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

Canvassing and campaigning, aspersion, POV pushing, editing in edits and editing to shame by User:P-123

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

---

• P-123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly P123ct1

Canvassing and campaigning P-123 is quite conscious of the issue of canvassing as indicated by edits of:

1 15:09, 29 September 2014 "then realised it could be seen as canvassing an edit and there are strict rules about this!"

2 22:19, 24 October 2014 "I have amended my comment ... so if there are any spies watching it's hardly a canvassed edit!"

Instances of canvassing and campaigning include:

3 12:07, 2 December 2014 to Felino123 "Your contributions are valuable"

4 12:46, 17 November 2014 Gazkthul reverts P-123's deletion of text at User talk:Gazkthul that read, "What about "diktat"? In history-writing this is a neutral term, but to me for a heading in "Governance" it is a POV, loaded word"

5 13:06, 6 December 2014 to Wheels of steel0 "The editor was banned. "... for his manipulations" is a WP:PA". The editor mentioned is Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I was not pinged I have not been personally asked to account for my earlier edit.

6 11:38, 21 December 2014 to Gazkthul "I hope you can knock some sense into them. Good luck; you will need it." (typo - s/b GraniteSand Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC))

7 09:54, 26 December 2014 repositioning and emboldening talk page announcement with content "I can no longer copy-edit this article as it is moving in a direction I disagree with too much."

[numbers added to match comments]

Aspersion, POV pushing and editing in edits
Can I also cite P-123's earlier content here, where it was stated: "All this must be very galling for you, given your peaceable stance on things (I have read your userpage). WP can be a bearpit and it has nearly stopped me editing in the past (before you arrived on the ISIS page). Just hang on in there. :):) 08:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)" and here where the view was stated, "You and a couple of other editors have the best manners on the TP, IMO. ... 20:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)".

All the same I receive comments such as this, in this case "I have been very concerned about your conduct on the Talk page with regard to some of the editing in the article for a very long time."

I think that issues on this regard are well covered in the thread Pro-ISIL and anti-ISIL as started by P-123 in which I believe that P-123 is well demonstrated as being the editor with the POV issues.

I think that it is also demonstrated in the thread: RFC: Lists of countries and territories, List of sovereign states, List of active rebel groups and ISIL. P-123 made this edit which I have regarded to break WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:INDCRIT. It was made on an important thread intended to reach a consensus as to whether entries on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant should be barred from being entered into article pages and listings otherwise reserved for countries, nations and states yet, without any substantiation, P-123's content asserted, "Any lawyer can weasel out of it, but these are all hard facts, and they have to be dealt with as such in this article. These facts should not be twisted or denied with sophistries". With intention to save public discord or personal embarrassment I privately broached the subject and then challenged what I considered to be argumentative talk page content on a User talk page thread with final version here. (A reference that I saw but did not file in researching this AN/I relates to a comment by P-123 now in the archive of my talk page to the effect of P-123 stating that s/he would like editors to be more ~direct with him/her). None-the-less, I went too far in subsequent edits of this content to on one occasion say that "you continue to argue dirty" which, after thread deletion and reinstatement, I edited to say, "(add: in my view) you continue to argue dirty (add: unfairly)".

At this point, in contrast to all my efforts to present dealings with P-123, in with private approaches, my mail was hacked in this form so as to, I believe, present maximum personal embarrassment. I retrieved my text to original form with amendments made as here. P-123 has taken the view presented here saying "Have some respect for another editor's Talk page" to which I replied here saying "Have some respect for edits and threads". None-the-less, one of my article talk page texts was edited into here with the intruding text being removed by me here, which was followed by P-123 collapsing the content which I view to have been misrepresented as a "refactoring muddle" (the texts were only moved) here and with further additions to my text being added here which again claimed that the comments were refactored.

Just in the run up to Christmas I have had a number of threads started asserting criticising me in various ways on the talk pages of two separate admins: Lor and PBS. I have repeatedly asked and pleaded P-123 to desist from making unsubstantiated accusations and this can be confirmed by searching through any related content for terms such as "BEGGING" and "ASPERSIONS". Just for the sake of clarifying issues I even initiated a thread for the sake of clarification entitled My admission of wrong. Nothing seems to work. I have no problem with criticism but criticisms need to be substantiated. I really feel at my wits end with this and have no idea what will happen next.

Shaming
I have continually sought to raise issues privately with P-123 as this editor has repeatedly indicated a concern for reputation as indicated here with "I have a reputation to protect" and here with "What does that do for my reputation?"

However, when dealing with another editor P-123, despite having been in situations in which showed other ways of working, chose to headline a user name here on an article talk page which I reedited here.

Please see current Talk:ISIL threads: Ham fisted lead, The group's original aim, any other threads of your choosing and content on my talk page and recent archive for further information. Nothing except for items that P-123 has with drawn or, I think, one thing that I have immediately deleted is missing.

Please can something can be done in the current situations. If nothing else can be agreed I suggest a topic ban in relation to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. From my perspective issues here are wasting too much time.

GregKaye 15:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments (1):
I have put in a lot of time (over a period of nearly three weeks) into attempts to stop this dispute escalating (see our Talk page discussions, mainly on the editor's, some is archived now). I can provide evidence of this if needed. (I had prepared an IBAN request but this pre-empts that now). I am concerned about misrepresentation here, which has been one of my main criticisms of this editor in our dealings. Please refer to discussion on the Talk pages of admins PBS and Lor here and here for this. P-123 (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• item 3 - this was intended to encourage an editor. Please read the whole paragraph.
• item 4 - this is my edit, not Gazkthul's. How is this canvassing? I was asking Gazkhtul's opinion.
• item 5 - has to be read in context (my comment was on Gregkaye.) (Why does Gregkaye give Technophant's (an old adversary) full details above, including link to his block log?)
• item 6 - please read in full context here. (wrong editor named, btw) P-123 (talk)
• "Aspersion ...", para 2 - this is disingenuous. Gregkaye has known since at least the beginning of October that I have had concerns about his editing, i.e. what I saw as POV-pushing. I have never made any secret of it, either in our exchanges or on the main Talk page. Until recently this was an amicable disagreement that did not interfere with our good working relationship. Please read the quote in its context in the link given, and note the missing "As you know" at the beginning. There is spin here. (added later)
• "Aspersion ... ", para 4 - Gregkaye seems to object to normal Talk page discussion. In the diff provided the main objection seems to be that he does not like the view I expressed in that particular discussion.
• "Aspersion ...", para 5 - I have explained before how that "hacking" came about. (The "Sovereign state" thread.) I had wanted to annotate that passage for my own records in preparation for the IBAN mentioned above but went about it in the wrong way (for further explanation please see PSB's Talk page here and search "annotated"). Gregkaye says in para 5, "At this point, in contrast to all my efforts to present dealings with P-123, in with private approaches, my mail was hacked in this form so as to, I believe, present maximum personal embarrassment." On PBS's Talk page where I explained this, Gregkaye was pinged, so he knew the real reason. More misrepresentation.
• "Aspersions ...", para 5 - second part of this para deals with Gregkaye's moving two of my comments, one of which was to counter a serious misrepresentation by Gregkaye about my editing practice. (See diff he quoted above.) By moving the comments out of context, their sense has been lost and the misrepresentation is left open (see near collapse box). I raised this with PBS as I am not clear about WP policy on an editor moving another editor's comments around but have not yet had a reply.
• "Aspersions ...", para 6 - I went to Lor and PBS in desperation asking for advice and help on how to deal with this escalating dispute that we could not resolve peaceably. See the links to their Talk pages above, additionally here and here, where this could not be clearer. More selection, more spin.
• "Shaming", para 2 - I own up to this. It was done in the heat of the moment and I readily agreed to Gregkaye's refactoring of the heading when he pointed out my error.

I am glad Gregkaye brought this to AN/I; I even suggested he do this myself, to clear the air. I am not sure of the best solution. I had thought a longish IBAN on both. (I have tried to self-impose one, but it does not work!) A sanction that would enforce us both to be civil to one other would probably work, but I haven't seen anything like this in WP. I am not against a topic ban, as I have already said on my Talk page that I no longer wish to copy-edit or edit the ISIS page. P-123 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
(That should have just said "copy-edit", not "or edit" - see my notice on my Talk page) P-123 (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note:, a point by point refutation of P-123's objections is presented further down the page. GregKaye 17:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments (2):
I formally request the imposition of an interaction ban on Gregkaye and myself for as long a period as possible. P-123 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

After the questions raised by this AN/I have been settled. P-123 (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

End of P-123's Comments section

• P-123 Please qualify how any of your efforts have made any contribution "to stop this dispute escalating". The fact is that I have spent inordinate amounts of time with you on a variety of topics but which have included what I consider to have been attempts to diplomatically get past what I consider to be your wrong preconceptions of POV, to present other views and to present issues related to the application of other points in guidelines. I have often got responses that I view as IDNHT. For me personally the issues became very difficult on the issue of aspersion. You say of course it won't happen and then it just happens again and again and again. In the past, as you know, I have gone way out of my way to protect you but your last three week onslaught has broken me. I am no longer willing to collude with and otherwise tolerate your departures from otherwise standard Wikipedia behaviours.

At this point I will give you the same advice that you are familiar that I give to other alleged guideline departing editors. Choose. Either decide to try to prove why all the various accusations don't apply or admit to relevant wrongdoings and give assurances as to why they will not apply in the future. I honestly think that the issues mentioned are clear and that you will not be helped by taking the first route. Everyone has to follow the same set of guidelines. All the guidelines There are no exceptions. GregKaye 21:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Grekaye: It is a shame that I have only just deleted my reference here to WP:ASPERSIONS. This has been one of my main objections to Gregkaye's dealings with this dispute on our Talk pages, on the Talk pages of PBS and Lor (I have already provided links to their Talk pages which spell this out clearly), and lately even on the main ISIS Talk page. I have been particularly upset about this. I will let whoever adjudicates this make their own judgment from what they see there. I would add that this has happened only recently, since the dispute escalated.
  

Secondly, I have told Gregkaye repeatedly how this dispute has driven me to distraction and how I will not be pushed any more by the relentless questioning. One of the most trying aspects of attempting to settle this dispute has been Gregkaye's interminable requests for citations to back up every word I say. I have said to him repeatedly: that all the answers he seeks are in our Talk page discussions, that I have repeated them often, that he only has to read them again, that I am always straightforward (Gregkaye used to say he liked my directness) so he cannot miss them. It is unreasonable to expect someone to trawl through those endless discussions and extract the answers he seeks to place them before him when he can read them for himself. Even when I have attempted to answer them, the answers are unsatisfactory (see latest threads on his Talk page) so nothing is gained.

Thirdly, it is my opinion that Gregkaye is too sensitive to editorial criticism and too ready to criticise those who depart from WP guidelines and policy and give out advice to them. I will not comment on his customary hectoring tone as here other than to remark on it. There is a lot of rough and tumble in ISIS editing and editors need to be robust enough to take the knocks. Other editors do not have a problem with this. P-123 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 You can't just make accusation without providing reference as this in many cases eliminates or at least reduces opportunity for resolution. I have regularly asked for justification for your on going accusation and get none. In the recent thread you cite misrepresentation at User talk:Lor#Some information while citing nothing specific. This leaves me to do all the work to attempt any resolution. I'm sick of it. Please understand.

Your second point has no relation to current issues and yet can be easily addressed. The majority of our communication has been conducted at your initiation on my talk page. The archives are open. I have previously cited that there should be ~"no censorship" but now view that topics of discussion should conform to the clear guidelines presented at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages. What answers have you repeated? What you have often done is repeat accusation without reference or citation. What I perceive to be the spin in your edits to my talk page I find to be "unsatisfactory" as referenced to your edit here and my reply here. I still do not agree with your uncited and, I think, unjustified and continuing assertions. Again ask, plead, beg, for to end your use of uncited accusations that hamper any chance or reply or resolution.

You suggest "Gregkaye is too sensitive to editorial criticism" and pots and kettles immediately come to mind. I am totally fine with criticism if it is based on the fair application of the WP:guidelines that are meant to apply to all. This I believe is well demonstrated in this talk page comment. This followed a general criticism made elsewhere regarding edits that were made out of sequence and I took the unrequired move to make the noted public confession of this infringement activity which I have endeavoured not to repeat. I think that all editors should (ideally) be equally open to guidance as to how to better meet Wikipedia's standards. GregKaye 10:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I have already outlined above and below my reasons for not acceding to your innumerable requests for explanation. I am never sensitive to genuine editorial criticism. No good editor would be. I am sensitive to ad hominem criticism, though. P-123 (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I have also replied to your comment below, "Make your charges properly, or not at all". Please follow your own standards in this. You mention above ad hominem criticism. If you believe this then you are perfectly entitled to start your own AN/I. You have gone privately to one admin and one, presumably, suspected admin so as to start multiple threads regarding supposed issues and, as far as I have seen, you have cited nothing. I have cited the one bit of criticism above that, I think may have been most relevant to this argument. Again your lack of reference leaves me with all the work to do. GregKaye 15:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye: Sorry, I was not referring to ad hominem criticism from you specifically. This next is to expand on the answer given below. On starting "multiple threads", I went to PBS and Lor over three issues, just before Christmas: (1) to PBS to ask for help in resolving the dispute and asking if he could impose an IBAN on both; (2) to Lor for the same thing; (3) to PBS over the collapsed discussion as I was very concerned about it; (4) to PBS over the moving (not refactoring) of text which I was also very concerned about. Unfortunately those four things came to a head at the same time. P-123 (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

In my "Comments" above I gave links to their pages which show I was seeking help on how to resolve this dispute, as I said. They had already been involved and knew the situation. There was another request to PBS for help on "Refactoring" with full citations. What is privately? I went to their Talk pages. I have no wish to pursue any sanction after this AN/I and have already let Gregkaye know this. P-123 (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You say, "What I perceive to be the spin in your edits to my talk page I find to be "unsatisfactory" as referenced to your edit here and my reply here." How can an opinion be "spin"? You have called one of my editing views "spin" as well. That does not make sense. You seem determined to take nothing I say at face value. I have found this very trying. P-123 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 I do take things at face value and object to the values that I think are unnecessarily presented. You now force me to again spend time in breaking things down. In the first of the references here You said:

• "That I "push" for consensus is petty misrepresentation." We can play with words but you had initiated with me to add comment to a thread to seal consensus against Felino123.
• "I see as attempts to control editors", but you say this with no reference that I am trying to get them to adhere to issues like WP:NPA. There have also been issues where I have disputed the way in which a case has been presented and, if you have any specific point of contention, you should bring it. Editors can argue any case they want but should do it within guidelines and in expectation of fair reply to content as presented.

Other points from that post shown to be repeated in the next content. See: hounding.

In the second of the references here I replied:

• "Collapsing a discussion that was way off topic and which continued regardless under the hat" to your assertion "Closing down discussion by collapsing discussion mid-flow as today on main Talk page". This was the issue about which you went to PBS to say, "Gregkaye has collapsed a thread in the middle of a very important discussion on NPOV" when in reality it was a thread proposing a reference to caliphate in the first the lead to which all our conversation was utterly unrelated. You also stated, "I cannot speak freely even on the Talk page now because of it." Anyone can talk freely but, if their content goes beyond the bounds of WP:guidelines, it can be challenged.
• "Remonstrating, when? how? in what way was my content wrong? What is wrong with quoting policy? This is something that you do yourself. Should it be disregarded?" to your assertion "Remonstrating with editors who disagree with you by quoting policy at them and trying to bring them to heel". Non judgemental words like protesting or preferably attempting to correct would be kinder. I am certainly not trying to bring editors to my heel. I have been attempting to call people to the standards presented in the Wikipedia guidelines. Support in this would be appreciated.
• "Requesting that editors behave according to WP:GUIDELINES" to your assertion "Telling editors who disagree with you how they should behave (Felino, Technophant, WheelsofSteel0, P-123)". I added: "Show instances where this was not the case. I think that editors, myself included, should behave. With regard to Technophant you said that you did not understand why he was acting to me as he was and I think that was in thread Guido in the archive of ALL my talk page content. With WheelsofSteel0 you said that s/he was full of PA." If someone's comments are full of PA don't you think that it is fair for these issues to be raised?
• finally you said, "Blackening of editors' reputations with scurrilous charges of manipulation and misrepresentation" to which I immediately replied "Please see all of the above". As far as I had perceived you had adopted a negative spin on everything I had done. Again, if you think that any particular "charge" has been "scurrilous" then you should raise issue on that particular case and in this you should state what was actually said while citing or otherwise referencing evidence that you think relevant.

In regard to blackening reputations are you referring to any of my User talk page discussions with you regarding Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Is there something else? You asserted that "T. would have had an IBAN imposed on you." Has he told you this by e-mail, is it your assumption or on what else is it based. Any editor can review my interactions with Technophant and come to their own conclusions as to who was in the wrong. A review of a thread, Guido, as would content on Technophant's talk page.

In all your presentations above I have interpreted that you have framed content in negative terms. I have said that I perceive this as being spin and this is how I interpret it to be. I find your approach as being extremely argumentative and time wasting. I don't imply that you intended the spin but have my interpretation on the result. From my point of view a negative interpretation of issues has been adopted in every case. Again, even in questioning my perception on this, more time has been wasted. I don't agree with your expressed opinion. Again, none of your content was cited or referenced. This has got to stop. GregKaye 13:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Misrepresentation: "to seal consensus against Felino123" is another disreputable slur on character. I was consensus-gathering and asking all involved editors to cast their "vote", as it were. It is a good thing WP is not real life.
• I view your wikilawyering with editors, which has been extremely frequent on the Talk page (and throughout this AN'I), as an attempt to control them.
• I do not believe that you closed the discussion because it had gone off-topic. I believe it was because you and Legacypac were disagreeing with my diametrically opposed views on NPOV. As I said to PBS, I believed it was censorship. I have asked PBS to look at this, but again have had no reply yet.
• I think you confuse the word "spin" with "opinion".
• Your ref to Technophant and IBAN: nothing has been said in email about it, this is a deduction from what he said to you on his Talk page.
• On "argumentative and time-wasting": (1) in editing on the main Talk page, this is how you sometimes interpret editors who disagree with your views, in my opinion; (2) on our Talk pages, this is how you interpret my attempts to sort things out with you; I find it difficult to understand what you are driving at a lot of the time and I cannot make myself understood to you. I have equally found you "argumentative and time-wasting", but this is more an observation than a criticism.
• I am not quite sure what this has to do with the ANI/I. P-123 (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Neither am I sure what this has to do with the AN/I. The AN/I has been written to cover the serious contentions: "Canvassing and campaigning, aspersion, POV pushing, editing in edits and editing to shame by User:P-123". My edit above was in direct reply to your content. There is plenty that I could say in reply to the points above but I believe these should be addressed in an appropriate forum. You say that you want to are looking to present a request for an IBAN which, as I believe I have already said, you are at liberty to do. Any editor is able to review all the related threads themselves. They can do this both on my User talk page with minimal deleted content, on your relatively highly edited page, on talk pages of PBS and Lor and at talk:ISIL. GregKaye 05:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Greg: This undignified bickering has to stop. You have made your points, I have made mine. I will only comment if I see major misrepresentation, not minor misrepresentation. In "Comments (2)" I have asked for a comprehensive IBAN. I checked beforehand with the Help Desk which confirmed that an IBAN request could be made during an AN/I. Leave what is presented for others to judge and do not add more to it; that way others will be put off proper perusal of what is here, which will be to your disadvantage. P-123 (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 I have calmly stated my case in a straightforward way. You have offered your objections. I have disagreed. While there is plenty else that I could add the content here, I believe, will provide sufficient information for a reviewing admin to assess.

Did you check to find out whether further information could not be added to an AN/I before instructing "do not add more to it" or is that your opinion? GregKaye 16:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: No, I didn't. Just thought it was sensible not to. I am not trying to put you off adding new points, but if you do I would keep them succinct. What bothers me slightly is that others may be reading this now and making their assessments, missing anything that is added or skipping passages that look like more of the same. Shall we collapse this from "This undignified bickering"? I leave it to you. :) P-123 (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment:
I've been disappointed to see P-123, an editor I used to really respect, become argumentative and combative, seemingly for the sake of picking arguments, because when pushed there is no substance or objective to the point. P-123 fails to grasp NPOV focussing only on the neutral part to the exclusion of the balanced part. The encouragement of disruptive editors on article talk and personal talk to continue disruptive behavior is quite annoying. It appears to me they have been hounding Gregeye across various pages including my talk page [[1]] and [[2]] I've tried to stay out of this fight, but now that we are here, decided to comment. Seems to me P-123 could benefit from stepping back for a bit to get some useful perspective. Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Legacypac is on the same side of the divide, as it were, over WP:NPOV as Gregkaye; they interpret it one way, I interpret it another. For my sin of raising this very important issue and pursuing it relentlessly, I am considered a nuisance and troublemaker by them. No other editor has engaged in this debate on the Talk page recently, although the editor in item 6 has similar views to my own as can be seen in that link. There are a few others, but it would wrong to name them here. Legacypac's "encouragement of disruptive editors on article talk and personal talk to continue disruptive behaviour" is a judgment for the AN/I arbitrator to make on the evidence presented, of course, but "they have been hounding" is inaccurate; that was strictly between Gregkaye and myself. I warn now that any misrepresentation of facts in this AN/I will continue to be exposed. P-123 (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 The other serious issues mentioned include: Canvassing and campaigning, aspersion, editing in edits and editing to shame. There should be no divide. Wikipedia has clear guidelines and indictions as to whether they are being followed are demonstrated in the quotes above as well as at Talk:ISIL#Pro-ISIL and anti-ISIL. 21:18, 27 December 2014. I am pleased that you acknowledge, "that any misrepresentation of facts in this AN/I will continue to be exposed". GregKaye 17:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Digression

Digression collapsed and some content deleted struck out as unnecessarily combative. P-123 (talk) I was away from discussion but agree with P-123's collapse was an appropriate move. GregKaye 16:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Gregkaye I would leave it to whoever adjudicates this to act as judge and policeman in this matter. I know you like these roles, but it is not appropriate for you to undertake them at AN/I. P-123 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC) P-123 What exactly are you saying this time? As you have more often taken the punitive, legislative, "nipping in the bud" approach to editors I find your suggestion of roles to be particularly insulting. How have I overstepped my role in the AN/I? Any editor can reply to any other editor so as to highlight perceived issues such as WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:INDCRIT or any other guideline based issue. As I have repeatedly stated, in many cases I have even tried to avoid direct article talk page confrontation by raising issues privately. As you know my first attempt has always been to try to approach an editor personally with attempts to reason a matter through. GregKaye 11:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC) GregKaye: No, you are not having that. I took one editor to SPI for fairly obvious sock-puppeting, which action you agreed with and supported. I have never taken action against another editor. I do not take editors to task for infringing WP policy and guidance either (although I have supported you and Legacpac when you have taken editors to noticeboards). I do not feel it is my place to do that. P-123 (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC) I had forgotten about the RfC/U that I and another editor took out on one editor, although technically the first editor took it out and I joined in. P-123 (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC) P-123 And this was the same editor that you got me to take to AN/I despite my reluctance to do so. How many times have you (add: have) privately canvassed editors towards the taking of action with other editors, otherwise advocated such action or highlighted infringement publicly for instance on article talk pages or (add: and there is evidence suggestive that you have) arranged such action on the phone e-mail?. GregKaye ✍♪ 12:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC) GregKaye That is scurrilous and dangerous talk. It is defamation of an editor's character by insinuation. Again. Make your charges properly, or not at all. P-123 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC) P-123 All I was trying in indicate in response to your policeman and judge comment is that, from my perception of things, you have a more "the punitive, legislative, "nipping in the bud" approach" than I. I did not think that this content was relevant to the AN/I as presented. I can search through and find the references if you wish. I would ask that you please hold to the sentiment, "Make your charges properly, or not at all". It is very representative of a point of contention that I have also various made on a great many occasions. GregKaye 14:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC) We both know what you meant by email contact and that you know the full story there. That was a deliberate smear tactic. P-123 (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC) I heard the story. You now assure that it is the full story. My initial question, "How many times have you ... arranged such action on e-mail" was genuine and placed in the context of a claim that I was especially the one who liked the roles of judge and policeman. A statement was then made, again in this context. There is no slur, only reply to the slurs that you have struck. GregKaye 17:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Fgs, Greg! Of course it is. It was gone into in enormous detail at the time as you know. Why so much paranoia? There has been no other such action apart from the sock-puppet case and no, there was no consulting by email there, I did it on my own. And re re policeman: touché. :) P-123 (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC) [above comments added out of chronological sequence]

Correct - relentless pursuit of an issue to the point of being a nuisance and troublemaker. It's very wrong to try to make an article about a terrorist organization - one that even al-Qaida rejects as too extreme - neutral. We need to have balance to all claims they make given the worldwide rejection of their claims and actions. To be clear, since I've been misinterpreted, I mean above that P-123 has been hounding Gregkaye, in my observation, for weeks. The editor in Item 6 that P-123 is encouraging to "knock some sense into them" was 3 month ISIL topic banned for being disruptive (recently lifted), which proves the point about "encouraging disruptive editors". And why has P-123 pushed my first comment out of order? Makes things hard to follow and confusing. Legacypac (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: Technical problem. I intended my "Comments" section to end where in fact it says 21:05. I had been accumulating them, broke off to respond to your comment, returned to adding to them and added signature at the end of it, at 21.05. Then I went on to answer Gregkaye's responses. I did not mean to push your comment to one side. My apologies. P-123 (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: To repeat, I view the WP:NPOV issue as crucial to the editing of this article. You do not, hence your view that pursuit of it was disruptive. You disagree with an editor over what NPOV is in this article, hence you regard them as a nuisance and a troublemaker. That type of attitude to editors who disagree with you both suggests something I do not intend to broach here. I did not agree with the editor in item 6 on his stance on an editing point that led to his ban, btw, though I did think the ban was too harsh; I told him so in a very brief exchange about that subsequently. I had no idea what his views were about NPOV or anything else (they were not voiced on the Talk page) until I saw his response to my comment, as you will see if you read those exchanges carefully. So the canvassing charge there does not hold water. On the "hounding" point I misinterpreted "they", which I now see you meant in the Wikipedian sense of "s/he", sorry. The hounding was mutual, btw, but I would not expect you to be objective about this given all I said ealier, though to be fair, it would be unreasonable to expect you to know this, as you probably have not followed the labyrinthine twists and turns of this dispute. (I defy any sane person to attempt it, unless really necessary, as there are screeds and screeds of it on our Talk pages.) P-123 (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I DO view NPOV as important which is why I oppose all efforts to present highly disputed fictional positions taken by terrorists as factual in WP. My view of NPOV on this topic is pretty mainstream as seen here and here as a couple examples of efforts to keep WP NPOV. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac I am very sorry, I misrepresented you there. I have struck out the comment. But who is right and wrong on this is not the issue at hand in this AN/I. The charge is of POV-pushing, which I hope I have answered. P-123 (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The third of the five charges presented was of POV-pushing and, with the other charges mentioned, the closing admin will come to a decision. Your unsubstantiated accusations "You do not"struck and "you regard them as a nuisance and a troublemaker"not struck and your derision "I would not expect you to be objective" are again, I think, clear examples of the WP:ASPERSIONS of which I have been trying to make you aware. Those screeds are mainly on my talk page where you have regularly come to edit. Through it all there has been plenty of good and mutually beneficial material. However potential "eavesdroppers" may be well warned. GregKaye 18:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

More misrepresentation. I deliberately kept Gregkaye off my Talk page when this dispute was well advanced, having asked him not to post any more comments. Until then I would say there were roughly equal amounts covering this dispute on both Talk pages. That comment gives the impression I was hounding. Again, the facts are trivial, but the misrepresesentation is not. P-123 (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Point by point response to "Comments (1)" by P-123 above

• Item 4, the full quote here was "The quarrelling and walls of text on the Talk page now I think is driving editors away. I have only just seen your comments on the Talk page about the length of the article, and the answer to my question about criticism was there! Sorry about this. I am assuming you mean the emotive words in "Criticism". I have already gone through the article changing "massacres" and "executions" to neutral "killings". What about "diktat"? In history-writing this is a neutral term, but to me for a heading in "Governance" it is a POV, loaded word. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)" I think that this is pushing opinion and canvassing on a debate that at this same time was underway on the talk page. See #Diktats
• Item 6, In whatever context, "I hope you can knock some sense into them. Good luck; you will need it", is canvassing. I also think that it counts as an encouragement of conflict of which we have already seen too much at talk:ISIL.
• Aspersion, POV pushing and editing in edits, para 2, The context is found here. There is nothing disingenuous. To put that in context the full quote was, "As you know I have been very concerned about your conduct on the Talk page with regard to some of the editing in the article for a very long time. The conflict between this and our otherwise good working relationship until recently has always put an enormous strain on me which you may not be aware of. I am afraid your latest aggression was the last straw and from now on I will be putting the article first. This is to inform you that I have added my concern to Anastaisis'" The alleged aspersion is within, "I have been very concerned about your conduct on the Talk page with regard to some of the editing in the article for a very long time." From my personal point of view I have felt it difficult to address issues related to NPOV with P-123 and had regularly deferred to discussing this editor's interpretation of my own alleged POV bias. More recently I have also began to challenge back but, as far as I am aware, this has always been in the context of my talk page. More recently still P-123 initiated the Pro-ISIL and anti-ISIL thread at Talk:ISIL and I gave a full presentation of how I viewed that the principles of NPOV were rightly applied in regard to the situations mentioned to which there was no reply. Despite discussion I still get comments alluding to some supposed concerning conduct of mine on the talk page. I don't think that this is good enough. I can understand that discussions may have "put an enormous strain" on P-123 but, again, the conversations were on my talk page. There was no hounding. From my perspective I simply replied as best I could to a great number of often drawn out conversations. As far as I can see the latest aggression mentioned was my reference to P-123's sophisms etc. text to which, in my second attempted private User talk page response I said "you continue to argue dirty" which at the time of the 'concerns' post had been refactored to "argue unfairly". That's what I think. I only wish I had developed the terminology of "scurrilous slurs" at the time. The informing of the concern was on Lor's talk page with new editor Anastaisis being pinged.
• Aspersion, POV pushing and editing in edits, para 4, the edit again mentioned contains the text, "Any lawyer can weasel out of it, but these are all hard facts, and they have to be dealt with as such in this article. These facts should not be twisted or denied with sophistries." I still regard the whole content to flagrantly break WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:INDCRIT. Again P-123's content was here entered on the 'important thread intended to reach a consensus as to whether entries on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant should be barred from being entered into article pages and listings otherwise reserved for countries, nations and states' and yet, without any basis of logical support that I can see for the proposal, P-123 still I think alluded to lawyering weaseling supposed hard facts (certainly not established in talk page discussion and refuted in the "Pro-ISIL..." thread), twisting, denial and the use of sophistries. I responded with annoyance yes, but I would hope for better from Wikipedia editors than this.
• Aspersion, POV pushing and editing in edits, para 5, absolutely I think my edit was hacked. Wikipedia editor's have no right to edit into other editor's contents. I did believe that this edit was placed to provide maximum personal embarrassment. It was put on display with bold, bracketed and capitalised comment and drawing passing editor's attention to your IBAN proposal which should otherwise be presented in an appropriate forum. Such a forum would also permit the fair presentation to the, I believe, scurrilous slurs that were presented on the main article talk page.
• Aspersion, POV pushing and editing in edits, para 5, again you should not have edited into my edits.
• Aspersion, POV pushing and editing in edits, para 6, You say that you went to Lor and PBS in desparation. I had started the thread Sovereign state to you privately on your talk page partly to try to help you avoid potential conflict with another editor and then added to content with annoyance at the scurrilous slurs that I interpret that you had made and still not recognised on the article talk page.

