at worst. Large chunks of the article talk page discussion have readability at 6 or less. (R) These are of the present editor, as I left his other comments there with meticulous notes at each stage of editing. Thank you for this. I also do not just copy the ISP style, it is 3rd-person valid and does not as you suggest need unqualified editors either. (C) I have engaged this user regarding their writing style, in an effort to have them write clearly and plainly, to no avail. (R) I have made this page look more formal than dogmatically wasting more editing time as all this is. (C) I did point out on the talk page that the editor should refrain form using polysyllabic jargon and simply list the material that they thought was missing from the article. (R) The editor: that must be me! No-one contacted me at all while I was editing all night, still it looked really good and I have a record of it. Still, this page is also waffle as shown. Yes, all lists are present and correct. (C) I received no response, or at least none that I could understand. (R) Now you are also getting metaphysical, don't put yourself down! (C) I like to think I have at least high school level literacy, and I can not understand what point they are making in their edits. It's not just too dense for me, it is also so jargon filled that I would need to do hours of research to decipher the material. (R) You are talking of brief and concise text with great English that transpired as working document for others now hidden from view of course; and no jargon but the facts in acknowledging so many others concerned now and past. (C) My first knowledge of this editor (or indeed the subject of their edits) came about as a 3O request I provided less than 24 hours ago. Just based on what I have seen in that time, I have the following comments. Assuming good faith, this user is presumably not capable of writing in a manner that an educated layperson can comprehend. (R) Contradicts the replies I give here. (C) If that is the case, no blame attaches and there is probably some valuable material hidden in their edits. However the edits still run contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and need to be altered, something the editor seems reluctant to allow, much less assist with. (R) These are deeper aspects that tally with what was on these pages previously. This is really a decisive statement, and it perhaps insults your superiors as I mentioned to give then a chance to assimilate. (C)I am less inclined to assume good faith in other areas. There appears to be an unwillingness to discuss disputes, stemming from apparent ownership issues. (R) Yes, you have come in from the cold and follow the dogma of the editor. (C) There is the continual dismissal of the concerns of other editors as 'antogonistic objections' , 'conflict-making' and 'lying about Wallace'. There is the lack of respect for consensus and the resulting edit warring. (R) I wonder if you are aware of what took place previously on these pages for years. (C) This behaviour, IMO, takes this into the realm of tendentious editing. (R) And are you aware of the volume of inconsistancy in these denials and aspetions placed as above on this page. (C) We also have open declarations of Meatpuppetry, with claims that the editor is going to contact Noam Chomski in the hope that 'Chomski or others from his department will adjoin'. I don't believe for a second that Noam Chomski's office is going to join a Wikipedia discussion about an obscure academic (R) Now you are getting personal: I am a scholar, but that would be a complement if true. (C) but the fact that an editor is attempting to do so is concerning and runs counter to policies. (R) We are talking of qualified needs. (C)At this stage I can't see a lot of evidence that this editor is willing to discuss this issue and reach consensus. All that I can see are declarations that all other editors are wrong and they are right due to some deeper knowledge. (R) This is not true in any sense. (C)These are wholly fibs, and what was written on the pages, and your editing just shows your quality in these endeavours. I have complained about you to the board. --DynEqMin (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC) This response in itself is a good example of the problem. Rather than engage the issue, DynEqMin has chosen to sidestep this process and go to "the board" (whoever that might be). (R) You ignore you know what I talk of here, and fail to acknowledge the plainness and politeness of my Talk page statements. (C) As to the language issues, I think there is a line between densely erudite language (R) Such as yours you really mean (C) (as is often found in philosophy tracts) and language that is attempting to be densely erudite and misses, (R) No, no you are pretending. (C) thus imparting no meaning at all. I think DynEqMin has crossed that line with just about all of their (R) Insult. (C) lengthy edits, which is why I have pleaded (unsuccessfully) for more concise and plain language. (R) All this is wholly untrue, and continue to be libellous, breaking every protocol in the book. Thanks--DynEqMin (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC) (C)@DynEqMin: I'm not sure what protocol book you're reading, but this process is exactly the protocol that we use at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Firstly talking about libel can ealily be construed as a legal threat and this is not the smartest place to be making legal threats. (R) What has gone on on those pages and now, I have made it clear that I am not doing that. (C) Secondly after seeing this thread I took some time to go through the talk page of the article in question and it is apparent that the majority of your excessively lengthy comments there are gibberish. (R) Wholly untrue. (C) It is obvious that you are unable or unwilling to engage constructively with other editors and I therefore recommend that any admin reading this consider a block to prevent your continued disruption of the project. (R)I need to point out that this editor has now vandalised this discussion by editing and deleting comments made by other editors including myself. At this stage nothing more really needs to be said on the issue of tendentious editing. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@DynEqMin: your massive wall of text is dispiriting to read and such presentation will not aid your case. This includes (lack of ) paragraphination, bizarre and repetetive use of initials and abbreviation, and minimal distinction of quotations. I notice you have not taken User:Calton's advice re. incoherency. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I have put a readable version below. Suffice to say it is comprehensible with work, however the substance of the replies indicates he doesnt get it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I have lost track of how many people here have looked at DynEqMin's writing and judged it incomprehensible or gibberish. There is clearly an issue of competence involved. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

He's had a piece of chalk thrown at him. Possibly all will be well from this juncture. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Which they've removed and will probably ignore. The CIR block edges ever closer. Blackmane (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

We now have this, which leads me to believe that this user simply refuses to engage in a meaningful fashion, and lacks the competence required to edit Wikipedia. Can an admin please take the necessary action? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Well its either a troll with too much time on their hands, or a non-native English speaker with some sort of involvement in the subject area. Individual sentences can be parsed but only with great difficulty and only if you can get what he is aiming at. Example: "It should be noted first-off that as he does not advocate yet another belief system for science, or spirituality, and the extraneous remarks formerly in a ‘criticism’ section of his Wiki (now not present although still as false kinds records on the Talk page as together with a completely bias writeup of the biography because Wallace was a primary founder of the introspective branch of 'contemplative neuroscience') were kept there without visible intervention, and look like a kind of counter-intuitive joke like a Zen Koan on humility (plain deformation of character as reported to UNA UK and other legal organisation)." - So his previous complaint was primarily that Wallace was being portrayed as advocating a new religion/spirituality, when in fact he is just a religious scientist involved in research involving aspects of eastern religion. So this was a legitimate complaint given the sourcing at the time (prior to when Dyn started editing the article), Wallace is involved in research and isnt in any form that I can see advocating a new form of belief. The article did tend to muddle this distinction. However none of that is in the article now and even if it was, removal/rewording by someone semi-competent in English would have fixed it in short order if it had been pointed out in reasonable and concise way. Instead we get TLDR semi-comprehensible screeds and edit-warring. Agree Dyn is not really competent to be editing articles, however if he can be educated into keeping posts on topic he might have something to offer. I am not sure the effort is worth the reward though.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yet more word salad. WP:CIR is clearly an issue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

And today we have this 62K addition to Talk:B. Alan Wallace which even includes copyright assertions! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: CIR block

I propose that DynEqMin be blocked on CIR grounds. We've seen enough disruption and incomprehensibility to warrant that, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support, as nominator, a CIR block. Either indef (which CIR blocks usually are), or length to be determined by community consensus or closing admin. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as original reporter. Given this user's reluctance to listen to other editors, I'd recommend an indef block. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support I have not commented on this case as yet, but clearly, this is an editor who either lacks competence or is simply unwilling to abide by standing practices, even as simple as linking and indentation in discussions. From an outside POV, the editor appears to be here to use Wikipedia as a repository for his (chaotic) ideas and to treat the Wallace article talk page as a forum, not to build an encyclopedia. @WikiDan61 and the others are to be commended for trying to get through to him, but clearly, he is unwilling to adapt to the "Wikipedia way", if you will, and is becoming increasingly disruptive. --Drmargi (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support After today's addition... ye gods. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Anybody who, even after being warned and brought here, and having had their problems explained to them, expects other editors to read ~8000 words in a single comment is clearly incapable of productive collaboration, and that's not to mention the content itself... BethNaught (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support My vision actually blurred as I scrolled down that screed. The ability to communicate concisely and effectively is paramount on Wikipedia. The inability to do so is either gross incompetence or a total lack of respect to other editors. Blackmane (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Shahzada Mohiuddin

Hello, for the 2nd time here I'm asking attention for the repeated removals of a picture I added to the article Shahzada Mohiuddin. One ore more anonymous users with ip addresses starting with 182.18... have now ten times been removing it. On no occasion any explanation has been given. The first time I brought in this item here, someone stated something could be wrong with the copyright. As a result, the image was tagged with a permission request on Commons. In one of my undo actions, I pointed to that, saying a proper process there should be awaited. Nevertheless, the 182.x actor continues with these very irritating removals. A block? Apdency (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would suggest the image is left out until the permissions issue is resolved. At the moment, the image could be deleted at any time. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd rather choose for the benefit of the doubt. Someone's doubt about the copyright started as a result of this edit war. I don't see a reason that this file should be suspected more than millions of other files of which uploaders say are their own work. Apdency (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No, if there are suspicions that use of an image might be a copyright violation (and/or, as in this case, the uploader has provided no evidence of its copyright status), it should be left out until it is decided. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and @Apdency:, you are edit warring against a number of different editors, and you must not do that (even if you're right). I suggest you stop now or you could be blocked. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the "number of different editors" are interrelated, as they are all similar IP addresses which have only edited that one article. But still, it does look like a violation of WP:3RR has occurred. Best to wait this one out, although I'm not sure what the procedure is for establishing permission? The user who uploaded the image is not a regular contributor.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Suspect" is an understatement. IP, remember, edit warring is edit warring even if you're right--wait, you said that already. If Apdency has reverted enough to warrant a block, so do you. Of course, you're hopping around and so a block is useless, but I could always revert to the wrong version (what in your opinion is the wrong version) and then protect the article. I don't rightly know if you're the same cat as the Pakistan IP that keeps reverting (and if there's anything that pisses me off it's reverting without explanation--lazy-ass snobbery) and I don't really care, but for the sake of argument I'll assume that you are, via remote control or whatever. Amakuru, we need a Commons admin to sort this out. Cirt, didn't you run Commons? Drmies (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Actually, I only reverted once. If you check the other IPs you'll find they're nowhere near mine. I'm with Virgin Media Limited, UK, and they allocate fixed IPs. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

My point was that I can assume whatever I want, especially when I'm in a bad mood. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, a hard-pressed admin always has my sympathy on that score, of course ;-) (I happened to take a look in here and thought I could offer some advice about copyright and edit warring, but I can see how multiple IPs can look suspicious - especially to an admin in a bad mood ;-) 82.35.107.31 (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, we do assume good faith (I reckon this image is probably OK - it doesn't look like a screenshot from the actual TV broadcast and it has the EXIF data intact) but we still need evidence of permission. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite, for your remark on assuming good faith. But why do we need evidence more than in all the other cases? I also upload pictures on Commons which I say are my own work. Now I made people aware of that, is there a reasonable ground for suspection against my files? Apdency (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I see that no one has decided to actually use the talk page Talk:Shahzada Mohiuddin to say discuss the issue. The IP is right in that the image is up for deletion at commons. Inserting it will just be an academic exercise in that it may soon be deleted and then a red link will continue. I don't know nor think either way is better but the point is, (a) has anyone brought it up at the talk page and (b) does it really matter at the time? I will bring it up there and we can cut all this ANI discussion off as a typical content dispute. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I've also requested page protection. The proper remedy is to discuss the insertion of the image (the copyright issues are not for here but if this was an image here, it would be a separate argument) and/or request protection first and then discuss to show consensus to override the protection and get the image restored/removed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm less sure than Ricky81682 that the IP is right in that the image is up for deletion at commons. I pointed to that in this discussion already, and now I also questioned it on the file talk page on Commons. Apdency (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Copying my reply from the Commons talk page: :"I think a difference here is that this photo appears to be a professional studio shot rather than an editor's amateur work, and copyright would usually belong to the TV studio - and that's what I think has prompted the suggestion that further disclosure/release is needed." 82.35.107.31 (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: In reality, I think it's unlikely that anyone is going to sue over copyright (and it's a good encyclopedic photo which I hope we can keep), but Wikipedia is very strict concerning copyright. My thought remains that when copyright is disputed, it's better to omit the photo from articles until the matter is settled. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the matter is 'settled', that is, the image has been removed on Commons. User 182.x with its persistent silence can be contented in silence, and also over the fact that he, although being the reverting party in this, was not seen as such by some colleagues (one of them even referring to 182.x as a number of different editors). Hereby I thank all people who helped 182.x on his behalf, while we know 182.x never speaks for him/herself. Apdency (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, will you stop with the accusations against me please? I am not a "colleague" of 182.x, I am simply an independent editor who tried to help (and I offered some thoughts at Commons). And when I referred to "a number of different editors", I did not know that the different IPs were the same person (and I apologise for not spotting that), I simply saw that you had reverted around 10 times and I know that amount of edit-warring gets people blocked whether they are actually right or wrong - and I was trying to help prevent it happening to you. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here. With 'colleagues' I didn't mean "people collaborating with 182.x", but simply "fellow Wikipedians" ("colleagues of all of us"). And "the accusations" seems to suggest I've posed accusations to you before, but I can't remember that. Maybe Drmies did (at 15:28, 23 September), but not me. Also I want to make a remark regarding the words "I simply saw that you had reverted around 10 times". The whole story started with me adding a picture (that already was on other pages), and then there came the reverter (whose motives we still don't know, maybe it had nothing to do with copyright). Inserter Apdency (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, apolpogies if I've misunderstood your used of the word "colleague". But on the revert thing, you added a picture, then someone else reverted, and then you reverted, etc - and that cycle repeated about 10 times. After that first add/revert cycle, you were *both* reverting each other and you both could have been blocked, and you don't get to say "I'm not reverting because I was the one who made the first change, so I can do it as many times as I like". Instead of repeating your action, after having had the addition reverted you should have started discussing things then. Please do have a read of WP:EW and WP:BRD, because people are frequently blocked here for violating them, and you're clearly doing good work here and I don't want that to happen to you. As for the deletion, it was clearly a professional studio photo, and as such it was not properly licensed for use. And in that case it simply has to be removed, as it is a breach of both Wikipedia's rules and of copyright law. It's disappointing, but carrying on blaming the other person doesn't help, and you just need to accept it and move one. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I will make no efforts to try to get the picture back, and I know the reasons. But maybe someone who agrees with the deletion would like to take a look at this photograph as well; it's uploaded by the same user and it can not be made by some random amateur. Apdency (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Honey

• Honey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 85.211.99.93 (talk · contribs)
• 85.211.101.34 (talk · contribs)
• 85.211.102.121 (talk · contribs)

IP User 85.211.102.121 (prior 85.211.99.93, 85.211.101.34) is referencing past ANI incidents and Tag Teaming regarding research into medical usages of Honey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that appear to meet MEDRS standards; the IP User is at minimum correct in that the edits were mislabeled as referencing Primary when they are review articles that do appear in PubMed. Not sure if this is entirely the right place to put this or how much detail to put, or what other editors involved in the discussion to mention; There appears to be prior history and prior history that involves Administrators outside of the specific question of whether any part of the purposed content changes meet the standards of MEDRS and how to word correctly those changes with regards to FRINGE, which is the concern of the MED editors. Falconjh (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this ANI is premature. The article is protected now and the ip is discussing the matter on the talk page. That comment [110] might demonstrate some prior familiarity with Wikipedia, but to me looks like an inexperienced editor that has read criticisms of Wikipedia's treatment of fringe and alt-med topics. If this is a sock, there's little to work from. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I do share some potential sock concerns especially with how quickly this IP was to accuse me of gang behavior and digging up some false accusations from others to link on that. Seems to be someone with a chip on their shoulder anyways. I think we're fine with the semi-protection though, and I wouldn't want to semi-protect the talk page due to personal attacks, etc. because we do get other IP editors who are civil and would want to propose edits. I don't think we can do much more since this is a dynamic IP. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