While I admit to frustrated response I see that there is no excuse for the editorial activities mentioned. P-123 has been fully aware of topics mentioned and in some cases I have personally provided provided perspectives on the issues mentioned. Editor's are really obliged to edit according to practice presented in the guidelines and P-123 is no exception to this. Reassurances should be given that efforts will be made so that the editing practices mentioned will not be repeated. GregKaye 11:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: You are repeating yourself. The "Sovereign state" complaint was answered in para 5 in "Comments (1)"; you are being disingenuous about this, you knew what had happened. This petty sniping has to stop; it will not help your case. The IBAN I requested in "Comments (2)" is now beginning to look like a very good idea. , as you seem incapable of dropping this. I am prepared to forgive and forget and get back to editing, but I will not tolerate misrepresentation. P-123 (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 I have presented a case, you have offered limited objections, I have proposed refutations to your objections. In regard to the '"Sovereign state" complaint' please also see the question presented in my post of 16:40, 30 December below. Accusations of an editor being "disingenuous" and engaging in "petty sniping" are serious. I have presented what happened. My case is presented to specifically address guidelines based behaviours as related to content above. For me it is genuinely with heavy heart that I am pursuing this action. I find it ridiculous that things have come this far and yet I see no choice other than to follow through on an AN/I that was enacted upon at your suggestion. The sovereign state issue, for one, is clear to me. In this your content was, in my view and your wording, full of "scurrilous slurs". While it is always preferable to have tolerable relationships with fellow editors, you can do as you like with your forgive and forget. The only issue here is that everyone in Wikipedia has the same obligation to in every way practicable edit in according to guidelines. I have found your editing practice to be disappointing in my personal view is that and my interpretation is that your resistance to face up to some clear issues is symptomatic of the problem. GregKaye 18:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I cannot make you think what you don't want to think, Greg. It seems to me you are determined to think ill of me and impute mala fides to everything I do. How can it have gone from exactly the opposite to this, in one month? We were always frank with each other and it has gone sour, and I cannot even remember exactly what the trigger was now. I do not agree with your assessment and it is not through pride. Let others decide which guidelines I have gone against, from the evidence you presented. One thing I do regret is having cast WP:ASPERSIONS on you in this AN/I, for which I apologise. Let's stop, this isn't Jeremy Kyle. P-123 (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Lor is not an admin

Sorry, I just want to point out that User:Lor is not an admin, although he definitely looks like one. Asking Lor for help isn't going to solve anything. 172.56.16.152 (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Pinging admin @PBS:. 172.56.16.152 (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

172.56.16.152 Thanks. Both have already been pinged, out of courtesy only, as the admin and editor involved in looking at the dispute before AN/I. P-123 (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hold on, admin PBS hasn't been active a few days. Ping admin Bishonen instead. 172.56.16.152 (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I had the impression PBS was away. It is not like him not to respond to posts, and he hasn't been doing for some days now. Not sure Bishonen can help, as s/he has not been involved in this at all. No other admin has. Unless you are suggesting Bishonen should adjudicate this; as a comparative newbie I don't know how these things work. P-123 (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen or Dougweller should be able to help. 172.56.16.152 (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

172.56.16.152 May I ask who you are? You seem quite knowledgeable for an IP. P-123 (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

172.56.16.152, you need to answer P-123 when he asks you a valid question. Just say that you are Neil Chadwick aka Technophant aka Stillwaterrising. You also should not be sockpuppeting after being banned. 69.22.169.73 (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

69.22.169.73: May I ask you who are as well? No IP would have that kind of knowledge. P-123 (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean you want to know my real name? Sure, what's yours first, Sir? 69.22.169.73 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

69.22.169.73 No, I meant username, but it doesn't matter, you have explained to Legacypac. :) P-123 (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by GraniteSand

I'll comment on the section in which comments directed at me on my talk page are characterzed as "canvassing". A cursory look by a reasonable outside person show that the comments provided are not canvassing. As a matter of fact, the body of "evidence" in that section in general is rather fevered. The blood between Gregkaye and P-123 has really gone bad over the past few weeks, with no small part being played by Legacypac, seen above, as well. The entire root of this conflict is the incredibly pugnacious climate over at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Both this dispute and the article need outside intervention, preferably not by PBS, as he is both ill-equipped and, by this point, involved. GraniteSand (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. The article is in serious trouble. P-123 (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to steer clear of conflict between these two, even told them to calm down at one point. I've commented here because it got really out of hand and landed here. My advice (as I said above) is that P-123 take a break from the topic because it is evidently getting the best of the editor (based on the editor's various comments). Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

1. GraniteSand Please see WP:OWNTALK, "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." The concept is that, if you see an issue with regard to a user's edits, you go directly to that user so as to raise issues directly. P-123's comments went well beyond these bounds and into canvassing.
2. Please strike your comment, "with no small part being played by Legacypac" or justify. Again see WP:ASPERSIONS. As far as I can remember the only time that Legacypac has made comment on our interaction was in the context of my previous attempt to clear up understandings with P-123 in my thread User talk:GregKaye/Archive 3#My admission of wrong. In that thread Legacypac added comment which I moved to subsection: Respectful interjection, and the comment read: "Respectfully in my opinion both of you have been taking a perfectionist "challenge everything" and eliminate anything that could be read as POV by anyone. Remember this is WP and anyone can edit." I know of no other interjection placed by Legacypac and give you opportunity to elucidate.
3. I agree that the blood has gone bad even to the point of actions being initiated against me here first thing on Christmas Day. This was all in response to P-123's newly acquired habit of editing my edits. We used to have a good relationship as perhaps evidenced by the 379 reverences to P123ct1 in my User talk:GregKaye/Archive 2 alone. In all this time I had tolerated what I have increasingly come to recognise as policy infringement and at this point I saw no reason not to take up the suggestion of initiate the AN/I. There is nothing fevered in the AN/I although the anger on both sides is there. The "entire root of this" AN/I is P-123's manner of behaviour in relation to his/her editing of this and related articles. You cite "the incredibly pugnacious climate over at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". I will in turn cite P-123's recent comment here stating, amongst other things, that "You and a couple of other editors have the best manners on the TP, IMO". The whole point of coming to AN/I is to get "outside intervention" which I think has been long overdue. I have no objection to the involvement of another admin but I am very far from an opinion that PBS may have taken any side. Your slurs against this administrator of being "ill-equipped" and "involved" should be substantiated. I suspect that your intervention here is only as a result of the selective canvassing by an editor that, I think, habitually refuses to get the point. If uninvolved people are meant to make contribution, why are you here? GregKaye 08:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In response to Legacypac's comment, I would say it is getting the better of Gregkaye, based on the editor's latest comments on his Talk page. I believe all this has happened because for the very first time I have taken an uncharacteristcally strong line on editing in this article on the main Talk page. These two editors have never been seriously challenged. An editor who did challenge the status quo in the article I believe was driven from the page for his outspoken views. I do not think is right that I should name this editor. I have not met any serious opposition from editors apart from these two. I have always managed to work in harmony with other editors, with no exception, even when our views have been different.. I have even managed to persuade editors to come to consensus after long debate that was getting nowhere, on at least three occasions, and have never been criticised for that. P-123 (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

GregKaye: You say, "The "entire root of this" AN/I is P-123's manner of behaviour in relation to his/her editing of this and related articles." Which related articles? This is a very good example of the type of slurs on my editing that Gregkaye has been making recently, in five different venues. In my view, this is defamatory, and if it were not for this AN/I I would probably do something about it. This kind of talk would not be permitted in real life. P-123 (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

[next comment added out of chronological sequence]

And that is what I said above in the context of this current content. This comment was made by way of reply to claim that the "entire root of this" AN/I was within something entirely different which I view to be falacious. I have recently challenged Legacypac regarding accountability to the talk page. At the bequest of P-123 I took an editor to AN/I even though this editor had similar views to me. I reject any notion that this AN/I was initiated due to viewpoint issues on the page. It is presented in response to behaviours, behaviours that I think should be applied to this editor's contribution to article discussion and behaviours in relation to this editor's interaction to me. It is as simple as that. GregKaye 13:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: I was referring to the slur about "and related articles". Which related articles? P-123 (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye: You need to answer that question. Which related articles? Until you do, that sentence looks like another misrepresentation. P-123 (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I need to amend what I said in my last comment but one. I said that the two editors had never been seriously challenged. In fact, Gregkaye was challenged over an editing matter at AN/I in October, but the result of the AN/I was inconclusive and he received no sanction. I said that I had managed to work well with all editors. There was an exception in August when there was trouble between myself and another editor who no longer edits in ISIS along with many others. At that time I was less vociferous and forceful than now. I do not think it right to name the editor, but can provide details to whoever arbitrates this AN/I if needed. P-123 (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion

With regards to GraniteSand comment "preferably not by PBS, as he is both ill-equipped and, by this point, involved." see this topic ban on GraniteSand.As neither Gregkaye or P-123 has made any such accusation I will put those to one side.

The problem here is that two users are distressing each other, but compared to some wikidrams (see for example Auerbach, David (11 December 2014). "Encyclopedia Frown".) this is not a particularly insidious one.

ANI is suitable for dealing with clear breaches of Wikipedia policies and to a lesser extent guidelines. In this case problems are based on differences in points of view of a specific topic which is already subject general sanctions (see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), and as these points of view have not been reconciled despite good will on both sides to try to resolve tensions. These differences in points of view have lead to conflict and a gradual erosion of good faith.

The request for an IBAN is inappropriate while one of the editors are so narrowly focused on the topic area covered by the general sanctions mentioned in the previous paragraph (edit history of P-123, and edit history of Gregkaye. This is because the POV differences inevitably means that the two editors are going to come into conflict over that issue and specifically the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I see no reason to place an involuntary restriction on either editors at the moment but I would like to encourage user:P-123 to follow up on the statement made higher up this page:

• I am glad Gregkaye brought this to AN/I; I even suggested he do this myself, to clear the air. ... I am not against a topic ban, as I have already said on my Talk page that I no longer wish to copy-edit or edit the ISIS page. P-123 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

If P-123 is willing to agree to such a voluntary restriction on all the pages covered by the relevant general sanctions and the talk pages of those articles for a period of three months, then we can close this ANI. This voluntary moratorium is only to come into affect with an explicit announcement by P-123 in this ANI, and on the understanding that it does not come into affect until Gregkaye agrees to withdraw all allegations listed at the start of this ANI. The self-imposed moratorium will not prevent P-123 voicing a single opinion of not more than 400 words on any "RfC" or "Requested move" on the article talk pages covered by the general sanctions. -- PBS (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have had responses from both Gregkaye and P-123 to this proposal on my talk page (see this diff). The most specific point is that P-123 states "I changed my mind about a topic ban". -- PBS (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to User:PBS for making the effort to sort this out. He stated above that he'd like to get a voluntary agreement. For two editors like User:P-123 and User:GregKaye who have been active on a topic like ISIS, an IBAN poses obvious difficulties. This leads us to consider the wisdom of a topic ban. Should the voluntary agreement to a topic ban not be found (since P-123 now objects) the option of a mandatory topic ban under WP:GS/SCW should be considered. I suggest that other admins should wait until PBS has finished his efforts before imposing such a remedy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Are we talking about topic bans for both editors or only P-123? Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe editors could comment here on the merits of a topic ban on P-123 versus both P-123 and GregKaye. This entire thread was opened as a complaint by User:GregKaye. Following his statement, User:P-123 asked for a mutual interaction ban: I formally request the imposition of an interaction ban on Gregkaye and myself for as long a period as possible. A review of Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant shows that much of the page consists of back-and-forth disputes between the two editors. This shows the wisdom of User:PBS trying to negotiate a voluntary topic ban of both parties. But if one or more editors disagrees, and if we conclude that we might have to sanction just one party then somebody will have to read through all that stuff and weigh the claims. EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• I am shocked that reading all that stuff and weighing the claims is not done routinely at AN/I. Gregkaye and I took a lot of trouble to present and defend the case as carefully as we have. P-123 (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

My concern is the edit pattern of P-123 as shown in the edit history I listed at the start of this subsection. Nearly all of the edits in article space are to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or related subjects with the exception of some edits to the article "The Fourteen Infallibles" and one edit to the biography article "Billie Whitelaw". The editing interaction of the two in article space can be seen here. Looking through their edit interaction on the talk pages I do not see one as much worse than the other, they both now tend to assume bad faith in what the other says and does. When one editor is editing such a narrow range of articles an IBAN is not an option (if editors were edit a wider range of articles with less overlap then IBAN becomes an option). @EdJohnston my proposed solution was based on what P-123 had offered near the beginning of the section, but that offer has been withdrawn. I had not suggested a voluntary topic ban for both editors as that was not an option that User:GregKaye had offered. Also on my talk page User:GregKaye has stated that "while I would go along with a voluntary restriction if that is what is chosen, my concern is that this resolves nothing". GregKaye is concerned that a break of 3 months interaction between himself and P-123 is only putting the issue on ice -- I tend to think that a cooling off period may help re-establish some good faith (or at least reduce the bad faith) and to encourage P-123 to start to edit wider range of articles. @User:P-123 given the postings by Dougweller and EdJohnston you should be able to see where this conversation is heading, please explain briefly why you have withdrawn you offer to take a wiki-break from editing "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". -- PBS (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, my steadily growing concern over time and at every stage of this process is that nothing is resolved. There are issues related to content in this AN/I that I have raised with P-123 regarding editing behaviour (with these with these issues being firstly raised within the context of our long history of talk page discussion, then in response to discussion that spilled over into article talk page discussion as at here and then, when I did not see any other option available, in this AN/I. The issues that I am raising are "Canvassing and campaigning, aspersion, POV pushing, editing in edits and editing to shame". My concern here as elsewhere is that, as far as I have seen, there is a lack of admittance by P-123 in regard to the issues mentioned and no reassurance seems to be given that the same behaviours will not continue in the future. The issues mentioned, as I have mentioned, are not solely relevant to "ISIL" related topics but are general principles of Wikipedia and the more specific aspersions issue is not specific to me but may similarly be apply to other editors as well. P-123, for instance, declares knowledge of strict rules in regard to canvassing and yet still engages in these behaviours. This editor has a knowledge of guidelines but, as I see it, doesn't like it when an editor starts "Telling editors ... how they should behave" as per my talk page. (All editors should conduct themselves according to Wikipedia guidelines. I don't apply this solely [and with the apparently partisan approach of some editors] only to apply this to editors who disagree with me. This is shown in that I recently left a message with Legacypac relating to what I considered to be best practice here and have similarly presented messages at User talk:Mohammed al-Bukhari, an editor who has similar views as me on some issues, and I was still advocating guidelines based behaviour). Plain and simple, this AN/I is about editor behaviours that I am saying have to stop. Other issues can be dealt with elsewhere. GregKaye 05:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Response by P-123 to AN/I charges

I do not believe I have canvassed or campaigned or that I have broken any guidelines on WP:ASPERSIONS, but that is for the adjudicator to determine on the evidence presented. I think that Gregkaye has misinterpreted my intentions on almost everything. I think this is borne out by my detailed answers to his charges at the beginning of this AN/I. I think it is telling that none of these charges has been raised on our Talk pages and came as a great surprise, except the charges of WP:ASPERSIONS and of POV-pushing, which arises from our difference of view on WP:NPOV (which until recently was a long-standing amicable disagreement). I would add that the way I express my strong views on the Talk page which Gregkaye objects to as breaking the WP:ASPERSIONS guideline is nowhere near the level of WP:ASPERSIONS that other editors come to, and he has not taken any action there. Since the dispute started Gregkaye's hostility has grown apace, and mine in reaction, and has reached a pitch in this AN/I that shocked me when I first read his charges a few days ago. P-123 (talk) (signature added later)

Correction: Gregkaye has raised with me on his Talk page his objection to editing within edits. There were several instances of that in the past week or so on the main Talk page (as he noted I have not done it before) and I am still not clear whether it violates any guideline. There have been a couple of instances of the "editing to shame" - where I put the name of editors who had breached some guideline in a heading - but readily accepted the error when pointed out by Gregkaye. This completes the list of reprehensible behaviours that Gregkaye has raised, I believe. P-123 (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion (continued)

The edits to this sub-section since my last edit, by User:GregKaye and P-123 are a microcosm of the problems that this ANI highlights. Unsolicited GregKaye jumps in and muddies the water reiterating points that have been made several times (and given that it is addressed to three experienced edits/administrators teaching grandmothers to suck eggs). It was not helpful as it obscures the simple question I asked P-123. P-123 You have made three posts one of which is inserted out of chronological sequence "I am shocked...", one of which had no signature "I do not believe...", and not one of them did as I requested: given the postings by Dougweller and EdJohnston you should be able to see where this conversation is heading, please explain briefly why you have withdrawn you offer to take a wiki-break from editing "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" -- PBS (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

PBS: (a) I had not forgotten your question; (b) there is a time-zone difference here; (c) I could not see where the conversation was leading; (d) I was distracted by Gregkaye's digression; (e) last but not least, I was puzzled by your "please explain briefly why you have withdrawn you offer to take a wiki-break from editing "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". I had said, "I am not against a topic ban", did not offer a voluntary topic ban (if that is what you meant by an offer to take a wiki-break from editing). I changed my mind because like Gregkaye I would like this question of behaviours sorted out properly before any sanction is applied, voluntary or otherwise. Please make allowances for the stress that Gregkaye and I are under in this AN/I, not least because two once good colleagues have fallen out, which I know distresses us both. P-123 (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• PBS: I can only presume that there are some AN/I conventions or maybe something more basic that I should have researched and followed on this. In this I guess I messed up in that I was trying to raise clarity, not to reduce it. I will happily take relevant direction to move or delete or take other action with content here. GregKaye 20:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@P-123 My question was in reference to I am glad Gregkaye brought this to AN/I; I even suggested he do this myself, to clear the air. ... I am not against a topic ban, as I have already said on my Talk page that I no longer wish to copy-edit or edit the ISIS page. P-123 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC) specifically as I have already said on my Talk page that I no longer wish to copy-edit or edit the ISIS page. Why have you changed your minded over a twice repeated statement that you no longer wish to copy-edit or edit the ISIS page? -- PBS (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Admin PBS has brought up a good point. P-123 should just answer the question. Also, P-123, have you noticed that this ANI is the longest on this page mainly because of your edits? 69.22.169.73 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I was surprised by that as it wasn't my impression so did a rough count. After the first part ending with my "Comments (2)": P-123 - 155 lines: Gregkaye - 235 lines. My comments were nearly always in response to Gregkaye's; surely self-defence is permitted. P-123 (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

PBS: In "Comments (1)", "I no longer wish to copy-edit or edit the ISIS page" was a mistake; "or edit" should not be there. I noted the mistake in small print just beneath that. I had twice said (in ISIS talk and own Talk page) that I no longer wished to copy-edit the page, nothing about editing. Editing is very different from copy-editing, which is what I mainly do in WP (see my userpage). I would like to continue editing ISIS as opposed to copy-editing it, if no IBAN is imposed (which looks increasingly unlikely). I hope that is clear now. P-123 (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Voluntary Resolution

Commenting as an editor with significant interaction with both editors, I would like to build on PBS's great suggestion while finding a way that both can continue to edit freely. Both have made excellent and almost always productive contributions to the articles, and there is minimal content dispute (no edit warring). The problems are in the talk page activity. My suggestion is that the two editors agree to the following terms:

1. No posting to each others talk pages

2. No discussions between the editors on other peoples talk pages

3. Limit interactions on article talk space to different threads except for votes. So if A starts or comments on a thread B stays out of it.

4. Anyone is welcome to participate constructively in any dispute resolution

5. If they breach these terms, anyone else can delete the comments without further debate.

If you both agree, the ANi and everything in it ends. How about that User:P-123 and Gregkaye? Legacypac (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac The AN/I is written to address: "Canvassing and campaigning, aspersion, POV pushing, editing in edits and editing to shame by User:P-123". Any other alleged issues can be dealt with in another forum. GregKaye 05:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What Legacypac suggests is a kind of IBAN on both, and I think he has pinpointed where the problem is: in the actual interaction between Gregkaye and myself, not the editing, although there is obviously a clear divide on some important editing points. As this AN/I has proceeded and Gregkaye has made his views very clear, more so than in any exchanges we have had in our Talk pages - I am speaking only for myself when I say that - I can see that the fundamental problem is that we do not understand each other and probably never will, hence the clashes which started on our Talk pages and as the dispute worsened spread to the main Talk page. I have often been puzzled by the objections Gregkaye has raised on our Talk pages and as I see now have sometimes misinterpreted them, and through this AN/I I understand more now about Gregkaye's objections to my editing activity than I ever did before. I would agree to the solution Legacypac proposes but I do not think Gregkaye would agree to it. P-123 (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This will not work. Lets game play it. GregKaye makes an edit to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant P-123 reverts it with some comment such as "edit unbalances POV". GregKaye writes on the talk page in a new section "Oh no it does not unbalance the POV because..." P-123 can not post an explanation, GregKaye reverts. Now what? WP:BRD breaks down. Second case P-123 makes an edit and explains in a new section on the talk page "edit to improve the POV", GregKaye can not reply and if GK disagrees and reverts with no discussion WP:BRD breaks down. Also point five "If they breach these terms, anyone else can delete the comments without further debate." bad idea as the deleting editor can be seen as biased and it will shift the debate to one with a proxy. I could go through all your points one at a time, but in brief without good faith this will not work. -- PBS (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I tried anyway. I'm tired of reading this bickering all over my favorite pages and on my talk page. Legacypac (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Legacypac's 1 and 2 are a good idea, 4 and 5 not so much, but on 3: I would be prepared to not comment on Gregkaye's edits and/or discussion by Gregkaye of edits if they raise the dreaded NPOV lurgy. Going by past experience I don't think we are likely to clash on anything else, so I don't think other restrictions need be imposed on thread discussion. [First part of comment redacted as irrelevant] P-123 (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok - how about agreeing to Points 1 & 2 User:Gregkeye? At least that will confine the debate to article space and notice boards? Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I much prefer Admin Dougweller's adjudication to impose a 3-months IBAN and Topic Ban to give them time to reflect on their improper behavior. 69.22.169.73 (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

69.22.169.73: Could you define exactly the "improper behaviour", please? P-123 (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I could, but I'd much rather you used the 3 months wisely in reflection. De Nile is not just a river in Egypt. Legacypac above noted them and I did a quick search of your contributions and saw this unsigned edit by you, right? [3]. 69.22.169.73 (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion

• P-123 From my point of view the very fact that you consider that the problem is "not the editing" is exactly the reason that the problem has come to this. I have presented, I think, some clear issues above and, to my eyes, I see deflection and avoidance of responsibility. For instance, after I challenged you on the content of your sovereign state edit you radically changed its content. Now you rationalise it as "normal Talk page discussion". From my point of view you have not taken the majority of issues mentioned on board and I consider IDHT. I have added a point by point response to your "Comments (1):" at the end of that section above. Please consider the content presented.

In this thread you promised me "of course"(your words) you would put "an end to the accusation without substantiation" (my words). You have consistently renegued on this promise. Your sovereign state edit was, I think, dripping with scurrilous slurs. That's how I see it and again I think that there is a need for you to put aside what I consider to be your combative approach to talk page editing where a range of non guidelines based tactics seem to me to be acceptable to you. After a long history of long drawn out discussion, after chasing after multiple administrator and suspected administrator threads regarding a User talk page thread which was in response to scurrilous content and after this length of AN/I, I have no faith that these activities will stop. GregKaye 12:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Wake up. How that sovereign state edit came about is in para 5 of "Comments (1)": it was not meant for your eyes, I was annotating it for myself in preparation for an IBAN request, I made a mistake, I should have taken a copy and annotated that, I pinged you when explaining that to PBS, you knew this. Please do not routinely attribute mala fides to my every word and action. Again, the more you add to this AN/I the less likely it is you will get a fair hearing; who wants to trawl through all these repetitions and enormous detail? P-123 (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 One straightforward question. Please answer directly. Within a post in which you state, in a way that seems to be a statement of pure WP:OR, "Cannot justify this view, just seems common sense to me", is it then fair to then assertively state "Any lawyer can weasel out of it, but these are all hard facts, and they have to be dealt with as such in this article. These facts should not be twisted or denied with sophistries"? Full quote found here. Full archived thread, here. Please do not insult with introductions like "Wake up". Also this is English Wikipedia. If you want to make accusation you can do so in the language we all speak. My specific accusation was not of bad faith but stated my view that, in your words, your statement was dripping with "scurrilous slurs". Have a look. How do you read it? There is more that I can say but one thing at a time. GregKaye 16:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I see we have been talking at cross-purposes when talking about "Sovereign state". I thought you were referring to the thread in para 5 in "Aspersions ..." which also is headed "Sovereign state". I cannot see how my comments about lawyers weaseling, etc are so offensive. That kind of talk is par for the course in ISIS talk. Editors can be far harsher and more damning than that, and often personally to other editors. Now I would call ad hominem comments WP:ASPERSIONS, but mine was a general comment, not addressed to any one editor. In my opinion you are over-analysing it, Greg. P-123 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123, I believe that you do not see how your comments about lawyers weaseling, etc are problematic, or how such sweeping criticism of all people that disagree with your arguments is unacceptable in any situation let alone a public article talk page. This saddens me but these arguments are now for a closing admin to assess though I would be happy to research and present other examples should anything further be required. The vast majority of editors at talk:ISIL stay well clear of the type of infringement displayed just in that edit. Its no justification to say I was not wrong because others have been worse than me. The purpose in Wikipedia is solely to develop good, accurate, well reasoned and well presented content. This is why fair presentation of views in a collegiate and not necessarily a combative environment is key. GregKaye 20:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Your counsel of perfection is unrealistic in my opinion, Greg. I think you would be better off editing than trying to hold editors to your high behavioural standards. That is the only polite way I can put it. P-123 (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 You do not get it. Here is the difference. In my second response I stated "you continue to argue dirty" which, when the content was placed back onto your personal User page, I edited back to "you continue to argue unfairly". In your public article talk page content you give WP:INDCRIT in a way that I allege infers lawyerism, weaselling, [denial of] "all [the] hard facts" and twisting facts or the denial of facts with sophistries. These scurrilous, unreferenced and unfounded slurs, as I see them, go way beyond anything that I have presented and yet it seems that you don't even see any of this content as wrong. You are happy to dole out your own often unreferenced criticisms yet when you get criticised in connection to this incredibly clear situation as presented, it seems to me that you deny the facts. You mention par for the course. Who are the people who you think have presented a higher level of non-guidelines based, unsubstantiated accusation than this? The standards mentioned are not my standards. They are the standards presented by this encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedia that also sees fit to organise itself with an administrative system to see that those standards are maintained. I had previously had hope, after expending effort elsewhere in trying to present these things to you, that you might come to accept these issues at AN/I and, again, I remain saddened that this is not the case. The primary goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopaedia and I do not agree that what I regard to be manipulative partisan presentation has relevance here.

We disagree on this which is fine but, believe me, I have heard everything that you have had to say on this but I do not agree. I have twisted nothing. Your previous angry attack to state ".. you are deaf" has no substantiation. It goes way beyond anything I have said. Thread context as here. GregKaye 09:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye has often said editors with whom he has been in bitter disputes before are manipulative and misrepresent things, so I am hardly surprised at the above. (See item 5, for example, Gregkaye's comment on his adversary, that he had been "banned for his manipulations"). We have a clear difference of view and I think it should now be left to adjudicators to decide what should be done about this AN/I. I hope the result is acceptable to both of us. I have been driven to distraction by the difficulties between us recently and I apologise to Gregkaye for the criticism and hostility I have shown him during this dispute and during this AN/I. I hope that after this settles we can return to the good working relationship we once had. P-123 (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved observer, I was reading the AN/I and I was thrown back by the length and the extent of this case. I don't see either one of the editors as capable of editing Wikipedia or have a future in editing the project. But, P-123, before I go any further, do you see nothing wrong in your edits on this page at all? 122.152.167.7 (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

122.152.167.7: If you mean edits on this AN/I page, yes, I do. I have infringed WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CIVIL quite a lot when addressing Gregkaye here. I regret this and have apologised to him for it here as you will see. I have also struck through the worst of it. I do not normally behave like this, as my records will show (this dispute excepted). I regret very much that our dispute spilled over into the ISIS Talk page and disrupted it, although we did collapse the worst of our arguments there. Until this ANI and about ten (?) days before it, I think, our dispute was confined to our Talk pages. As to the length, my comments in this AN/I have mostly been in response to Gregkaye's; I had to defend myself against some inaccurate statements by him. I would point out that we were particularly good colleagues until recently (our Talk pages will show this) and have worked together, as a team of two, on ISIS talk on a number of major edits (reorganising the page, for example). When I first saw this AN/I I was quite shocked, as Gregkaye had never hinted before at some of the problems raised (canvassing and campaigning, for example) [Correction: sorry, he did.] I take a collaborative approach to editing, again as the Talk pages will show, and have even guided editors to come to consensus after long debate that was getting nowhere. Gregkaye is a good editor and as I say we have worked collaboratively and well together until this dispute, which started about a month ago, even though we have a very different view on one aspect of editing (NPOV). I am sorry if I have been repetitive as I have said some of this elsewhere in this AN/I, but cannot be sure that all of this long AN/I has been read by those commenting on it. P-123 (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban and Iban for both editors?

I'd suggest a 3 month topic ban for both, running concurrently with a 3 month Iban. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think Admin and ARBCOM member Dougweller is a very wise man. Both should use this time off to act in a civil manner and refrain from back and forth confrontation. If any of this is ever repeated, they should be banned permanently. 69.22.169.73 (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but of course I was speaking only as an Admin/Editor, not as an Arb. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Little hard to take the IP's views too seriously without knowing which user is hiding behind the IP with 8 edits total, 4 in this thread? Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

My records will show that in all the time I have been editing in Wikipedia, I have always kept to WP:CIVIL - until this dispute, which has lasted for about a month. P-123 (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, you are one of the good contributors to Wikipedia, so I will not take your comment as a personal attack but rather a general misconception. Wikipedia allows you to call yourself Legacypac and allows me to call myself 69.22.169.73. Please assume good faith, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Thank you. Now, having seen what went on in this ANI, Admin Dougweller's adjudication is a wise one. I might only add that the topic ban should include talk pages where all the confrontation has taken place as well as related topics that may lead to a confrontation between the two editors.

69.22.169.73 (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

SUPPORT - There's a lot that justifies both bans on the two editors. 193.109.199.132 (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

193.109.199.132, whoever you are, what is there that supports a ban of my editing the article? GregKaye 10:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Dougweller I definitely want the arguing and related disturbance to stop but had considered that this AN/I would be a positive way forward. My thinking was that an IBAN would, to use PBS the phrasing offered by PBS, do little more than put issues on ice. I would also be happy for comment on individual behaviours and would be pleased to follow any agreed direction given.

As I see it, I have honestly made sincere attempts to broach peace with P-123. I had previously proposed a resolution as shown in diff here In which I offered a badly written but well intentioned the two way proposal:

"...Please, if at any time you want to make accusations in the future, be specific and state the content concerned. If I then think I am wrong I will happily retract, apologise or whatever. You are quite entitles to think what you like and, in regard to any of your accusations, I will be quite happy to agree to disagree. In any case where an unjustified accusation of wrong is maintained regarding some unsubstantiated catalogue of offence or some such, I will respond.

In turn, if I make an accusation regarding a content that I(wrong pronoun/reference was added) think is unfair. An editor can either reply to say why s/he thinks the content is fair, give some other reply or not respond. There is no restriction. If you have a problem with this then please go to dispute resolution." (as at 11:50, 10 December 2014)

I would have welcomed a direct move to dispute resolution with cited references that could be discussed. I honestly believe that my proposal would have worked fine but would welcome any other views.

I reacted personally to P-123's article talk page comments. This was by far my strongest interaction that I have placed on another editor's private user talk page.

Was I wrong to raise issue with P-123's article talk page comments? Were the comments justified? How if at all should I have tackled this? I am really trying to make sense of this and request help.

All the same I don't see how my contribution to article content is being called into question. 08:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC) GregKaye 09:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I hope there is going to be some kind of judgment on the charges, as I would very much like to know for both our sakes whether they can be upheld. (I understand and accept the last two charges.) I say this as I want to keep within the policies and guidelines set by Wikipedia and some of them I am a little unclear about, e.g. on canvassing. I think it would help both of us to have some clarity on these things. I am going to keep repeating here that until this dispute, this editor and I had an excellent working relationship (as a casual delve into our archived Talk pages will show). P-123 (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support for an immediate Topic ban and Iban, and, at this point, an indefinite ban. Let someone just end this saga. This is painful to watch. They are uncontrollable, highly emotional, vindictive albeit the intermittent appearance of moderation, stubborn, and disruptive. For example, P-123 would say something nice to Gregkaye on his Talk Page and then, with the same breath, blast him with a bunch of personal attacks on here. Their biggest problem is that neither one can see it. They cannot be trusted to edit Wikipedia like normal editors do. Their contributions cannot be an asset because their explosive personalities are a liability to Wikipedia and a waste of project time and space that trumps everything else they do. There is no ifs, ands or buts about this, these two aren't gonna change. The writing is on the wall, this saga will certainly repeat itself if not tomorrow, a week or 3 months later. 194.169.217.134 (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• You are not taking it in context. Until this dispute, Gregkaye and I were good colleagues who in the past have collaborated well on the Talk page despite differences of view. In the past we have both acknowledged to each other that we can be explosive. The trouble only began a month ago, around the time when I started taking a strong line on some editing on the Talk page; I cannot say there was a connection though. As I say, take a casual look at our archived Talk pages in October and November to see how good that relationship was; we had long and interesting conversations about editing in Wikipedia among many other things. Our profound differences on some editing points were "professional" disagreements as we both said then, and they have not hindered this good relationship until now, so much so that when he was at AN/I in October I gave him moral support, although he was on the other side of the divide, as it were. All trouble began in December. I hope Gregkaye would agree with this summary. I am sorry hostilities broke out and want to clear up this mess so we can return to being good colleagues. Not having a judgment on the charges Gregkaye has brought will not help with this. (Neither one can see it? Why else do you think I struck out some of my harsher comments to Gregkaye in this AN/I?) P-123 (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Seconded Dougweller's three month topic ban for both, running concurrently with a 3 month Iban. This can be done through the auspices of the SCW-ISIL general sanctions. However, as I proposed before, I think that if there are any RfC or RMs they should be allowed to express an opinion with a brief explanation to support that opinion. To address User:GregKaye's concerns. Much of what you currently see as irredeemable flaws in the behaviour of P-123 will either become apparent if similar behaviour is exhibited against another editor, or prove to be transient. At the moment as there is considerable assumptions of bad faith between you both, and your accusations are not automatically substantiated when viewed with good faith. Having spent time going through your list of accusations, there is only one that I think is substantial enough on its own to warrant concern even when assuming good faith, and I will discuss that directly with user:P-123 on the talk page of P-123. -- PBS (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Expressing an opinion on an RFC or RM may certainly lead to confrontations. This is a Battleground. Let's hope that the behaviour of P-123 is transient but I see no guarantees. An indefinite block with the possibility to appeal has a better chance of getting a solid commitment and behavioural change and may lead to a final resolution of this chronic matter. The problem is that P-123's mood changes from one hour to another. GregKaye is more composed with transient outbursts. 194.169.217.242 (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This chronic matter has subsisted for one month only. If you are going to make personal judgments, I suggest you look at my Talk page when talking to other editors and how I edit on the ISIS Talk page. Your judgment is made in a vacuum. I have wanted to show Gregkaye AGF, but it has been very hard when seeing what I regard as misrepresentations in this AN/I. from him. That comment rings a bell, btw. P-123 (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

P-123 I don't consider though that the admins here are not looking to take things personally and nor have I. I have taken what I have now interpreted to be your public slurs on the article talk page and regard that I have fairly but strongly raised these with you privately on your personal talk page. I honestly do not care of the judgement here if there is a chance that you will take this on board. I have chosen to do broach things on a personal basis and it has blown up in my face. I wish I had never bothered. Days of my life have recently been wasted pursuing this thing on multiple threads barely substantiated threads and I am resigned to whatever result may come about. At that stage quite frankly I was prepared to do whatever I thought it would take to gain resolution and get you off my back. Contrary to what PBS says I really hope, should you encounter other editors that take stands on issues such as unsubstantiated accusations and slurs, that similar behaviour to this will not be exhibited elsewhere, otherwise, from my point of view, this whole thing will have been an utter waste of time.

My planned suggestion now seems moot. I was going to suggest a form of IBAN suspended sentence might be in order in which any admin that could by any means be bothered might be given the auspices to enact judgement. In this condition a two way IBAN might be authorised to be imposed by a single admin at the raising of a valid contention by either editor at any later date. We are in a situation where you have habitually deleted my content from your talk page and in which I have made it clear that I don't want unnecessary contact from you on mine. Again all this now seems moot.

There are many ways in which resolution could have been sought. We may now get one that neither of us would have wanted. GregKaye 19:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The comments here from many admin/editors on possible ways forward are based very much on judgments of the two parties as persons. It seems that this is a moral court of law as much as anything, which appalls me somewhat; you seem to think so as well from those last comments. I doubt that the two-way IBAN I was thinking of requesting before this as you know would have led to the bad result which looks likely here. You have indeed broached troubles privately on our usertalk pages, as you have done regularly with other editors in the past, that is your way, but you really cannot expect results if it is accompanied by slurs on the editor's bona fides and integrity which has been my experience, I'm afraid. P-123 (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for a topic ban on GregKaye

Dougweller has proposed a topic ban and PBS has seconded. I would appreciate an understanding of any argument that supports this. GregKaye 20:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Second a three, even more, months ban right away. There is too much hostility, slurs, disruption and rehashing of the same under the auspices of self defense and blaming everyone else but themselves. The disruption is clear to any uninvolved person but not to them. The thing is that they are still not getting it, and wondering why everyone is out to get them, instead of looking inside and re-reading the venom they spew at each other and at any other Wikipedian that expresses their opinion in this AN/I. This is not the norm. One editor keeps posting to the other editor's talk page even after he made it clear that he did not want any contact. This AN/I has become a hostility chat forum with no end in sight. A quick ban is now overdue. 208.123.223.161 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am acutely aware of the disruption this is causing, but if that is what it takes to settle this long-running dispute, so be it. I could have easily kept my mouth shut and shortened this, but any "defendant" at AN/I is entitled to represent themselves and matters would have been shortened if Gregkaye had not kept coming back on any comment I have made. I myself would have thought the first part of this AN/I would have sufficed as evidence. We both wish to thrash these charges out and have them judged properly by uninvolved admin/editors, but so far concentration has been on personalities, which I think is disastrous. P-123 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC) [Comment added later]

Is that right? Who decided "if that (meaning disruption to the project, by your own admission) is what it takes to settle this long-running dispute, so be it"? You, P-123? You're not helping you case at all. No, it's not "so be it". The personality of an editor is the single most important part in Wikipedia's editing environment, and, more than anything else, it is the deciding factor as to whether an editor should be allowed or denied the privilege to edit on Wikipedia or not. 208.123.223.161 (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

208.123.223.161 Those arguments might be reasons supportive of an interaction ban. There has been no problem with regard to my conduct on the article talk page since my October inconclusive AN/I up until the point of the recent threads The group's original aim and Ham fisted lead. I did not initiate any contention here. GregKaye 20:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur with this statement: "The problem is that P-123's mood changes from one hour to another. GregKaye is more composed with transient outbursts. 194.169.217.242" I support a 3 month ISIL topic ban for P-123 only, and an IBAN for both editors. Gregkaye has not handled this dispute very well but he sticks much closer to policy and has been more rational. Especially he does not encourage other editors to disrupt the article.Legacypac (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it, this is a much better resolution, but, unfortunately, I see no end in sight for this AN/I. 208.123.223.161 (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Diversion off section topic

Legacypac your "Especially he does not encourage other editors to disrupt the article" and the implication there is your judgment. You are very much parti pris and have been supporting Gregkaye on Talk pages ever since the AN/I began. I would remind you that there not been any judgment on the canvassing/campaigning charge yet. I have suspected for some time, as I said earlier in this AN/I, that you and Gregkaye would like to see me off the ISIS page, as a troublemaker who disagrees too much with both your views on how the page should be edited. [Redacted] By the way, I am not suggesting that in this AN/I Gregkaye is doing anything more than trying to have an editor reprimanded for editorial behaviour he believes infringes WP guidance and policy, but there has been no judgment on this yet (and with my cynical hat on I am wondering if there will be now). P-123 (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this attack. I've actually read ALL the back and forth, and I've gone to great lengths to defuse this situation, including proposing a solution above that would allow P-123 to continue to edit ISIL. Furthermore I'm posting as myself, not hiding behind an IP, so it is very bad form to attack my editing history with generalizations. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac It was wrong of me to go as far as I did, I am sorry. I feel embattled and supported by no-one and it is hard to keep a cool head. I have redacted my comments. You have indeed tried to defuse the situation, more than once, and I appreciate your efforts. I believe you when you say you have read all the back and forth, but if you don't mind me saying so, it is still only your judgment at the end of the day. I cannot understand why so many are apparently hiding behind IPs. P-123 (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly what makes P-123 a liability. This is what I meant when I said "they are still not getting it, and wondering why everyone is out to get them, instead of looking inside and re-reading the venom they spew at each other and at any other Wikipedian that expresses their opinion in this AN/I". They don't know when to quit. Legacypac expressed a good testimony in good faith that did not merit confrontation, blame and personal attacks. I also have noted that Legacypac knows the two personalities a lot more than us uninvolved admins and editors and offered a good resolution to get this AN/I done and over with but someone keeps coming back like a bad penny for more and more confrontations with anyone that has a different opinion. My advice to P-123 is take a break already. 208.123.223.161 (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks IP 161. I suspect the use of IPs is to avoid attacks like the one just made on me. Perhaps I should switch to using an IP too, but that would reduce the relevance and credibility of my views. Legacypac (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of the reasons that many editors choose to edit with their IPs. Mine is static. Nothing wrong with that on Wikipedia. There is no reduction in relevance or credibility. AN/I is a very high visibility page that thousands of admins and editors read and when an AN/I goes on forever, some editors start to get involved. No one wants to see this AN/I closed in the 22nd Century. The views that were expressed were based on what everyone could see and assess individually. It is becoming obvious that many admins and editors that thankfully got involved have reached the same conclusion. 208.123.223.161 (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

May I point out that your joint decision is not based on the grounds on which this AN/I was actually brought? Is that of so little consequence? I have not read anything from uninvolved admin/editors on whether the charges can be upheld. PBS is the only one who has hinted at a decision on this. I was shocked when an earlier uninvolved (?)admin said, "... if one or more editors disagrees, and if we conclude that we might have to sanction just one party then somebody will have to read through all that stuff and weigh the claims." I innocently thought that "reading all that stuff" was par for the course at AN/I. It seems I am very naïve about Wikipedia's disciplinary proceedings! I have only been here since February and there is clearly a lot to learn still. (Although I remember now that at Gregkaye's AN/I, I had the clear impression that some of the outside commenters had not looked at the case properly or grasped what it was actually about. That is just for the record, btw, and is not meant as criticism of the outside admins/editors involved in this AN/I.) P-123 (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

P-123, my advice to you is to stop Wikilawyering. 208.123.223.161 (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Not wikilawyering, genuinely puzzled. Clearly making the mistake of assuming Wikipedia justice is like justice in real life! P-123 (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

My summary below is based on my read of quite wide input by many editors, who weighed the evidence presented and the continued conduct in this thread and elsewhere. I did not mean to suggest anyone else's credibility was diminished by logging out, I was only referring to my choice to stay logged in because I will wear anything I say here. Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Please close

My review of all this sees:

1. Universal agreement on a two way IBAN between Gregkeye and P-123 (including they have both expressed support for one)
2. Universal agreement on a 90 day ISIL topic ban for P-123 (including P-123 saying various times and places, including on the ISIL talk page, he was going to stop editing on the topic.)
3. Some support but not consensus for a ISIL topic ban on Gregkeye (I suggest this discussion is a pretty good warning, and can be considered if future problems arise).

Many editors have commented. Plenty of time has elapsed (6 days) and way too much discussion has occurred by the two involved editors. Can an admin close this off please. Legacypac (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Seconded. 208.123.223.161 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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

The Rambling Man forgets the IBAN once again

No sooner do I use the word iconic to describe a nomination at ITN does The Rambling Man quote me directly "iconic" but seems to do so tit for tat. Certainly an admin and sysop who's been blocked by Laser brain (talk · contribs) for previous violations of the IBAN can withdraw his comment or deal with a new block. I'd welcome an admin either notifying The Rambling Man of this comment or advising me I can do so myself in contravention of the IBAN.

previous evidence for last block of TRM

Well, once again, in violation of our iban, User:The Rambling Man has quoted (with quote marks!) and responded to me directly at ITN nominations: "For the fiftieth time". diffs re TRM's disruption Apparently the last ANI was entirely ignored, as were User:Newyorkbrad's warnings today to TRM to stop the personal comments: that you should stop sullying this page with gratuitous personal comments As a sidenote, the personal comments on this page have to cease and these edits and their edit summaries of TRM's: oh dear Jayron oh, what a surprise do what Brad says, he's Arbcom after all you're the pest which show a pattern of unnecessary incivility. Note also this comment by User:SemanticMantis on the Ref Desk talk page: I don't know what you do elsewhere on WP but when you seem only show up on the ref desk to disparage said desk. Let us note that on his user page, TRM first blanked it in response to this complaint, then restored it with the comment he'd be away for two days, during which he himself expects a block: "restore and add note regarding intermittent availability, should i be blocked in absentia" Meanwhile, on his talk page he dismissed (and deleted) notification of the ANI case and his fellow editors and admins with: "more hilarity, more circus games, i'll continue to make decent articles while the parade continues" And on Newyorkbrad's homepage (NYB has expressed his wish to remain impartial) TRM describes himself as "disagreeing" and me as "abusing": "It'd be rewarding to see how such esteemed members of the hierarchy treat content editors who just vocalise their disagreement, while completely ignoring others who directly abuse people." That is, he is just talking civil, while I am attacking him and admins are ignoring me? When NYB merely asks for civil discussion, TRM responds "if you didn't just wade in and act like a schoolmaster" This sounds like a confession and a retreat mixed with, "It's not me, it's Medeis and the admins." See "you're the pest" above. μηδείς (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC) I'm loathe to respond to these kangaroo proceedings, but given the plethora of false assumptions and incorrect assertions I see (yet again), and given the absolute stone cold intensity with which some users wish to see me "punished", I felt compelled, even today, my son's first birthday, to say a couple of things. I (as well as many many others) have become sick and tired of the self-centred approach, the "why always me?" claims, the incorrect assumptions being hurled around so often at ANI. Some users wish to have their cake and eat it, as evidenced in the multiple responses to the last time I was dragged here. I'm certain if Jayron or NYB have a real problem with me, they are more than capable of doing something about it themselves. Jayron and I frequently have robust discussion, no-one dies and everyone survives to the next time. NYB on the other hand appears from time to time to believe he can sweep into ITN and do exactly as he pleases (usually regarding posting poor quality articles on recently deceased Americans from the movie industry). Indeed, NYB's insistence on threatening to make illegitimate posts has been rejected by four, maybe five different admins in the past. When it comes to ITN, he's just an editor, nothing more. Regarding the policy issue, some users need to be continually reminded that claiming specific policies at ITN is actually factually incorrect. We have policies, guidelines, essays etc. There is a clear difference in the significance of each of these, it's worthwhile understanding that. Finally, I added the holiday notice to my page because, yes, I'm taking my son out for his first birthday and wanted people to know that I'd be unlikely to respond to the current pack of misrepresentations, leave alone any more incorrect claims which may be dug up throughout the day. I restored some of the content with something of an ironic edit summary. Sorry if some users didn't understand that, I must try harder to ensure our "global" audience gets it. Finally, unlike one of the bogus claims above, I have never named any user as being "abusing". If some users wish to assume it to be in reference to them, that is entirely their problem, and they should try hard to address their insecurities. It was, in fact, with reference to those editors who swear at others, who edit war with them etc. If a user believes they meet that profile, bingo. Have a good day all, I'm going to the big smoke for lunch with the little 'un. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Looking at the first accusation re the interaction ban violation (that this edit was a direct response to Medeis), it doesn't look to be the case. I read the response as being directed at Masem, and actually supporting what Medeis said. Number 57 13:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Of all the diffs above, two are allegedly violations of the IBAN. The rest are alleged incivility, to other editors than μηδείς, and pretty tame by the standards we see here. Am I right? Of the diffs regarding the IBAN, I'm struggling to see the violation in the first one - TRM and μηδείς are making similar points about the lack of policy, but I'm struggling to see it as TRM interacting with μηδείς. The second one might be construed as a violation, I guess - responding to NewYorkBrad who was responding to μηδείς. It's not exactly smoking gun material, though. I've a great deal of respect for both these editors, and a TBAN for both from ITN would be a great loss to ITN. But it seems that the IBAN hasn't helped cool things down between them. Any suggestions for other ways of cooling things down? GoldenRing (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC) There is no justification for a TBAN. First, there's no complaint against me, no diffs, and no reason to ban me, since I have not commented once on TRM, while he has on me, as well as reversions, etc. Second, TRM is perfectly capable of doing good work on ITN, all he needs to do is stop addressing me. Third, any such TBAN would be pointless, as we still both edit many overlapping pages. The solution is clear and simple: enforce the IBAN that's already in place. μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I'm not seriously suggesting a TBAN, just thinking out loud about how to cool the situation down. It needs cooling down, on both sides. This is the second time this has ended up at ANI in recent times, both times because you've perceived a violation of the IBAN where other editors have said either the violation is not clear or that you have to work very hard to read it as a violation. And this report has a long list of diffs completely unrelated to you or the IBAN tacked on. It reads a lot like you're on the lookout, just waiting for the slip up that you can bring to ANI and get him blocked/banned. On the other hand, TRM'S response is not exactly conciliatory. Both of you remain unprepared to work in a collaborative, collegial way, then. Ideally, tips both take a long, hard look at yourselves (not each other), let the past go and get on with building an encyclopedia which, so long as you don't cross paths, you both do well. Since that seems unlikely to happen, sadly, I'm trying to think about other ways of making the situation less explosive and, largely, coming up empty-handed. GoldenRing (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Since I was summoned, I might as well make some brief comments. It would be nice if TRM tried to influence discussions by the strength of his arguments, and could also quietly let other people have opinions which differ from him. It's only the ad hominem diversions that create a problem, that and his deliberate attempts to poison the well against people who don't hold the identical opinion he does. Otherwise, I don't really care what happens. TRM makes himself more and more irrelevant the more he behaves in uncooperative ways. It would be nice if he could become a more effective person who was able to actually create the important changes he wants to; but his treatment of others prevents him from being successful in ways that would benefit the encyclopedia. --Jayron32 14:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC) ^I'll support this. I only know TRM from the ref desks, and it seems he could be a big help there, but he doesn't choose to. That's fine, we spend time where we want. Whatever his abilities and skills are, it seems that TRM has managed to step on a few toes. Then again so has Medeis. If I could hand out sentencing I would give TRM and Medeis both a trouting, remind them both to respect the IBAN, and hope that they learn that a more cooperative attitude would make both of their efforts more productive. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC) You people created your own monster. The Rambling Man, a productive editor and an admin, is perfectly justified in expecting the Rule of Corbett (i.e. productivity means you can be as rude as you like) to apply to him as well, and I can't say I blame him. The only difference is he doesn't appear to have the squads of acolytes and fawning admins ready to fall on their swords in his defense. What a joke! --Drmargi (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC) No, the rule defines a "valuable contributor" as one with acolytes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC) I won't be able to comment at length or research the diffs for about 12 hrs from now, but the issue here really is violations of the iban by TRM. The incivility is just part of the pattern. There have been previous iban violations by TRM, and a previous ANI that documented them in October. I'll search the archives tonight. The "for the fiftieth time" and quotation of the word policy in the edit above was directed at me. He quoted me, and my occassional use of the word policy has been a bugaboo of his apparently for over a year now, hence his "for the fiftieth time" statement. I'll look for these comments tonight, can someone tell me how to search for the use of the word policy by TRM on the ITN nomination page only? I find searching the history of that page very difficult. Bottom line, TRM has repeatedly been warned not to interact with me and continued to do so, I have made no comments regarding him. He should be treated like any other editor would who violated an IBAN. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

He used the same word as you? How about we don't notify him, and we just close this? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the second diff. He didn't just coincidentally use the word "iconic", he put scare quotes around "iconic", indicating he was quoting (and disparaging) what someone else wrote. Medeis' use of "iconic" in his own statement is right above TRM's comment. It's hard not to see this as a -- admittedly minor -- violation of the IBAN. Whether it's block-worthy I'll let an admin decide -- that's why they get the big bucks. BMK (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I failed to note that Medeis' comment was to oppose TRM's ITN nomination. Like Laser Brain below, I would consider that a violation of the IBAN as well, which makes TRM's violation (which, despite the comments below, it quite clearly is -- the use of "iconic" was a choice and not an accident, and the scare quotes make his POV about the Medeis comment obvious, so I'm not sure why that is not being seen by other commenters) a response to Medeis' violation. So if anyone is considering any kind of sanction here, Medeis would seem to be the party who should be sanctioned. The IBAN requires him to stay away from TRM, including his nominations etc. BMK (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've had multiple disputes with The Rambling Man (some evidenced in the collapse box above, which I hadn't even realized until I entered the editing window), but this complaint strikes me as petty. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I half expect Medeis to start pointing and saying, "he's looking at me!" This is beyond petty, and bordering on harassment by Medeis. The word at issue was iconic. It's hardly inappropriate for TRM to put it in quotes, given the context, and his statement was nothing close to disparaging. It's long past time for Medeis (and one or two other folks) to stop seeing IBAN violations in every edit Rambling Man makes, and start assuming a little good faith. I've seen third graders more able to ignore another's behavior. --Drmargi (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Who are these "one or two other folks"? If you mean Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) and the host of other users like Snow Rise and Phoenixia1177 or Drmies, etc., who've chastised him please mention and notify them. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Let's eliminate the IBAN because it's causing more trouble than it could possibly be solving. Jehochman ^Talk 03:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Does this mean I am free to violate the IBAN as I see fit? Shall I take the "leave the cesspool to the shitheads" comment currently on TRM's talk page as read?

When someone directly quotes me with quote marks around a word no one else has used but me, I take that a explicit violation of the IBAN. Given the last time he was blocked he promised to quit the project, threw a fit on his talk page, and I personally asked that he be unblocked I take comments like Drmargis' as uniformed and insulting.

Either there is an IBAN or there isn't. PS, has anyone notified TRM?