UMM The report is also of the Wiki ganging and tag teaming, which I think actually does need to be looked at here as in the talk page MEDRS is repeatedly being violated in blatant attempts to keep off any mention of the research; the user is in my opinion completely justified in just this instance feeling GANGED and if there are past interactions that needs to be looked at. Falconjh (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It is frustrating to attempt to try to make alt-med related edits, then find out that there is a huge amount to learn regarding such edits. Editors who don't wish to learn should move away from topics where ArbCom enforcement applies. --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Except, the rules aren't being followed as I stated, so it doesn't matter if the user is learning or not; I realize that I am not an expert in this field but the rules are being broken here. AS in multiple MED editors have stated that the sources are in compliance with MEDRS, while others are still attempting block based on criteria that isn't in MEDRS or specifically spoken against in MEDRS. Falconjh (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

So we have a dispute over the quality of potential sources. Editors differ on their understanding and application of MEDRS. In this case, some editors would like us to use articles from journals that others find questionable. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

As Ronz has now become involved and moved from critiquing the journals to critiquing the nature of the research itself as additional journals which can not be questioned were discovered, would it be possible for some other admins to look at this? Again MEDRS clearly states that "Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." and as the research is in multiple review articles from academic journals of high enough quality to no longer (being the journals) be questionable the focus should be on crafting some wording to put into the article, not looking for a way to keep it out as it isn't fringe.Falconjh (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Huldra

Huldra (talk · contribs) is at it again with his pro-Arab/anti-Israel POV. This time his is so far only threatening to make the edit, and when I warned him that such course of action will lead to me reporting him here, he asked I do so forthwith. Well, here I am. Huldra wants to remove a whole part of the Balad al-Sheikh article, even though it is sourced. The discussion is here. User notified.[111] Debresser (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see that this is anything but a content dispute. What admin action are you requesting? Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I would greatly appreciate to be referred to as "her"and "she" (and not "his" and "he"). (I do identify as female on my user-page.) Secondly, my actions are (or rather: will be) pr Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_191#The_Palestine_Post, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Clearly a content dispute and nothing else. Debresser should follow the processes for resolving content disputes. Zero^talk 23:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a problem: what if another editor (Debresser) does not want to follow what other editors say about the matter? Do I have to go to WP:DRN with that? Huldra (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That is precisely my problem as well: Huldra has stated in the linked discussion, that he will make the edit, despite the fact that it includes removing sourced information, and the fact that I object. Debresser (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said in my notification on his talkpage, I don't know how admins will see this: as a behavioral issue, a content dispute or a WP:ARBPIA violation. In my opinion Huldra is a extreme POV editor and very aggressive as well, and it could go both the behavioral side as well as the WP:ARBPIA side, in addition to the obvious content dispute. Debresser (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please also notice that Huldra has a novel way of interpreting discussions in his favor, when the fact is that that discussion did not go to his favor at all (which is probably why he waited a few months before trying it again).[112] Debresser (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Huldra has stated clearly above that she wishes to be referred to as "she" and "her". Why do you persist in using male pronouns? This is evidence of either failure to read and comprehend what is before your eyes, or rude indifference to an editor's self-identification and preferences. In either case, it is unacceptable; please stop this. RolandR (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Roland, I think this gives a good example of what it is like to be editing with Debresser. Just remember, the fact that Debresser calls me an "extreme POV editor and very aggressive" ...does not make me that.....no more than addressing me as "he" makes me a male......... I strongly urge "outside editors" to look at "which way the discussion went", and make up their own mind. I also object to the WP:ASPERSIONS about me, that I "waited a few months before trying it again" because "discussion did not go to [my] favor": 1) The discussion *did* go in my favour, 2) I have been editing these -48-villages for 10 years, I´m taking one district at a time and updating them; now it is Haifa District. Huldra (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Btw, besides objecting to WP:ASPERSIONS, I also object to WP:NPA [113] and note WP:STALKING [114], Huldra (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment to User:Debresser - Some editors use gender-ambiguous terms when not certain of the gender of another editor. Some editors use gender-correct pronouns when dealing with an editor whose gender is known. For Debresser to persist in using an incorrect pronoun shows a serious case of I didn't hear that. If the filing party won't treat another editor with respect, I recommend closing this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

There are already two editors who have more problem with me making the mistake (it was indeed an honest mistake) of using the word "his" than with the stated intention of Huldra to make a contested edit. It is sad that editors at WP:ANI focus on trifles, and even try to build conclusions on it ("If the filing party won't treat another editor with respect"), instead of on serious problems. Robert McClenon, consider yourself trouted. Debresser (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Debresser; I guess two other reacted, as you did *not* react; not after I protested, and not after Roland objected. Anyway, I´m glad it was just a mistake, I accept that, Ms. Huldra (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• I looked at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_191#The_Palestine_Post. Interesting. What I think are the "outsiders" agree to a great extent, and that agreement goes Huldra's way. The outsider (I think) who deviates a bit from that is DGG, but he also argues that great care should be taken when using newspaper sources which, he argues, should properly be considered primary sources. (We've had this argument before, in the context of gun law articles, and I ran into it a long time ago when I wrote up John M. Bacon.) While both editors think that discussion went their way, and while both present a reading that conforms to their views, the discussion is much more in agreement with Huldra's view than with Debresser's. In short, I find that the case made by Debresser does not argue convincingly that Huldra's edits here are POV; au contraire. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely disagree with your analysis, if based only on the reliable source issue. The undue issue was not really the question there, and was mentioned by 2 editors. Believe me that I do have what to say about the undue issue, but that was not the question, so I didn't address it then, because that was the reliable sources noticeboard. Ergo, it is not really possible to base yourself on what those two editors said, since the issue of undue was not really discussed there.

Let me ask you another question. I find it very strange that you say that the discussion goes more Huldra's way because you simply choose to ignore the opinions of another 2 editors based on the claim by Huldra that they are "insiders". Since when do we ignore the point of view of editors because they are "insiders", and what is an "insider", and where is that policy or guideline located? Debresser (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Debresser, if so many editors note an interesting problem with the use of a particular source in a particular context, I think it's probably worth noting. I'm sure you would have liked for them not to have noted it, but they did. So I don't accept your "ergo". My choosing to focus on the comments of some editors, in bold print or not, is because there's at least three of them, not even counting StevenJ81, who sounds a similar note of caution. On the other side, there's an editor who starts talking censorship right off the bat, and that's kind of like invoking Godwin's law, as far as I'm concerned, and Brad Dyer, ready to pick a fight and addressing only one half of Huldra's original post. So, yeah, that's how I read that consensus. Don't start this nonsensical wikilawyering about where "insider" is to be found in the guidelines--you can't strawman your way out of this. There are serious problems with using newspaper from that time period as sources, that's well-known, and especially if it's in a topic area where there are clearly opposed positions with newspapers on either side. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Drmies: I greatly appreciate that you took the time to do that; most people will rather have a root-canal filling without local anesthesia, than look at Israel/Palestine issues.

...and as I said: that Debresser calls me "he", does´t make me one!

Debresser: as I said; I looked for a WP:UNDUE noticeboard, but did´t see any...

The way I understood DGG, was that we could cite PP (=Palestine Post) on the history of the 1930s-40s *if* it had been used as reference in a (presumably academic) book; something I absolutely agree with.

The article on Balad al-Sheikh has had a {{Unbalanced}} for years; I´m trying to "clean it up", alas, there are 2-3 editors who apparently like it, just as it is. In the 1930s -40s; there were about 10 times more Arab civilian conflict victims than Jewish civilian conflict victims in that place. Still, for the last 4-5 years the Jewish victims have been given about 10 times more coverage than the Arab victims. I don´t think this is right. (Yes, Debresser: here I am: at it with my "pro-Arab/anti-Israel POV" again....) I have also suggested WP:DRN, but I have received no positive response from the other editors. So what am I to do? Huldra (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You are giving a lopsided picture of the events. There were more Arab victims, but mostly from only one action, while there were many attacks on Jews in those years, each with a few victims. It is precisely that which the statement sourced to the PP come to show! Debresser (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Simply not correct. Yes, many were killed in the Balad al-Shaykh massacre, around New Year 1947/48. But there were many other attacks on Arabs, too. Eg, 6 were killed on 12 December 1947, (see Morris, 2004, p. 100) …that is not even mentioned in the Balad al-Shaykh article, at the present. While each and every Jewish victim is presented and named. Typically: “On May 26, 1939, Mordechai Shechtman, a train driver, was shot in the head by two Arabs who ambushed him at the railroad switch stop near Balad-el Sheikh. He died soon thereafter”. Why is this important enough to keep in the article, while 6 Arabs murdered is not even worth to mention?

As I said two years ago, on that talk-page “Somebody has gone through Palestine Post for the 1930s, and have added every attack on Jews they have found to the article. Of course, PP was not a neutral source in the first place, and secondly, no-one has gone through Arab/Palestinian sources the same way. This gives a very unbalanced article”

Nobody in the passing two years have argued against that. Has the time not finally come to clean up this ugly nationalistic mess? Huldra (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Opposing editors refuse to WP:dropthestick over Gun show loophole title NPOV tag

The recent POV issue began here [115], about 24-48 hrs after the GA review began after 4 months of waiting, if I'm not mistaken (end of Aug beginning of Sept). Godsy is the one that tagged the article after QuilaBird brought the issue to the TP. Mudwater had stated/argued repeatedly that the title needs to be changed to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". The title was temporarily changed to "Gun show loophole controversy", but reverted after later discussion. About the time I obtained photos for the article, and there was a consensus on which image to use, the article was submitted for GA review. Zwerg Nase and Winner 42 responded to our GA request. Here is the current state [116]. There was an impartial consensus to keep the original title (edit - consensus at NPOVN including two impartial comments on the article TP after the placement at NPOVN, then Markbassett commented there today, after it was "resolved" [117]. I mistakenly asked an involved editor to close ([118] Darknipples (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)) and they have changed their mind from (essentially) agreeing with the consensus, to saying the issue is not resolved. The issue has been brought up several time in the past year, especially by editor Mudwater. Each time the result was to keep the title as is. Other involved editors include @Etamni, Faceless Enemy, Godsy, Capitalismojo, and Altenmann:. I'm hoping someone can make sense of this and I'm not sure where else to go. Thanks for the help. Darknipples (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC) I seem to have forgotten a few editors QuilaBird & Scourge of Trumpton...Darknipples (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC) (Recent edit [119]) Darknipples

I am pinging DES and Markbassett from NPOVN just in case. Darknipples Darknipples (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, a consensus has never been reached on keeping the article title "Gun show loophole". A number of editors, myself included, feel quite strongly that the title of the article violates WP:NPOV, and that the article should be renamed per WP:NDESC. Others disagree. But the question of the article title keeps being brought up by different editors, not the same ones, which is an indication that there's a genuine issue here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Mudwater I was referring to the multiple impartial consensus' with regard to the current and previous discussions, RFC's, Name Change Request's, and Move Requests, etc..etc.... Darknipples (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If I were to close that discussion, it would read:

While arguments can be made for both sides, in the end, policy dictates. First we look at the controlling policy on titles, WP:TITLE, which clearly states "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." Under this rule, the current title seems to be unquestionably the proper title. As we dig close into the policy at section WP:NPOVNAME, we see "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal).". There are exceptions for trendy names or colloquialisms, but this wouldn't fall under that. If we have two equally common names to choose from, then we would choose the most neutral but we do not here. As it has been pointed out, we have to follow reliable sources and in effect, they choose the name for us, so while there is a good argument that "loophole" is an inaccurate description of the issue, "loophole" is still what the sources use. Any discrepancy in the neutrality of the title can be cleared up within the article, assuming there are reliable sources that are supporting those claims. With all this in mind, it seems very clear that while there are varying opinions, policy clearly dictates that the neutrality of the title isn't at stake as choosing any other title would instead by violating WP:TITLE by not using the common name. As such, the NPOV tag should be removed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

And please note that WP:TITLE takes precedence over WP:NPOV here since it covers both concepts. If you read NPOV, it flatly says "See article titling policy for more on choosing an appropriate title for an article." We aren't here to right wrongs or be politically correct. The media uses "loophole", so we do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Would it be prudent to involve/ping related WikiProject editors (Firearms, Law, and Politics/American)? Darknipples (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I suppose if a neutral notice was given, but as I said above, policy seems to be very clear on this so I'm not sure how more people arguing is necessarily better, as there has been lots of discussion already. My close above was after reading through it and weighing it against the actual policy that guides us here. Of course, I'm open to counterviews, but it seems obvious in this case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure what to expect, as I've never dealt with this kind of thing before on my own. Will an administrator close this on the article's TP when this discussion is finished, or should I ask someone like yourself to do it? I don't know if I'm allowed to close it or not since I'm an "involved editor". Sorry for all the questions, you've been most helpful. Darknipples (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: As you probably know, gun law in the U.S. is a highly controversial and polarizing topic. Pro-gun-control and pro-gun-rights advocates often hold strongly opposing views on this topic. Are you aware that the term "gun show loophole" is often used by pro-gun-control advocates, but almost never used by pro-gun-rights advocates? The latter tend to think that the term is very misleading, and have written many times about how, in their view, "there is no gun show loophole". Therefore the term, while often used, is biased towards one side of the argument. So, it's the "common name" only for one half of the people debating the issue. Know what I mean? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm ex-military, from a military family, had an FFL, CTC for years, etc., etc. I'm familiar with the politics, but what I do is set aside my own beliefs and focus on policy. The title should use "loophole" because policy says it should, but to keep it neutral, it makes sense to discuss how it very often/never/always/whatever really is/isn't a loophole, and how that is the term that is most often used to describe it only/sometimes/etc. I'm betting there are plenty of sources for this, and a short blurb in the lede plus a paragraph down lower should be more than sufficient to offset any concern about NPOV. What is at stake is policy, and policy says that most of the time, you use a non-neutral title if that is what the sources use. This situation doesn't fit into any listed exception, and WP:TITLE is the primary policy, everything else takes a back seat to it. When we use the word "terrorist" or dozens of other terms, there is the issue of bias as well, but in all cases, our job isn't to correct the sources or take sides, it is to document them. That is why we follow their usage, even if we don't like it personally. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I'm in favor of passing a new federal law requiring background checks for all private firearm sales. So, I'm not taking this personally. I just think you're off-base on what the policy is here. NPOV is extremely important. Just because a lot of people use a term, doesn't mean it should be the title of an article, especially when the term is as biased as this one. As far as "terrorism", I haven't done an exhaustive search, but so far I'm definitely not seeing it. For example, Palestinian terrorism is a redirect to Palestinian political violence. Analogously, "Gun show loophole" should be a redirect to "Background checks for firearms sales in the United States", or something along those lines. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Is Talk:Gun_show_loophole/Archive_3#Requested_move_29_January_2015 the last requested move discussion? NE Ent 23:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think WP:NPOV is important also, but as I've already stated, NPOV clearly says to refer to WP:TITLE when it comes to titles. The issue of POV is covered in WP:TITLE quite deeply, including listing exceptions. This is why, again, I say that WP:TITLE trumps WP:NPOV here, the policies themselves say so. If you can't argue it based on WP:TITLE's wording, then there is no argument. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

As HighInBC points out, "This is a content dispute pure and simple. ... Administrators cannot solve content disputes" Someone should wrap this in a close tag and request the parties start a move request if last January's is the most recent. NE Ent 23:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ent and NE Ent:..."HighInBC" is seems to be referring to "an image" or something like that... [120]. Not GSL's TP discussions or ARTICLE EDITS... I think the diff you supplied may be unrelated...? Darknipples Darknipples (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: As far as actual requested moves, I could be wrong but I believe that's the only one. But there have been a number of other, later discussions about the article title, on the article talk page and also in other forums such as this one. @Dennis Brown: I appreciate that you're trying to apply Wikipedia policy to this question, but I think that preserving WP:NPOV is more important than the exact wording of WP:TITLE. Common sense should prevail over Wikilawyering. But I acknowledge that there's significant disagreement about what's common sense here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: January isn't the most recent according to the logs. April of this year just before we requested the GA review [121] as far as "recent" (Darknipples (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)), with EXCEPTION to the current discussion, as far as I understand THE TITLE is concerned. Darknipples (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm commenting as an uninvolved party and experienced admin, I've never edited in or around that article. I think to call my direct quoting of a primary policy "Wikilawyering" is a uncivil. Someone came for unbiased interpretation of policy and got it. You appear to be saying NPOV is more important because YOU think it is. I'm saying that very policy defers to TITLE clearly and without question, in the very wording of the policy. You are an interested party, I'm not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: You said, "If you can't argue it based on WP:TITLE's wording, then there is no argument." I think that's going too far, and it strikes me as being in the general direction of Wikilawyering. But, I would say it's not a full-fledged case. If that sounds like I'm only half-way apologizing, it should. But, you're right that I'm an interested party and you're not. I do appreciate your taking the time to contribute to the resolution of this dispute, so, thanks for that. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I suspect (without, honestly, looking in great detail) there have been too many conversations. There's this fantasy if we all discuss enough we'll come to a point we all agree with ... the other 99% of the time if you good back and forth on an opinion more than maybe three times you're spinning your wheels, and it's best to get help before tempers start to flare. Help = more people. I think this is one of those times where WP:Process is important and the burden would be one the folks desiring a move to file another move request, with focus on what has changed since the January one. Then everyone votes, an uninvolved editor closes it, everyone moves one while respecting the other point of view. NE Ent 01:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• To echo Ent comment and good judgement, admin (including myself) don't settle content issues. My quasi close comment and comments since were to point to the right policy and offer an opinion about policy, not a judgement. I stayed off that page on purpose, but that is where it should be settled. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Current discussion between Mudwater and myself on the GSL article's TP [122]. Darknipples (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC) FYI I'm referring to this (edit) particular "suggestion" from Mudwater " P.S. I'd be okay with "Gun show loophole" being a redirect to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". — Mudwater (Talk) 20:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)"(/edit) . (edit) AND previously to the one in charge of THE GA REVIEW Zwerg Nase [123](recent edit) (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC) , among other times I do not feel need mention at this point. Darknipples (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I suppose this [124] is relevant in a certain regard... Darknipples (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC). So Mudwater and (QuilaBird, the one that hasn't said a "anything new" (see TP) about the matter in almost two weeks), are reason enough to ignore WP:POLICY?. Nevermind...I digress. Mudwater and I simply don't agree. -- Darknipples (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I suppose Notifying (ping) Fuhghettaboutit and Bus stop is in order now...Darknipples (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC) To reiterate, unless GSL's title changes to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" - Mudwater and "future editors" will continue to tag according to "said WP guidelines/rules/???" Darknipples (talk) (recent edit - [125] - Darknipples (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)) I forgot to ping Checkingfax from my TeaHouse edit. Darknipples (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have never edited the GSL article. I was alerted to the debate by the Teahouse thread linked above, and posted on the notice board and IIRC on the article talk page, once each. While I came to them independently, my view is pretty much the same as the one expressed by Dennis Brown, above -- the only policy based outcome is to use the common name, which is the current name. I reviewed the article at the time of the Teahouse thread not long ago. At that time it included a well-sourced discussion of the controversy over the terminology as well as the controversy over the policy issue. It also included sourced statements showing that many of the "pro-gun-rights" did use the "loophole" term, even as they protested that it was misleading or biased. If those sources are accurate, it is NOT correct that this term is used only by one side of the controversy. Rather it is frequently used, albeit sometimes under protest, by people on both sides, and overwhelmingly by the (at least ostensibly) neutral media. Hence IMO it is the common name for this topic and should be used as such. I have seen no consensus to move this article, and no policy=based reason to retain a POV tag on it, as the article itself clearly explains the various points of viw and who holds them. DES ^(talk) 05:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Now that I look at the records, I never actually asked Etamni "to close" the discussion [126], just asked if they had any experience etc... Darknipples (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Did someone say my name? As I noted at the relevant talk page, our policy, WP:TITLE has a specific section, at shortcut WP:NDESC which explicitly states, In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. (Emphasis mine, internal link omitted.) It would appear that this policy was specifically written for circumstances, such as this one, where the most common name is problematic. I also note that WP:TITLECHANGES is contradictory, in that it suggests not changing a name in this circumstance. I believe that the contradictory nature of these two policies means that we need to use common sense to resolve this issue. In this case, the article is about the fact that private sales of firearms, particularly at gun shows, do not require background checks in the majority of states. This is a political issue, with those favoring more controls on firearms ownership calling it a "loophole," while those who are against expanded laws finding the term "loophole" offensive because the term is pejorative and suggests that people are somehow getting around a law that was intended to apply to them, when, in this case, the legislative history suggests that such an intent was never part of the laws that were established to require licensed firearms dealers to conduct background checks; indeed, private parties are prohibited from accessing the system. Thus the term "loophole" is not factually correct. There is no neutral alternative term used consistently through the RS. In the discussion, several terms were suggested, but none found consensus. One of the suggested terms was Background checks for firearm sales in the United States but this was rejected. I believe that it is not a good title because it does not represent the subject of the article, which is the fact that certain sales are not subject to background checks. Another suggested term, and one that I supported, was Private party exemption but this was also rejected, apparently due to the lack of RS to support it (although I believe that WP:NDESC would allow it). Just during the past year, this issue has been raised several times, ad nauseam. I give credit to the editors involved for not engaging in an edit war within the article itself, but even the repeated discussions on the talk page are disruptive, so the issue needs to be put to bed. Closing the discussion with no consensus will simply lead to the same issue being raised again, perhaps by someone unfamiliar with the prior discussions (as has also happened before), and then the issues will be rehashed by the same parties again, who, understandably, don't want their opinions left out of the discussion. So either a title needs to be agreed upon that will satisfy everyone, or a decision needs to be made that the current title will stay in place, with a prohibition on raising the issue again for some set period of time, unless there is clear evidence that consensus has changed. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't intended to be a wall of text. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Etamni please re-read WP:NDESC. Specifically the second paragraph, which reads..."However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Since "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title "Political impact of the Boston Massacre" would also be acceptable.)" You, yourself stated on the TALK PAGE (just before changing your mind, oddly enough) "I'm fine with dropping this. I think a better summary of the discussion is that there is no consensus on a specific better name, even where it may be apparent that the current name is not perfect. I would suggest that, as we occasionally see on other articles, the talk page needs an advisory message box at the top with links to the discussion(s) in the archives. This may help prevent such a drawn-out discussion from being restarted, again, in the future. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 15:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)". Did someone else talk you into changing your mind? Also, to be clear I never "asked you to summarize the discussion" or anyone else for that matter. Darknipples (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

_{(late reply)>} Nobody said anything to me other than what was posted in the public comments, which have not been removed. I found additional information (in the form of a policy that had not already been discussed). To be 100% clear, I am fine with dropping the entire thing, and I am fine with changing the name. What I am not fine with is having the issue raised over and over again. That is disruptive. That disruption interferes with ongoing improvements to the encyclopedia. I have made suggestions that I think are in the best interest of the encyclopedia, but am fine with whatever consensus emerges. I also understand that you (DN) do not consider your previous question to me to have been an invitation to summarize the discussion, and hope you understand how the question might have been interpreted as such a request (and I don't see how it matters now, anyway). Finally, (everyone) PLEASE stop pinging me for issues related to this discussion. I don't need my phone beeping while I am working, just to see that there is a new message that might interest me on Wikipedia. There is a real-life reason I have listed my status on my user page as attempting to take a WikiBreak of indeterminate length. I know where this page is and can look at it when I have time. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  00:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the response Etamni (no ping) Darknipples (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Can someone just host an RFC on "what should the article be titled" and let's move on? Make subheadings with different options and a single one-section discussion area (and keep discussion contained there). The talk page could use some outside viewers. Disagreeing with an article title isn't a conduct issue per se. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  We posted this issue at NPOVN two weeks ago and all the impartial comments were a consensus to keep the original title. Opposing editors (mostly UN-impartial) are seeking a LOOPHOLE in Policy over a title that has the word LOOPHOLE in it. Irony abounds...And that's why it's here now. I think WP:POLICY is clear, as @Dennis Brown: put it in the beginning. Darknipples (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  Well, I'd say the noticeboard is different than a formal RFC but didn't this section have only three commenters? You may be right but the argument is whether there's been a clear consensus and it seems like each discussion has basically five or six editors arguing over each other again and again. Either way, this is subject to discretionary sanctions so is that what you're suggesting? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  Ricky81682 For NPOVN, one comment, originally. During that time we had only a few other impartial commenters, all in favor of keeping the title as is on the article TP. After I had already closed ("resolved") at NPOVN (only one comment at the time after about 2 weeks), Markbassett recently stated that "The WP:NPOV concerns seem reasonable, as a well-known partisan label and POV concern of editors here. Since this is neutrality board, and since NPOV is a core item, I will suggest the NPOV section WP:POVNAMING is the one to apply, not the naming convention article of WP:POVNAME." and recently that the issue is "Doing better thru the article TALK pages". So, in answer to your question, I do feel sanctions may indeed be necessary, for the sake of the article. I sincerely do not wish Mudwater any ill-will, and it's in no way personal, but I feel they have essentially forced the issue to this point. Darknipples (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Current GSL TP discussion between Mudwater and myself. [127]. Darknipples (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I believe Mudwater's behavior to be reminiscent of, if not blatantly in line with, WP:CRUSH. Darknipples (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)...Now that I think of it, it is also WP:CHERRYPICKING with regard to holding WP:NDESC as a priority over WP:TITLE policy, WP:NOCONSENSUS, and WP:CONEXCEPT. Especially after the recent impartial consensus and past RFC's. I'd also like to note I was not ALONE in my arguments to retain the original title on the GSL talk page.

• Faceless Enemy I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu... We've debated all of this before (see the TP archives), and even though I didn't like the answer I got then, there did seem to be a consensus not to consolidate / rename the pages involved. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Capitalismojo WP:COMMONNAME Lets just use the common name. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Altenmann re: "It can't be a loophole if that's the system operating as intended." and "No background checks on private sales is the current intended policy". -- absence of policy is not a policy. The intent of the policy was to prevent firearms from reaching bad hands, and not making life of firearms businesses harder. Therefore it is called "loophole": something that is not covered by a policy of background checking. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

My main issue with doing, yet another RFC, other than the fact that we just had an impartial consensus on NPOVN, and that we are in the middle of a GA review which we waited 4 months for, is that Mudwater's behavior is such that they will continue WP:STICK and WP:CRUSH. Darknipples (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Also see WP:TITLECHANGES "Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." - "While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." Darknipples (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Mudwater's conduct has been perfectly fine. They didn't revive the discussion, and as far as I know they haven't edit warred over it. You have both been admirably civil about your content disagreement. No need to accuse the other party of anything untoward over a content dispute. As Mudwater pointed out, this is a perennial discussion because the title is inherently loaded. It *is* the common name for the concept, but the loaded quality is going to raise eyebrows. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

As you know, it was not my first choice. As Etamni recently stated here..."What I am not fine with is having the issue raised over and over again. That is disruptive. That disruption interferes with ongoing improvements to the encyclopedia." I realize that MW isn't the one that raised the issue or tagged the article this time, but they only just recently suggested re-tagging the article citing POV concerns over the title...

• "Well, there have been some interesting recent discussions about the title of the article, here, and also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Opposing editors refuse to WP:dropthestick over Gun show loophole title NPOV tag. But I have to say, my views have not changed. I still think that the article name "Gun show loophole" violates the WP:NPOV policy, and that the article should be renamed per WP:NDESC, to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". But, at this point I'm not sure how to proceed. Someone could resubmit the article as a requested move -- there was one of those already, which can be reviewed at Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 3#Requested move 29 January 2015. Or someone could put the POV tag back on the article -- but that was just taken off, after no one continued the discussion about why it should be left on. So, yeah. What next? Speaking for myself, I'm going to ponder this further. For the moment, I don't have anything further to add, either to this discussion or to the article itself. If and when I have something further to say, I'll post again." — Mudwater (Talk) 00:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

They have consistently held onto the WP:STICK despite every consensus (impartial or not) thus far, and WP:CRUSHed by telling anyone that might listen "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" should be the title [128] since the article's creation. Darknipples (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Since this is the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents, and since Darknipples initiated this discussion and has posted a number of comments about my behavior as an editor, I decided to go back through the article talk page archives and find all the discussions about the title of the article. I found eight of them, of which I started exactly one. While I've been an active participant in a number of these discussions, I think it's fair to say that I don't have a habit of instigating them. Here's the list of the talk page sections, and who started them, when:

• Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 1#POV-title -- Arthur Rubin -- 1 August 2014
• Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 1#Pejorative -- Arthur Rubin -- 2 December 2014
• Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 1#Train station loophole -- Mike Searson -- 15 January 2015
• Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 2#"Gun show loophole": NPOV article title -- Lightbreather -- 15 January 2015 -- LB started a discussion of renaming the article back from "Gun show loophole controversy" to "Gun show loophole". This section apparently has my first post about the title of the article, suggesting it be renamed to "Background checks for firearms sales in the United States".
• Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 3#RFC to rename article -- Mudwater -- 28 January 2015 -- I started an RFC suggesting the article be renamed to "Background checks for firearms sales in the United States".
• Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 3#Requested move 29 January 2015 -- Faceless Enemy -- 29 January 2015
• Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 7#Merger proposal to Universal background check (6 April 2015) -- Faceless Enemy -- 6 April 2015
• Talk:Gun show loophole#Title not consistent with Wikipedia, NPOV -- QuilaBird -- 27 August 2015

Also, I've made relatively few edits to the article itself. And as to the contents of my talk page posts, I invite uninvolved editors to read them for themselves and make up their own minds. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment I feel I've said my piece and made my point at this time. Mudwater deserves time to make their points, as I feel I have. I will reserve the right to respond to any further statements or questions as necessary (ping me). Darknipples (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Question/Comment I think Mudwater has a pending question. If there were a new RFC, would it be appropriate to do AT THIS TIME, as Mudwater has currently asked/suggested on the article talk page [129]? I'd like to reiterate that while I doubt the issue (NPOV title) can be (forever) resolved with another RFC over the GSL title, despite WP:NPOV WP:POLICY WP:TITLE WP:NOCONSENSUS & WP:TITLECHANGES (IMO), I'm not against doing another one if that is what the Administrators feel is necessary. Darknipples (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Motions

There are currently four motions drafted by the Arbitration Committee (at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions) that involve rescinding, extending or changing editing restrictions in previous arbitration cases. The specifics of the restrictions and links to each case are included in the motions and your input as community members is invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Input? Since we can neither propose a motion or vote on any motion, it looks like no one except the arbs actually has any input to offer. (Not being a dick here, just stating the obvious ) KoshVorlon 11:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I did think myself that it was kind of like being told that the Duke of Westminster has just made another blooming million; very nice for him but of no earthly use to anyone else. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Much as with cases, where we ask parties to furnish us with evidence and suggest remedies, it's always a good idea for arbitrators to consider the wider community's opinion when making decisions. As such, while you aren't asked to vote on the final decision directly, opinions and suggestions are very much welcomed, and will be considered by the voting arbitrators. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yunshui - I respect the Arbs and know they've just about got the hardest jobs on Wikipedia, however, with respect, it's not that we're not asked to vote on the final decisions, we're literally told that we cannot vote on any motion. Since those motions effect all of us, arb or not, how about allowing us a say (meaning a vote ) on it? KoshVorlon

I don't think you're getting the essence of what an elected representative does. BMK (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it would work to allow a nonarbitrator to vote on a Motion but it already looks like editor feedback is influencing the motion regarding changing sanctions on articles concerning New Religious Movements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Liz, where is this discussion happening - the one on New Religious Movements? Link? Montanabw^(talk) 07:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: New Religious Movements.