And no, Jehochman, let's enforce the IBAN since only one party keeps breaking it, and you were the last to unblock TRM, so your recusing yourself would be appropriate. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a clear violation. Even if this was a subtle jab at you which I don't think it is, then your reaction would be the exact sort of thing wanted. I recommend you ask this complaint be closed and move on. Chillum 03:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

If anything, the only violation I've seen of late is Medeis's constant running to this noticeboard to stir up trouble. --Drmargi (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

responding to a violation of the IBAN is explicitly allowed under the terms of the IBAN. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, Medeis, would you consider opposing TRM's ITN nomination a violation of your IBAN? Because I would. And that occurred before the needling you are here to complain about. I agree with Jehochman that the IBAN is pointless. --Laser brain (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

No, we both comment on the same threads on ITN and at the Ref Desks and that fact was directly addressed in the three ANI's that were initiated to get the IBAN put in place. Had I said something like Nergaal when he opposed TRM's nom a few weeks ago because it was TRM's nom, then yes, that would be a violation, as would directly quoting him or trying to do so surreptitiously. But both TRM and I have agreed and disagreed on various nominations, and TRM has even thanked me several times since the IBAN via the thank function for my comments saying he should have been unblocked, and in support of his nominations. The only question here is the very obvious violation with a direct quote of my comment, using quote marks. Given I am explicitly and happily banned from responding, I have brought it here. I don't expect that to be ignored. I just want TRM to watch what he's doing and stop testing the limits as Drmies expressly forbade him to do. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• What was reported is not a violation IBAN, this is however. Given the pettiness of the report I'm considering blocking Medeis. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Would it be feasible to keep the iBan, but prohibit Medeis from reporting violations? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Prohibiting an editor from openly reporting an alleged violation of an interaction ban would tend to encourage behind-the-scenes or off-wiki discussion instead. Is that really preferable to openness? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

* Knock it off Medeis - you're obviously trying to get a Rambling Man blocked. How about we ban you from mentioning his name anywhere on this encyclopedia. I fully support such a ban KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC) _{struck out, Bugs is correct KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)}

• • Uh, that's already there. It's called an Interaction Ban. And again, if you try to impose such a ban, you'll encourage behind-the-scenes behavior, which I can't see as an improvement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Question - As a "compromise" between lifting the IBAN and preventing Medeis from reporting violations, how about making it one-way? TRM should no longer be prevented from interacting with Medeis (but warned that the IBAN may be reinstated), but Medeis is prohibited from interacting with TRM? Since TRM would no longer be prohibited from responding to Medeis, any further reports of ban violations would no longer fall under an exception, and the community would no longer have to deal with these petty reports. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's just get rid of the IBAN and tell both editors not to needle each other. If there's needling or worse, block shopping like this thread, whoever is causes disruption will get a series of escalating blocks. That should put an end to it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

An IBAN is usually an imperfect solution, but it actually works a reasonable amount of the time. For it not to work, you need:

• Two editors of sufficient usefulness that we don't just want to apply the banhammer (or, the topicbanhammer) to one or both and say good riddance;
• One or both of whom have sufficient dislike of the other that they just can't seem to let go;
• One or both of whom have sufficient lack of concern for everyone else that they don't care that continuing this feud is a pain in the ass for everyone else;
• Both editors active in one or two areas (in this case, ITN and Ref Desk), where replying to other editors is an integral part of the process.

I agree with Jehochman that the IBAN isn't working here, and is actually leading to an increase in annoyance for everyone. I disagree with many here that it's all Medeis' fault. I think it's partly her fault for being ultra-sensitive to perceived slights, some of them minor but real, others imagined; partly our fault for not making clear whether we want the IBAN to apply to talking about the other editor personally, or making comments that specifically disagree with the other's comments; partly TRM's fault for not being able to resist directly quoting remarks by someone with whom he has an IBAN; and partly the world's fault for being imperfect. I suspect that just repealing the IBAN and telling them both to stop picking at scabs won't work. But we should either:

• Try that first, see if it works, and do something below if it doesn't;
• Go the bureaucratic route and try tweaking the wording of the IBAN to make clear that specifically disagreeing with each other is allowed, or disallowed;
• Go with a more Solomonic cut-the-baby-in-half-to-piss-them-both-off approach, and ban Medeis from ITN and TRM from the Ref Desks; or
• Go with the blunt force approach, and ban them both from ITN and the Ref Desk.

I suggest the first (even if I fear it has a low likelihood of success), but any of the four would work for me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to point out that today happens to be the one-year anniversary of when I first engaged this issue and tried to "tell both editors not to needle each other" (Jehochman) and "stop picking at scabs" (Floquenbeam). Anyone who doesn't see how thoroughly that approach hasn't worked out has got their head in the sand. The IBAN hasn't worked either, because here we are a year later. Jehochman tried opening an arena for a Festivus-style airing of grievances but that doesn't seem to have had any effect. Baseball Bugs seems to have been far more successful than Medeis or TRM in putting this in the curbside garbage can, but I fear nothing short of issuing topic bans for Medeis and TRM from ITN and Ref Desk is going to solve this issue. Or, we can continue to let it fester and we'll see everyone at ArbCom a few weeks or months from now. --Laser brain (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Let's try both editors banned from ITN and the reference desk and if they want to figure out a detente they can ask for the restrictions to be lifted. My arena page is open for them if they want to talk about it. Otherwise they can't interact in any way, broadly construed. It's just tiresome for the rest of us to have to endure this constant sniping. Jehochman ^Talk 16:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

So, to be clear, we'll both be banned from ITN and the Ref desks indefinitely? Could someone please send me a note if this is the case as I'm one of the few admins left at ITN posting stories and I guess a ban from there would stop me doing that. Presumably it wouldn't stop me from updating the stories nominated? Thanks all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I concur with the proposal to temporarily suspend their IBAN and see if that makes things better. (As for my own IBAN, keep it in place. It's not a problem for me.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm of similar mind to BMK here. I find it hard to believe TRM wasn't at least partially thinking of μηδείς's comment when replying, particularly given the history here of TRM pushing the boundary of the Iban. I do however agree with some others that considering how indirect it was, even with the history here, it was probably the sort of thing best left be, regardless of whether that's only going to mean more of the same. However it also seems to me that μηδείς opposing TRM's initiated ITN candidate was also problematic, even if it had had other supports so μηδείς may be partially replying to those comments (and the support/oppose is ultimately related to the candidate anyway). I'll admit I've never really understood how the iban was supposed to work on ITNC. My assumption a while ago based on comments they made was they would work it out, but it seems clear this hasn't happened. I therefore agree that going the bureaucratic route is worth considering. I have the nasty feeling we're still going to end up with discussions about boundaries just more complicated ones (or a 10000 word iban notice) but I'm not totally sure if there's any other good alternative. I do agree that it's not simply μηδείς who is at fault. μηδείς does seem oversensitive, but TRM does seem to like to push the boundaries (although μηδείς also has too). (Let's not forget in the early days of the iban TRM seemingly admitted to still watching the talk page of μηδείς over a month after the iban Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260#.5BMoved from ANI.5D Possible interaction ban violation and I think, didn't seem particularly interested in removing it at the time User talk:The Rambling Man/Archive 45#Watchlist. Sadly that seemingly just set the tone, and since I rarely visit ITNC where the problem seems to occur, I'm guessing I haven't even seen half of it, and I'm thinking on both sides.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  Yep, you're right, you're not clear on it at all. If by "pushing the boundaries" you mean "providing a cited response to counter an outlandish claim which happened to use a single common word" (I'm guessing I can still use "the" and "and" and "it" etc in responses) then you're right. Otherwise you're way off mark. Let's just ban us both from ITN and other similar locations, like the Ref Desk, or else let's just use some common sense and agree that this, amongst the other seven or eight complaints, is complete bollocks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  The history suggested 'happened' is highly misleading. It's hard to believe that you were not thinking of μηδείς claims when you were responding, just as with all the other times. BTW, whether or not μηδείς claims were outlandish is a moot point, you're forbidden from responding to them in any way on wikipedia per the iban although you're free to respond to other comments like the person who started that candidate. Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Fuck me, is this still rumbling on? May I suggest that you all just start the new year with a new slate and move the hell on! Cassianto^Talk 19:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  Indeed. Utter bollocks, but hey, what do you expect here these days? It's odd that around 3pm UTC we have such a barrage of outrage.... I wonder why.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose that we close this thread with no action other than warning that any sort of frivolous reports about this IBAN in the future can result in a block and will result in a look into the reporters behavior. This is a silly waste of time. Chillum 20:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You really think it's better to encourage behind-the-scenes complaints instead of openness? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Did I say it's better to encourage behind-the-scenes complaints instead of openness? I am fairly sure I did not. Chillum 20:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume by the "behind-the-scenes complaints" you are referring to Medeis and not me? Please make this clear in your response. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't know what either of you might do off-wiki. I'm merely saying that the proposal of some here, in trying to pre-empt every possible complaint, is not an appropriate solution - either for this case or any case at ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's really important you're clear here as both you and Medeis have been in regular email contact, along with various admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for either you or Medeis. I myself have had very little contact with any wiki users off-wiki, for any reason. To put it another way, I am not in "regular" contact with any Wikipedia user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but you and Medeis have both had communications with admin(s) in relation to this. To deny it would be wholesale lying. On the other hand, I have never attempted to circumvent the "system" with any kind of off-wiki emailing. Neither of you can say that, and you know it. Medeis has admitted as such. So, please, clarify the point, that you and Medeis have already resorted to such off-wiki tactics. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have asked this at least three times now, and no one has answered yet: Is the off-wiki approach better than being open about it here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

And I have suggested that, in this complaint, only you and Medeis are guilty of off-wiki attempts to manipulate Wikipedia. She has openly admitted it, you cannot deny it. Stop trying to cover your tracks. Admittedly you are just part of a game, and you have shown on numerous occasions that you wish for the best for Wikipedia, but sadly the double-teaming off-wiki campaign is all too clear and painfully obvious. I'm sorry that you ended up being associated with her, other editors have suggested that she should be banned, not just from the Ref desks or ITN, but from the site as a whole. I'm sure you don't want to end up in that situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no way to know whether you're telling the truth about your own off-wiki activities, if any. However, I interpret your comments to mean that you would prefer any complaints be made here, in the open, rather than behind the scenes. Yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

All communication should be on wiki unlike those between you and Medeis and other admins, yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

So any and all complaints should be brought here, and the notion of censoring such complaints, as promoted by some here, is non-operative. Sounds good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you've said more than enough Bugs. Sorry! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Bugs I said frivolous complaints, not every possible complaint. There is a big difference. Chillum 20:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

How is Medeis supposed to know ahead of time, how you're going to judge a given complaint? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

She could base it on the other seven (or so) complaints that came to nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Using the mighty power of competence to judge if the complaint has merit before making it. Chillum 21:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to guess how you're going to interpret something would require ESP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Or a level of common sense, competence or understanding of what has gone on before. Clearly that is not applicable here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Or one might question the competence of those who claim the complaints are frivolous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Or not admitting to your own off wiki collusions? Do us all a favour, do something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I am most pleased that you agree that off-wiki discussion should not be necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, so if you and Medeis could stop doing it, that'd be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to have my competence reviewed by the community at any time. Chillum 22:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's already on display here. >:) In any case, since TRM agrees that complaining off-wiki is an undesirable approach, then he has tacitly approved bringing all complaints here. Then you and your equally-competent pals can decide on a case-by-case basis whether the complaint is actionable or not. OR, you could fix this by abolishing or at least suspending their interaction ban. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Baseball Bugs is derailing the discussion in order to deflect from the problem highlighted by Callanecc above at 04:22, 2 January 2015. Callanecc pointed out that Medeis had violated the IBAN by opposing (diff) TRM's nomination, while the issue Medeis complains of in this report is highly trivial. Baseball Bugs knows how to keep out harm's way and is only disruptive when one of these discussions starts. The solution is to topic ban Medeis only as they are the source of the conflict. The situation can be reviewed if that remedy is insufficient. TRM does good work at those venues and should be encouraged to continue. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • A violation is a violation. Either there's an IBAN or there isn't. To dismiss one item as meaningful and the other as trivial suggests bias on your part. As to your personal attack on me, please note that I have no current problems with either editor, nor do I anticipate any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Wait, what? We aren't allowed to distinguish between meaningful issues and trivial ones? Please. Also, it seems to me the lengthy "discussions" in this thread between Baseball Bugs and TRM are violating the spirit of the iBan. Finally, a question: if it's (apparently) okay for the iBanned users to talk to each other in this thread, does it make any sense for Medeis to not be allowed to notify TRM when one of these threads is opened? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
      • We're allowed to discuss the matter here. And you raise a good question about the awkwardness that's a consequence of an IBAN. That's why their IBAN should be modified or abolished. OR, there needs to be a solid, consistent mechanism for reporting and notification, i.e. a list of exceptions built into the definition of an IBAN, so that the victim can handle it openly instead of having to sneak around back of the house and pass notes to an admin. The apparent need to do that kind of stuff undermines the (presumed) intended purpose of an IBAN, or any ban for that matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Do you think there is any real chance an admin would have blocked Medeis for posting a notification on TRM's talk page? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
• There's been a death in my extended family which has been a big strain as my sister was visiting from 300 miles away for the holidays and that has been upset with the need to care for her young children and plan for the viewing and funeral tomorrow. Hence my unwillingness to stop by here for what is unpleasant enough in normal circumstances. Editting WP should be a pleasure. To summarize, a year ago, after three ANI's and with a huge consensus among dovens of commenters in favor of an IBAN it was instituted, and all the parties were formally warned not to address or interact with each other directly or indirectly. Over that period one editor has regularly flouted the IBAN, been warned for it and blocked for it. And there's really not even been a good reason like an edit war of religion to violate the IBAN, just a feeling the admin involved is above it. When this happens in regard to me I can remain silent in the face of criticism, I can respond and face a block for violating the IBAN myself, or I can bring the complaint here and hope an admin will at least deliver a talk-page warning. There's no need for any other action if this IBAN is actually enforced. Given coming here is the proper course of action, I come here. I don't expect editors who don't want to be bothered looking into the reasons for the IBAN to tell me my complaints are a nuisance, they needn't comment. The nuisance is one editor who can't seem to go a month without violating the IBAN. There's something extremely wrong when making goodfaith edits in favor of an ITN nomination gets you abuse from both a user who should know better and from people with a duty of care given their position who just don't want to be bothered. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Replace IBAN with very strong warning

I propose that the IBAN be lifted, since it is not working except to facilitate gaming, but instead replaced by a very strong warning that any incivility be dealt with by a block of one week, escalating on second offense to two weeks.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Please stop dropping "let's be nice to everyone" messages into contentious topics. We all know that Medeis is more "civil" than TRM (and is only disruptive by cluelessness, not by language), so the proposal is not addressing the issue. Medeis needs to stop doing the things that TRM feels duty bound to highlight, and Medeis needs to stop bringing minor issues to ANI. As shown above, there is an IBAN violation, namely Medeis opposed (diff) a nomination by TRM. That is what needs to be sanctioned, although no one here really cares about the IBAN—we just want the silliness to stop. The solution is to topic ban Medeis and let them propose a solution to return to that area if they want. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • It was my understanding, when this general question was raised about a year ago, that the normal course of business at ITN was not to be considered a violation. If Medeis had instead said "Support", would that still have been a "violation"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
      • If this is true then the entire premise of this particular ANI is fallacious and should be closed immediately with a warning not to repeat such behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
        • That's a major "if", because I may be remembering incorrectly. The question is whether, if users X and Y are in an IBAN, and if user X proposes something, is user Y allowed to comment on the proposal? I thought so, but maybe not. Someone needs to clarify that detail, as there seem to be opinions both ways here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Indeed, but it's certainly something I recall Medeis herself saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you're thinking of μηδείς's comment in the discussion I linked above which I'll relink here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260#.5BMoved from ANI.5D Possible interaction ban violation where μηδείς said

"Please note the other editor has voted in opposition to my nominations in the past, for example diff without my objection then or now, just as I am accused of here. Please note the other editor has acted directly on the same thread on which I have just commented, with no objection by me or any other user. diff"

and

"I am not interested in stopping the other editor from acting on or voting on ITN threads with which I have been involved, and I don't see any reason for any restriction on my addressing such matters objectively without regard to the other editor. On occasion we disagree on the issue at hand. Neither of us has to address the other to do so."

At the time, I didn't think was going to work, nor did I think this was really in tune with how ibans are supposed to work. However as mentioned above, I decided to trust that you'd all somehow work it out (also I was more concerned about the watchlist issue). Since I don't visit ITNC much at all, I presumed for a long time this was mostly happening. However the recent ANI threads suggests it's not.

I don't know if μηδείς has changed their mind, it appears their complaint is not that you commented on a proposal which had been started by them, but that your commented appeared to be addressing a specific comment they had made, which is a somewhat distinct point and seemed to be specifically precluded by their earlier comment. (They also suggested it was addressing their comment in a retaliatory or tit for tat way.) This may be why μηδείς felt their reply to the candidate started by you was acceptable, even if they felt yours wasn't. (Although I find it hard to believe they too weren't thinking at least of your comment, although of course it's difficult comment on a candidate wording if without at least partially replying to the person who proposed it, one of the reasons I felt this wasn't going to work.)

Of course since the iban is community imposed, your view, that of μηδείς or BB is ultimately not that important compared to the communities view on what the iban entails as I think you agree.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is certainly not the first time that one of them has commented on an ITN proposed by the other. However, I agree that doing so doesn't seem to be in the spirit of IBAN, nor does it seem to be very workable in practice. I would favor a clarification of the IBAN that says that parties can not comment on (or take action on) ITN candidates proposed by the other party. Dragons flight (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The clear and obvious difference being I never drag Medeis here every two minutes when she comments on any of my proposals. Yet it seems fine, even commonplace for it to work the other way round. She can't have her cake and eat it. Having said that, if the community wish to block me, please make sure the block is evenly handed out this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• The interactions in this section indicate to me that the IBAN is still needed to prevent disruption. So I'd much rather see the IBAN enforced with an iron fist (which I'm happy to help with) than a civility parole (which have proved ineffective in the past). What about adding a clause preventing them both from commenting on each other's enforcement requests and from making any comments other than the initial report on their own enforcement requests. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That kind of leads up to what I was pondering earlier today. A given party could report a complaint, and then let the admins here decide whether it's a valid complaint or not. No further comments by the complaining party and none by the one being complained about. That might work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I seldom respond to these endless requests, so mandating that I shouldn't in the future will make little or no difference to me. This was an exceptional circumstance as the double-teaming (as is clearly evident) has kicked off once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • You are mistaken about the "double-teaming". I have no quarrel with either of you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
      • How are you, Bugs, not violating your IBAN by chiming in here? Jehochman ^Talk 09:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I was under the impression that ANI was a safe haven for reasonable discussion of IBANs and the like. And as you may recall from your "arena" (i.e. "sandbox") page a month or two ago, there are no real issues between TRM and me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
          • You two need to officially shake hands and end the IBAN before you join a thread like this one. Please cease commenting here about TRM and Medeis until that happens. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 10:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
            • How should I go about doing that? Should I ask here for the IBAN to be revoked? OK, I will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • For clarity, are you saying you don't normally respond to the ANI requests by μηδείς calling for some intervention due to alleged violations by you of the iban? Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
      • A rough review of the archives seems to indicate that TRM has participated in more than half of the IBAN complaints initiated by Medeis. Dragons flight (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm mildly surprised by that, but, as most threads deteriorate into hysteria and inaccuracies, I am sometimes obliged to correct them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
          • I found the same thing so wanted to make sure I understood what was being stated. While it's possible I've missed some (in particular if they were hatted or otherwise not findable by searching the displayed page, or if they were removed, or if they didn't happen at AN//I or simply if I didn't noticed that μηδείς was complaining about TRM somehow), my finding was in these two Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Further violation of interaction ban and incivility by The Rambling Man at ITN, etc & Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive865#IBAN violations by User:The Rambling Man, further evidence, TRM did reply. In Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#IBAN violations by The Rambling Man, further evidence (although this appeared to be a sort of follow up to the earlier complaint) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#IBAN Violation between User:The Rambling Man against User:Medeis TRM did not reply. TRM also replied to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive865#IBAN Revisited: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, Medeis although that was a general discussion of the iban and not initiated by μηδείς. I didn't look for these and if μηδείς didn't participate I may not have seen them (as people may refer to μηδείς as medeis). There's also the request a long time ago I mentioned above although that was against by μηδείς and not initiated by them or TRM. Finally there was the original discussion to implement the topic ban as well as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive258#Community sanctions and block. Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Counter argument

You know what, in all the bluster and guff above, I had actually failed to read that Medeis had used scare quotes and commented (using exactly the same words as me) on one of my proposals, just here before I'd even added a factually accurate and sourced comment to an item that she didn't nominate. I have no problem at all with Medeis commenting however she likes on any ITN item I nominate, nor have I ever made any claim to the contrary. I firmly believed that we could work together on ITN items, albeit mainly in opposition to one another. But now it's clear that Medeis is taking every possible opportunity to get me blocked, banned, whatever. I am sick and tired of her constant harassment and nitpicking and sad stories. I am out of this discussion, frankly I'm sorry I even commented in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Given the ongoing disruption caused by the frequent unfounded visits to ANI by Medeis, and by this new, spurious thread based on something Medeis has previously done themselves, I think we need to consider the possibility of a topic ban for Medeis from ITN. Several other editors have now complained of the disruption here by Medeis constantly filing reports, all of which have been refuted, and this has to end. - SchroCat (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a mischaracterization to say they have all been refuted. TRM was blocked last month (and Medeis received no sanction) after an admin was sufficiently convinced of her claims of harassment. Having been introduced to TRM by that incident and having no prior experience or opinion of him, I can tell you it seemed pretty cut and dry to me as well. That block was only overturned (bizarrely) after Medeis and Bugs advocated for it to be set aside. And most of the rest of these ANI's have ended with the community here just throwing up their hands in exasperation at what to do about these two (and to a lesser extent the issues between Bugs and TRM); that's a very different thing from refuting that there is an issue with the behaviour of one of the three parties. However, I do agree with you that, as of this filing, things have clearly gone to an unacceptably hyperbolic place. This is why I view IBANs as counter-intuitive and inconsistent with the spirit of our most important behavioural policies -- because they excuse unacceptable behaviour on the part of one or more of the involved parties as a mere matter of context, when clearly if an editor is capable of violating the collegial spirit of the project with regard to one person, they are capable of doing it with another or (as in this case) finding ways to lob broadsides at the original party from a distance anyway.

But all of that being said, it seems the community is still not yet ready to invoke longer-lasting and more general blocks -- though I'm increasingly convinced this acrimony will not ultimately stop short of such sanctions. So, until I got diverted into addressing issues of personal attacks between these parties in the section bellow, I was about to suggest something along the lines of what you have above, but on a more voluntary, mutual, and equitable basis. I was wondering -- though I very much doubt both parties will agree to it -- if Medeis would be willing to voluntarily abstain from contributing to ITN if TheRamblingMan agreed to stay out of the Reference Desks, the other area where they sometimes cross paths with explosive consequences. I think TRM might be amenable to that solution, but I'm more dubious about Medeis, since ITN seems more central to her activities than the Ref Desks are to TRM. Still, if neither party can entirely respect the IBAN, I think carving up the areas the two operate on (ridiculous as that is), is the only option short of blocking one or both. Personally my observation has been that one party is much more inclined to instigate these little meltdowns, but the other is rarely far behind in responding to these passive-aggressive overtures. So, if they can't find a way to stay out of eachother's way (and stop wasting all of our time), it may just be the case that both being asked to take a break from the project will be the only solution remaining. Snow talk 01:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• The repeated complaints by Medeis certainly seem to suggest a vendetta on her part and this does not favorably impress me. I think Medeis needs to do some soul–searching and ask herself why she continues to open these threads. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to strengthen IBAN

Proposing this in a new section for discussion. The discussions between Medeis and The Rambling Man at ANI (as well as the various bits of evidence) have shown that an IBAN is still needed as they don't seem to be able to work collaboratively. So I propose that What about adding a clause preventing them both from commenting on each other's enforcement requests and from making any comments other than the initial report on their own enforcement requests be added to the wording of the IBAN to prevent the disruption evident in this section. In addition that they both be warned that the IBAN will be strictly enforced with blocks (which I'm happy to help with, assuming people don't consider me INVOLVED given my comments here). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support it would probably be easier to anaylze these complaints without the involved parties getting off on lengthy arguments that hinder any actual resolution. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose With due respect to Callanecc, my take-away from the past few ANI's (and the events at ITN and elsewhere which have prompted them) has been distinctly different; from what I have observed, the more the IBAN has been stressed as a solution, the more drama has resulted as more editors (in an every increasing number of project spaces) become unwitting proxies for their issues. This results from the fact that the increasing focus upon the IBAN causes one of the parties to react to provocation that is increasingly minute in nature, be it perceived or real. Meanwhile, the other editor seems prone to launching passive-aggressive comments that either attack the disliked qualities of his perceived opponent in broad terms or else target large groups of editors in the spaces they share, such that he can continue to criticize that party without being said to be directly engaging him. I can't escape the conclusion that the IBAN has served no purpose but to greatly exacerbate the existing drama between the two, spread the ill-will to encompass many more parties, and draw more and more editors into the the effort to parse just who is more at fault, to the detriment of several highly-important spaces. I have little faith that adding more specific conditions to the IBAN will do much to reform the approach and attitudes of the involved parties in a long-term manner, which is really the issue that ought to be addressed here. I think the IBAN should be removed or that we should at least stop trying to lean on it as a solution reasonably likely to bring closure to this issue. I think the next time there's a conflict between the two, a single, uninvolved administrator should be asked (by every party present at the time, to make sure it gets due attention) to investigate the issue, make his best determination as to who was the real provocateur and block that user for two months. I daresay nothing short of that message will disentangle this pair. Alternatively the two could come to a mutual understanding between them as to who will operate where on the project, with no overlap, but given just how little they can agree on, I don't see that as terribly likely either. Snow talk 03:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Wouldn't this proposal just encourage more of these time-wasting complaints? And let's be clear, it is time-wasting. Medeis seems to feel completely free to flaunt the IBAN when it suits her (eg this diff pointed out above) but then comes running here when TRM does more-or-less exactly the same thing. If anything, Medeis actions are a considerably worse violation of the blockban - if the IBAN is really phrased so that one can comment on the other's ITN nominations then whoever drafted it deserves a largish trout. I just can't see how that isn't a violation of the ban in and of itself. Given that background, only hours before the edits that spawned this complaint, it's pretty hard to see this complaint in good faith. I think the time has come to stop tinkering with the terms of the ban and hand out some hard porridge - either a block each way for IBAN violations, or a TBAN for Medeis that will stop this nonsense. Or both. GoldenRing (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no TBAN, GR, and the issue of a TBAN on any editor was argued directly and roundly rejected in the Jan 2014 ending ANI. Both TRM and I are allowed to oppose and support and work on each other's nominations and those of third parties, simply without quoting each other directly, reverting, etc. We've done so repeatedly, and to his credit he has thanked me for my comments, although I don't believe I have thanked him. I have defended him though. Had TRM complained here like I did above I would probably have simply removed the comment out of good will, as it was a side matter. (Has he complained about this? I realize that sometimes noms I oppose are posted anyway, so I do try at least to improve their blurbs) I commented along with others that the blurb was inaccurate (at least in American English, I don't know if stampedes in Britain are called crushes) but opposed it on notability grounds. I did not quote, immediately after he used it, a word which only TRM had used. In other words, I did not quote, immediately after he used it, a word which only TRM had used. You are simply not comparing like to like. He was quoting mine and only my rationale in support of a nomination, I was criticizing the wording of a blurb as a blurb. μηδείς (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

...a blurb that TRM had proposed, yes. TBH, I think, given the sorts of proposals being made above, that you should stop commenting here. But that's my non-admin $0.02 and you're free to ignore it. GoldenRing (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The TBAN was not "roundly rejected" - it was initially _accepted_, and overturned on a technicality. Here is the relevant discussion. I would certainly support re-opening that case. Tevildo (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• There was 2 to 1 support for the IBAN and almost no support whatsovere for a TBAN. The first closingadmin realized his mistake, and asked that his closure be reviewed, at which tim it was shown there was no significant support for a TBAN. Not that that has anything to do with this proposal, which accuses TRM of disrupting the thread with his responses. I think that's absurd. I started the thread with only one complaint, but he should still be free to say whatever is civil and suppported by diffs to support himself. I find it spooky that commenters here think the only option is for TRM and myself to be deathly enemies, and to think we mist want each other indeffed from the project. I simply want the standing IBAN enforced, and feel it's been violated by TRM often enough for admins to take notice. 06:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The TBAN was overturned because the closing admin used the word "overwhelming". Roger Casement was hanged on a comma - this is an example of the process going the other way. However, that was last year, it's water under the bridge, the cat has not been belled. I would merely ask those persons in authority to consider the whole history of the case, not merely each individual incident, before making a decision - and to _make_ a decision, not just to put it off eternally. Tevildo (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support I think that in this case neither user should communicate about or to each other including violations. It should be permissible for them to leave a single message to an admin if they think it has been violated, that admin can act or bring it here if they see it has merit. Chillum 06:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

IBAN request

I would like to ask that the interaction ban between me and The Rambling Man be ended, effective on the anniversary of its imposition, of which I'm not sure of the date, but I think it would be about January 15. [It appears to have been January 4, 2014.] The discussion a month ago, and here currently, indicates that I can work harmoniously with the editor in furtherance of Wikipedia's goals. Thank you for your kind consideration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Erm, The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), this will not really work unless it's a mutual request - so your comments on this proposal are invited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was nothing to do with the participants, someone above has clearly stated it's a community-based sanction so it should be for the community to decide. Frankly there seems to be nothing to discuss between the two of us, no issues until the double-teaming starts up again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The community should hear your opinion. If both parties say they can get along, the IBAN should be lifted. Bugs, will you agree not to get involved in any dispute between TRM and Medeis? I think that's what TRM wants to hear. Jehochman ^Talk 19:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Well the irony is that Medeis notified Bugs of this discussion, he stated he'd rather not get involved and then waded in, up to his neck. So no, I don't think that'll be possible. As I said, the double-team are back in force, using all methods, including off-wiki communications and emails to admins etc to further the cause. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

TRM, do you have any evidence to support your accusations of off-wiki collaboration this time, or is this more of the same policy-violating speculation of a nefarious conspiracy against you that we've seen you make repeatedly against the two of them (and indeed many others who call your conduct into question after getting sucked into the gravity-well of drama the three of you generate between you) in past discussions here and elsewhere? Because if you don't have any evidence to support these notions, we are well past time for these accusations to stop; such accusations are not to be made without significant evidence, and are considered a personal attack under policy when they are -- and this is far from the first time this has been pointed out to you. Snow talk 21:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh good. More walls of text. I can't be bothered to find it but yes, Medeis has mentioned in the past that she has emailed, at the very least, Bishonen in regard to this. You go find it. It is, however, entirely irrelevant to this complaint. I look forward to another 2,500 characters in response. But note, I won't be continuing with this discussion, as I mentioned above. This response is purely to note that, once again, the bandwagon is rolling and you're going to make it a thousand times wordier than it ever needed to be. You are also someone who is desperate to see me blocked/banned etc, so I'm not all surprised to see you here, courtesy of a "note" from Medeis. I hope you view her transgressions in an equitable fashion, but I very much doubt you will. Do your worst, but please, spare the community your endless ramblings (ironic!!). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

See, this is rather exactly what I'm talking about. You've clearly (and I suspect strategically, based on similar behaviour in the previous two ANI's on your conduct) misinterpreted the behaviour I was referencing as a violation of our civility, assume good faith, and no personal attacks standards. Medeis, as any other editor, is well within her rights to discreetly contact an administrator about the behaviour of another editor. For you to accuse her of doing that is not a personal attack on your part, because it is not a policy violation or behavioural issue for her to be making that contact.