Everyone, 'your input' means your comments, what you think of the proposed motions. We really are open to suggestions on these, and I haven't voted on all of them because I'm waiting for more comments from the community. Doug Weller (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It has been my experience that when I comment on an arbcom case, motion, or AE, my comments are taken under consideration, and sometimes the final decision cites something I wrote. You just have to be aware of what arbcom needs. Opinions don't help them much. Pointing to specific policies and guidelines helps them some, but they pretty much always already know the policies involved. Posting solid evidence in the form of timelines with diffs, carefully double checked for errors and including all behavior by both sides helps them a lot. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

BC/AD war all over again

Please give Ogress (talk · contribs) a warning and/or block this one for a period of time for nonstop violating WP:RETAIN and WP:ERA. His so-called "clean-up" is not just a clean-up: [130], [131], [132], [133], [134]. ༆ ((talk) 04:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

༆, you have not notified Ogress as you are required to do and you have not provided any links to previous discussions with them about this issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A) Have you discussed this particular matter with Ogress before coming here? Links will be helpful to demonstrate a good faith willingness to discuss the matter first. B) These edits were over a month ago and Ogress has since declared retirement,[135] so a block at this point is out of the question. I personally would like to hear Ogress's rational for changing Anno Domini notations to Common Era, because these seem to be arbitrary on the surface. But if he has retired and he hasn't explained it elsewhere, we may never know. —Farix (t | c) 00:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• What an awful, awful guideline. There is no conceivable reason why the Christian way of dating should be imposed on an article like Trưng Sisters. Ogress is supposed to discuss on the talk page why this change needs to be made? I'm glad the editor with the character user name didn't revert all of Ogress's good work, but really, sometimes RETAIN just sucks. And if we go back in the history, we find that the first introduction of the AD dating is in this edit, the fifth edit to the article, made in February 2004, by someone who added a sentence and a half in order to save it/make it better. These edits were NOT made by an expert in Vietname history, or an anthropologist with a Ph.D., or a professor in comparative literature. In other words, there is really nothing to retain but a first edit. And we're dragging Ogress to ANI for this? That's a real crappy way of saying "thank you for making us more better". 22:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN is the direct result of an arbitration case over a wide spread edit war over Anno Domini and Common Era notions. It is meant to require editors to discus the reasons for changing between Anno Domini and Common Era notion and to gain a consensus. If you don't think the requirement for a discussion, then petition WP:ArbCom to overturn the case. —Farix (t | c) 00:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The law has a letter and a spirit, TheFarix. I have tried to indicate how in this one particular case these two may well be at odds. The background of RETAIN is well-known to me, and its text is not as iron-clad as one might think. Item 2, "Optional styles", reads "When either of two styles are acceptable...", and it is not difficult to argue that in this case, the one I examined, only one of the two is acceptable. And the "Findings of fact" makes mention of "general articles"--again, it's easy to argue that Trưng Sisters is not a "general" article, whatever that may mean exactly. This is not to say that it would not have been wise for Ogress to discuss the matter, but dragging her off to ANI and calling those edits "not just a clean-up" (in plain English, "agenda-driven" or some such thing) is way too far. You yourself indicated that ༆ should have discussed the matter with Ogress before coming to ANI, but no, this edit summary, "stop this kind of edit, u violated WP:RETAIN", three weeks ago, that's all we got. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

General articles would be anything not directly related to Christianity and Christian history. So the articles in question would fall into the general article category. But as I said before, there is nothing actionable here because this occurred a month or more ago and Ogress has declared retirement since. If this was an ongoing issue, I would have advocated a warning that Ogress was violating an ArbCom ruling (༆ discussing the matter with Ogress first would have served as the warning) and a block if the actions persist. —Farix (t | c) 15:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with the assertion that those are general articles. General articles, in this context, are anything not directly related to religion. Looking over the ones affected here, almost all are either directly or indirectly related to Buddhism. Just like articles related to Christianity and Christian history get BC / AD, articles related to any other religions gets BCE / CE -- that is clearly sufficient for a reasonable person to at least believe that they satisfy the "substantial reason for the change" in that decision (it's directly analogous to the "English spelling if the article concerned an English subject" mentioned in the example.) Now, if someone disagrees, the appropriate thing to do is for people to discuss it, and I can agree that Ogress should have discussed before changing a bunch of articles -- but I don't think it would be appropriate to block Ogress even if they were still active. Switching from AD to CE in articles related to Buddhism (as most of those edits are) is not a violation of the ArbCom decision. --Aquillion (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom did not specify that general articles are anything not directly relate to religion. They left the determination of what a general article was to the community. Obviously, Christian related articles would use Anno Domini notation, but the same isn't true for all other articles on religion. This is exactly why I believe that Ogress's edits were out of order and they should have discussed them per WP:RETAIN and gain a consensus. But if the behavior continued without gaining a consensus, then they earned the block. —Farix (t | c) 18:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Trưng Sisters isn't about any religion at all. And I read "general article" very differently--Trưng Sisters is it's an article that is not about a general topic, like lizards or the geography of Australia or gravity. It's This is on a specific topic, within the general area of the history of South-East Asia, at at time when Christianity was....well, the sisters apparently lived c. 12 – c.43 AD. Using AD dating for such an article is ridiculous, and having to get a consensus for these changes in this article is also ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• I definitely disagree with your assertion that a Buddhism-related article would be "general" for this purpose, especially if you're implying that a Christianity-related article would not be. The topic here is whether or not to use a term with religious connotations, and therefore any religious article must be definitionally "ungeneral". Certainly I feel it's indefensible to argue that CE can be changed to AD on Christianity articles while arguing that the reverse isn't true on Buddhism articles -- if AD has special Christian meaning, then that meaning is sufficient justification to remove it from articles on other religions. --Aquillion (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Aquillion, I tried to clarify my wording a bit--some of the referents/antecedents were not very clear. Main point here is, though, that this article is not on any religious article at all. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• I started an RfC on the article talk page, for anyone who's interested. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Megacheez

User:Megacheez changes number and numerical symbol styling on hundreds of pages in violation of MOS:NUM. The user has been asked to stop doing so numerous times over the past few weeks on his talk page, but he continues nevertheless. As another editor on his talk page notes, he is doing this on so many pages it is impossible for any particular editor to revert them all. The editor should be blocked before he makes an even larger mess. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I just manually reverted probably a bit over 100 of their edits. It'd take a while to sift through them all because they intersperse their edits with some text changes and I'm making sure the edits are actual MOS:NUM violations. Blackmane (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's some examples:

• 05 Sept 2015: List of NFL retired numbers: No.→#, number→# discussed at User_talk:Megacheez#Number_sign (MOS:NUMBERSIGN)
• 16 Sept 2015: Rogers Centre: three→3, seven→7, warning at User talk:Megacheez#September 2015 (SPELL09)
• 20 Sept 2015: Ricoh Coliseum: ten→10, five→5, warning at User talk:Megacheez#September 2015 (SPELL09)
• 23 Sept 2015: Stroh Center: three→3, five→5, discussed at User talk:Megacheez#Manual of style (SPELL09)
• 23 Sept 2015: John E. Worthen Arena: eight→8, six→6, discussed at User talk:Megacheez#Manual of style (SPELL09)
• 23 Sept 2015: Wells Fargo Arena: six→6 (SPELL09)
• 23 Sept 2015: Auburn Arena: 0.573→.573, 6324→6,324, &c (WP:DECIMAL)
• 23 Sept 2015: Reed Arena: 1500→1,500 (MOS:DIGITS)

There are dozens if not hundreds of others. Some are changes between optional forms (e.g., 1500→1,500 or ten→10), but there does not seem to be a compelling reason (e.g., internal consistency) to change from one approved form to another. There are good edits mixed in with the questionable or bad edits. Megacheez does not interact with others on his talk page, so it is very difficult to say whether there is any change at all. For example, it may be possible that Megacheez learned MOS:NUMBERSIGN and so isn't making that mistake again, but hasn't yet digested MOS:SPELL09. On the other hand, it may just be that Megacheez has finished looking for places to insert the # and is now on to a new crop of edits. Obviously, there is a lot of energy and enthusiasm, I only wish it could be channeled in a more effective direction. YBG (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

As I stated, and others are now corroborating, this user is creating a gigantic mess to clean up. There are literally hundreds of these edits to sift through and clean up -- I count about 100 from the last two days, and five hundred in less than the last two weeks. As another editor above stated, the user will not respond to requests to stop or even engage in discussion. The longer this is allowed to go on, the more work it is creating for other editors. This is disruptive editing distracting other editors from more productive work. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is a major problem. I've blocked the user with the following statement on his user talk page "Please note to any admin (or anyone else) who comes by here to respond to any potential unblock requests. This block may be lifted at any time by any administrator so long as Megacheez agrees to stop making the rapid MOS-violating edits he's been warned about above, AND agrees to discuss the matter with others. Once he starts communicating, and agrees to stop the problem, this block may be lifted." This should at least force him to agree to stop and communicate. Once he does that, anyone may feel free to lift the block. --Jayron32 16:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I trawled through another batch of their edits last night and manually reverted back. I'm doing the easier ones that are tagged (current). Quite a few articles been edited by others, which will require some care in checking. Blackmane (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yaroslav Padokh

Yaroslav Padokh was Ukrainian, f.e. Shevchenko Scientific Society at Encyclopedia of Ukraine, Chubaty, Mykola and others. He wasn't not Pole. Kmicic introduces its Polish spelling of name Jarosław Padoch. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I use only English sources, because according to the Wikipedia standard the most important think is how one is describe in English sources. In English sources, even close to the Ukrainian minority, is using the form Jarosław Padoch (btw he sign himself Jarosław Padoch and he was called by his own daughter as Jarosław Padoch).

User Бучач-Львів put false information, because in references was no Polish source. He did not respond on talk page, when I explain this situation. He also removed my massage from his talk page.

User Бучач-Львів try to put his POV into many article. See this [136], especially what he try to do with Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. Kmicic (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

PS [137]. Kmicic (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Letter ł are in Polish, in English they is not. In Polish letter V is absent.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There is not relevant information to the topic. This variant is used by English sources. I do not use Polish sources in this case. Kmicic (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

please, Stop polonized articles about Ukrainians or Ukrainian descent peoples.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be Jaroslaw, not Jarosław, but surely not Yaroslav. Kmicic (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

surely not Jaroslaw or Jarosław. Read Shevchenko Scientific Society at Encyclopedia of Ukraine --Бучач-Львів (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The Internet version of "Encyclopedia of Ukraine" is enough to mention the second version of the name of Jaroslaw Padoch, but not enough to moved the article under the new name, because it would be against the Wikipedia rules. Kmicic (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Your sources is old. All modern, esp. in Ukrainian science, take only my option.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Everybody can see the article and compare sources using both versions. All modern is only the Internet version of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine and we could even suppose that changing of the name of Jaroslaw Padoch was invention of the editors of these encyclopedia as Prochak sign himself as Jaroslaw Prochak. Kmicic (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Can anybody stop, because he reverting even my minority technical edition [138]. Kmicic (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR may interest you both. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Propose boomerang

Бучач-Львів (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long-term POV-pusher. They have engaged in a move war at the named page. His disruptive behaviour has already been discussed at ANI here, and here, including about the Kiev/Kyiv dispute. His talk page is a slew of warnings. He also pushed POV on Vladimir the Great, cf. my talk page for an example of his WP:IDHT persistence. He must have known about COMMONNAME, as proved by his talk page, but blithely carries on. BethNaught (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Why the name Ukrainian scientist has written due to the Polish system? About Vladimir the Great. Vladimir is in Russian. Therefore it is appropriate to specify and Ukrainian variant Volodymyr.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Ymblanter not enough to know the difference between Ukrainian and Russian. Please see history of articlje about Zhovkva. We were with him earlier another point of views, but he has administrative credentials. Please do not You see that I had en-1.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Also see Teodor Andrzej Potocki. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

W.r.t. Vladimir, this is a perfect example of the user refusing to acknowledge COMMONNAME. BethNaught (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken regarding about my acknowledge COMMONNAME. general and probably not heard option Voldymyr as they say in the English translation of Ukrainian scientific journals. Moreover, I do not pretend to rename.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I do not impose anything - just stating a fact. Please see Volodymyr Sviatoslavych.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC) same time does not stand still - much changes.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC) But while the English Wikipedia often uses sources that actually originate from the Soviet era when for the whole world that the Russian Federation, Ukraine were just Russia. Without any difference. Therefore, there is a certain problem.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

At the very least, Бучач-Львів (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be banned from making unilateral page moves. They not only have made numerous controversial moves in a short period of time, without asking for an WP:RM (although they were asked to do so), but on some occasions went and made small edits to the redirect page for the original name, making it impossible to undo the controversial moves without admin intervention. I don't know if this was done on purpose or not, but whatever the intent, it's certainly disruptive and a pain in da'butt to fix. Volunteer Marek  13:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If he modified redirects to hinder moves by other participants, all such pages should be automatically moved back per this Arbcom decision. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Volunteer Marek  15:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You do not even want to hear of anything that opponent says. You - and your supporter, fellow Pole Kmiсic. In the articles talk about the Ukrainians you falsely call their the Poles, though they were only official of Polish Kingdom. Using the fact that the English-speaking world knows little difference between the Slavic countries. Similar, Kmiсic's actions [139] demonstrate nothing except my contribution see nothing — why you don't see this? --Бучач-Львів (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please show where I falsely call any Ukrainian a Pole. I am really tired of being accused of things I didn't do. Kmicic (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would definitely support a page-move ban, without prejudice to any further sanctions. BethNaught (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Google search for Yaroslav Padoch include German, Polish and other Latin letter languages.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• After looking over the two previous ANI discussions Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#User:.D0.91.D1.83.D1.87.D0.B0.D1.87-.D0.9B.D1.8C.D0.B2.D1.96.D0.B2 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#User:.D0.91.D1.83.D1.87.D0.B0.D1.87-.D0.9B.D1.8C.D0.B2.D1.96.D0.B2) it has become clear to me that the only reason the editor wasn't indef-blocked earlier was a lack of interest on the part of the administration. Now done, for disruptive editing, POV page moving, refusal to listen, possible lack of linguistic skills to enable editing on Wikipedia, and making ethnicity and nationalism a touchstone for commentary. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Courtesy ping to Ymblanter. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks, long overdue.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  Agreed, good block. Are there any moves that still need to be sorted out? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Hvarena

Could someone please take care of this guy? Quote:

"Are you an Avestan knower?? What gives you the right to edit Avestan language without having any ties to it? Why are your edits correct? You also lack info and your edits are clearly in favor of western powers who want to see Judaism as first monotheistic religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.54.62 (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "

"Nonsense? Without sources? Go and read the Avesta!! it's obvious that you don't dare to critice Judaism. In the Torah it's mentioned that the Jewish God has given the Jewish people the Land of Israel, divided between 12 tribes. If a jew uses this info to correct an article in wikipedia about Hebrew or judaism, then you wont have any opinions. But when we the Zoroastrian/Aryan people want to correct misinfo about us, then everyone stands against us. Of course you don't dare to stand against Israel and USA. You're obviously working for christian Europeans who don't want to admit that their history actually came from Indo-Aryans and not Greeks and Romans. Indo-Aryan languages have to major groups Avestan and Vedic sanskrit. These to became origins for Latin and Greek language. It's no coincidance that 7 in Greek in Hepta (Hapta in Avestan) and in Latin septa (Sapta in Vedic s.). Go and read books before you become and editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.54.62 (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "

Thanks in advance, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Which guy, Joshua? The link above points to your own edits. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes--the edits are made by an IP, the "this guy" links to edits pertaining to User:Searchpow who you say is a suspected sock of User:Adiagr, but the heading here is User:Hvarena. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right! Too many arguments. I've corrected the link; it's a diff for my talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have a suggestion and some comments. Not in that order. a. This doesn't rise to a level which requires administrative intervention. b. Their comments are uninformed but not untypical. c. Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryian--Ethnologue says Indo-Iranian and that's good enough for me. d. I think you should tell your visitor, in one sentence or less, that thingies on Wikipedia ought to be decided by reference to reliable sources (such as Ethnologue), and that this is to be discussed on the article talk page, thank you for your comment. That's what I'd do. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• It appears [140] that the user started using an IP after receiving an edit-warring notice, clearly gaming the 3RR rules. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Darn it--thanks a lot Bbb23. You've taken away any grounds for blocking the IP (hardblocking, for extra Wiki-bucks). We can still slap Hvarena on the wrist, of course. Hvarena, whatever you're trying, it's not going to work. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Bullet-point conversation? Anyway, thanks for the advice, Drmies. I'll explain him. I was annoyed by the talkpage-spam, and the "accusations" of Zionism and Christian whatever. Sigh... Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Diego Grez Cañete /MrWiki / Kuñal - again

User Diego Grez-Cañete has nominated various articles qhere I have edited [141] in what is to me a clear case of REVENGE because I have nominated various Pichilemu-related articles for deletion. He took me to the incidents page at the time for "disruption", albeit that resulted in a backlash and several other editors took on scrutinize Pichilemu-related articles [142]. Further Diego has been provoking Warko [143]. This user has a long history of previous misbehavior (that led to blocking an so on (check Diegos multiple accounts)) dating at least to 2009.