What I asked of you (clearly and un-ambiguously) was that you either provide proof of this supposed conspiracy to get you banned (which supposedly includes many bad-faith activities and policy violations) or that you just stop making these accusations against anyone you think doesn't like you. The members of this alleged conspiracy grow with every ANI filing or contentious discussion you are involved with, of which there are no shortage. In your head (or at least your explicit accusations), I and numerous other editors became members of this plot literally immediately upon meeting you, simply because we had the audacity to point out that your tone towards another group of editors had grown uncivil and antagonistic. From that point on, you made no secret of the fact that you viewed each of us (despite having just met you) as members of this conspiracy and that you could dismiss our concerns about your behaviour accordingly, just as you did in the post I am responding to now. The truly inane part is that I got added into the conspiracy for telling you that it was inappropriate to accuse others of being a part of it.  :/

Now you can continue to frame any oversight of your actions as "walls of text" simply because it tends to (by necessity) become rather drawn out, but I'm pretty sure that the experienced contributors of ANI can see that discussion for what it really is: walls of links. Links that are only barely adequate to summarize a long history of you blowing your (incredibly short) fuse, accusing others of bad-faith behaviour without a shred of evidence, finding ways to try to side-step community sanctions that have already been leveled against you, and generally trampling all over the project's most central (and least negotiable) behavioural policies.

Now you may wish to try to suggest that I'm here because of Medeis' message (which was unsolicited and unnecessary, as I had already seen this thread), but you'll note that she left that message yesterday and despite the fact that I've been actively editing, I never commented here until I saw you begin to violate WP:NPA again. Because frankly I have zero interest in your vitriolic and frequently petty little feud with her and Bugs (aside from the fact that it incessantly burdens ANI). Medeis had every opportunity to speak up about whether she felt you were hounding her in the last ANI, but she let herself get intimated into staying quiet due to the threat of a mutual topic ban for both of you from the reference desks -- this after filing the previous ANI herself -- so she can live with the consequences of that decision as far as I'm concerned. Though, for the record, I think you clearly were hounding her, and if you insist, I'll provide the diffs to show why. But my concern is not with the conflict between the three of you, but rather with incivility and personal attacks in general, which is why I only commented once those issues became germane again. The fact that you happened to be the one engaging in those activities is not on me or any other editor who might choose to take issue with them, so you can just shelve your "bandwagon" comments along with your conspiracy theories.

But given that even my two-sentence long post above was dismissed by you as a wall of text, I'll distill this down into a bite-size message that is as small as I can possibly make it: WP:C, WP:NPA & WP:AGF; read them and adhere to them or leave the project. Those are your options. Snow talk 23:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• My thanks for the patience during my unforseen absence. I don't seek any further sanctions as would be implied by the stronger IBAN proposal above. I won't comment on any disruptiveness, but everyone here needs free speech if its factual and civil. I can also understand that someone only just coming upon this might think that TRM's quoting my "iconic" and directly arguing against in itself it wasn't a big deal. But that's only true on its own, and when it's seen in the context of more than two years of hounding now, it's kind of like saying somebody's violating parole is not a big deal. The disruption is wanton, willful, and one sided. And very simply addressed by nothing more than taking the already hard-fought IBAN seriously.
  

I think this comment of TRM's about secret campaigns and off wiki-emailing is telling in the extreme. First, is this "campaign" the reason why TRM felt it necessary to violate the IBAN this time? Does TRM even deny that he violated the IBAN by directly quoting me?

Yes, I have emailed BBB and various admins in the past, and I welcome them to release the entire text of my emails to them, so long as they are complete and unaltered. You'll see I emailed an Admin last spring who had placed a stern warning on TRM's page and asked him to enforce it when TRM ignored it. That admin said he was already in a conflict with TRM and didn't want to be seen as piling on. It's why I have been bringing violations here, Most recently you will see me emailing BBB and suggesting that we ask that TRM's 48 block be removed, and me making Jehochman aware that I had done so and supported BBB's request that TRM be unblocked.

But I haven't waged any sort of secret campaign that I haven't stated openly, and I did not contact BBB or any admin re this complaint off-wiki, or even want to, or expect to have to file this complaint.

It's clear from the above diff that TRM thinks the entire process, including the ANI concluded last January with his support, has been a conspiracy against him, that he's the victim, that he deserves better, that he shouldn't face the consequences of his actions, that I am 'doing this to him' and that you are 'doing this to him' [my scarequotes-not TRM's actual words].

Note that all I asked for from him was that he withdraw the comment in the first sentence of this complaint. I still ask that. μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Medeis, I'm of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, you are absolutely right about the personal attacks. Putting aside for the moment the question of whether his activities at ITN and elsewhere have or have not violated the IBAN (and whether they constitute him hounding you), there is no question here on whether his behaviours have violated WP:NPA repeatedly in these very ANI threads. Point in fact, for the last couple of months, he has made dozens of vocal and unambiguous accusations against no fewer than seven different editors that I've seen (some of whom had just met him) that they are a part of a conspiracy/club/plot/scheme/bandwagon to get him banned. And he has insinuated that this secret cabal is utilizing all manner of underhanded tactics and that they are violating any number of specific policies, but in all of these accusations, he has yet to once provide a single diff, link, or other piece of evidence to support a single one of these claims. There are no two ways about this; these are absolutely classified as serious personal attacks under WP:NPA. And yet, somehow, despite the fact that he is blatantly and repeatedly launching personal attacks from ANI itself, over an extended period, he has not received so much as a single warning from a single admin. I am nothing short of astonished that the community and admins here have let this fly right in front of their faces, and it raises serious questions about the efficacy of our administrative process at present and the willingness of our admins to engage with a problem editor once he's passed a certain bar of tenaciousness. He seems utterly immune to sanction at this point, no matter what behavioural policy he violates, unambiguously and in our most active forum for behavioural oversight.

On the other hand, look at how you've behaved over the same period. Last month, you filed two ANIs against him for IBAN violations and hounding. Then, unless I'm remembering this wrong, after he was blocked for this behaviour, you and Bugs both petitioned to have that block removed (!?), and it was. For a certainty you and Bugs then both bent over backwards insisting that the problem had been blown out of proportion and that all parties had proven that they could work together constructively. Meanwhile, other concerned editors, attracted by your request for assistance in this matter who were trying to establish exactly what had happened and what should be done about it suddenly were getting no help from you in straightening things out; in fact, you were working very much at cross-purposes to that effort. You were asked repeatedly whether you felt that TRM had followed you to the Reference Desks to hound you, a question which directly ignored, all while you and Bugs insisted that there was no problem that you couldn't work out with TRM and that, if anything, the IBAN should be dropped, in the middle of a thread you opened to get it enforced more stringently. More than willing to be done with the matter, the community allowed the discussion to expire on your and Bugs' insistence that it was a non-issue. A day or two later, Bugs had opened a new ANI again TRM, which was quickly shut down in disgust by the community here. Now, here we are, not three weeks later, with yet another ANI lodged by you, this time on an issue that you yourself stipulate was not a significant violation. What we have her is a girl who cried wolf situation, if ever I've seen one. This bipolar behaviour has got to stop. You don't like TRM's behaviour? Well guess what, you're the one who is both encouraging his worst behaviour and enabling him to get away with it. You've created an atmosphere here where everything has been reduced to a discussion of the IBAN and the issues between the two of you, when there are actually much larger issues at work. Without this IBAN smokescreen, discussion here would be concentrated on the fact that there has been an insane number of civility violations that we could have, and should have, been talking about all along.

So here we are, at the place you've brought us to. I don't think your behaviour has been nearly as objectionable as TRM's -- but that being said, if you get blocked or topic banned, it's going to be more your fault than his. So I'm asking you, as a last-ditch effort to find a compromise solution to this nightmare of a situation, to be the bigger person and to pull back from one of the areas you two share in common and see if maybe he wouldn't be willing to do the same, removing the contexts in which you two are likely to cross paths and (inevitably) begin to flame one another. It's not a thing any editor should be asked to do, but then, no editor who has the best interests of the project in mind should have let the situation get this far. So I'm asking you this favour. I can't ask TRM; he'll just treat the request as a sign of weakness and go on the offensive, as he did when I tried a similar approach in the last ANI. So, though I have doubts that TRM will agree to it himself, is there any posibility you'd be willing to give up editing on ITN if TRM will agree to stay out of an area important to you, say, for example, the Ref Desks? Because, short of that, I don't see this resolving without a block or topic ban for someone, and at this rate, I'd say it's 50-50 which one of you it will be. Snow talk 08:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have asked for TRM to revert his obvious violation. Look at the first sentence of the above thread. That request still stands, but he won't even admit that he's quoted me, nor comment on the fact that until Jehochman reverted his block at mine and BBB's requests (we wanted the end of misbehavior, not his punishment, blocking, or banishment) that he was crying he was taking his ball and going home during the last sanction against him. This is not the state I have brought anyone to any more than a rape victim is wasting time judges could spend golfing. If this is closed without his comments being reverted and without a block, then simply expect me to bring the next violation tio this board if it happens, and expect me to expect admins to do their job and enforce existing community sanctions. TRM is an adult, a sysop, an admin, a parent and a post grad from what I am aware. let him act like one, and dont't blame me for reporting his misbehavior. See blaming the victim. See TRM's edits promising to quit, saying we got him, and wallowing pity while not amending his behavior:

TRM's playing the victim in response to his last block
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(cur | prev) 14:38, 5 December 2014‎ Fyunck(click) (talk | contribs)‎ . . (475 bytes) (+475)‎ . . (→‎Sat it ain't so: new section) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 13:12, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (empty) (-9,105)‎ . . (←Blanked the page) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 11:52, 5 December 2014‎ Martinevans123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,105 bytes) (+251)‎ . . (→‎Unblocked: also, it takes much longer to get up north, the slow way) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 11:32, 5 December 2014‎ Jehochman (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,854 bytes) (+648)‎ . . (→‎Unblocked: new section) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 10:20, 5 December 2014‎ Cassianto (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,206 bytes) (+610)‎ . . (→‎A favour from any TPS: fuck em!) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 10:06, 5 December 2014‎ Martinevans123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,596 bytes) (+77)‎ . . (→‎what happened. John?: or Jimi?) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 10:03, 5 December 2014‎ Martinevans123 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,519 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (→‎what happened. John?: Hey Jude) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 10:02, 5 December 2014‎ Martinevans123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,514 bytes) (+204)‎ . . (→‎what happened. John?: or even) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 09:36, 5 December 2014‎ Lugnuts (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,310 bytes) (+151)‎ . . (→‎what happened. John?) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 08:33, 5 December 2014‎ Bencherlite (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,159 bytes) (+371)‎ . . (→‎A favour from any TPS: part-done) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 08:20, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,788 bytes) (+443)‎ . . (→‎A favour from any TPS: thanks bencherlite but...) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 08:17, 5 December 2014‎ Bencherlite (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,345 bytes) (+375)‎ . . (→‎A favour from any TPS: Monday?) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 08:04, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,970 bytes) (+464)‎ . . (→‎A favour from any TPS: new section) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 07:52, 5 December 2014‎ Lukeno94 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,506 bytes) (+397)‎ . . (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 06:16, 5 December 2014‎ Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,109 bytes) (+422)‎ . . (→‎Blocked: Play nicely and be creative.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 06:09, 5 December 2014‎ Bencherlite (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,687 bytes) (+272)‎ . . (hang in there) (undo | thank) cur | prev) 04:32, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,415 bytes) (+235)‎ . . (→‎what happened. John?: no, I'm Spartacus, sorry to disappoint you!) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 04:32, 5 December 2014‎ SineBot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (4,180 bytes) (+284)‎ . . (Signing comment by 217.43.221.251 - "") (undo) (cur | prev) 04:30, 5 December 2014‎ 217.43.221.251 (talk)‎ . . (3,896 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (undo) (cur | prev) 03:47, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,869 bytes) (-43,104)‎ . . (remove the work) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 03:46, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (46,973 bytes) (-813)‎ . . (they got me) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 03:39, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (47,786 bytes) (+265)‎ . . (→‎what happened. John?: who are you and what is your purpose?) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 03:37, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (47,521 bytes) (+684)‎ . . (→‎Blocked: thanks luke) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 03:26, 5 December 2014‎ Lukeno94 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (46,837 bytes) (+670)‎ . . (→‎Blocked) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 03:23, 5 December 2014‎ SineBot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (46,167 bytes) (+284)‎ . . (Signing comment by 217.43.221.251 - "") (undo) (cur | prev) 03:22, 5 December 2014‎ 217.43.221.251 (talk)‎ . . (45,883 bytes) (+53)‎ . . (undo) (cur | prev) 03:01, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,830 bytes) (+215)‎ . . (→‎Tense?: no, time's up for me) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 02:59, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,615 bytes) (+337)‎ . . (→‎Blocked: ok) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 02:45, 5 December 2014‎ ChrisGualtieri (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,278 bytes) (+318)‎ . . (→‎Tense?: new section) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 22:12, 4 December 2014‎ Laser brain (talk | contribs)‎ . . (44,960 bytes) (+880)‎ . . (→‎Blocked: new section) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 16:30, 4 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (44,080 bytes) (-305)‎ . . (Undid revision 636663975 by Medeis (talk) nein danke, you can't have it both ways) (undo | thank)

Note, Snow, TRM hasn't provided a single diff to prove that everyone who's criticized him is part of some vast wide ring conspiracy to have him banned. Note that not a single person has provided a single email showing I have wanted, initiated, or conspired to attack TRM in any way. I promise never to file an ANI against T if he never violates the IBAN again. I also promise to return if necessary. TRM can end this now by reverting the personal comment or any admin who wants can let him serve out his 48 hr sentence and warn him further violations will win him further sanctions.μηδείς (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, to expound upon your (certainly hyperbolic) allusion, do you know what happens when a rape victim changes their story multiple times? The attacker walks free. It doesn't matter that the victim might have had a good reason (intimidation, being manipulated, or any other cause to which one might be sympathetic), it's still going to handicap anyone trying to make sure the right thing gets done. That's not victim blaming, that's just the reality of the situation. Several times you have brought ANIs, drawing large numbers of editors into the drama, many of whom then run afoul of TRM and are subject to many of the same behaviour you are complaining of (especially concerning his conspiracy theory personal attacks). And then suddenly (and invariably) you're saying the whole situation is overblown. And all of those parties who have made (often torturous) efforts to engage him or try to document his misbehaviour for the community and admins (which requires HUGE efforts in diffing, because he will otherwise happily call one a liar, a conspirator, or someone just out to get him banned because they don't like him) are left holding water for you. Then the thread just pewters out, and the issue fades from view...until you bring the next complaint a few days or weeks later. That is maddening after a few cycles. And I can easily provide a list of links (not unlike yours above) that demonstrate you perpetuating this cycle. I want his personal attacks and general incivility to stop too. Like you say of yourself, I don't want him banned per say, I just want him to reform his behaviour in this area. Hell, at this point I'd settle for him admitting that his behaviour has ever been a problem -- that would be a start at least, to be able to make even the slightest critical observation about his behaviour without him resorting to personal attacks, accusations of conspiracy, playing the victim, and just generally engaging in misdirection.

The problem is, your behaviour is not getting us there, because you're jumping on trivial IBAN violations now, which focuses the discussion in a way that the community here is just look to stamp out the latest flare-up of what most have come to view as incessant but petty squabble. Then when you change your tune, for whatever reason, most feel like that's been accomplished, and glad to be done with the newest iteration of this toxic issue, someone closes the thread. And reasonably enough, really -- if not for the fact that the issue has come to a "close" in this manner so many times, which not everyone may be aware of. But of course the situation is just going to go Groundhog Day on us again, ad nauseum. Look, if you really want to do this -- if you really just want a just and lasting solution to this mess, you need a change in strategy. What you've done in the last post is a good start. Provide evidence, not your perspective. If you feel hounded, use diffs to hold up a mirror on his behaviour so the community sees him through his own words. Some people, if you engage you in a "he-said/she-said" style of discussion, are more than happy to turn that to their advantage. So don't provide that support. If he hounds, or otherwise hassles in a personal way, show us. From every angle. A diff is a small little link on it's own, so he can't even cry "wall of text" and eventually dedicated users (hopefully an admin amongst them) will look through them. Let his voice speak for himself and then he can't claim everything that is being said about him is a lie. If you want a leg up on this process, go back to this ANI. I posted dozens of diffs and links there of him acting inappropriately aggressively towards other editors (including numerous example of doing so with people he had just met). And as to him constantly crying "conspiracy" any time people try to suggest his behaviour is becoming uncivil, you can find unending examples of that in ANI threads themselves, as well as the Ref Desk talk page discussions about a month back.

In short, don't threaten to bring this issue back here yet again; instead commit to handling it the right way now. Just stick to the facts; that's one of the beauties of Wikipedia -- generally speaking, no event is entirely lost to the past. You can let people see what happened, exactly as it happened, rather than engaging in accusation. Don't get into a mudslinging fight with him, I promise you will lose -- either because he outsmarts you or people just get sick of it. Snow talk 13:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to be contrary, Snow, but I find your statement just to commit to handling it the right way now confusing. Not including this post, I count 6 total statements by me above; the first one giving the diff where TRM quoted me directly at ITN. (I'll bold it and pipe it from the word "ironic" to make it easier to spot. There were no other diffs to provide unless someone wanted a link to prior complaints, all of which have been diffed-- because I wasn't about to wait for continued provocations. I don't come here complaining about TRM when he isn't quoting, addressing or reverting me.

Having been accused of conspiring to get TRM banned it seems to me bringing complaint here is the only proper thing to do. Nor do I think sending the message that TRM can get away with "minor" infractions is at all proper, leaving me to document them (where? it would be an IBAN violation) until they reach critical mass. Given the IBAN is in place, any violation is a violation. If you or some other admin is volunteering to deal with any future complaint I'll gladly accept that offer, and they can archive this thread. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Look, even with the dimn view I've taken on much of TRMs behaviour the last month and a half, when I look at that link, I honestly don't see a glaring issue. Yes, technically it did violate the IBAN in a miniscule manner, but he didn't do so in order to attack you or engage in tendentious behaviour, but rather to address a content matter in a factual way -- and you're the one who has repeatedly stated (in the previous two ANI threads and the section above) that you and TRM can share spaces and collaborate in a collegial manner, whether the IBAN is in place, so why are you complaining about a minor violation of the ban when it doesn't seem to be a continuation of the hostility between you that necessitates the ban in the first place, and you're more than willing to argue that this need has been overstated to begin with, when it suits your purposes?

Now, the personal attacks, those are very much a different matter altogether. Other than the advice I've given (document it in a clean, transparent, and organized fashion, so that those here can't help but see how it has transpired), I don't know what to tell you. As I've said previously, that is a glaring issue, especially taking place as it has partly on ANI itself, without so much as warning from a single admin, despite his persistence in these behaviours. Laser brain was the last admin to show a willingness to address his behaviour with a formal sanction, and Jehochman, who reversed that block (in consult with LB), can't have been happy to see this issue arise again almost immediately. Both of those admins, to their credit, have stayed moderately involved with this issue, but as the discussion above clearly demonstrates, you're nit-picking back-and-forth over the IBAN has monopolized the time they may have otherwise spent addressing the WP:NPA concerns (which to my mind are a much bigger issue for the community at large). Though I don't know how much either knows about said issues, it's clear that the both of them (like myself and a growing number of other commenters here) see the IBAN for what it is; a waste of everyone's time and energy that is exacerbating the problems it was meant to resolve. You've wasted opportunities when both have engaged here by arguing picayune points about the IBAN, on which your own arguments have hardly been consistent. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- the IBAN needs to go, or at least be disregarded as the central issue here. Then we can see if you and TRM can get on together. If that proves unfeasible (and I rather suspect that could end up being the case), then at least we can address the underlying behavioural issues and we will at least be talking about what is really wrong the user(s) behaviour.

And before you take aim with my claim that you've been inconsistent, let me show you exactly what I mean. I could pull up many examples from the previous ANI's but the fact of the matter is you are presently engaged in sending out mixed messages right now. You started this discussion with the header "The Rambling Man forgets the IBAN once again", implying that you are the victim of habitual harassment. Two posts up in this section, you likened your relationship to that of a victim and attacker and suggested that some of the community response here represents "victim blaming"; and yes I know your exact wording was just exaggeration for effect, but at the very least you are presenting him as an aggressor who just will not leave you alone. But then, in posts that run parallel to these claims and are sometimes written within hours or minutes of them, you claim the community here are misinterpreting the situation and are making mountains out molehills! Let's look at two of your claims, made so close together that you barely have to scroll the page to get from one to the other:

04:11, 4 January 2015: "It's clear from the above diff that TRM thinks the entire process, including the ANI concluded last January with his support, has been a conspiracy against him, that he's the victim, that he deserves better, that he shouldn't face the consequences of his actions, that I am 'doing this to him' and that you are 'doing this to him' [my scarequotes-not TRM's actual words]."

07:19, 5 January: "Note, Snow, TRM hasn't provided a single diff to prove that everyone who's criticized him is part of some vast wide ring conspiracy to have him banned. Note that not a single person has provided a single email showing I have wanted, initiated, or conspired to attack TRM in any way."

Compare these against...

06:12, 4 January 2015: "Not that that has anything to do with this proposal, which accuses TRM of disrupting the thread with his responses. I think that's absurd. I started the thread with only one complaint, but he should still be free to say whatever is civil and suppported by diffs to support himself. I find it spooky that commenters here think the only option is for TRM and myself to be deathly enemies, and to think we must want each other indeffed from the project." [Note: bolding mine.]

So one minute you're citing the fact that TRM has persisted in these personal attacks labeling you to be a major part of a conspiracy to get him sanctioned as major issue and violation of policy (and they certainly are), but then the next minute you're saying it's "spooky" that any editor would draw the conclusion that either of you is that suspicious/critical of the other. And then back again in short order. This is just one example of one area where you seem to be presenting two entirely different stories depending on whether or not the comments are made in the context of discussing the present IBAN or a potential TBAN. I know you feel that you are parsing distinct issues with regard to both, but the fact of the matter is the tone of your comments and the nature of how you present the relationship between the two of you (and the complications it presents to the community) shifts wildly depending on which of these contexts you are commenting in. So is it really any wonder that the community here become increasingly confused and some have begun to view your complaints as petty?

Look, if you want action taken to see to it that the accusations that you are heading a conspiracy against him stop, that's one thing. I certainly support you in that, and if you manage to attract the attention of an uninvolved administrator, I will certainly corroborate that this has been a persistent and blatant issue, with him leveling similar accusations against numerous editors. I'll further provide evidence of other violations of WP:Civility and WP:AGF that I've noted during the same period. But this IBAN nonsense has got to stop. It's not getting us anywhere. It's jsut obsfucating the root issues. And I'll be honest; at the point where I started following these ANI's, I really did see you are the more innocent party and the one most willing to let the issue drop if at all possible. That's started to change in a big way though. Your reaction to him has become like an autoimmune disease; it's doing more damage than the issue it was meant to address. And can I ask you again, since you didn't respond before, is there any possibility that we can end this with a compromise solution wherein you agree to withdraw your participation from ITN in exchange for TRM doing the same with regard to the Ref Desks? (A suggestion I now see has been independently suggested by Floquenbeam in a post that neatly summarizes all of these issues and exactly why we've put up with both of you through all of this, so far). Of course, you shouldn't have to do this, but maybe it's time to put the good of the project (and your own peace of mind) above your freedom of action as an editor in this instance. Snow talk 05:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

User DD2K calls people "8chan trolls" in bad faith and might have outed an admin

Violation

• 05:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification

• 06:13 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In the reported edit, DD2K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) accuses me of being an "8chan troll" and reverts my comment letting him know of a possible violation of WP:OUTING by him done here [4] in which he attributes a comment made on reddit to OverlordQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and somehow knows he's "active on 8chan", implying of a brigade encouragement regarding the deletion vote for the article Cultural Marxism. I had posted this on the General Sanctions board for GamerGate since admin Black Kite recused himself of the closing of said case because he participated in the GamerGate ArbCom, but was told it was better here. In my opinion, this user attributes bad faith on both me and user OverlordQ. Looking at his editing history he often accuses people of being sent from Stormfront, "/pol/" and other sites in a WP:BITE-esque behaviour. He accusses another editor here of being "delusional" [5], and he has been let known of his uncivil behaviour here. [6]

I had no intention of reporting this and was just at first letting him know so he could fix his behaviour. He also reverted my General Sanctions entry notification here [7] in seconds and I know users are free to clean their user pages but reverting is less civil than simply deleting. So since this is a repost I consider the user notified, if not let me know and I'll repost a notification.