I wonder what can be done to end all this? Sietecolores (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

And [144] does Vrac also exposes Diegos behviour. Sietecolores (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Floquenbeam has closed the AFD's. I have notified Diego Grez-Cañete of this thread. (@Sietecolores: you're supposed to do this when you open an ANI case on someone...) Vrac (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying, Vrac, I always forget to check if that's been done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've speedy kept all 11 nominations; this is clearly using AFD as a weapon in retaliation. I've made it clear in the AFD close that good faith re-nominations by someone else for any of the articles is OK with me; I'm making no call on whether they meet GNG or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• This response is out of line. Given this and this(nominated several articles the target of the personal attack worked on: User_talk:Sietecolores#Nomination_of_Hern.C3.A1n_Trizano_for_deletion) it appears the user has no compunction about nominating articles based on revenge. Given this user has had 2 indef blocks both with conditional unblocks I think we may need to review what those conditions were and if we need new ones. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 19:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to chalk it up to feeling under fire and acting out (numerous articles of his have been AFD'd in recent days - I hasten to add, not under the same conditions as these 11 AFD's). Not acceptable, of course, and this can't continue, but maybe it explains things. I know an editor who I trust, and who is also trusted by Diego; I'd prefer to see if they could have a quiet word first, before the ANI Machine of Justice gets whirring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• I am content with that. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 19:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

To that I would add that other Chilean editors have been, shall we say, a tad overzealous in nominating Pichilemu content for deletion. Not everything associated with that town has to be deleted; each article should be evaluated on its own merits. Vrac (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• I see a tit-for-tat getting a bit out of hand. I would urge Diego to consider Floq's words; that these AfDs were retaliatory even if with a possibly valid deletion rationale is clear. Step back, dear Diego, and let calmer spirits prevail. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Stalking

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

---

@Jondel is stalking my edits (see [145]), i.e. all the AFDs referenced here, with boilerplate almost verbatim wording on each. User notified (see [146]). Quis separabit? 23:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Stalking? you have sooooo many AFDs (?) It seems like your >you're diverting attention <from your AFDs.--Jondel (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I am an uninvited user, and I will get involved if you don't stop stalking, Best regards. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 00:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cookie it seems like Rms125a@hotmail.com intends unfairly have articles deleted. Are you going to let this happen? Do we have a voice in the process?--Jondel (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jondel, you can have a voice as long as you don't stalk or harrass. Thanks. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 01:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And boiler plate verbatim? What is wrong ? Please investigate Rio , pull up your sleeves, check the discussion at Tambayan , under many deletions by same nominator. He also deleted a personal appeal at his discussion page. Stalking is something which is prolonged. I only proposed keep for one day. --Jondel (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• You're not being stalked, Rms, but your AfDs are. Having said that, Jondel's cries for help, such as this one, are--well, bothersome. Irritating. Irrelevant. Now, if Jondel's comments in those AfDs are really so boilerplate, the closing admin will see right through it, but I do agree that their edits and commentary are hardly improving the project or the atmosphere. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What? Seriously? You nominate a bunch of articles from the same project for deletion, and you're surprised that the same person turned up to vote in all of them? It's called similar interests. It happens. Suggest you drop this and move on. AFDs will end and then you can go on your merry way. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"You nominate a bunch of articles from the same project for deletion, and you're surprised that the same person turned up to vote in all of them?" -- no, not surprised at all, a little sad, maybe. @Drmies got it right -- it is AFD stalking. I am not intimidated but it needed to be reported given the verbatim keep votes that proliferated, indicating keep votes just to make a point, which is not kosher. Quis separabit? 02:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And if it's no big deal then maybe the hysteria will die down at the Tambayan Philippines WikiProject. Quis separabit? 02:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be making it a big deal , this hysteria. Right now you're diverting the debate to Tambayan. A boilerplating, is stalking? And what about deleting a personal appeal on your discussion page. After 10 years don't you think that is irritating and offensive? Own up huh? We'll I've been here 11 years and then some. I own up. I do my best to respond not delete.

I don't want to make it a big deal. I want that you stop your delete campaign for articles related to the Philippines. We see those personalities in the media and it is ridiculous for us Filipinos to accept that these celebrities are not notable. Sources are not an issue. I 'm sorry if you felt that I was stalking or intimidating. However please desist from deleting this articles if the subjects of these articles are indeed notable. Let't not prolong this debate. If there is another issue, aside from notability, I need to know. --Jondel (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"However please desist from deleting this articles if the subjects of these articles are indeed notable."

Well, that is often the point of contention, during and even after many AFDs, CFDs, etc. Not all Philippines-related articles are notable any more than those of any other country. If there were a way I could know beforehand then I could save myself the trouble and occasional embarrassment. I do do Google searches (others' opinions to the contrary notwithstanding) but those often don't resolve the issue, as there are so many mirror sites and fansites; even some reliable sources give undue coverage to nonsense and gossip. I realize I made some mistakes in re some poorly chosen AFD subjects (Banawa, Reyes), which you and some others don't seem to be able to let go of, but the good thing about our system is that those kinds of mistakes are caught and corrected, often by acclamation, during the discussion process. Yours, Quis separabit? 11:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel your are not digging deep enough with your google search. Btw I notice you did sock puppeting back in '5? Please understand, I've been here longer than you.--Jondel (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You've been editing since before 2005!! I never bothered to check but that's impressive, although your attempt to raise issues from a decade ago is not. It also unfortunately means that you bear your share of the blame for much of the cruft that I am trying to remove which you allowed or encouraged to proliferate on this encyclopaedia. Quis separabit? 14:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And you should certainly know after a decade or more of editing that comments such as "Just to make sure. I have to make sure since this debate is ridiculous.It is evident P.Arespochagaq is notable" and "She was notable since I was high school. The nominator is not Filipino is not familia [sic] with the Filipino media" are most inappropriate on AFDs or anywhere articles are being debated. Quis separabit? 14:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"I feel your are not digging deep enough with your google search" -- the problem for me, anyway, with Filipino sources, even those in English, is that they presuppose and presume an intimate knowledge with the subject and begin, usually not at the beginning but midway through whatever is being reported, making it hard to suss out, which is often the case with gossipy, salacious tabloids. Quis separabit? 14:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Look if they are non notable,have them deleted. If not please don't. Thanks about my time here. You're not so bad yourself. We will provide more legitimate sources for Sharmaine, but she is very well known and deserving of an article. I am also an admin at the Interlingua, and Chabacano wiki and a contributor at the (mostly)Latin and Spanish wiki. Res gestas tuas et de rebus philippinis admodum curo.--Jondel (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jondel: Mayroon akong walang anuman kundi paggalang sa napakalaki karamihan ng mga Pilipino kasama na ako ay nagtrabaho bilang mga doktor, mga nars, at mga guro. Ang kanilang mga hirap sa trabaho at resilience ay lubhang kataka-taka. Ngunit paggalang na ay hindi laging i-extend sa lahat ng mga "entertainers" ay tatalakayin namin. Quis separabit? 15:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for Tagalog, will provide English upon request.

Magka-bayan pala tayo?.Hindi para sa atin ang mang-husga, e, encyclopedia ito. It is not for us to judge. Entertainers provide a service and this is an encyclopledia. Kung pilipino ka pare, kahit doktor ka, nakaka hiya na sock-puppeter ka. Eh malay kong may unethical or unscrupulous modus operandi ka ngayon? It never crossed my mind to do sockpuppeteering. I also only delete vandalisms on my discussion page, never personal appeals. Please fix what ever issues you have with Obsidian. Pakiusap, wag mo na sanang ituloy itong Deletion campaign mo. Tapos ina-accuse mo ako ng stalking, an administrator. Please continue to contribute and develop good relations with other wikipedians. Please don't be smug.--Jondel (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to congratulate and encourage all of you in your efforts, CookieMonster755 for ninja-fast action,Drimies and SomeGuy for their enlightenement and even Rms125a@hotmail.com to for his motivation and action to weed out wiki trash.Please assume good faith on the part and of the other guy and do make effort to develop good relationships with other wikipedians. Please eschew and avoid unethical and unscrupulous methods. Victoria praeparationem amat. Ave. --Jondel (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Stalking (redux)

@Jondel continues, with several other editors from the Tambayan Project Wikipedia, to stalk my AFDs, providing mindless boilerplate keep votes without exception using the same almost verbatim language, at least initially before beefing up his rationale, using other editors' work (see [147]). In his case, although possibly not the other editor(s) it has become a form of edit warring and harassment. See [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153] and [154]. Quis separabit? 13:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rms125a@hotmail.com. This is what I am 'stalking' or following. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines. To admins be informed that this guy has a history of sock puppeteering back in 2005. Apparently he wants me to shut up and not vote keep. I don't >know <why he keeps putting up articles for deletion. Please refer to the first accusation of Stalking above. To Rms125. Where replaying tapes here. You can't expect me to not vote. Sorry. --Jondel (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"To admins be informed that this guy has a history of sock puppeteering back in 2005." -- Not a gesture of good faith to bring up nonsense from a decade ago. Quis separabit? 17:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

We'll your manifesting recidivism. Be honest will you? You need to accept that someone will protect those articles as the subjects are indeed notable. And considering you would have had your way, you 've probably caused damage in deleting other articles of notable subjects.--Jondel (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"You can't expect me to not vote. Sorry." -- No one is saying you can't vote. But you cannot expect me not to challenge votes based on IMDb, boilerplate voting ("Keep: sources present"), tandem voting, and other such irregularities. This is not a case of shared interests, this is a WikiProject-organized voting exercise to make a POINT to keep articles that the Project members would normally not have bothered voting for, based on previous AFDs, which they now want to overturn, when none of these editors even bothered to participate. @Obsidion Soul boasted that he has 9000+ articles on his watchlist; I guess he is otherwise occupied. Quis separabit? 17:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Those articles attest to notable entertainers. Entertainers provide a service. It is not for you to judge. This is an encyclopedia and it should provide useful information on notable subjects like entertainers.--Jondel (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This entire situation came about due to disagreements at Tambayan Philippines WikiProject over AFDs I had made recently, more than a few, which evidently triggered their radar, but I wouldn't do it any other way as I was doing nothing underhanded. I have made plenty of AFDs about people from every country, including a bunch from the Philippines that passed that they are now threatening to try to reopen. I acknowledged that I had made mistaken nominations that should not have been nominated. I added that I would desist from AFDing any further Philippines-related articles pending the results of the most recent nominations and added that perhaps my vetting process had become flawed. I then ended my communications, assuming the matter was over, at 14:45, 25 September 2015. I actually attempted twice to disengage, once at 14:45, 25 September 2015 and later at 16:53 25 September 2015, but @Obsidian Soul would not let it go, accusing me of system Western bias and continued to escalate the situation, using threatening language ("Before I fully descend into rage mode") before admitting that the noms were based on "the fact that these are people they've never heard of and will never hear of ever." I am never going to hear about most of them but I haven't AFDed every Filipino actor or actress. The entire thing is gamed anyway. They cite almost exclusively Filipino sources and unreliable sources like IMDb, which are obsessed with entertainment personalities, and then claim these individuals, including porn stars, reality TV stars, starlets (or "teenyboppers" as @Obsidian Soul called them), retired child actors, etc., and their relatives, are all notable. Maybe they are notable on Tambayan but not in English. Have the Tambayan Project editors transcluded all these articles into every other language? Of course not. @RioHondo stated "This wholesale AfDs for local Miley Cyruses have been going for a month and IMO that is disruptive." I haven't been AFDing for a month just for the last two days so I don't know to whom he is referring, but -- and far more importantly -- are they all the equivalent of Miley Cyrus?? In that case don't just delete the articles but then disinfect and cauterize. I wish I could AFD Miley Cyrus' entire post-Hannah Montana career, but ....

These editors, particularly @Obsidian Soul, are obsessed with what they call systemic pro-Western bias and have inundated Wikipedia with so many crufty articles, all boilerplated, that Deb (an admin) had to go waste time and energy on Herculean efforts to seriously trim the DOY pages which were becoming way too overgrown and unmanageable (and let's not discuss the provenance of the overwhelming percentage of said articles). Quis separabit? 14:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about your other issues which may indeed be valid. However, I am simply exercising my vote which you seem to misinterpret as STALKING. You need to respect votes and other opinions. I am alarmed at your AFDs. As a human being you should hear that other guy (Obsidian Soul?) out as best as you can. But you're being smug like deleting my personal appeal on on your discussion page. You can 't expect people to respect you after you do those things, especially if you have a history of sock puppeteering. If things are crufty then that is where a wiki works best. People like fixing things, and they get better by themselves through editors. I don't know about gaming. Why does Hannah Montana's article need deletion. This the essence of an encyclopedia, good info on everything --notable--. I am alarmed that you are putting soo many articles on delete but as far as I know I am following due process. You however are intentionally misinterpreting me when I vote.--Jondel (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not "smug" because I don't consider this to be a "personal appeal". Quis separabit? 20:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• The people only known for a single appearance on a Big Brother type show are not notable (WP:BLP1E), that's been repeatedly confirmed on the UK/US versions. The actors are a different matter, but they'd certainly need more than sources showing that they have appeared in a show (and not IMDB). Black Kite (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy close. AGF, this does not appears "stalking" to me. All the relevant AfDs are listed at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philippines, so it's pretty natural that editors who use to edit Tambayan Philippines-related subjects (as Jondel does) will note these AfDs and eventually will cast their votes in them. The closing admin will weight Jondel's and others' comments and will close the AfD discussions accordingly, this is not the place to discuss their merit. Cavarrone 18:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• For anyone interested in what actually happened and not his garbled summary, see Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Many AFDs by the same nominator?. Note that this involved a WikiProject and him. Not just me and Jondel. The issue is very simple. User:Rms125a@hotmail.com is blanket nominating articles of people from the Philippines without doing the preliminary legwork of actually checking if they are notable. He refuses to acknowledge that he is forcing the entire Philippine WikiProject to follow his every nomination just so we could save the notable ones. We are asking him to change his vetting process of how he picks which article to nominate, by actually checking notability first before nomination. No one actually cares if he deletes the non-notable ones. But the fact that he is regularly including people whose notability can easily be verified with a simple google search is lazy and far too much for us. He has already made multiple mistakes in the past, nominating people like Gladys Reyes and Carol Banawa, and has deleted at least one person Laurenti Dyogi, who passes WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER, but has been deleted because neither the nominator and the people who !voted actually did a google search. That should be in deletion review already, but yeah, they don't really care about actual notability, right? He seems to regard the number of successful AfDs as a badge of honor, regardless if they were actually notable. There are probably more, but I'm too scared to look

Now for the finer points of ANI drama:

• I did not boast about having 9k pages on my watchlist. LOL It was a direct reply to his question on why no one from the WikiProject commented on the AfDs of the notable people who got deleted. Notice that he is in essence, admitting that he relies on other people to tell him about the notability of the articles he nominates. Maybe he thinks that the members of the WikiProject have nothing better to do than look for AfDs?

• Moreover, does he even know that we do actually see every single nomination he did of Filipino celebrities without going through his contribs? Not because we're "stalking", but because they're automatically listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philippines. The WikiProject is dedicated to Philippine-related topics. What deletion sorting topics should we be watching if not that?

• "They cite almost exclusively Filipino sources and unreliable sources like IMDb", "Maybe they are notable on Tambayan but not in English" <- Examine these sentences. For people who actually know the notability guidelines. What's wrong with them? Do you understand now why I'm accusing WP:Systemic bias? I don't think the concept of national notability has ever occurred to him. Might be because he's American and a New Yorker and he simply can't fathom the fact that other countries have different famous people, different TV networks, different magazines, different movies, different shows, etc. But seriously. If this is how most western editors sort which sources are WP:RS (i.e. they must be western), then it's no wonder the systemic bias is this bad. For a brief summary of the most common secondary sources we have nationally: ABS-CBN and GMA Network are two of the largest TV stations (similar to NBC, CBS, or FOX in the US). Notable national newspapers include Manila Bulletin, Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star (or "Philstar" online), The Manila Times, etc. The fact that most of these are exclusively Philippine-based is irrelevant. They provide national coverage (to a nation of almost 100 million people), sufficient to prove notability, regardless if a New Yorker has never heard of them ever in his life. This is the ENGLISH [language] Wikipedia, not the Western Wikipedia.

• And lastly, the most important part. I am losing (have lost, really) my temper because he accuses all of us of being "fans" or "obsessed" about all these people. And he thinks that that is the reason why we're criticizing his behavior. Variously implying WP:COI, WP:Sockpuppetry, or in this case, WP:Stalking. I don't have to explain why that is inexcusable for an editor supposedly this experienced, right? I've been editing Wikipedia since 2009. I'm an article writer/expander, focusing on biology topics. In all that time, I am pretty sure I have never created nor edited a single article on Filipino celebrities, films, or TV shows. The only interest I have in this topic, is the fact that I am Filipino and know that they are notable nationally. And no, I do not know Jondel (or any of the members of the Philippine WikiProject) in real life. I have never even interacted with him on Wikipedia. The fact that User:Rms125a@hotmail.com is repeatedly assuming conspiracy rather than addressing the issues is extremely frustrating.

Since this topic has been here twice already. I think administrator intervention is needed by now. If anyone actually cared that is. I think the cabal might already be at work. LOL. Is he on IRC? Meh. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledged that I had made mistaken nominations in the past. I added that I would desist from AFDing any further Philippines-related articles pending the results of the most recent nominations and added that perhaps my vetting process had become flawed. @Obsidian Soul would not let it go and continued to escalate the situation, using threatening language ("Before I fully descend into rage mode") before admitting that the noms were based on "the fact that these are people they've never heard of and will never hear of ever." And I did not delete Dyogi or any other article or anything ever on Wikipedia as I am not a sysop and have never had and do not have that sometimes enviable but never unfettered power. Quis separabit? 20:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"User:Rms125a@hotmail.com is blanket nominating articles of people" -- untrue I looked and selected those whom I believe are not notable. Doing more than two or three in a day does not mean I am "blanket nominating". If I do one nom a day based on what you say is my faulty criteria, isn't that blanketing over a long period of time? Or is it "pillowing"? Quis separabit? 20:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"No one actually cares if he deletes the non-notable ones" -- that is true aside from the fact that they are all necessarily notable at Tambayan else they would not have been created, and what is or isn't "notable" is almost always subjective, debatable and contested, to varying degrees. Quis separabit? 20:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC

"The only interest I have in this topic, is the fact that I am Filipino and know that they are notable nationally" -- unqualified claims to notability by presupposition, and the notion that anything notable in the Philippines is notable everywhere else in the English-speaking world (and yes I include the Philippines in the English-speaking world for the purposes of this debate). @Obsidian Soul has found almost every nom (minus 1) worthy of keeping in the current revanchist-dominated AFDs. @Jondel has the same record, plus 1). Quis separabit? 20:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Untrue -- I accused the media (including media organs you named above) in the Philippines of being obsessed with these "entertainers". I also never asked if you know @Jondel. Quis separabit? 20:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually at the first stalking colloquy both @Drmies and @CookieMonster755 both supported my stance. If they still do, I don't know. Quis separabit? 20:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Do not insert your replies in the middle of other people's comments. It confuses everything. And learn to indent, ferchrissakes. I don't care who supported whom. This isn't a popularity contest. We have been and always have been talking about policies and guidelines. The fact that you are actively avoiding answering the issues opened and instead see monsters where there are none is your fault.

I repeatedly tried to explain to you why your nominations were problematic to us, yet what you actually latched on was accusing us of being "obsessive fans" for even daring to challenge them (and yes you did, apparently I was a fan of Laurenti Dyogi because I know who he is). Then opening accusations of stalking on ANI. Can you blame me if I get angry eventually? For someone who accuses people of gaming the system at the drop of a hat, you don't seem to realize that's exactly what you're doing. All my !votes, despite the obvious anger behind them, are still relevant to the articles being discussed. Every single editor in Tambayan Philippines are independent of each other. We're not a hive-mind, if that's what you're implying. Open a checkuser if you want. You probably have an admin friend who can do it for free too.

It was YOUR responsibility as the nominator to check for notability FIRST. That is very clearly outlined in the AfD guidelines. Neither the people who did not participate in the AfD discussions for whatever reasons nor the administrators who did the actual deletions are at fault for wrongly deleted articles. The fact that you apparently mainly focused in AfD for years is incredibly alarming if this has been your attitude from the get go. And no it's not "notability by presupposition" LOL. Or do you really just ignore the evidence I gave on my Keep !votes? I have a general idea of the notability of local personalities for the same reason that a New Yorker can generally tell which person is notable in America - media saturation. But most importantly, I don't use that as my reason for my Keep !votes.

Claiming you did your research is a slap on the face, when as others have pointed out, you have already made seriously impossible mistakes. Mistakes that couldn't have been made if you really did do your homework beforehand. Mistakes that still exist because your refuse to rectify them (apparently ever) out of spite. Same thing with your apparent dismissal of several WP:RS because the content is apparently just "trivia and gossip", regardless of the depth of coverage. Apparently misunderstanding what "trivial coverage" actually means.

And saying I know your intentions are good does not mean I "liked you" nor that I was conceding the point. I still do believe you are acting with good intentions and have done good work with AfD in the past. But the fact remains that your recent nominations were problematic, and your understanding of the notability guidelines with regards to non-western celebrities seem to be flawed. They are not mutually exclusive. Making a conditional promise on possibly desisting in the future does NOT address the issues raised. Because sooner or later you'd do it again. Maybe not for people from the Philippines. Maybe the celebrities of Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Nicaragua, Lithuania, who knows? Nominating them on the basis that someone from New York has never heard of them. And maybe they won't have enough people in their WikiProjects to resist your apparent misunderstanding that "English Wikipedia" means Americentrism. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"...before admitting that the noms were based on "the fact that these are people they've never heard of and will never hear of ever." - Also what?? LOL. You do realize I was describing YOUR behavior, don't you? I wasn't admitting anything. A behavior clearly evident in all your other comments here. Including from the struck-out rant below - "However, as Filipino media tends to presuppose a familiarity with any subject and it is like starting to read a book in the middle rather than at the beginning. The fact that so few if any of the people I nominated have been covered in media outside their native country doesn't inspire confidence in their inherent notability and thus I became accustomed given a fairly good success rate at using my instincts." You are literally nominating articles based on the fact that YOU haven't heard of them. More importantly, you seem to think that notability requires international coverage. o_O Whut? *facepalm*-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally I don't believe that as media saturation and notability are linked inextricably, especially in fields like entertainment, sports, etc. But I actually disdain the Keep !votes by @Jondel, which are a joke ("Keep: sources present") LOLOL. Can you smell the revanchism in the air? Perhaps, Obsid, you should not misattribute to other editors your own motivations or erudition. Quis separabit? 23:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

How can something be "seriously impossible"? Quis separabit? 23:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"English Wikipedia" means English-language Wikipedia, not Americentrism, I agree. What has that to do with hundreds of non-notable Filipino entertainers, all churned out almost identically with the same boilerplate format, mostly the same credits and origins, the same extreme avuncular descriptions of schooling and families and love affairs, etc? Quis separabit? 23:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC

First, I was being sarcastic about "back when he liked me"; hope I didn't burst your bubble. Second, and far more important, "[m]aking a conditional promise on possibly desisting in the future does NOT address the issues raised" -- NO, it was unconditional but you refused to accept, choosing to escalate the contentious and tense atmosphere, rather than accepting my acknowledgement and continuing to beat a dead horse. After acknowledging that my vetting system may have become flawed (an admission you agreed with), you could have been more of a help than a hindrance by showing me how to navigate through Philippines media sources because, as I explained, Filipino media tends to presuppose a familiarity with any subject and it is like starting to read a book in the middle rather than at the beginning, at least for me. I will still nominate Filipinos or anyone else I deem non-notable. My track record is not one of picking on people of any particular ethnicity, although the more articles out there the more likely they will and should fall under scrutiny. But I realize that I will be presumed to be acting out of pro-Western bias and sloppy research. Thus forewarned, I am forearmed. Quis separabit? 23:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

o_O Whut? *facepalm* -- I don't know what that means, believe it or not, but it sounds like a transplanted Americanism. Quis separabit? 23:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Urban Dictionary: facepalm BMK (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant horn blowing. BMK (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ASSORTED COMMENTS TO/ABOUT ME IN HAPPIER TIMES "I would like to congratulate and encourage all of you … even Rms125a@hotmail.com to for his motivation and action to weed out wiki trash" (@Jondel) "I know you mean well and have done well" (@Obsidian Soul) – that was when he liked me "When a large amount of your recent nominations are for Philippine celebrities, some of whom are quite easily verifiable as notable with a simple google search" (@Obsidian Soul) – YES, IDEALLY. However, as Filipino media tends to presuppose a familiarity with any subject and it is like starting to read a book in the middle rather than at the beginning. The fact that so few if any of the people I nominated have been covered in media outside their native country doesn't inspire confidence in their inherent notability and thus I became accustomed given a fairly good success rate at using my instincts. "Don't attack the nominator there, no matter how lazy he is, because WP:Wikilawyers will eat you" (@Obsidian Soul) – doesn't that include all nominators? Quis separabit? 20:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This is childish

I'm bowing out of this discussion until the adults arrive. Thank you to anyone who actually reads our points. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I am outta here too. Without @Obsidian Soul it's just no fun. Besides he was my ride, now I gotta hustle. Last one out please turn off the lights. Quis separabit? 02:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Note

I've restored proper indentation for readability after User:Rms125a@hotmail.com's edit deliberately disregarding my earlier appeal for proper discussion layouts to avoid confusion. Note that he's now adding superfluous {{od}} templates on his AfD nominations as well. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I re-indented after @Obsidian Soul twice reverted my edits. He claims I didn't indent (or indent sufficiently). That has rarely been a problem for me and I didn't see what was wrong, although there are so many threads it was hard for me to keep track. So I reindented any edits of mine to which he could have been referring because after two reverts I had had it (see [155], [156], [157], [158]). However, I was not doing it on purpose to irritate him as he suggested to @Amaury in his edit summary. To paraphrase Obsid: "Ooh. Conspiracy! (LOL)" Quis separabit? 11:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

* One comment only For a sysop that claims to have been around a long time | I find this to be rather disturbing , IMDB as a source ? Pretty much everyone (except newbies) know IMDB is not reliable as a source. It doesn't seem to look good for Jondel at this point. KoshVorlon 11:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't think IMDB had such a bad rep.

To ObsidianSoul and Rms125 kindly resolve your differences as best as you can, we all need to work together and this is a big head ache >for<mom and pop, I mean, wiki-management. --Jondel (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC).

Ako madaling makakuha ng kasama, madaling pagpunta at mapayapa. 11:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Quis separabit?

Please consider me a friend and guide. Many people think they are helping and saving the world when they are actually destroying it. I think if you grow in spirituality you are doing your part in saving the world.--Jondel (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Reporting an anonymous SPA

86.167.118.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to be a WP:SPA that’s done nothing but edit-war, including labeling legitimate, consensus-based edits as vandalism [159]. I’ve tried talking to him, but he has yet to touch any discussion page including his own. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@67.14.236.50: If the issue becomes more serious, you can report it to WP:AIV. --JustBerry (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I don’t know if the user should be considered a vandal, but he’s already provoked semi-protection on two articles. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@67.14.236.50:I'd suggest that you should consider reporting only if problems persist after this point. --JustBerry (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: All right, but again, it seems to me to be more a case of disruptive editing than vandalism—“if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism.” But I’ll wait and hopefully not post here again. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@67.14.236.50: Agree --JustBerry (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hardblocked one week. This is someone who has hopped IPs and has been edit-warring there before. Some socking going on.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  @Berean Hunter: Looks like he might have hopped IPs again: Special:Contributions/81.104.87.37. But note that that was a Virgin address, and this is a BT address. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep, just hardblocked one week. I may be headed towards semi-protecting some articles that you are tending. Any chance on getting you to get an account? :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to Topic Ban User:Swamiblue from editing Swaminarayan Related Pages due to long-term disruption

(Move to AN. BMK (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)')

Possible stalking?

I've just realised that the last edit to the Little Miss Nobody article or its talk page before AldezD called an AFD on it was mine, over a month after the last edit to the article. Either it's a big coincidence or AldezD is stalking my edits, checking what contributions i am making. That alone, if true, should get him reprimanded and the AFD thrown out. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: specifically checking up on individual editors' work is not stalking. If I notice a habit of problematic edits from a contributor, it's a useful damage reduction approach to have a look at their previous edits and see if something's amiss there too. This without pronouncing on the merits of the AfD, or on whether such checking-up is necessary in your case; but I'd recommend focusing on the AfD on its own terms.-- Elmidae (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused by the premise of this complaint. Is there some context between you and Aldez, Paul? Aldez nominated an article for deletion five days after you edited the talk page...and how is that evidence of stalking? Someguy1221 (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I humbly suggest that Paul review WP:HOUND and make sure that’s the case here. There’s no mention here of harassment or any persistent behavior. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This user has made multiple posts within the AFD that fall outside of WP:NPA guidelines:

• "I would hesitate to call him a troll but..."
• "What a Mickey Mouse operation he is.
• accusations of stalking... "That alone, if true, should get him reprimanded. "

WP:BOOMERANG for this ANI?