And on an unrelated note I'd be interested in knowing if a deleted article can be copied to an user's page sandbox, since admin OverlordQ was asked to delete his copy of the now gone Cultural Marxism article. I thought we were free to do that provided the article didn't violate WP:BLP or wasn't offensive, most of the article was on the main site as long ago as 2006 so it came out weird that he was forced to delete it. Thanks. Loganmac (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Loganmac, it largely depends on the situation when it comes to a userspace article. In most cases you can move stuff to the userspace in order to work on it, but sometimes articles will be deleted if there were issues with the article (blp, offensive, notability, tone, etc) or if there were other underlying issues like issues with the specific editor (like they had an agenda) or it was them trying to get around a mainspace deletion. (Although that last bit is usually just in situations where it's extremely unlikely that the article would ever pass notability guidelines.) It's kind of a complicated thing to answer. Usually you can just ask the deleting admin and they'll give you the reasons why they deleted the page and occasionally they'll restore the page if you ask. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like it was discussed (the page move and deletion) at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Move_of_Cultural_Marxism_to_User:OverlordQ.2FCultural_Marxism and it looks like this is one of those pretty complicated situations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's why I'm pointing it out the discussion was so fast and it looked pretty weird to me. The article in its final state didn't have anything that looked like BLP, in fact it was pretty critical by calling it a conspiracy theory, mentioning that a mass murderer believed it existed. In my opinion it could have been a good place to discuss changes to introduce it in the Frankfurt School article (to which it now redirects) for a small mention of it. Also the entire history was deleted for some reason. Loganmac (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Admins posting Dropbox links to deleted articles and deleting their talk pages are frowned upon, hence the reaction you saw. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd rather we didn't rehash the subject of the other ANI request concerning OverlordQ and his use of article space, that's a discussion best suited for elsewhere or on the talk page(s) of admin(s) involved in that ANI. Weedwacker (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright you're right, wasn't asking for admin action, just a question I had. Loganmac (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I commented on the ANI concerning OverlordQ raising my concerns about what I saw as a possible attempted WP:OUTING by DD2K, but gave him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't aware of the recent rule changes. [8] After discussing my concerns with Black Kite he removed our conversation and the possibly policy violating external link (though it's still in the history, the linked to comment is deleted). I still had concerns with DD2K's edit because of the 8chan accusation against OverlordQ but I was willing to let the issue lie and just chalked it up as an isolated thing and the case was closed anyway. It wasn't until Loganmac reported DD2K to the General Sanctions board that I looked into his edit history, primarily to find if he had ever been notified of Gamergate Sanctions. I found that he hadn't despite being involved in the topic relating to ANI requests, Arb Com, and Arb Com requests, but also found other troubling comments. I know users are free to remove notices from their talk page, but the violation diff cited here carries the edit summary "Rv 8chan troll." Other troubling edits [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Uncivil accusations of political beliefs: [14]. DD2K brings up neo-nazis in quite a lot of discussions in a way that looks like Godwin's law, saying the neo-nazis are doing this and so are these other people in the same comments. Weedwacker (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I got tired of accusations being thrown around for everyone voting Yes to keep the article that we were neo-Nazis or "right-wing" thrown as an insult, as if we never covered notable neo-Nazi ideology as sickening as it is. Wouldn't this be BLP violation against William_S._Lind accusing him of furthering a neo-Nazi agenda? [15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganmac (talk • contribs) 07:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure looks like one to me. Weedwacker (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wp:rfc is thataway. Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually WP:RFC/U does not exist anymore after 7 Dec 2014. As for DD2K, I've had interactions with him before - he certainly makes his dislike for others known and uses a rather aggressive tone and edit messages like "bullshit". Unfortunately, Cultural Marxism talk page has been removed after the merge so can't diff the latest one. He cast aspersions that I was favouring Metapedia's content, which probably fits with calling everyone who voted keep a neo-Nazi on RGCloucester's talk page. Personally, I don't really mind it but certainly such bad faith aspersions aren't very constructive. The incivility on the other hand is rather mild, it's mostly a "mild things over a long period" thing. --Pudeo' 21:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

If RFC/U is gone, RFAR is thataway. My understanding, unless some under-the-table hack took place, was that ANI was for emergent issues, not long-term user conduct. Hipocrite (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It was officially referred here from AE. Well, he does seem to have a bit of a problem with incivility, but I don't see how anyone could dispute that certain websites are sending SPAs to disrupt our normal operations. Maybe an admin might choose to warn him; I'm not an admin, so I'll give some advice, instead. @DD2K: Love may be a battlefield, but Wikipedia is not a battleground. Stick to policy-based arguments, don't personalize conflicts, and don't emulate the unblockables. You don't want to end up like MilesMoney, who got community banned for constant battleground behavior in politics-related areas. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's probably good advice and I'll take it in good faith. Some of the diffs above are just me sniping in frustration, especially the diffs directed at Jimbo. If editors and admins want me to explain the diffs above, and Logan's claims of 'outing', I will do that too. Although this thread, to me, is absurd. It's just an attempt by POV pushers from GG to try and silence people who understand what they attempting to do here. Except for @Pudeo:, I suppose he could have taken what I stated on that Talk page in the manner he states, and for that I apologize. Dave Dial (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"Although this thread, to me, is absurd. It's just an attempt by POV pushers from GG to try and silence people who understand what they attempting to do here" there it goes again, even in front of ANI Loganmac (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

From my perspective, it seems that user:DD2K is often resorting to ad hominem insinuations regarding the character of other editors. Since DD2K is intent on attacking the messenger(s), he/she has gone so far as to "out" the alleged activity of an admin off of Wikipedia. This is clearly against the rules, and for this reason alone, some action is warranted. But in general, I would say that the way that DD2K has conducted him/her self throughout this Gamergate controversy is uncivil and should be reprimanded, either through warning, or through sanctions. Vrinan (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor subverting "XfD" discussion and edit-warring

Unfortunately, it seems to be necessary to report the recent actions of User:Edokter. Please see:

• this "Redirects for discussion" thread;
• Edokter's contributions this morning (2 January 2015);
• This request and notification added to Edokter's talk page;
• Edokter's contributions this afternoon (2 January 2015);
• This warning added to Edokter's talk page (and, it now seems, promptly deleted).

Disappointedly, Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You should have notified Edokter of your report here on his talk page with an ANI-notice template. Arfæst! 15:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC). I see that you have done it. Arfæst! 15:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh, they were notified before your message here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears Edokter has been replacing a redirected set of templates under an RfD preemptively, as the discussion has not yet closed (in fact, it just started yesterday, by Edokter). I don't understand what the purpose of doing this is, other than the editor's assertion that these are completely redundant and There are too many [of them]. The justification is There is nothing wrong with restoring the previous template names to accommodate for a potential outcome from the template discussion. I'm sorry, but this rationale is not acceptable, and the behavior is disruptive as I see it. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There is also absoutely no justification for creating a redirect for an already existing template, purely out of personal preference (as I can't think of another reason), then going around slowly replacing all existing uses with the redirect! There is nothing wrong with restoring the previous version as I have done, RfD or not. I am well within my right to undo a series completely useless edits that otherewise only adds to the confusion in template naming, create a nightmare in template maintenance and landing everyone in navigation hell. Sardanaphalus has a history of bold template editing that do not always work, and his behaviour in moving templates has also created a slew of redirects that need to be cleaned up. I have warned him before about his template edits; I may well request that his template editor provileges be revoked. I have had it up to here about now. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please allow the RfD to conclude. That is the proper venue for deciding whether to keep these redirects. I agree that your edits today have been disruptive. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Also agree, Edokter I understand you believe these redirects to be un-necessary. Let consensus make that decision, and if they are, then by all means, you have the rationale you need to remove them, but to do them ahead of time really looks disruptive. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention Edokter is an administrator who should be well aware of the deletion procedures.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Edokter has continued removing/reverting these in spite of this discussion: [16], [17], [18]. What are you thinking, anyway? There's no urgency to remove all these, there is no compelling problem that requires this. I've seen no evidence of this "confusion" that Edokter repeatedly invokes. This is completely out of line for an administrator. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why my actions are considered so controversial, while the initial change is not. But I will let the discussion run its course. Whatever the outcome, I do expect that (after the RfD) any reverts on my part are considered no more controversial; since the initial changes were unnecessary to begin with, I am simply restoring the previuous state. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned, with good faith, that Edokter's messages suggest he has lost good faith and perspective and may continue to edit disruptively. I note that reversions/deletions/etc seem prevalent in his editing history and I wonder how many are dogmatic rather than e.g. purely anti-vandalism. I don't know what actions have been found to transform such situations elsewhere in the past. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Don't try and make me the bad guy here... that is quite bad faith. Yes, I revert a lot; that is certainly not uncommon, for both editors and admins, and certainly not limited to fighting vandalism. Perhaps I should make some snide remarks about your edits being primarily in template space? My main problem with you is your lack of understanding the basic technical principles of Wikipedia; your multiple (too) bold edits of some core templates without testing them in a sandbox; reinstating your edits after a revert in the hope it will stick, showing a poor grasp of WP:BRD; your complete lack of regard for small or mobile displays judging from the many hardcoded CSS properties you use to fit your screen, and overuse of inline CSS in general to micro-manage template's display; moving templates multiple times leaving a slew of redirects behind for others to clean up; and the reason we're here: creating redirects to existing templates and then changing existing calls to the redirect. That is just bad practice; I see it as a very sneaky way to enforce a preferred name. If you really want a different name, request a move like anyone else would. I am very intolerant of these underhanded paractices and that is why I revert them. In short: you are a loose cannon in template space, and I have been monitoring you since I spotted you, reverting when necessary and averting some potential accidents along the way. I have had to explain some principles of template coding multiple times before you adhere to them, and sometimes you slip back into old habits.

Don't get me wrong... I really want to work with you, and not against you; I really hate that. But we both seem to have strong personalities and will result in an occasional clash. But Wikipedia should not suffer from that, and that is my first resposibility. I am one of the "technical" veterans here, and I know how MediaWiki works, quirks and all, and I am more then happy to share that knowledge. I do look out after most core templates here to ensure they are in proper working order. You happen to come across a few of them, so naturally you will find me acting slightly conservative around those templates. Div col is one of them. You have a lot of ideas, some of them good. Unfortunately, some of them not soo good, and when those are rejected, you tend to take it personally, which appears to others as being stubborn. So think about your contribution to these conflicts. Just know that Wikipedia is not your personal playground and your edits can have major impact on millions of readers. Once you adopt that mindset, I am absolutely positive we can have very pleasent cooporation. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think there is some truth in User:Edokter's remarks. I have similar concerns with User:Sardanaphalus's editing. There is a number of points I would like to make.

1. Edoketer's reversions have not resulted in discussion on talk pages. Correction: some exchanges have taken place, but on user talk pages, which I didn't see. Suggestion: perhaps template talk pages might be more appropriate, if you want outside opinions? I have some of the concerned templates on my watchlist, and have seen some of the conflicts described. But I have not seen any discussions take place. Lets put it this way. Edokter has concerns about Sardanaphalus's editing on technical reasons, and reverts. Even if this is not correct, surely the thing to do would be to discuss the changes to allay Edokters concerns? But I have not seen this happen, and I really feel this needs to happen. The onus is on Sardanaphalus to do so, s/he is the one making the change. Instead Sardanaphalus sometimes seems to reinstate changes at a latter date, usually under the guise of fixing other perceived "problems". This is sneaky, and tantamount to edit warring.
2. Many of Sardanaphalus's edits feel they are purely change for the sake of change. There is an old adage: don't fix something that isn't broke. The reaason for this adage is that you are more likely to cause problems by fixing it then solve non-existent problems. For example, the recent moving of Template:Wikipedia Manual of Style to Template:Manual of Style. I mean really what is the point? It simply doesn't matter what it's called, the title is distinct from the page name. Moving the page is simply going to cause confusion on the matter by making things more complex, and possibly breaking things in the future.

Now I'm not saying all of Sardanaphalus's edits are without point. I'm sure many of them are constructive. But combined with an unwillingness to discuss other editor's fears I feel could cause danger to the project. Sardanaphalus really needs to justify his/her changes to a far greater extent. See correction above. ----Mrjulesd (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm willing to try to share what I make of the last two messages above, but I think doing so here would be taking this thread further off-topic. Unfortunately, it seems that there's still a fundamental misunderstanding. Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I understand your point. But please, after this ANI, try to make an effort to collaborate with Edokter. Nobody likes being reverted, but you've got to try to not take it personally, and try to build bridges between good faith editors. --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your acknowledgement; I hope your sentiments also extend to Edokter. Yours, Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Sardanaphalus: I'd like to correct my statement. I've checked both of your user talk pages, and it does seem many exchanges have taken place. I didn't see them as neither are on my watchlist, only some of the concerned templates were. Hence I'd like to adjust my statement accordingly. Apologies. Also my sentiments apply to you both. --Mrjulesd (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The second point here, in the context of the rest of the thread (and previous discussions), indicates why much/most discussion has taken place away from where reversions were made. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel moved to lend my support to Edokter. As an editor of some 13 years' standing, I hope that support carries some weight.

As it seems to me, Edokter is being quite unjustifiably being cast in a bad light by Sardanaphalus ("I'm concerned, with good faith, that Edokter's messages suggest he has lost good faith and perspective and may continue to edit disruptively").

Sardanaphalus came to my attention when Edokter removed a hard-coded width from Theistic evolution, and had it re-inserted by Sardanaphalus, and was reverted by Edokter. This sent me to Sardanaphalus' user page to find out who it was who was so unaware of the deleterious implications of hard-coding widths. To my amazement (and amusement), I discovered that on a 1024 px wide display (which I use regularly for testing our own web layouts), the TOC on Sardanaphalus' own talk page overlaps and obscures content on the left, and his/her user page is a real jumble.

I pointed this out on Sardanaphalus' talk page. What ensued was a quite fruitless discussion - fruitless, because Sardanaphalus' pages remain stubbornly unreadable at widths narrower than his/her own 1680 px wide display..

So when Edokter talks to Sardanaphalus of "your complete lack of regard for small or mobile displays judging from the many hardcoded CSS properties you use to fit your screen", I say "Amen".

--Jmc (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Please consider the following:
  1. What prompted this thread;
  2. What you may have missed in the changes to Theistic evolution to which you refer;
  3. That my edit in response to those changes was to restore the status quo<aside>whether "good" or "bad", hard-coded or not hard-coded, etc</aside> due to 1.;
  4. That the context for that edit was indicated here;
  5. That I have indicated how User:Sardanaphalus has come to be and am aware that User talk:Sardanaphalus's ToC overlaps content (I am also aware both are in userspace and that the ToC has a [hide/show] link);
  6. That the discussion to which 4. and 5. refer is ongoing yet already (pre?)judged to be "fruitless";
  7. That there may have been some jumping to (or arriving with) conclusions, especially as regards "approach[ing] layout with the assumption that other readers also have 1680 px wide screens (and too bad if they don't" and your last sentence above;
  8. See 1. Are you sure, as an editor of some 13 years' standing, you wish to support this kind of activity..?

Sincerely, Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Didn't you read any of the comments I posted above? It clearly outlines the problems that I come across. You didn't address any of them. You have also been blissfully ignoring my proposal (on your talk page) to sent {{Div col}} to WP:Requested moves. And most of all, you continue to stick to old habits... Just now you have unilaterally updated {{Infobox university}}, adding more micro-managing inline CSS, without consulting the talk page; this has been a developing pattern for a long time. This type of template editing is heavily discouraged per WP:Template editor, and grounds for immediate removal of your template editor privileges. You have actually broken most of the rule outlined there already. Meanwhile, you perceive every revert and critisism on your actions as bad faith and question the other party's motives; a trait you now amply demonstrated below (stalking query).

Are you going to address the issues outlined above? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• For the time being, I am witholding a response to the above for the same reason I am witholding a response to your most recent addition to that talkpage thread. (The response to your proposal there is the suggestion made in the first paragraph that follows it.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed Sardanaphalus's template editor right. Whether Edokter was right or not to make the reverts, it has been pretty clear for some time now that there are problems with Sardanaphalus's template editing. As well as the issues raised in this thread there have been several others raised on his talk page over the last few months. I've left a more detailed rationale at Sardanaphalus's talk page here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Query

Would the pattern of Edokter's behavio/ur toward my contributions – now, sadly, resumed – qualify as stalking..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• While I'm not particularly knowledgeable on this area I'll attempt an answer. Any comments are welcome.

On the face of it Edokters behaviour suggests that of stalking. But there are a couple of caveats.

Firstly, you're probably aware of Edokter's admin status. Now admins quite often keep tabs on problem editors, I've seen comments suggesting this from admins. But whether you qualify for this is something I am uncertain of.

Secondly, Edokter has a strong interest in template editing, and I expect has many on his watchlist. Therefore you could expect him to keep tabs on many templates. So it is understandable for him to make reversions. Now, if he did the same reversions on your edits in an area he was not involved in, then that would make a stronger case for stalking.

About my earlier comments: do you think discussions on template talk pages, rather than user talk pages, might be helpful? Simply because you might have more input from concerned editors, meaning consensus building might be more likely. --Mrjulesd (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Right now, I think it probably wisest if I don't respond further, except to reiterate my feeling that the patterns of those user talkpage discussions indicate it probably was best that they took place there rather than elsewhere. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No. The template talk page is always the first place to go to discuss changes and reverts. By going directly to my talk page, you only seek to convince me, and pre-emtively keep out input from third parties and that makes it impossible to create any kind of consensus. So you are the one making it personal. There is nothing to gain from that. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sanction appeal

Per HJ Mitchell's statement here, I am officially appealing his sanction. The recent changes to WP:OUTING to include "any other accounts on any other web sites" have essentially codified a protection against harassment being coordinated or performed by Wikipedia editors on other websites, as I have been subject to by editors involved in the ongoing dispute at arbitration, which I've only discovered because I am participating on those other websites myself and their names keep coming up. This sanction effectively prevents me from reporting harassment when Occam's razor basically proves that User:John_Doe34 is the John_Doe34 actively calling me a "retard" on another website.

I've already forwarded such material to the arbitration committee when it was relevant to the case but both the evidence and workshop phases are closed so there's not much else thats going to come out of that, particularly when more attacks were made and my name is continually dragged through the mud because I dared to ask someone to correct a typo when the mere presence of my name in the page's editing history would start a new round of abuse.

In short, the change to WP:OUTING is BS and I shouldn't be sanctioned for trying to bring to light behavior that is obviously by other editors on other websites when it concerns their duplicity on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ryulong did not even wait 24 hours launching this appeal, and while the active Arbitration case is on-going. For a user admonished and threatened with sanction by ArbCom for off-wiki behavior, is Ryulong really saying that the change to WP:OUT is bullshit? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  HJ Mitchell wrote "You may also appeal immediately to AN or ANI if you feel the sanction is unjust or unduly harsh, but please link to this comment", so I've done that. And I am under no restriction to do what I have done (particularly because you're linking to a workshop page entry and not the actual remedy which still lacks any actual "we will punish you if you do this" considering it's worded to only consider a particular editor). The point of the matter is that a recent addition to the wording of WP:OUTING effectively prevents anyone from raising any issue about easily identifiable behavior. It prevents us from going "I've discovered this user works for this company and has been heavily editing the article on that company and/or its competitors without a disclosed conflict of interest", "I've discovered this person has been involved in extreme harassment of this living person offsite and is actively participating in editing the article on that person", or in my case "This user has been harassing me off-site in regards to actions on Wikipedia". I had absolutely zero intention of discussing the behavior I had seen directed at me and I should not be prevented from bringing this behavior to the notice of the community at large should I come across it, nor should anyone else.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  You should also link to when the rule was first changed as a result of a discussion on the functionaries mailing list before it was reverted for a time by an admin who disagreed with the rule change, you linked to when it was reinstated. Weedwacker (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  Irrelevant because the talk page also happens to point out that the original editor was not on the functionaries list whatsoever.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  That's true but the talk page discussion also shows the message did come from them. Weedwacker (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree with the change to the outing policy as it creates this kind of absurd situation. Additionally, I would say that I do not believe this was outing even under the new policy as Logan admits to being the owner of an account under a similar name on Twitter and on Twitter he indicates he is the owner of a Reddit account under a similar name. There are many reasons for sanctioning Ryulong, but I don't think this is one of them, though the arbitration case is set to wrap up soon enough so we should await their decision. Depending on the outcome of the case, this matter can be revisited.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Logan also implicitly admits the reddit account to be his own in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive858#Ryulong where he says "he looked up my twitter and reddit." (context: I was the one who found the reddit and twitter while casualy browsing gamergate sites, not Ryulong). Bosstopher (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• "This sanction effectively prevents me from reporting harassment". No, this sanction prevents you from publicly reporting off-wiki activity regarding GG matters. You were directed that "should you feel the need, you may email the Arbitration Committee with any such comments. Should you feel compelled to make such comments on arbitration pages, you must obtain the prior permission of a clerk or arbitrator". In that case, I fail to see the problem. —Dark 23:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Per Dark, I fail to see what effect this would have. If there is a real offsite problem relating to GamerGate, email the arbitrators. If you really feel it needs to be aired, ask the arbs or the clerks when emailing them, but I can't see a situation where this would be the case. KonveyorBelt 00:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  It's offwiki harassment directed at me performed by people who are also on Wikipedia with obviously similar usernames or admissions offsite. And I've reported what I did to the committee as part of evidence regarding several users but the attacks and negative behavior is unending. There are threads on Reddit as we speak now attacking me and other Wikipedia editors. Hell, there's at least two attacking Samwalton9 and there's a thread about this sanction and my appeal of this sanction.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  And there are threads on Reddit as we speak now attacking me. Created by you. The sanction may have something to do with your persistent refusal to follow the very rules you demand others respect. Auerbachkeller (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  Anything I may have posted there that you claim is an attack is not at all related to your behavior on Wikipedia as an editor which you barely qualify for as.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  WP:NPA. Thank you for proving my point. Auerbachkeller (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  All I've done is point out that you made one edit to any of our articles as every other edit you have made is to foment a dispute that did not exist until you arrived on Wikipedia. I am speaking of your actions here, which is not a violation of NPA. Maybe if you were being a more involved member of the actual aim of this project instead of focusing your time into trying to get me punished by any means possible I would think more highly of you here. But all that's been accomplished is furthering the divide despite attempts to extend an olive branch or at least call to the end of hostilities.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  Saying that I "barely qualify for" being an editor on "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" sounds like a personal attack to me. What you think of me is irrelevant; the question is your conduct. Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  I meant "as" instead of for and did not recognize this error until now. Considering you have one edit to the article space you barely qualify as an editor here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  That still reads as a personal attack as well. There was no need to say any such thing in the first place, bad grammar or no, and it continues the pattern of you responding to any criticism whatsoever by shooting the messenger. Consider that this very thread has turned into you arguing why I'm not qualified to criticize you. Auerbachkeller (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  The fact here is that your contributions to the project are heavily based in responding to me and about me because you did not like how the sentence about you read that was edited and changed long after I had originally written it and you continue to foster this dispute with me and basically anyone that is not pro-Gamergate. This beef solely concerns our interactions which you instigated.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  This account is false in many regards--not that I expect anyone to do anything about it. But I will note that this account is false, as usual, and end this thread here. Auerbachkeller (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  You keep saying everything I've said regarding our interaction is a lie. You've only made one article edit and everything else regards Gamergate or me in regards to Gamergate. You have no intention of becoming a part of this project but want me gone because I happen to be singled out as the go to scapegoat for Gamergate and Wikipedia. All I did was originally write a section about someone's criticism of one of your articles and now you've been on my ass on this website for two months and whenever I call you out on this you say "I'm no longer participating in this discussion". It's bullshit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your definition of "attack" is pretty broad in my opinion, from what I can tell the thread you're referring to about admin SamWolton is just documenting that an account of the same name on reddit went on to an antiGamerGate subreddit and called people conspiracy theorists, which of course that subreddit celebrated. There's a thread on an account by you "attacking" (by your definition) journalist Milo Yinnopoulous calling him a "based liar", and that journalist Georgina of TechRaptor only writes articles for the money. If we're going to start documenting off-site behaviour you're not off grounds. Loganmac (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not say she only writes articles for money. I said that TechRaptor is exclusively funded through Patreon and Gamergate advocates must obviously bankroll the website because they keep churning out pro-Gamergate pieces. And when someone calls me a "retard" that is definitely an attack.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have no issue with the appeal or with its timing. Ryulong is quite within his rights to appeal if he thinks the sanction is unfair, and he did as I asked and linked to my notification so as far as I'm concerned, everything is above board and he's been perfectly fair to me. I will of course abide by whatever the community decides.

  From my perspective, this was not related to the recent change to WP:OUTING (of which I was vaguely aware, but have no strong feelings on). One of the (many, many) issues with editor conduct in this topic area has been accusations that editors have engaged in misconduct elsewhere on the Internet. While harassment etc is abhorrent, I can't see what good can come from alleging that somebody was rude to you on another website. I can see a benefit in noting, for example, off-wiki coordination of on-wiki disruption, but one can do that without alleging that the coordinator is a particular Wikipedia editor or vice versa. More to the point, Ryulong seems to have repeatedly brought up editors' activity elsewhere on the Internet where it has little or no relevance (in this case, one could argue that it was tangentially relevant, but it couldn't have affected the outcome of the enforcement request, so raising it was not helpful). Given that such allegations don't seem to serve any legitimate purpose for dispute resolution or improvement of the encyclopaedia, I felt that the restriction I crafted was reasonable in that it prevents discussions being derailed by allegations that are difficult to prove and almost certainly inactionable without being unduly punitive (bearing in mind that the wider issues of editor conduct in the topic area are currently being examined at arbitration, albeit at a pace that a giant slot would find sedate). Happy to answer any specific questions, but otherwise I feel it's best for the original admin to make their statement and then get out of the way. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  I've seen more people trying to call me out for my comments elsewhere regarding the topic than I've done anything to say that any particular person has an account on another website and is using it to disrupt. And you've blocked me for this before. And when I asked (on IRC) how to notify anyone of misconduct privately I got chewed out by someone who said I'm toxic and need to be banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  I blocked you for restoring unsupported allegation after I asked you not to, but I can see why you'd make the connection (I honestly didn't). It's not because I hate you (at least you're polite), but because I'm doing what I believe is best for the project. Anyway, the issue is the relevance of these allegations to Wikipedia. I can't go over to Reddit, Twitter, 8chan, etc, etc, and start blocking people for violating CIV or BLP or anything else. Nor could I get away with blocking people on Wikipedia because they were rude to you on another website (though as you've seen, I've taken an absolute zero-tolerance approach to dealing with harassment when it has come on to Wikipedia) so making the allegation on the wiki doesn't help anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  But we should be able to say something like what happened with OverlordQ the other day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• There are a few aspects with the way in which this sanction was imposed which are not ideal. Firstly, the administrator who imposed this sanction (HJ Mitchell) has essentially asked the Committee to ban Ryulong from the project on the case workshop page. Secondly, this action was then logged at the proposed decision case page as "information" (but ultimately, by suggesting the committee take this into consideration, it is evidence being submitted at a time when evidence submissions were closed). Thirdly, the 'disruption' being prevented by this measure is unlikely to outweigh the discussion and drama that this appeal will generate as it can be seen as an attempt to pre-empt the decision he invites the Committee to come to (given that this was the natural consequence of taking this action just a few days before a proposed decision was to be posted and at a time when both evidence and workshop phases have formally closed). While it is commendable that HJ Mitchell has made a statement early on here and pledged to stay out of the way of whatever is decided here, I do think it would be more useful for the project if he takes the initiative to reduce the duration of the restriction until the committee's final decision is posted at the main case page (rather than force the committee to actively supersede the sanction in the circumstances I've just described). That is better than leaving it to us to amend or overturn the restriction, or to leave this added complication to the arbitration decision - either of which is unhelpful. Given the inherent difficulties with arbcom taking a quick and robust action in response to harassment (if it is occurring, or in terms of BOOMERANG if it is not), there is probably room for relaxing the restriction too. Finally, the assertion about Ryulong made by User:ChrisGualtieri is unhelpful in my opinion, as he (misleadingly) links to a proposal made in a workshop, and omits the fact that the actual case remedy revoked any "threat" of sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist: - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#Ryulong_admonished is the right link. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Yes, not sure why you used the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop/ArbCom-PD#Ryulong_admonished link at the top of the discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a simple mistake. I somehow got that from searching the ArbCom case and just didn't see it pulled from the workshop part. I didn't notice it until you pointed it out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I contributed to the workshop page as an outside party and suggested such sanctions (against multiple parties on both sides) as I thought the evidence presented by others showed were merited. That doesn't make me a party to the dispute, which is itself rather ridiculous in my opinion. And the "in my opinion mild" comment was a simple factual statement—I felt that all my actions arising from WP:GS/GG/E yesterday (which I took after investigating a plea for more admins at AN) were mild because I deliberately looked at the narrow issue of the complaints and editors' conduct on that board rather than the wider issues with the topic area and took the mildest action I felt would address would address the immediate problem, precisely to avoid circumventing the arbitration case. But I see nothing improper in notifying ArbCom of (yes, mild) sanctions against parties in a case, especially since the sanctions may affect those parties' contributions to the case. The arbs can do as they please with the information; I'm sure even if they thought I was advocating for further action against any party (I wasn't, but for argument's sake...), they're intelligent enough to evaluate the situation for themselves and if they felt I'd acted improperly, I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to make their displeasure known.

  Your suggestion of reducing the duration to the end of the case, though, is very reasonable, and I will enact that now and adjust the log accordingly. I will also inform ArbCom; feel free to accuse me of acting improperly again. After that, I can think of a great many things that would benefit more from my attention than this thread, so I won't be returning to it unless somebody pings me with a specific question. Once again I will of course abide by whatever the community decides, and this reduction is not intended to make this discussion moot. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  Even though I have the benefit of having seen you admin many times previously and this sanctioned user being both harassed, and sanctioned for his conduct, the appeal comes down to the circumstances visible by just any person; that's the context in which I noted those three items. Yes, I also noticed the plea for more admins at AN, and it is an all too common scenario where an action might be needed or anyway taken before the case is finalised (in this particular instance the amount of disruption or drama caused by leaving things as they were for just a little longer is in doubt as I said, but I am not persuaded to go further than that now). The usual reason a case is with Arbcom after all is because the community did not sort the overall problem adequately and/or in time, so the decision will take all of that into account. An unpleasant feeling is generated when avoidable complications are added to a case involving users who have contributed usefully in some ways, but have not done so in others; it can unintentionally or otherwise prejudice the outcome both for the users and the project, even with the most brightest arbs ever.