AldezD (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

User also undid my edits twice notifying closing admin of AFD that page creator had WP:CANVASSed. [160], [161]. One edit summary by user is "don't irritate me" Is this editor WP:COMPETENT? AldezD (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I've already explained on the page that it wasn't canvassing for the very reasons the canvassing page states. Evidently you failed to read the relevant policy before making your accusation. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

User undid my edit a third time notifying closing admin of canvassing: [162]. AldezD (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Go read the bloody canvassing page. It gives plenty of permissible reasons to notify people of an AfD. I'm starting to get very angry with you. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"I'm starting to get very angry with you. WP:BATTLE. AldezD (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there something in WP:BATTLE that attempts to alter human nature and forbid one editor getting angry with another? BMK (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm not the villain in this. I'm going to take a wiki-break as it looks like AldezD will not be dealt with. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It’s generally unacceptable to remove another user’s comments from a discussion, even if you think he’s lying. See WP:TPG. Instead, you could post your own comment immediately after it with an explanation. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear that AldezD has indeed been checking Paul Benjamin Austin's contributions (how else would AldezD have gathered these diffs for an accusation of canvassing?) and I think AldezD has been somewhat provocative in this discussion. But other than in the context of the [[Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim) article and the related AfD, no evidence has been presented to suggest an ongoing substantial wikihounding campaign so I don't see any need for admin intervention at this stage. That's not to say there is no issue at all - clearly something is not right between these two editors - and should more evidence emerge, this event should be considered along with it. WaggersTALK 12:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest both editors give some consideration to WP:AGF in the meantime. WaggersTALK 12:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Repeated failure to assume good faith

For several weeks now, Twirlypen has been accusing me of having some ulterior motive in my editing practices. He appears to be basing this on nothing more than my disagreeing with him, and his inability to convince me of the merits of his position when we do disagree. Rather than assuming good faith in my edits, he has come to the conclusion that I am being deliberately disruptive because I am not getting my way, and he assumes that because of my block history, he is free to disregard any contribution that I make. This has come to a head in the past hour when I made a series of edits to 2016 Formula One season. In this edit, I clearly explained the reasoning behind my edits: that the sport's highest authority recognised certain competitors in a particular way. Within minutes, Twirlypen had reverted it with this edit, and his edit summary makes it clear that he thinks that I am up to something. His subsequent edits then restored that content on the grounds that he had checked the entry list and came to the conclusion that those original edits were correct after all. His edit summary made it pretty clear that he reverted those edits on the grounds that I had some ulterior motive, rather than based on the interests of the page, and he further assumed that I did not check the source (of which many are provided), despite my raising the issue in a related merger discussion.

This has been going on for weeks—since my last block expired. Twirlypen has clearly failed to assume good faith on multiple occasions, and he has let that assumption dictate his editing practices. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the edit I reverted contained the edit summary which amounted to "I saw it on TV", without citing the actual entry list. I only restored it once I did the fact-checking for myself. PM then reverted another, unrelated edit I made based on COMMONNAME, seemingly erroneously, as it had nothing to do with what the user saw on TV. Let it also be known that this user has also had other AGF issues with other editors. I never seem to have this problem continually with anyone else on Wikipedia. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I have since provided solid reasoning for my edits—a standard that Twirlypen has not expected or demanded of anyone else; had anyone else made them, he would have accepted them at face value. If other editors have AGF issues, it is because Twirlypen has vehemently campaigned against me simply because I disagree with him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Well those are baseless accusations if I ever heard of one and you're on the verge of violating AGF yourself with them. Campaigned against you? And that discussion you just linked proved enough that we can get along just fine from one discussion to the next - once you do explain your edits beyond "I saw it on TV". If I had a campaign against you, I'd have opposed it simply because it was your idea. Believe it or not, I do agree with you sometimes. I have revised plenty of other editors' contributions if their UNSOURCED changes have an edit summary of "I saw it on TV" or whatever else that doesn't substatiate anything. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Like I said to you, ignoring AGF is a slippery slope: you assume that I have an agenda; I assume that you're looking to discredit my edits at every opportunity. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Which my contribution history clearly proves I don't do. This pretty much makes this whole case a mulligan as you've just openly admitted to not AGF with me while simultaneously accusing me. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much every discussion we have sees you accusing me of having an ulterior motive at some point—usually around the time you feel that you have made your case, but have failed to convince me. And, as evidenced by the example I gave above, you openly reverted edits on the grounds that I made them, insinuating said ulterior motive in the process, rather than judging the merits of the edits themselves. If I have failed to assume good faith, it is only because you have repeatedly accused me of deliberately trying to disrupt articles because I am not getting my way. And given your tendency to drag up previous, unrelated discussions and present them as evidence of my supposed wrongdoing in this "ulterior motive", I would say that this is far from moot. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

My edit summaries clearly state that the reverts were made because they were based off what you claimed to see on TV, not because you made them. These accusations are baseless and are premeditated that I don't follow AGF, which in itself violates AGF. Dragging up previous, unrelated discussions... huh... sounds a heck of a lot like what you are doing right now. If this gets me a time-out, it will almost certainly earn you one as well. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of not turning this section alone into another 100kb+ thread (which tends to happen between this user and I) where nothing gets solved, I'll abstain from any non-constructive edits here with Prisonermonkeys and will only respond if addressed by someone else. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Next time (if there is a next time), I recommend not responding at all until reviewers have commented on the original posting. NE Ent 11:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing reasonable discussions at both Talk:2016_Formula_One_season#Consistency_in_wlink_titles and corresponding project page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Red_Bull.2FRed_Bull_Racing and encouraged both editors to focus on the topic and not each other Comment on content, not on the contributor. Recommend close with no action. NE Ent 11:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I"ll suggest a trout for both. Tvx1 12:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre edits by anonymous editor

Someone might want to look at the recent activities of an anonymous editor. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like someone who just recently found the edit button is now making test edits. He's been warned. If he continues, it would be appropriate to give him a final warning and then send report him at WP:AIV if he continues. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

User made test edits/vandalism to six pages in less than two hours (but now apparently discontinued); final warning issued to help ensure prompt intervention if disruptions resume. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  10:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Impersonation of a real world person

This anon user 2601:448:C201:6FA:11D7:51F3:810E:1715 is attempting to impersonate as "Matt Overmyer" and going as far as to give out a phone number to the restaurant from the saved edit. I have a feeling that he's impersonating as another person with no viable proof whatsoever. Can you help deal with the issue? If he has no proof, then he's clearly impersonating as someone else. 70.45.58.178 (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@70.45.58.178: You must notify anyone reported that there's a report regarding them either via a mention or on their talk page with the ANI notice template.

2601:448:c201:6fa:11d7:51f3:810e:1715. Amaury (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin please rev-del the edit summary of this edit per WP:PROMO? BMK (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Deforestation in India

Deforestation in India was a redirect to Forestry in India and as per request made at WikiProject India, Requested articles on 20th August, 2015 I started the fresh article but unfortunately I forget to nominated the existing redirect under CSD G6 (or alternatives) and saved the article.

Recently, I noticed that the article was not listed under my contributed articles and I nominated it under CSD G6 after moving the article to Draft:Deforestation in India so that it can be moved back to the mainspace article once the existing one get deleted. The CSD was reviewed by Spinningspark and he declined it as per Declining speedy. Sorry, you don't get to delete articles just so you can get your name as author. Besides which the draft page you intend to move here has other, irrelevant drafts embedded in its history.

His decline reason was unclear including the views on the draft about its embedded history which has various alternative option to remove those "embedded history". For the same I left a message on his talk page but he have not yet answered even after his recent contributions shows that he is/was online.

We all on Wikipedia spend a lot of time in thinking the topic, deciding the contents, writing it and finding the reliable sources. But, such responses and that's from experienced editors is really discouraging. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sanskari: Just an idea, and I don't want to poke in my nose unnecessarily, but why don't you move the article to a temporary title like India deforestation and then request a histmerge with the new redirect, Deforestation in India? It looks like the current article "Deforestation in India" was only a redirect before you expanded it.

(Also, now you have two articles: the draft and the mainspace article. You may want to ask for a histmerge for these, too.) Epic Genius (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Obstinate user repeatedly edit warring his own Original Research dates for mythical antediluvian kings into Sumerian King List

I believe the actions of this user User:SamEV over 2 months have become problematic enough to note here, since he is basically thumbing his nose at the Original Research and Verifiability policies, and repeatedly inserting his own concocted dates, found in no available source, for the mythological kings. In fact there is no known reliable source asserting these ten kings from Alulim to Ziusudra were historical at all, let alone estimating a date when they lived. If such a source were provided, it would put a completely different complexion on the matter. However, User SamEV is instead pointing to some kind of imaginary "consensus" or "agreement" he claims the article wikipedian authors came to on the discussion page, as justification for edit warring his OR dating scheme. There are two serious problems with this for your attention, one, such "consensus discussion" to assign these arbitrary dates on the discussion page seems to be invisible, and second, even if there were such a consensus discussion, such a consensus could not possibly trump the OR policy and allow new dating theories of individual editors to be promulgated by wikipedia, which to date has been his only response, despite repeated warnings not to edit war his original research. Thank you, Philip Mexico (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I refer anyone interested to Talk:Sumerian King List for my rationale for the edits in question.
I also request a sanction against user Philip Mexico for his repeated distortions of my position and uncivil attacks against me, not to mention his edit warring to revert what was essentially a stable version of the page that was indeed based on a compromise. I note that even after opening this thread he reverted immediately. SamEV (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I have commented on the article talk page regarding this matter. The additions of information without RS to substantiate it is unacceptable, particularly when it can be reasonably challenged. On that basis, I suggest that SamEV either find the requisite sourcing, or cease his actions. I am less than sure that further administrative action is necessary at this time, although, if that editor reported continues to edit in a problematic way here, that might easily change. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute about a list that is partly mythological. If the presence of mythological kings is attested by scholars on the mythology, they can be included. I suggest moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard as the next step in resolving a content dispute about what is partly fact and partly mythology. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

John Carter, I do not have to prove the existence of the antediluvians, as I do not claim that they existed. Maybe they did or didn't, but I'm agnostic on the question. What I did, to which user Philip Mexico objects, is state what scholars do: that the antediluvian era would have a terminus in c. 2900 BCE. That's already reliably sourced in the article. Because I am agnostic on the existence of the alleged antediluvian kings, I even add the word "purported" to the dates. A parallel would be to state that Abraham is not attested outside the Bible, but that the latter's internal chronology gives him a purported birthdate in c. 2200 BCE. What's wrong with that? SamEV (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC), 22:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Point of order: "purported", being in the passive voice, avoids the question of who has done the purporting so is somewhat of a "weasel word"... it should be no problem to state that specific antediluvian kings were "purported" to have reigned at a certain time, or that Abraham's "purported" birthdate was around 2200 BC, provided you could find someone actually purporting that (not a wikipedian or a blog etc). I haven't seen any sources making those claims in either case, so I'm not sure how Abraham's birthdate is a useful analogy. Philip Mexico (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Re-recreation of deleted material/probable sock (Cannes/Indian cinema)

From April this year I raised a request for deletion of a page that had been deleted several times before, and recreated by a blocked user. I've just stumbled upon this article, which is a duplication of the deleted page. Created by User:Luxpapa within a couple of weeks of them registering an account (July). I suspect this is a sock account too. Appreicate if this page can be deleted too. I'm happy to log a sock investigation, if needed at WP:SPI. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to JzG for sorting. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Tubers: Conflict of Interest

Hi - I need a second opinion on this article please. I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia and one of the editors seems to think I am somewhat conflicted. I find this pretty discouraging as I was planning to update a few more pages as I felt the information held on there was somewhat limited, given the amount of information available online

The page I edited can be found here What is particularly disturbing is that I referenced pages such as as Kareena Kapoor; KikI Omeili; Chiwetel Ejiofor and I am extremely confused as to why they do not carry the same badges. Despite re-editing my updates, these badges have been re added to the page and finally been advised by the editor in question that it is not my place to edit the article or correct it. I thought there were no limits to how many times one could edit a page on Wikipedia and also I was of the opinion that we were all trying to get wikipedia up to a decent standard. Is someone able to adequately give a second opinion on this page and also advise on how to ensure I do not get into this mess anymore. I also read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and I am mortified that someone will even accuse me of this.

Thanks --- added by Adeadeyemi21 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Adeadeyemi21, you are making a high number of edits in this article over today and Jamie Tubers comment was primarily criticizing you for removing tags regarding notability and conflict of interest. You have escalated this situation dramatically in a short period of time.

Every editor receives talk page notices and disputes ("messes") are common on Wikipedia. There is no reason to be mortified. You need to slow down, consider the criticism offered by other editors (especially regarding using reliable sources and promotional language) and keep it in mind while making future edits. The goal of Wikipedia is to have strong, well-referenced articles and you should assume that other editors are working toward the same goal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Adeadeyemi21: I never said it wasn't in your place to edit the article. Of course everyone is welcomed to make useful contributions to Wikipedia. I said it was not in your place to remove the maintenance tags, but other editors. I am pretty busy, and I advised you to make use of the beginners' links that have been provided at top of your talkpage; atleast visit the teahouse. Don't catch feelings or be discouraged, instead try to get accustomed to Wikipedia and its guidelines by following my advice. Regards.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

can someone please delete my account

I made mistake in spelling my name. please delete my account. My username is now someone else's name that I don't want it to be. Thanks Jeffreyscottgrimm (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Go to WP:CHU and request a name change. BMK (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART is also another avenue. Blackmane (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

will I get in any legal trouble if I used someone else's name here? Jeffreyscottgrimm (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jeffreyscottgrimm: As long you didn't do it with any malicious intents, which it looks like you didn't, then I think you're fine. Even if you did, though, the odds of something happening are extremely low. Amaury (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't give out legal advice. BMK (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: It wasn't advice, it was an opinion. Amaury (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are like anuses, everyone has one, but if you offer an opinion about a legal matter, it is indistinguishable from advice to someone who doesn't know who you are and what your qualifications are. That's why it's not a good idea to offer opinions or advice about legal (or med ical)matters on Wikipedia, all it can do it get you (and potentially the WMF) into trouble. BMK (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We are not lawyers and we cannot know what the consequences may be in your jurisdiction of registering with someone else's name. But as mentioned, simply follow the instructions at WP:CHU and your username will be changed. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, accounts cannot be deleted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Ian.Thomson

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

---

Hello, I was wondering if I could get help with this Wikipedia editor? He keeps implying that I am tendentiously editing, which I am not. He also resorting to using ad hominem attacks, and threatening to ban me. Full conversation here.

If I could please get some assistance in this user who is badgering me, thanks. New User Person (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at that discussion Ian Thomposn made one comment so I don't see how that is evidence that he keeps implying anything. Also several people in that discussion were critical of your views so why is Ian Thompson being singled out?--174.91.187.135 (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Ian.thomson only posted once on the Village Pump page and not at all on NUP's talk page. clpo13_(talk) 23:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

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

User:19999o

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

---

Can someone help us in dealing with a disruptive user in a semi-protected page? More specifically, the User:19999o is doing disruptive edits and has entered in an endless edit-revert war with the other Wiki users at the page Macedonians (ethnic group). We have already reverted his vandalism of the page about 6 times, and we send him already two warnings so far (check his talk page, here: User talk:19999o), and even notified a moderator about his disruptive actions. But the disruptive user doesn't seem to care at all and has ignored our warnings and is continuing his disruptive behavior. Any help is highly appreciated because I don't know what else can be done. --SilentResident (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Macedonians (ethnic group) is subject to WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. You may want to bring this up at WP:AE. Blackmane (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: dear Blackmane, can you do this? First time I am reporting someone, I could really appreciate a little assistance from a more experienced user. Thanks --SilentResident (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

While I'm somewhat familiar with what goes on in WP:AE, I've not reported a user there before either. I'll have a look into it and ping you once I think I'm done. Blackmane (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane:Thank you for doing this, and also, thank you for informing me about article in question being subject to WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. Thank you and I appreciate what you have done for me. --SilentResident (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Most welcome. I'll close this ANI thread as it is now at AE. Blackmane (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Jeo^人

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

---

This administrator Jeo^人 is totally incompetent. The reasons for such conclusion Made an article, totally about facts and dates. found out deleted-reason possible violation of an author's rights Asked to discuss this, because when you post a history only about facts and dates, it is not something about possible violation of an author's rights. Instead to discuss with others , warned and closed my account for a month. Not a single argument... I have heard about people complaining, that some stuff are acting in Wikipedia totally like self proclaimed kings and governors, forgetting about why they are here and what they need to do. This type of people refuse to admit any possible mistake by their side and make a feeling of being treated bad in their childhood. There must be a way to deal with the issues like this, as they discredit Wikipedia project and as a reason, some of us may not be bale to participate in the project. --Piktard (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Two major problems with this complaint:

• User:GeoO is not an administrator, and has made only 11 edits to Wikipedia - none of theme have been deletion nominations.
• Your account has never edited except for this complaint.

It seems likely to me, at first glance, that you are complaining about an event on a different-language version of Wikipedia (probably hy-wiki). The English Wikipedia administrators have no jurisdiction over other Wikipedias, and you will need to raise your concerns at the appropriate venue there if you expect anything to be done. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Woland2k

There is an unblock request at User talk:Woland2k. The administrator Karl Dickman suggests unblocking, and I agree. Karl Dickman has consulted the blocking administrator, JzG, who says "Ask at WP:ANI, I don't object if others agree but I'd want other admins' input." Well, Karl and I make two other admins who agree that an unblock should be considered, but in line with JzG's request, I am posting it here. Obviously, any other opinions will be welcome. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I invited review because the user's only contributions to date are promotional, and I think he will need to be monitored. I myself would not unblock but if people are prepared to "trust but verify" and think that the advertising will not recur then be my guest. I have no reason to suppose that JamesBWatson and Karl Dickman are wrong, or to distrust their judgement. This just strikes me as one that needs a bit of discussion and if the above think the discussion to date is sufficient then I have no special reason to disagree. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Derevation

Derevation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Derevation has been tagged as a suspected sock of TekkenJinKazama for a while now, and is continuing the same trait of activities, mostly the uploading of non-free files (see here and here for examples). Is there a significant reason why this user has not been blocked for being a sock of a banned editor? samtar ^(msg) 15:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. Editors should not add such a tag without taking the matter further, typically to WP:SPI, or at a minimum to an administrator requesting assistance. The tag's been there too long. Why the user didn't remove it is beyond me, expect perhaps they felt they were not permitted to do so, which is not true.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed Bbb23, that was a significant influence in why I've asked here. Perhaps Ravensfire may wish to chip in? samtar ^(msg) 15:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Samtar, the main reason is probably because I didn't report him to SPI. TJK created a rather large number of socks, discarding each of them as they were spotted and on to the next. You can go through their talk page and see the discussions between Derevation and I where they've admitted they are TJK (Jin, as I often call them). The tag was so they'd know that others knew who they were and they needed to work within Wikipedia expectations to remain an editor.

As Derevation, he seemed to reform, generally following policy. When I would notice behavior that went too far, I'd comment on his talk page about it, trying to nudge him towards a better goal. I think that when he's interested in work with others, he's a net positive for the project. TJK's biggest issue is when he disagrees with something, they ignore it, do their own thing and will edit-war and sock to get their way. At times, he's left some exceedingly unpleasant comments/insults for me.

Up to others what happens now - they are the most recent account that TJK uses. As I said, when on good behavior they are a net positive that generally uses sources in an area where far too many editors don't bother (Indian films). I remain hopeful that with advice and guidance they can become and even more productive editor. Ravensfire (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure he can - the purpose of creating this was not to get him blocked - only to bring this to the attention of the administrators, as I believe he has been off their radar for a while (which I can only suggest means he's been behaving :) ). samtar ^(msg) 15:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

merge of page "Secular movement" into "irreligion in america"

consensus on talk page appears to be pro-merge, I also support merging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 15:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mahfuzur rahman shourov: This is the wrong venue. If you support the merge that is being discussed at Talk:Secular movement, then make your comment there. This isn't a matter admins need to handle. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

posted here because from what I noticed, only admins can delete pages after merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 15:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

An FYI for Mahfuzur rahman shourov. Pages are generally not deleted after merging. The original title remains as a redirect to the article merged to. Also at any talk page or forum like this, you need to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

SageRad

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

---

SageRad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an anti-Monsanto activist whose commentary currently dominates several talk pages, including WP:BLP articles Kevin Folta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Vani Hari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A lot of time and effort has been expended by several people explaining to SageRad that simply disagreeing with his strong POV is not evidence of malfeasance or complicity in some sinister agenda. He seems unwilling to accept the possibility that his opinion may be wrong and this three-edit diff is emblematic of his approach to those who disagree with him, and the fact that, in his view, the problem is always everybody else and never him. I think his talk page shows him to be a Warrior For Truth™, with all that entails.

As an editor, I think SageRad needs to be formally cautioned. He is well informed (if only from a single POV) on glyphosphate and I think has made valid contributions there, but his edits to articles like Monsanto legal cases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) display substantial bias and I think if he is not counselled in strong terms, he will end up topic banned and will probably leave as GMOs and Monsanto are his principal interest - and that may be a net loss to the project. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Since this is being evaluated by ArbCom, and SageRad is a proposed involved party, I think the issues should play out in that venue and not here. Minor4th 17:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

SR has pretty much involved himself there. But his editing behaviour is ongoing. All due respect to due process, but how long is it going to take? I share Guy's concerns about this "Warrior for Truth". The concluding paragraph of this impressive rant at Talk:Monsanto legal cases presents his motivation clearly:

There is a principle involved now, and this particular question has become emblematic of the systematic obstructionism that has been going on at Wikipedia for far too long now. It's high time to get the cards out in the open. It's high time for the simmering conflict to come to a head and be truly exposed and eviscerated. There is a place for caution and care in sourcing, and going slowly, and tempering the zeal of new editors who wish to include every primary study under the sun, but there is also a point where editors are going too far, and have become the lapdogs of the industry, effectively, and have frozen the progress that Wikipedia could make in assisting the people of the world to know more about the world in which they live.

Personally, I think Wikipedia does just fine in assisting the people of the world to know more about the world. We do it well. If we allowed every crusader for Truth and Justice to have free rein, we would be a repository of fringe nonsense. Well, far more than we are already, anyway, SageRad needs to accept that he must edit without causing disruption, no matter how strongly he holds particular views. --Pete (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Says the guy who just tried to push a synthesis into an article to the benefit of Monsanto, against the outcries of multiple other editors, and who called has called me venomous names and used 5th grade mocking behaviors, and much much more.... I hold to what i said and i reject your attempts to twist my words around. I mean them as i wrote them. Please stop wasting my time and leave me alone as i've asked you about 50 times now. Do your work and let me do my work. I'm far from being disruptive. I'm playing by the rules and with integrity, and holding dialogue where it's possible, and calling it out when there is a lack of integrity in process. Sorry if that bugs you but that's the way i am, and the way i will remain. SageRad (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This belongs at the pending ArbCom case, not at ANI. The fact that it has appeared here may be attributed to ArbCom's delay in opening the case, but that still does not mean that ANI should handle it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

All of these things asserted by JzG are coming from his really biased place as well his apparent vendetta against me. I advise any reader of this section to simply look at the record of all my participation on various talk pages, and think with an unbiased mind about the dynamics that are present.

I won't even take the time to respond point by point, but simply to put it simply, i am not an "anti-Monsanto activist" though i do seek the best information as close to reality to be represented in Wikipedia, and not for it to be biased in favor of the chemical industry nor against it.

I personally think that JzG needs to be cautioned against being an "activist admin" and against hounding me as he's been doing for a while now, and against falsely accusing people of things, and of coming from a place of serious bias himself.

There's some bad stuff happening in the whole topical area around the chemical and agrochemical and GMO industry topics on Wikipedia. There are people who are promoting pseudoskepticism (biased agendas in the guise of being "more scientific" than thou) ... and constant accusations of bias, when a neutral person could come to a page and see that in many cases it's actually the more industry-aligned editors who are showing serious bias and who are being seriously unethical in their actions and words.

I am totally willing to look at myself, and to admit mistakes when i come to see them. I work well with other editors, even those with different points of view, when they treat me with respect. When treated with respect, i return the respect equally, and i have been able to really boil things down to their constituent elements and then work out compromised in some cases. However, there are too many toxic editors who are totally unwilling to do this, and JzG lately has really had it out for me. It's very bad how he's been hounding me. Look at the record if you want, and if you want me to provide diffs and more, then ping me. But he's wasted way too much of my time already with his aspersions and attempts to pull me into drama, and i'm so done with him. So done. I ask him to just let me be. I think he could use a block against attacking me, if anything needs to be done admin-wise. It troubles me that he's an admin and does these things.

And since i wrote this reply, now Pete has also chimed in. He is the other principle editor who's been attacking me with really vitriolic words. He makes edits that are unprincipled, does not reply honestly to concerns and questions, and recently tried to push a conspiracy theory synthesis into the Monsanto legal cases page (see the talk page, it's very clear to many editors that he was doing so and yet was incredibly stubborn to admitting to that and to backing down) and told me the "sun doesn't shine out of your ass" and various other lovely invectives, whereas i've remained civil even while pointing out his atrocious behavior and is strong bias. Now they're trying to reverse the charges, essentially, and make it out like i am the problem. Admins, i call on you, if you do anything, to simply look at the records that are all over talk pages and article edits, and please consider taking action against these two. They're really holding back Wikipedia from being a good editing environment where editors can work for the best articles we can create. They're obstructionist and downright vitriolic and venomous against other editors, especially me of late. They're using up my spare time and they're doing a serious disservice to Wikipedia.

These are people acting in very, very bad manners and being really mean to me, and to other editors. I hope there are enough admins with unbiased eyes left on Wikipedia to assess. Otherwise it's just ideological gang warfare and Wikipedia is done. SageRad (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Notice that OP is heavily involved in these articles (GMO related), recently made a controversial RFC closure, and is very aggressive against other editors he frames as anti-Monsanto activist. This user should at least have the patience to await Arbcom decisions in regards of edits to the related articles.prokaryotes (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Question - SageRad, is there any particular reason why you chose to ping five other editors (including the one who has responded immediately above) about this ANI discussion via your user talk page? (Ironically, in a section headed "Great search for the uninvolved".) I remind you of WP:CANVAS: …canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. --Pete (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Clears throat. ArbCom has now opened the GMO case. SageRad is a party. Please let me suggest that this discussion be addressed there, and that this discussion here be closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Corus Entertainment

"User:Spshu, you have repeatedly been edit warring against the IP edits, which are clearly in line with my edits – and more importantly, the actual sourcing, since your own sources do not support almost any of your changes (with the singular exception of the Nelvana change, which does not make sense for this template anyways). You are now fighting against two levels of consensus. Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)"

What he said. But he won't stop. Ban him. MarcoPolo250 (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)MarcoPolo250

Disruptive editing and behavior

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

---

I apologize for filing this complaint but I am involved in an edit war with an experienced editor who has filed several false complaints against me.

This matter concerns two pages: [Center for Security Policy] and [Frank Gaffney]

I made changes to these pages earlier this month to add balance, to update them and to make corrections. I tried to leave all the criticism in place, including material I disagreed with.

These pages were extensively edited by editor LAVABARON in July. He or she apparently was on vacation this month according to his user page. When he or she returned, the editor used a mass revert function to remove several weeks of edits by several editors. The editor did not use the TALK page to explain these edits or ask for discussion.

Another editor and I reversed these changes twice. LAVABARON responded by asking for a sock puppet investigation which was declined. This editor also made COI, BLP, SPA charges. LAVABARON filed a complaint on a [Fringe] discussion page. This discussion was closed. Today he filed a "duck" complaint and has said on talk pages that there are several ongoing investigations of me. I doubt this but I don't know how to confirm this claim.

I believe this comment on the Fringe page best sums up this dispute: ". . . it's now clear to me from this edit that LavaBaron isn't interested in working with others and is merely looking for validation of his/her own POV. I suggest this be closed and moved to NPOVN. - Location (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)"

I have asked or 3rd party review of the Center and Gaffney pages. Today, LAVABARON asked for comments on one of his changes to the Gaffney page, but I believe this is an effort to distract from his or her mass deletions.

I don't like people filing false charges against me. I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor but I assume Wikipedia does not condone this kind of behavior. I agree with the "Location" editor above that LAVABARON has POV issues with these pages and is not interested in working with people who disagree with him or her.Zeke1999 (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The SPI case is still open. Only the checkuser request was declined. @Zeke1999: what admin action are you requesting here?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

By "mass deletions" I assume you mean your mass deletions? [163] Other than that, I have no idea how to respond here since there's only one diff in this all-encompassing denouncement. I'm sure some IP editors and just-registered accounts will be along shortly to spice this up, though. Please let me know if anyone has any questions. LavaBaron (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Improving an article is improving an article, whether it happens in one large edit or in a number of small ones, edits are not sacrosanct simply because they were made when no one was looking. When someone looks, and finds that they are not useful, removing them is perfectly legitimate. So.... I would say that this is at core a content dispute, as none of your "charges" against LavaBaron violate Wikipedia's policies or behavioral norms. Work out any disputes on the article talk pages, and don't bring content disputes to the noticeboards, which only deal with behavioral problems. The sockpuppet charges will be dealt with at SPI. Closing. BMK (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

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

David Miscavige

The above article is I believe under discretionary sanctions. I would welcome any uninvolved admin reviewing the recent flurry of edits from more than one IPs to it. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

At least one of the IPs has been blocked already, but I've gone ahead and semi'd the page as well; something seems to have drawn attention to the article this week, and I'd rather not leave a BLP unprotected in the face of that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Eyes needed for BLPN thread

Admins please see Please see WP:BLPN threads: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Boxingmojo_at_Ahmed_Mohamed_clock_incident, and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Weasel_Zippers_source_and_others.2C_at_page_with_controversial_claims_about_14-year-old-boy. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. TheRedPenOfDoom, Aquillion and MarkBernstein have edited a number of articles together making similar arguments, supporting/opposing the same edits, etc. The fundamental issue here appears to be WP:TAGTEAM not WP:BLP. 168.1.99.198 (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

i.p. editor needs to be blocked

I.P. editor is adding nonsense / vandalizing in Connecticut town articles, as here. I reverted some, but cannot stop the editor and need to run, can't revert the rest. --doncram 00:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted what I've seen and blocked the IP. Thanks for the report. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Need Talk:Sakha language to be moved to Talk:Yakut language per consensus on RM

While moving Sakha language to Yakut language was easily accomplished per the consensus on Talk:Sakha language, moving the Talk page is impossible without the help of an administrator due to an ANCIENT edit. Please help. --Taivo (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Mohombi Nzasi Moupondo

Please review the edit history of the editor mentioned above here and take the appropriate action. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• I am generally loath to call for sanctions right off the bat but this looks like a pretty clear cut case of WP:NOTHERE. Suggest indef per WP:RBI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeffed by Acriterion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)