  While you might not take issue with your actions being amended/overturned by admins in the community or arbs, I regret to note that not all sanction-imposing or sanction-enforcing administrators appear to share that value in practice. Historically, some arbs have avoided piping up over their displeasure so that the admin is not slighted or to provide silent encouragement. This does appear to becoming less of a frequency thankfully, but it is certainly not outlawed currently and does involve arbs and users taking extra time on that matter. Overall, for the reasons I just said and others I haven't, once a case is at final phase, I think the project benefits more when admins avoid situations where a question may be raised over whether they have acted improperly or not, and to avoid a dilemma arising as to whether and how the sanction dealt with in the final decision (unless unavoidable) or displeasure should be expressed. In any event, this is just background to address some of the matters you raise here; take from it what you will. Thank you for your assistance and the approach you have adopted as a sanction imposing/enforcing administrator during this appeal; I hope others learn from it also. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• The change to WP:OUTING really needs tweaking. If an editor with an anonymous name (say, Abcdef) on Wikipedia is behaving in a disruptive way, and linking to what their account (also called Abcdef) on, say, Reddit, is doing, then there is no OUTING issue. If, of course, their account on an external site is under their real name, then that's a separate matter. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  I agree, and would be supportive of changes to the policy. I don't think it is consistent with the community's view as it currently stands. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I guess I really don't understand how this sanction could raise this big a stink. It basically reads "stop trying to link people to off-site accounts", which is a rule everyone already should be following. Weedwacker (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The situation at present appears to be that Wikipedia considers the absolutely anonymity of its accounts to be more important than the their egregiously bad behavior on other sites -- even behavior dedicated, as in this case, to intentionally causing harm to a Wikipedian. Let’s remember, for those of you not following along at home:

• A group of supporters of a fringe movement openly have coordinated to silence their Wikipedia critics and to take control over the process of revising pages concerning their movement and those it seeks to target.
• Ryulong is a priority target of these attacks
• One tactic planned by the attackers is to broadcast derogatory information and innuendo against their targets, making their continued participation in Wikipedia infeasible and/or securing their dismissal from employment. Ryulong has been subjected to particularly harsh treatment because his attackers believe him to be gay and Jewish; when he asked for financial help in an emergency on a non-Wikipedia site, the critics literally smelled blood in the water.
• Relentless offsite attacks, both anti-Semitic and homophobic, have been a particular feature of the campaign against this editor.
• Current policy makes it possible for a Wikipedian opponent to go to another site and post repeated, scurrilous attacks on a named Wikipedian with impunity, and to use that site to recruit new SPAs and to canvass for additional opponents. The victim, on the other hand, must scrupulously refrain from mentioning these attacks on Wikipedia -- even in Wikipedia's administrative and quasi-judicial functions such as ANI and ArbCom.
• The waters are further (but characteristically) clouded by loud appeals for sanctions on grounds that are irrelevant, absurd, or not germane -- such as here, where Ryulong is denounced for having appealed too promptly. Had he waited, of course, the editor would have complained that the matter was stale.

This gives the appearance that Wikipedia prizes the strict anonymity of its editors more highly than fairness, propriety or decency, and further advantages those who coordinate their wikipedia activities offsite. In fact, the coordination visible here was only identified because the offsite proponents wanted to flaunt it: had they used different names offsite, used the telephone or email to plan their attacks, and contacted the victim’s friends and employer privately rather than through a Web site, they would have gained the effect for which they had striven without the possibility of censure. However, they did not even take elementary precautions, and now Ryulong, having elliptically complained of this appalling treatment, is further sanctioned for that complaint. This is a very regrettable way to reward long, if sometimes controversial, service to the project. I write this most reluctantly as (a) I am topic-banned from GamerGate, which is a subtext here (as, it seems, in much of ANI these days), but which I have taken care not to otherwise allude to, and (b) I no longer contribute to Wikipedia, as its behavior is something I cannot countenance. But the alternative here is to remain silent, which would be invidious, or to discuss this offsite: the proper place for technical discussion of internal enforcement is not a journal or a newspaper, but here. I thank you for this indulgence. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you just imply that because Ryulong has been targetted off-site that anyone who finds faults with his behavior on Wikipedia must surely be A) an off-site harasser and B) anti-semitic? Weedwacker (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

No. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If you're topic-banned, why are you commenting on this? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"Remaining silent in the face of injustice is the same as supporting it. -- Nelson Mandela. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think Nelson Mandela was topic banned though. If we're going after "personal attacks" on your personal site you've admitted to owning you've called people defending to Keep the Cultural Marxism article "an infection" [19]. So that's calling ME an infection, as well on your linked twitter account that this was part of a "lobbying campaign" to Jimmy Wales [20]. You were previously topic banned for exactly this, stop accusing people out of nowhere, if you keep saying that criticism of Ryulong is part of an antisemitic and homophobe conspiracy you will probably get site wide banned sooner or later Loganmac (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• While there is no question that Ryulong has been under attack off-site, I'm not convinced that there is any great injustice in the sanction here since these matters have little to do with productive editing. As User:Weedwacker says, it is "a rule everyone already should be following". Given that, @HJ Mitchell:, what do you think about extending this sanction to additional parties, specifically User:Loganmac and User:Auerbachkeller, or others? I'm seeing a lot of discussion of Ryulong's offsite activities here and elsewhere, and I don't see how that contributes to productive editing either, especially if one party is specifically prohibited from discussing them while other parties repeatedly feel the need to bring them up. Gamaliel (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

My intention in commenting about others was showing that people have done the same they claimed on others, just on admitted accounts. Not my intention to ever do this on talk pages as disruptive discussion though, consider it a one-off, I'll stop now Loganmac (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• • No objection here. I agree completely that, as a general rule, it should apply to everyone by default. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Gamaliel: and @HJ Mitchell:; I think each of those additional parties have played their part, and it needs to be logged under general sanctions in the event that this persists. As to form, it can be a formal caution, or a restriction on the exact same terms as now-imposed on Ryulong. Once this has been done, there is nothing further needed under this appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why we're looking the other way when an editor has been stirring shit up on KiA for months, canvassing discussions, harassing editors or asking others to do so. I also have no idea why, given the obvious connection between the two accounts, we're forced to first pretend there's no connection between the two and when Ryulong (justifiably) gets upset that this constant obnoxious hectoring we sanction them instead of the person doing the shit stirring. If I wasn't involved I would indef loganmac right now. I implore uninvolved administrators to pull their heads out of their ass and treat this situation as though we're not deliberately trying to be as dumb as possible. Protonk (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've considered it, but I don't think there's enough evidence of on-wiki misconduct to make an indef stick, and the community has historically not supported on-wiki sanctions for off-wiki conduct, with a few exceptions for outing, most of which were handled by ArbCom. I don't think anyone is pretending that the two aren't the same person, but there's very little we can do about it, and repeatedly bringing it up in unrelated discussions on Wikipedia is unhelpful, which is the reason I imposed the restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There are literally dozens of posts riling up thousands of KiA members about Ryulong or the Gamergate topic area, an area we know to be rife with canvassing and outside involvement from 8chan and KiA. It's bizarre that we have an editor here responsible for the vast majority of the wikipedia related posts on KiA in a topic area that is at Arbcom largely because of disruption from the same sources (or gamgergaters more broadly) and we don't see that as impinging upon on wiki-conduct. What's unhelpful is that we continue to look the other way in service of...what, exactly? The fig leaf of an underscore? The need for some positive connection made on wiki (which has been provided by the devil's advocate and others on the arbcom case)? The tacit admission (in a discussion with PresN on the same case) that the accounts are basically the same? Do we need to wait for them to take umbrage at another editor and dig shit up about them on reddit? What's the point where we decide that this is intolerable as a community? Protonk (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not unsympathetic, but making a block you fully expect would b overturned at ANI is at best poor form and, given that the subject is a party to an arbitration case, desysopping would not e out of he question. I quite like my admin bit—it means I can block the obvious trolls, even if I'm continually frustrated at what the community considers obvious. But admins are servants of the community; if we were as much of a law unto ourselves as in the popular meme, I'd have indef'd almost everyone who's been significantly involved with that article and deleted and salted it. Feel free to start a new subsection, though, or try to change policy in the appropriate fora—maybe this ridiculous "controversy" has given the community a greater appetite for the removal of tendentious editors though less messy means. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, and I appreciate the fact that any admin looking at this situation faces the same general problem. Protonk (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't need an indef—a topic ban can be imposed by any uninvolved admin and that would do the job as far as enwiki is concerned. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a 2 way IBAN (+gentleman's agreement) for User:Ryulong and User:Auerbachkeller

I brought this idea up a week or so ago at Arbcom, after which both editors were given warnings about their interactions. [21] [22]. I would like to repropose the IBAN because it is still the case that nothing good ever happens when these two editors interact. However, I think an IBAN should only be put in place if the two editors can make a gentleman's agreement to stop talking about eachother off-site as well, mostly because so much of their dispute is in relation to offsite behavior. Bosstopher (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion. I hope that User:Ryulong and User:Auerbachkeller respond to it, but if they do not and still continue to argue about matters that have nothing to do with productive article editing, then we should impose this IBAN upon them. Gamaliel (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: and @Gamaliel: personally, I'm not convinced that this is going to change the state of disruption caused by these two interacting on any page in Wikipedia. Even prior to the edits by them at this noticeboard for this appeal, their interactions have been problematic. That said, the inability to enforce sanctions for breaches of any gentleman's agreement will bring all of us back here again in due course though under this proposal. So the only part of this proposal that could realistically go anywhere is an on-site mutual interaction ban; given the pending PD, a formal request for enforcement probably won't help, but I note as a reminder that any admin can impose this sanction under general sanctions - at least until the final decision is made. For clarity, I confirm I would endorse such an action. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a gentlemen's agreement is unenforceable, but we can't force the mto stop being rude about each other elsewhere on the Internet. If they would both agree to declare a truce in this rather ridiculous spat, it would benefit everyone (except the manufacturers of headache pills!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It would probably benefit the project more if we topic banned Ryulong from GG-related articles/discussions and made it a one-way interaction ban on-wiki for Auerbach. He's going to write his articles anyway, so why give him the ability to dig for fodder by goading Ryulong? Meanwhile, nothing Ryulong does in this topic benefits us whatsoever, and every interaction he has with the topic is a net negative. While I'm hoping Arbcom does it for us, how much more disruption are we willing to take? Hasn't his rope run out yet? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the matter is at ArbCom, it's up to ArbCom to evaluate wider misconduct. Perhaps you should post on the proposed decision talk page to courage them to get their finger out? At this point, the delay means the case is causing more problems than it has thus far solved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed decision is due on Wednesday, so the delay isn't really terrible. We don't have to wait on them to act, though. After all, if we can steamroll in community sanctions in less than a day, we can act after 2+ months to topic ban one of the most disruptive actors in the space, no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement is open to anyone who wants to post evidence to make a case for such a topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't even edited the article in two months. How am I disrupting the topic space in that manner?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I talked to Auerbach a day or two ago and he said he was gonna avoid talking further about Ryulong.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Not needed. Auerbachkeller only responds when Ryulong writes something. If Ryulong simply stops mentioning Auerbach, there is no problem. --DHeyward (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not mention him at all in this thread but he came anyway. I did not mention him in the arbitration case page sections and he came anyway. He instigates each time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That does not appear to be consistent with what happened in the section above. Gamaliel (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears Auerbachkeller is reacting to what Ryulong wrote off-wiki. He noted the same thing happened to him off-wiki as Ryulong. Ryulong then made it a WP issue and personal. The sanction is enough and Ryulong should stop complaining on-wiki about his off-wiki problems. It's not helping. A two-way IBAN that allows one party to bring complaints that the other can't respond is unworkable especially when the IBAN would need to include off-wiki statements. --DHeyward (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? I did not make it a Wikipedia issue. Auerbach came to Wikipedia because he did not like a sentence I had wrote about someone criticizing something he wrote and has been here since to insert himself into any and all discussions that happen to involve me. I do not go out of my way to find shit he's done. It comes to me regardless because he's famous and I'm nobody.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that you view this to be the case, would you welcome the solution proposed above? It would stop all the grievances you've listed. Bosstopher (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

User:LatterDaySaint1830

Would somebody block the Mobile editor-in-question? He's continuing to update US Senators service dates, before they actually leave office. GoodDay (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: The premature updates he/she is making, aren't complete & so is messing up the articles. GoodDay (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like they've stopped for now, I'll keep an eye on them and if they start again I'll block them for a bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Seeing as they're using a mobile, I'm guessing they've no clue that they were being reverted or contacted. GoodDay (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I think User:2601:A:6400:775:78B9:B1AB:F7FC:4BFF may have been the same mobile-editor. Though, these haven't been used for a few hours. GoodDay (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Why revert the edits to the outgoing senators, rather than completing them? By law, the terms expire on 3 January, and these senators didn't get reëlected; the only ways non-reëlected senators could have left office on a different day are resigning, dying, or getting expelled on a previous day, so once 3 January rolls around, it's not possible for them to leave on a different day. The incoming members aren't certain to take office (see List of members-elect of the United States House of Representatives who never took their seats), but it's certain that the outgoing people are outgoing today. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

They're outgoing at Noon EST, though. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

He's apparently back as Jsepe, disrupting Governor & Lieutenant Governor articles, now. He's gonna be a problem, until all those elected officials take their offices. GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Shawn Oakman

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

---

I've reported at WP:RPP, but there's what looks like an organized vandal attack been going on at Shawn Oakman for a couple of days, from a lot of new accounts - and I wondered if there might be a quicker response from here. Squinge (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for three days, which should slow down the IPs and new accounts. Head back to WP:RPP if it resumes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Squinge (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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

My account appears to be hacked

Somebody else using my account has edited Cricketl here is the diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cricket&diff=prev&oldid=640882235, btw, I used rollback to revert the edits done by the hacker. --- TheChampionMan1234 03:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Make sure you set a new strong password known to nobody else. --TS 14:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: I have done that, but I need to know how it happened. - TheChampionMan1234 21:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe you, because it's not the sort of edit you could make accidentally. I note that these two edits were performed using Visual editor. I wonder if there is any kind of bug with VE somehow attributing edits to the wrong account? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:WPPilot

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

---

It looks to me like somebody has taken over this account; look at tonight's edit history of the userpage. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Not likely. The voice is definitely WPPilot's. See this for a nice summary of the problem, and see WP:DIVA. BMK (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

For BMK to call anyone a Diva is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs) 05:24, January 4, 2015 (UTC)

You really should have read WP:DIVA before commenting. BMK (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not compromised. This is the grand finale of his behavior in the past 24 hours. He's upset, make that furious, that other editors believe some of his photos should not be the lead images in several highly viewed articles. As I told him yesterday, we understand he has several FPs and kudos for that. But that doesn't make every photo of his superior to other ones. He keeps mentioning that's he's a professional photographer and that his work is published in various outlets. I don't doubt that. But that has nothing to do with replacing images that are superior to his. He has replaced lead images on articles such as White House, Washington Monument, United States Capitol, Empire State Building, Brooklyn, Ellis Island, etc., some of which are FPs, with the reasoning his photos are more recent. Several editors have told him at various talk pages that consensus is against him replacing these photos. He's taken this very personally and lashed out at several of us. In the past 24 hours, we've been called idiots, tweakers, stalkers, and after he couldn't have his way at Talk:White House, he left this on my talk page. (for unaware users, "fruitcake" is derogatory slang for a gay male, like myself) There's also this, though it's not directed at anyone specific. He keeps insulting my photography skills even though I freely admit I'm an amateur and that my photos are not the ones being judged on these talk pages. He's been warned twice about NPA. He says he doesn't "fucking care anymore", but he's still editing even after saying he's done/retiring. His meltdown may also have something to do with what's happening at Commons. APK whisper in my ear 04:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Now he's removed his photo from an active FP discussion that wasn't going his way. I'm not going to fix it as I'll probably be attacked, but someone else should properly close that nomination. APK whisper in my ear 05:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is about a gang land mentality that has prevailed, and all of these users have participated and 24 hours of non stop BS from them. I could care less if a picture is used as a lead. I update photos that I feel need updating. This has turned into a lynch mob, and I am far from having a "Meltdown", I am just making sure that the gang has nothing to go after me for anymore. It has consumed a day and a half and I need my time back. Both BMK as well as APK deal in the same space, on the edge of cyber bulling there way to a consensus in minutes, issuing a judgment and executing it on the spot. He is correct in that I just don't care anymore, why should I, this has become a joke. A consensus is never reached in a hour, on anything and this is a lynch mob mentality that I don't need to deal with, I am sure that another aerial photographer will someday contribute photos the site, AgnosticPreachersKid can get his pilots license real quick to cover for now! I am over defending myself. talk→ WPPilot  05:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

He's now removing his lead image from a highly viewed GA, Manhattan, without replacing it with the original photo. (same thing with Liberty Island with the edit summary "shitty photo, BMK of APK can get a better one") I assume he thinks other editors are responsible for fixing his mess. APK whisper in my ear 05:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No I fixed it, I just assumed by your continued comments that my pictures are not welcome here. talk→ WPPilot  05:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing your photo is fine with me, but you need to replace it with the previous image and not just leave the job for other editors. APK whisper in my ear 05:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have replaced it with the aerial image that was there before WPPilot removed it, as it is a better representation of Manhattan. BMK (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No I don't, BMK was right there to get it done, nice job, you two make a great tag team.talk→ WPPilot  05:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You certainly will not believe this, because you're enjoying your snit too much, but such decisions are made -- at least by me -- strictly on the basis of function and quality. Your aerial photograph of a small strip of the West Side along with a strip of the Hudson River does not represent Manhattan well at all. The original photo of midtown to lower Manhattan does. You might note that while I removed your picture of the two South Ferry ferry buildings from the Whitehall Terminal article, because the image did not actual feature that building (the Governors Island ferry building was in the foreground), I left it in the South Ferry, Manhattan article, and, in fact, madre changes to feature it. That's because it made sense there, but not inthe other article. BMK (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I might also add -- though, again, you will not believe me, I'm sure -- that there have been many occasions where I have taken pictures of a building, taken pains select the best one, to crop it and adjust it for best visibility, uploaded it, and then discovered that someone else's image was better. Every single time that has happened, I have used the other person's image, because my only concern is to improve articles and make them as good as they can be. I only wish that was your concern as well, and not inserting your images whether or not they were improvements on what is there. BMK (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

BMK, I just don't care anymore, and will not contribute aerial photos, to the site. I really could care less what it is you do, where you do it and what you do it with. talk→ WPPilot  06:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but you drop little hate-bombs on my talk page. Either stay or go, but don't stick arouind if you're not going to contribute and plan on doing nothing by kvetching. BMK (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Your wrong in your assertion that I do not find better images, if they exist in Commons and use them. I really could care less about MY images, it is about "kiazen" or the need to always improve. You have already said your trying to have me banned, as a diva, and you think my photos suck, so why are you even talking to me? talk→ WPPilot  06:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I never said your photos suck, many of them are quite good. I've said that they're at times not as good as the image you're replacing, and that doesn't seem to concern you. That's not just my take, a number of editors have seen yourbehavior in exactly the same way. BMK (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Might I add that a year ago, or so when we first interacted you felt a photo of a street lamp as well as a road and sign were far better depictions of the Santa Ana Mountain's then a aerial photo of the Santa Ana Mountain's, right? I just wanted a day to greave for my pet of 20 years today, rather then dealing all day with this BS. Its been a really really hard day. talk→ WPPilot  06:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

And might I add that you're totally incorrect, that it didn't happen that way, and that this being Wikipedia, everyone can see for themselves that it didn't happen that way by going here. Why are you making up this stuff? BMK (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Your correct, " I'd also strongly urge BMK to dial the inflammatory rhetoric down several notches" was one of the editors comments, and the last comment was "was wondering how the photo of San Mateo Canyon Wilderness, southern Santa Ana Mountains, from April 2007 was considered a better graphical image of these mountains then the photo that WPPilot took. That photo seems to show the whole range, and the photo "San Mateo Canyon Wilderness, southern Santa Ana Mountains, April 2007" yet the 2007 photo is on the page and mine never made your cut. talk→ WPPilot  06:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for you to try and spin the discussion, since it's all there for anyone who wants to read it. BMK (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jersey_City,_New_Jersey#Lead_Image_for_the_page you really are making me sick. I have to go now. talk→ WPPilot  06:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Placing an image of a fruitcake on the talk page of an user who identifies as being gay is totally unacceptable, and you should apologize. Your rationale for doing so, "It is the holiday season", doesn't really strike me as being sincere either, especially under the circumstances. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Some assistance please

Can someone please go to Talk:Manhattan#Photo feedback requested and straighten out the mess that WPP is making of it? He opened the request for comments about the two lead images, but now he's gotten pissed off and has decided to take his ball and go home. That includes removing his image from the page, even though it's the focus of the discussion, removing some of his comments after they've been responded to and posting childish things about me. I tried to fix the thread, but WPP keeps reverting me, just as he keeps posting messages on my talk page after I asked him not to.

Oh, and you might check the similar threads at Talk:Battery Park City, Talk:Jersey City, New Jersey and on the Wikiproject talk page to see if he's doing the same thing there. BMK (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like NeilN has restored the Manhattan discussion, as long as WPP doesn't revert him again. WPP removed an RfC tag from the NYC Project talk page, but that seems to be all he's done there. BMK (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, WPP reverted NeilN again. Oh well. BMK (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

WPP has restored the thread, minus the childish comments, but with his own comments struck through, and did the same on the NYC Project talk page, so I guess there's no action needed, BMK (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• my comments are facts, this user makes me feel sick. talk→ WPPilot  09:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Be that as it may, I was thinking more along the lines of this, this, this, this, and this. BMK (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Not to mention this and this from Talk:Battery Park City BMK (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• You say that I make you sick, you say all these really childish things about me ("All hail the Grand Poobah of Wikipedia" - really?!), you say you're sick of Wikipedia and you're going to leave the site... and then you go and revert an edit of mine from Staten Island Ferry Whitehall Terminal where I removed your image because it didn't feature the slips of the Staten Island Ferry terminal, which are in the background, but the slips of the Governors Island ferry, which are in the foreground. I specifically brought to your attention above that I kept and even featured that image in the South Ferry, Manhattan article, and yet you felt compelled to revert my removal from the other article, despite the very specific reason I gave, knowing that it would bring you into conflict with me again.

  So, what the hell is going on here? Why are you (apparently) stirring the pot, when you say that you're sick of the whole thing? BMK (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  • And why, for that matter, did you revert me here on Talk:Manhattan? You had struck-through the caption of your photo, the locus of the dispute, and replaced it with "(Please do not use)". The caption "Aerial photo #2" was not one of your comments, and was therefore not yours to strike out, and the plea to not use the photo should be in the discussion, not in the photo caption. (Although since you've already licensed the image when you uploaded it to Commons, there's really very little you could do about it if other editors decide that it should be used.) These changes were mere housekeeping, and yet you blindly reverted them. BMK (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• I am sick as your random lack of logic, and willingness to make war, it is unhealthy. Your a brick, and just as think as one. I don't care what you do, just do it without me involved. As with before, if you contribute/control a Wiki, I will avoid it like the plague. talk→ WPPilot  16:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • My logic is hardly "random": good pictures should replace less good pictures, not the other way around, regardless of who took them. Seems quite clear and rational to me. BMK (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There's, uh, quite a bit going on here, and I'd lay odds that these issues will in one or another form find their way back to ANI eventually; but if one thing emerges clearly it is that WPPilot is in full control of his account and OrangeMike's original concern may be laid to rest. Perhaps closure is the best resolution at this point? JohnInDC (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive COI editor

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

---

FirstPathAU created a holding page for a likely promotional entity titled FirstPath. After the page was nominated for speedy deletion, FirstPathAU removed the speedy deletion tag. DOCUMENT★ERROR 03:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I reported this to WP:UAA as a violation of WP:CORPNAME. I think it can be handled there adequately. --Drm310 (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Bbb23 abusing "admin 'power' "!

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

---

I'm an observer of a negative situation that's being created here by one of your so-called "admins." Therefore, we need a super-admin ("top brass") to investigate and deal with this case.

User:Bbb23 is abusing his so-called "power" by blocking people who are not breaking Wikipedia policy, such as falsely accusing them of so-called "sock-puppetry" just because he thinks they edited or/and reported someone while not being logged in. He has misunderstood the definition of sock-puppetry. Just because he thinks an IP address belongs to a person who has a named account and is editing with the IP address instead of logging in, he's blocking them! But just because someone has signed up with a named account doesn't mean they're no longer allowed to edit without being logged in. Sock-puppetry is to use another account for a prohibited purpose, such as edit-warring under the guise of more than one name, which was not happening in this case between IDriveAStickShift and an IP user. He is also assuming that only autoconfirmed users should edit One Magnificent Morning even after the previous semiprotection had worn off, which is where he seems to have gotten his "sock-puppetry" rationale: "It's sock-puppetry if an IP user of someone who might also have a named account edits an article that was recently semiprotected even if that semiprotection has worn off." If that's not flawed logic, I don't know what is!

So bbb23 is really overstepping his bounds here!

Another problem that b is having is that in one case, he says that 2 users were both potentially edit-warring, but then says that one of them didn't send a 3rd revert in within the 24-hour period. But that's like saying that breakage of the 3RR part of edit-warring only needs 3 reversions within that period. You guys know, though, that it requires 4. However, he should also remember that general edit-warring (non-3RR) doesn't require the 4th reversion within the day's worth of time.

Another problem with bbb23 is that he applies his blocking tactics, or his assumption-of-edit-warring tactics, inconsistently. For example, in one case he blocked IDrive for "edit-warring" with spshu but did not also block spshu. He admitted that right in this edit-warring report linked to below. I've looked at that, and I saw that spshu was not reverting banned-user edits or vandalism, and therefore he was warring too. On the other hand, bb does make the claim that between spshu and Ttll213, they were both probably edit-warring, which is inconsistent with the case between spshu and IDrive.

Here is the edit-warring report that shows this problematic "admin" at "work:" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Spshu_reported_by_User:71.213.12.5_.28Result:_Filer_blocked.29

So bbb23 is really overstepping his bounds here, and needs to be reevaluated for potentially being removed from admin service, and I feel for users who are being mistreated by over-reaching "admins," whether I know them or not. Will you please fix this mess and get rid of bbb23 as an "admin"?

Happy New Year,

71.219.21.215 (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This is probably the same person that Bbb23 blocked earlier. He was on 71.213.12.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —Soap— 04:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Since your original block is still in effect changing IPs amounts to block evasion. I have blocked this IP on that basis. I am leaving this report here so that any "abuse" can be looked at by the public. Chillum 04:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Are all the scare quotes supposed to make it more emphatic? ekips39 04:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No, quotation marks were never intended to be used for emphasis. That's not one of their jobs. They're used to indicate that something either is or would be someone else's words if not your own also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.16.240 (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

They are regular quotes to indicate the the wording was someone else's and not my own term. It was not for emphasis. Chillum 04:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I was replying to the IP, not to you, hence the indentation. Sorry for the confusion. ekips39 04:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

My confusion. Chillum 04:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Also given that both IPs are in the same city and have the same internet provider and this IP has claimed he is not the same person I would say that Bbb23 was correct in his sock puppet block. Chillum 04:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Block evasion of User:László_Vazulvonal_of_Stockholm

László Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on 02:50, 1 January 2015 for disruptive editing, but this editor is evading his block by using the static IP 213.114.147.52. The IP 213.114.147.52 was blocked in the past: [23] also for being "László Vazulvonal of Stockholm editing logged out" 95.65.65.29 (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

SqueakBox and porn again ... again (evading topic ban)

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#SqueakBox and porn again, SqueakBox is subject to a topic ban on porn-related articles as of 2014 January 1. However, today, the editor has made at least 4 edits that are against that ban today alone; (1), (2), (3), (4). Steel1943 (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If the material the user removed was unsourced that would fall under WP:BANEX and therefore would not be a topic ban violation (in case the topic ban doesn't cover that) Avono (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Avono: considering the ban was regarding edits such as this.... I can't check the sources on the page, although even if it was mentinoed in the "external links" links, I think that should be enough to show this is a TBAN issue. The fact they are continuing shows WP:GAME in action, even if nothing else. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important to realize that despite SqueakBox's defiance of the topic ban, they are addressing (quite clumsily) important BLP problems. Despite the tban violation, it was quite wrong for @Steel1943: to revert the fourth edit they cite. That revert restored unreferenced claims that identified living persons were involved in the production of porn with an underage performer, with no citation and the only potential source as imdb, which just isn't reliable enough for content like that. Edits like that are much more damaging than anything Squeakbox did. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Thanks for calling my edit "wrong". Regardless of how "wrong" you claim that it may have been, a topic ban is still a topic ban, and SqueakBox's ban is not excluded from WP:BANEX exceptions. However, feel free to figure out what is "right" and what is "wrong" all you want; I have pointed out the fact that a topic ban has been violated, and what I consider amicable action has been taken. I'm washing my hands clean if the mess, but feel free to revert anything I reverted as you are not the banned editor. Good day. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggest Block for 48 Hours and let me save everyones sensibilities - ya they are porn articles. The first one is very disturbing - I had no idea that kind of film even existed. Looking at the first link to his contributions is enough to judge his actions. Doesn't matter if the articles were sourced or not (they are), he is TBANed from Porn for deleting some or all the people involved in films, and that is exactly what he is doing again, wholesale deletions. Just this time he chose some truly vile content so everyone would see it when this thread was started. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the block - clear violation of the topic ban. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Block until SqueakBox has accepted the terms and 48 hours have passed(whichever takes longest) seems reasonable. BLP exemptions are not valid when the topic of the ban specifically includes BLP areas. Make this clear from the start and hopefully we won't need to escalate in the future. I want an acceptance of this ban before the unblock takes place. Chillum 17:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is with great regret that I have indefinitely blocked SqueakBox. My extended rationale is here, but as I said there it is explicitly intended to be a block of "no fixed duration" rather than a permanent block. I really don't think it could have been made much clearer to SqueakBox that carrying on regardless was not an option, but that is exactly what he's done, and I feel this is indicative of a deeper problem with SqueakBox's approach, which he needs to re-think in order to return to being a valuable member of this community. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This is unfortunate. While I opposed the topic ban, I support this action. Whatever legitimate issues motivated SqueakBox's actions, this approach clearly causes more problems than it solves. Hopefully, this will give SqueakBox an opportunity to rethink his or her approach to this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment-SqueakBox is not alone, his cohort Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been on the same tact. I just signed on a bit ago and was greeted with a notice of 6 reversions to articles that Squeak had edited and I had made changes to. HW is using the BLP "magic wand" and "shield" that Squeak has been, and for the most part he gets it right. But given HWs edit summaries, they come across as editing massive or egregious BLP violations when its just the change/deletion of some text or a Wikilink. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Quite bluntly, Scalhotrod is not telling the truth here, or at best playing fast and loose with it. He has been indiscriminately reverting older edits by Squeakbox, without regard to whether the edits in any way contravened policy. Virtually every one of his edits I reverted added unsourced claims or OR/synthesis, or both, to articles. In only one edit summary did I cite BLP, where the article included wholly unsourced and unreferenced claims that various named living persons were involved in human-animal pornography. Scalhotrod's comments here indicate he believes that such statements aren't "egregious BLP violations". If Scalhotrod actually believes that, he has no business editing BLPs or any other sensitive content. And if he doesn't, his post here is intended as disruptive, intended to deceptively cast aspersions against an editor he's in conflictwith in long-running content disputes.

Squeakbox earned this block by defying their topic ban, ill-advised as that ban may have been. That shouldn't justify ignoring the problem SB has raised -- the failure to properly source and reference content in porn-related articles. While in the discussions leading to SB's topic ban several editors took particular offense to SB's removal of unreferenced credits from Briana Loves Jenna, not a single one of those editors even noticed that the credit list included the on-its-face dubious and demonstrably false claim that Helmut Newton had been involved in the production of the film. I have myself removed scores upon scores of similarly inaccurate credits from porn-related articles, even as porn-promoting editors continue to blithely ignore BLP principles and denigrate their significance. We need a better sense of perspective here, because insufficient favorable coverage of the porn industry is not a major problem here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• We can't topic ban anyone who uses intemperate language. We'd have no editors left. Gamaliel (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

IP adding controversial information to Momin Khawaja

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

---

IP 108.161.126.189 has been adding controvercial informaion to Momin Khawaja (diff). I removed the information because it was uncited and controversial, and warned the IP. The IP proceeded to revert my edit without a summary. I removed it once again, providing another warning. This time the IP restored the info, claiming that it was supported by the family interview (diff). So I added citation needed tags to the article (so as to not break the 3RR myself), which the IP removed without reverting, or adding a reference. I added the tags back, (providing another warning). The IP then used non-valid references (diff). His later actions (which include an edit to a template (diff)) appear to be attacks against the Canadian Government.

Can someone take a look at these events, and the contents added, and clean this potential mess up? -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 17:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The usual response to questionable edits by unregistered editors is to request semi-protection, which I have done. The article is presently a mess, containing a lot of editorial opinion expressed in the voice of Wikipedia. It appears that the IP is already at WP:3RR. The article need a lot of cleanup. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm on it - will revert everything. Please 6 month ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/108.161.126.189 under WP:NOTHERE as they are here only to promote an anti-Canadian Govt, pro terrorist, political agenda. Legacypac (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP is now past the 3RR with this edit. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 18:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please block https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.196.129.102 - pure vandelism including reverting my work and changing Template:Terrorism in Canada to the heading "Victims of torture by the Government of Canada" Legacypac (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be the previous user attempting block evasion. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 19:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the page protection should keep this under control for a while. Legacypac (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive talkpage behaviour

For the past couple of weeks, Robert Walker (aka Robertinventor) has been filling several talkpages with walls of text, in response to my clean-up of Karma in Buddhism and Four Noble Truths (details below):

• Talk:Karma in Buddhism
• Talk:Four Noble Truths
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism
• User talk:Robertinventor
• User talk:Dorje108

I've explained my changes extensively at the the talkpages, and they were supported by others [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] I've also offered to Robert to go through those edits again diff diff diff. Nevertheless, Robert doesn't want to discuss these changes as listed at the talkpages, he doesn't want to edit those articles diff diff diff, and he also doesn't want to pursue a DRN diff. He's now started to do the same for Talk:Dzogchen. Enough is enough; see also here and here. Some adminstartor-intervention would be highly welcome here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out there is a long term content dispute underway between two groups of wikipedians here, with about equal numbers on both sides. I am currently in the process of getting material together for a posting to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard for help on the matter. See Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism#Content_Dispute. These conversations are in connection with this dispute. Joshua Jonathan has recently rewritten three mature articles, making huge changes, removing many sections, changing the weight and focus of the articles and raising multiple issues - with hardly any prior discussion (none at all in case of Karma in Buddhism). When you do something like that you shouldn't be too surprised if at some point you get responses on the talk pages of the articles you edited, by editors who don't agree with your changes. As for myself all I have done is write to the talk pages, and have not done any disruptive editing, indeed not edited these articles at all except to fix one broken link. I'm involved as a reader who was dismayed to find a favourite mature article on Buddhism here, as I saw it, ruined by his edits. Robert Walker (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

RW's efforts could benefit with brevity and calm abiding to bring the perceived groups into the wikipedia readers benefit. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert, you could start with discussing those topics in a serious way at those talkpages. DRN is welcome, and I'll say the same there: you're welcome to discuss those changes at the talkpages. As for the Dzogchen page: to call the previous version a "mature article" is exemplary for your kind of responses. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Joshua, I would call this the previous mature article: Mature DzogChen article. Look at the edit history. Up until then it had only minor edits mostly, with + or 0 a few hundred, usually just +- a few characters. After that it has many edits by you, with + or - thousands of characters common. And, all the major edits of over +-1,000 chars are by you, and most of the edits are by you. See last 500 edits. Clearly was a mature article and many editors had a chance to review it over a period of some years before. The version you just posted is your own version of it mid edit after your first swathe of edits of the article in the summer. Robert Walker (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, Jonathan did not clean up the articles Karma in Buddhism and Four Noble Truths. He re-wrote them to suit his own point of view. Robert Walker has been pointing out the flaws in Jonathan's application of the Wikipedia guidelines, as well as his selective use of sources. Robert has presented a good summary of the problem here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dorje108#Attempt_at_filling_out_the_content_dispute_notice.

I have also presented a summary of the problem here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#Recent_re-writes_of_key_concepts.

I realize that this is a difficult topic to evaluate, and that there is a lot of material to sort through, but I urge the administrators to carefully review Jonathan's edits, his stated reasons for the edits, and his responses when he is challenged on those edits. I think you will find that Jonathan's edits are arbitrary and heavily biased, and he shows a distinct lack of respect for the views of other editors or for sources that he disagrees with. (Note that Jonathan has made similarly destructive edits to the article Nirvana_(Buddhism).) Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Basically Robert and Dorje108 exhibit ownership behavior. In their minds they can edit an article all they want, but noone else is allowed to. This is problematic since they stuff Buddhism articles with nonacademic contemporary Buddhist teachers, which mirrors their low understanding of Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan, on the other hand, uses academic sources. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, I haven't edited any of these articles except to fix one broken url. And Dorje hasn't done any contentious editing at all, when Joshua Jonathan rewrote the articles then he just stopped editing them. It is Joshua Jonathan who shows ownership behaviour e.g. recently reversing User:Andi 3ö's edit of Karma in Buddhism when he tried to restore some of the deleted sections for section by section discussion. And use of BRDR instead of BRD when Dorje tried to reverse his bold edits of Four Noble Truths. That's "ownership behaviour" surely. Robert Walker (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Dorje's style of editing, by piling-up quotes, has been criticised for three years already diff diff diff, almost since the start of his wiki-career, but without a change of habit. This comment says it all:

"The overuse of quotations (Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing_quotations) was described as the basic issue of this article by @USER:Tengu800 in January 2012. Since then about 50 additional quotes have been added.

I have inserted an over-quotation tag because "using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style" (WP:Quote)[...] JimRenge 10:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

To call cleaning-up this style of writing "destructive" is understandable from the point of view of Dorje, but is not a correct desription or response. The correct response would be to finally take serious these criticisms, after three years.

Regarding Robert, the only thing he wants is to restore Dorje's versions, with the overuse of quotations. The "mature" version of the Dzogchen-article he's referring to has mainly been filled by two blocked users, Thigle and B9 hummingbird hovering.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Those two editors haven't edited the article since 2011!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dzogchen&offset=&limit=500&action=history

And BTW though I know nothing about these particular authors, just to say, that a user is blocked from wikipedia doesn't mean that all their contributions to wikipedia have to be reversed. As I understand it, a user can be blocked due to conduct on a particular issue, while doing good work in other sections or may have done good work in the past before they became problematical. Also, if all their edits are problematical, then they would be reversed after they are blocked, I believe.

The previous mature article (going back to 2011) is the result of work by User:Dorje108, User:Curb Chain, User:Skyerise, User:LhunGrub, and quite a few others with minor contributions.Robert Walker (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Dorje it is not an issue. Main issue is that Robertinventor writes way tooo much on the talk(pages) and if you don't respond, he will still write rather in a rude tone. 95% of the material in those messages is just irrelevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the underlying content dispute, Dorjes editing style etc. may be discussed at DR/DRN. We should focus on User:Robertinventors disruptive talk page behavior. JimRenge (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What Administrative Intervention?

User:Joshua Jonathan has said that some sort of administrative intervention is requested. What sort of action is he requesting? The continuing problem with User:Robertinventor is that he posts lengthy rants about content disputes, and their length makes it difficult to determine what if anything he is particularly requesting. One possibility, although I have never seen it done in Wikipedia, would be restrictions on his use of talk pages. (Maybe it has been done. I just don't recall it being done.) If the suggestion is being made that he be limited to posting 500 words to any given talk page on an given day, and that he be blocked if he continues posting lengthy rants, I would Support that action. I see that he has finally agreed that he is willing to go to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Even on DRN he will write irrelevant text. I would suggest formal warning that he should keep his messages relevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I would not support a formal warning unless it is accompanied by some specific warning about a block. Several of us have already warned him, without formality. (If it he is just formally warned, but not told what is being warned about, he will start ranting about how Wikipedia is unfair.) I would also not support a formal warning that he will be blocked if his talk page posts are not relevant. He obviously doesn't have a mental concept of what is and is not relevant, so that a formal warning to keep his posts relevant would not provide him with a basis to keep his posts relevant. He needs an objective criterion to avoid flooding the talk pages with walls of text, and relevance is subjective. Either the warning should be about length, or someone needs to find some creative sanction. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert, all my posts to wikipedia article talk pages are relevant. As you say relevance is subjective, but if you are puzzled about why I posted something and ask about it I can say why. Nobody has ever said of any post that it wasn't relevant as far as I can remember, might have but if so it is rare, though they have complained about length. My main issue is using too many words and tendency for repetition, and posting too often. I deal with that by making the post as short as I can in the first place, by editing it further after I post it, by looking out for repetitions and removing them, by collapsing sections of longer posts - and then finally - by posting less often. I put a lot of work into this! Robert Walker (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert, it is because he has made so many changes, so quickly, that there has been so much to discuss on the talk pages. See User_talk:Dorje108#Dispute_overview. All that talk is with the aim of improving the articles. And it is because this talk page discussion is getting us nowhere that I am now preparing a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard notice. I want to do it carefully, so am spending some days working on it to get it just right. And Joshua Jonathan himself writes way more than 500 words a day on the talk pages. If it is a rule for me, it should be a rule for other editors in the same dispute on the same talk page.

I am aware of the issue of writing too much on talk pages and deal with it by pausing for a day or two after a longer post to make sure that other editors have time to read it and get up to date with the discussion, and by collapsing sections of my posts that are of interest to perhaps only one other reader, and by keeping my posts as short as I can. After posting I often re-edit my posts for brevity as well. You can surely see that I am trying very hard to deal with this issue.

Extended content

I don't do this on my own talk page, however. I think one can set the rules for ones own talk page, and I encourage other editors to write as much as they feel is necessary to make their point on my own talk page, which they do sometimes. Similarly in the case of Dorje's talk page, he has no issues with the length of my posts to his page. While if I post to your talk page, I know I have to be succint. So with individual talk page I think it is surely a matter of individual preference there. On other talk pages, I have no issues at all myself with the length of other editor's posts, rather, prefer a lengthy post so you can have a clear idea of what they are talking about, so long as it is to the point. But understand that other editors prefer posts to be short, and deal with that as best I can.

Robert Walker (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What would a formal warning look like exactly? If a formal warning is the same as a regular warning, just containing more official sounding words, I consider it nonsense - it doesn't warn any better than another warning. If it's the same as a regular warning, but given out by someone who has the admin bit set, I also consider it nonsense. The admin bit doesn't convey the power to warn more formally. If it's something else, what is it? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that I agree with User:Martijn Hoekstra that a "formal warning" doesn't have any meaning as such. What I was proposing wasn't a formal warning, but a specialized type of ban against lengthy rants, which, to be sure, I haven't seen used before, but would be less draconian than topic-banning him from the areas where his rants are disruptive. Anything that is merely a warning is merely a warning. He has been cautioned many times, and yet another caution doesn't really seem constructive. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

RW: You wrote: "You can surely see that I am trying very hard to deal with this issue [length of posts]." No, I can't see that. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well even on this page, I'm taking care to keep my posts as short as I can. Robert Walker (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

RW: You continue to seem to think that a longer post is clearer. Typically a one-paragraph or two-paragraph post is clearer than a one-sentence or two-sentence post. A full-page post isn't clearer than a two-paragraph post, at least not when you are ranting for a full page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well I find it the other way around for many posts, I wish other editors would write in more detail and not leave us guessing about what they are saying. E.g. Joshua Jonathan's short one sentence explanations in his clean up summary here Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism/Archive_1#Summary_of_clean-up - they are indeed short but they are so short you have no idea what most of them mean. Same is true of many talk page comments. And BTW they are not "rants". As I understand it, to "rant" you have to be angry, or overpowered by some extreme emotion, and I am not angry when I write these long posts. Am just writing clearly and calmly expressing what needs to be said as best I can. In other situations, e.g. facebook, or email, or on Quora, I post similarly long discussion posts, indeed often do posts that continue for many pages, far longer than any posts here, and it is no problem at all, others like my posts, and others also do long posts like me. Seems to be a particular thing about wikipedia that long posts are less welcome here for some reason. I don't really understand why that is. Robert Walker (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Robertinventors/Robert Walkers postings of lengthy monologues on talk pages may be interpreted as disruption, derailing attempts to achieve a consensus and wasting his fellow editors time.

He has received comments, advice and warnings from several editors (examples: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], :[36], [37], [38]), however he continues to add walls of text to talk pages. These rants exhaust the other editors' patience.

I agree with Robert McClenon: I would Support restrictions that limit Robertinventor to posting 500 words to any given talk page on an given day (or 2000 words to any given TP in 30 days?) and blocks, if he continues posting lengthy rants. Yes, he needs an objective criterion, a quantitative criterion would be helpful. JimRenge (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you support the same restriction on yourself and on Joshua Jonathan and the other editors on the same talk pages? Joshua Jonathan also writes huge amounts of text sometimes (which I'm not complaining about). All my talk page posts are good faith and with aim to improve wikipedia. And I have never, ever, engaged in any form of disruptive editing. (While Joshua Jonathan, the one making this complaint, arguably does engage in disruptive editing with his use of BRDR instead of BRD and large scale rewrites of the articles) Robert Walker (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyway I've said my say, probably anything else will be repetition, will take a break from all this until about the same time tomorrow, see what has come of it then, got other things to do. I found that's a good way to help reduce the number of posts, to just not check wikipedia so often. Robert Walker (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this party, but I support some kind of restriction or action on RobertWalker/Inventor. I'd look at whether either a block or a topic ban for a few weeks or months would be in order. As someone who started out as an outside observer but now having been drawn into the discussion, what I am seeing is a lot of drama on a number of Buddhism articles that seems to stem from individuals with NRM or WP:FRINGE views attempting to insert the same into assorted articles, often via sockpuppet and meatpuppet accounts that attempt to overwhelm mainstream editors. I think the this RobertWalker/Inventor character needs a SPI opened also. Montanabw^(talk) 21:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no reason to think that he has engaged in sock-puppetry. I do not understand the details of the Buddhism content disputes except that they involve reliability of sources. He has in the recent past engaged in behavior that some other editors have seen as attempting to canvass me, but I ignored it. I don't see any administrative issue except overly long postings at talk pages. Anyone who wants to file an SPI can do so, but I see no need to cast aspersions about sock-puppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay just to clear up a point, I haven't done any editing of any of the articles under discussion, except to fix one broken link in the Karma in Buddhism article. I got involved as a reader rather than as an editor. In this debate am arguing for the case to roll back to the previous mature articles before the recent edits by Joshua Jonathan and his friends. If you look at the edit history of the articles, nearly all the recent edits are by Joshua Jonathan, assisted by VictoriaGrayson and Jim Renge. Robert Walker (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruption at Satyananda Saraswati

We seem to have some disruption at Satyananda Saraswati and it looks as if it might have resulted from a Facebook appeal, per the talk page. In addition, two of the accounts have returned to editing after a long hiatus and both edited Vasilios Kotronias back in March 2014 (seeOmpixie (talk · contribs) and Viruswitch (talk · contribs)). I could probably send those two accounts to SPI and bide my time but given that there are other elements involved, I think an admin needs to take a look at the goings-on today. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any socks involved or just meatpupetry but in light of constant reversion of the article today by a variety of editors I've put full edit protection on for 4 days. The article talk page has some lengthy and at times heated discussion about sexual abuse allegations and how much or any coverage should be in the article. Unfortunately there are xsome pretty entrenched opinions on both sides and middle ground is not going to be easy to find. Nthep (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Either those opposed to the recent additions decide to talk or they do not. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Off-wiki legal threats?

A new editor contacted me on my talk page stating that they had been the target of a legal threat by the subject of an article - I'm not sure for what, as they didn't go into the specifics, but the editor had added a critical statement and an incomplete AfD nomination, and then removed the addition after being contacted by the subject, apparently. I've got no opinion on the addition other than that it seems that it wasn't sourced correctly, or whether the article should be sent to AfD, but is there anything that we can and/or should do about this? The editor has indicated that they do not feel comfortable editing further. ansh666 21:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC) (Sorry for not including any links or notifications or anything, but I really don't know what to do here with respects to privacy, etc. Also, I'm not watching, ping me if anything important comes up.)

This is similar to what happened at Yank Barry, where the subject was personally attempting to sue Wikipedia editors. One person used their real name while editing and they were personally named in said lawsuit. However, said lawsuit was dismissed. For specifics, Tracey_Jackson was nominated for deletion by User:KatieVagnino and was subsequently threatened for lawsuit by the subject and ultimately decided not to continue the afd even though it was misnominated. Additionally, it seems that the subject also threatened the editor over material -inside- the article-. This is very troubling. Tutelary (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure if the legal threat was related to the AfD or not, actually, as I removed the tag first per protocol (it was redlinked). Thanks for notifying, by the way. ansh666 00:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

So apparently proper procedure is to be ignored. Cool.... ansh666 19:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of factual correctness: the Yank Barry suit was not dismissed (an action of the court) but withdrawn (an action of the person filing the suit.) And more than one editor who edited under recognizable names was sued. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, this is the editor in question, User:KatieVagnino. It's the AfD nomination they want to sue me for. But as other editors who have now been editing the page have noted, the page has some issues, so I don't think it was out of line for me to nominate it (and the irony is that I didn't nominate it correctly). Just to be safe, I sent an e-mail to legal at wikimedia outlining the situation and asking for advice. I have not been formally sued as of yet, but still want to have my ducks in a row if it comes to that. KatieVagnino (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Repeated improper use of rollback by IPadPerson

Following several improper uses of rollback (here, here, here, and here, to name just a few instances) – used to revert non-vandalism edits – I cautioned IPadPerson against using the feature inappropriately. (IPadPerson responded by grouping my message with various notices and removing "a bunch of shit" from her talk page.) Following more rollback violations (such as here and here), I left a second warning on her talk page, explaining in further detail why rollback should not be used to revert good-faith contributions. (She immediately removed the message, leaving the aggressive edit summary, "Can you not?")

Improper rollback has continued here and here. User has made it very clear that she does not wish to take advice from other editors, follow guidelines for her account's special privileges, or assume good faith with editors who are clearly not vandalizing the project, and I therefore propose that her rollback privileges be revoked. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a pretty clear abuse of the rollback right and tacit refusal to explain it. Barring some extraordinary explanation, the rollback flag should be revoked.- MrX 04:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking back at their contrib history, it definitely looks like blatant abuse of the tool. They seem to be trying to keep under the radar by using Twinkle at the moment, but agree that the flag should be revoked. Blackmane (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out she did restore your message (minus your sig/date) here [39] if that's of any help here, Also I should point out she (and I) was taken here back in May over our behaviour with Twinkle [40] and she was subsequently blocked by Drmies [41] –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That ANI is troubling, to say the least. So is the fact that IPadPerson was granted rollback after the fact. Perhaps a topic ban from using Twinkle should be considered as well. I don't believe here is the place for that, though, and I'm not familiar with that process. Doh. This is the place to discuss, actually. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

To be fair tho I wouldn't of thought those giving rollbacker rights would dig through ANI at all?, Personally I think a topic-ban's the only way to go judging by above and below... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 05:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but you would think an admin would have reviewed her block log, saw a block for incivility and personal attacks corresponding with an ANI thread, and looked that up. Oh well. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely agree the Block Log should've been checked (I assumed they were but perhaps not), Meh who knows –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 05:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Very clear abuse of rollback, also seems to, in some respects, not want to communicate with other editors.Lor^Chat 05:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User does has a history of issues: see ANI thread Feb 2014, ANI thread March 2014, ANI thread again Mar 2014 and block log. Gloss 05:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Unless they come up with a really good explanation I'll remove the rollback right once they've had a chance to respond, but it looks like they aren't active at the moment. With regard to a ban from using Twinkle, just noting that a topic ban (ie from mentioning Twinkle as well) might be a but too much, probably more useful to discuss a ban from using either all of Twinkle or just the rollback feature. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would personally suggest a topic ban from all Twinkle functions (she also abuses it to leave inaccurate warnings and 4ims in inappropriate circumstances) and a civility restriction on top of that. I'd also stick a requirement somewhere in there that all reversions should be explained with an edit summary (barring obvious vandalism?). –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Clarification for Callanecc: By "topic ban", I don't mean mentioning Twinkle, I mean using it. –Chase (talk / contribs) 08:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• I could be wrong, but don't think Twinkle can be revoked from accounts. When IPadPerson was previously brought to ANI last year for misuse of Twinkle, it was suggested that it be revoked from her account. At least back then, it couldn't be revoked from accounts. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Twinkle cannot be manually uninstalled, but a ban can be placed on using it and she can be blocked if she violates that ban. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

But at Rollback, you can't use an edit summary other than "Reverted edits by XXX to last revision by YYY". If a rollback removal is really necessary, I would be cool with that. IPadPerson (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It's your use of Twinkle that's the issue ...Not the WP:ROLLBACKER tool ..... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is their use of Rollback that kicked this off. Rollback is only to be used for blatant vandalism not to revert good faith edits. Blackmane (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Bugger you're right! .... Have absolutely no idea why I thought it was just Twinkle ... I'm obviously away with the fairies . –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

But at Rollback, you can't use an edit summary other than "Reverted edits by XXX to last revision by YYY". Am I missing something here? That is why I and several other editors agree that your rollback should be revoked, since you are too willing to use it on reversions that require a proper edit summary. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed the rollback permission as IPadPerson clearly doesn't understand when it can and cannot be used per WP:Rollback, it can requested again at WP:RFP/R linking to this section and with an explanation of when rollback can and cannot be used. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban from Twinkle

Now that standard rollback has been removed from IPadPerson's account, what do others think of a potential Twinkle ban? At this ANI from April, Drmies wrote, apparently we can't pull Twinkle, and a topic ban for it seems like a lot of work; we'll just consider a block, since such abuse is highly disruptive. The ban may be a lot of work, but the disruption has clearly continued. Thoughts? –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• This has come up once or twice in various venues. I wish we could pull Twinkle. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked vandal under new account

User Legitgrifer2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly not here to contribute positively. Eik Corell (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:AIV might get a faster response. Cheers, ansh666 05:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've indefblocked them: only edits are two edits to game articles which are obvious vandalism, with a username that reads as "legit griefer" -- The Anome (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh! And I've just noticed Legitgrifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)... -- The Anome (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hits hits

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

---

Hits hits (talk · contribs) keeps edit warring with Legobot and with me, (but mostly with Legobot) over an RfC that expired in late December. At Talk:Phineas and Ferb (season 4) between early and late November there was some discussion about how to organize episode segments because of a disparity with how various reliable sources were reporting the information. Some 11-minute episodes segments were paired into half-hour episodes, some were not. User Hits hits wanted to pair the episodes, other users did not want to, since many 11-minute episode segments aired individually on different days.

As the RfC unfolded, Hits hits resorted to sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry to attempt to sway the discussion per his POV. The RfC expired, but wasn't closed properly. There is a pending request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Though we struck out the sock comments, it's unclear to me whether or not any of Hits hits' comments should even be considered, but I'll leave that for the admins.

Since then, Hits hits keeps attempting to re-open the RfC by pasting back the expired RfC template, which of course Legobot keeps removing because the RfC has expired and Legobot is software. His additions: [42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. Based on his past behavior with sock/meatpuppetry, and his persistence to try to force the RfC template into this discussion again (without, oh, I dunno, asking an admin what to do or asking for help at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment), it seems clear that he's only interested in asserting his worldview. At some point I warned him to stop edit warring with the bot, which he removed as "vandalism". This was followed by a note from Ponyo, which Hits hits removed as "disruptive". The user isn't demonstrating appropriate behavior for community editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Yet another submission of the RfC template after it was removed by Dcbanners. Followed by a bold attempt to reorder episodes, which was rejected by myself and AmaryllisGardener, but which was restored by Hits hits here and here Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I was only adding this template because I didn't realize we had come to a consensus which keeps on being removed user HH (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Any more edits faintly resembling edit-warring will result in a different type of template being added to your talk page, whereas the "duration" parameter of that template will be considerably longer than it was previously. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It certainly isn't a very auspicious start to their recent unblock. I have a feeling they're a younger editor who could use a gentler touch, but the edit-warring needs to stop pronto.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Rchaubey29 - speedy deletion tag removal on Promotional article

Rchaubey29 is aggressively and repeatedly removing a speedy deletion tag from Invention Tour. All attempts to contact him via his Talk page have failed. DOCUMENT★ERROR 09:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that he is disruptive as he keeps recreating the article within seconds of it being deleted. If he does it once more, I'll block him. Deb (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Deb. He just recreated the article 90 seconds ago. I've again tagged it for speedy deletion. Would it be possible to WP:SALT this title? DOCUMENT★ERROR 12:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Linatrix - removal of speedy deletion tag on promotional article

Linatrix is aggressively and repeatedly removing a speedy deletion tag from Around egypt on motorcycle and related pages he/she's created. He/she also recreated Around egypt on motorcycle (ali abdo) within minutes after it had been speedily deleted. DOCUMENT★ERROR 09:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have issued a warning to Linatrix that such behaviour is disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

New User - Needs Guidance?

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

---

Ran into a new user (5 days in) who did a large insertion into the ISIL article that has a bunch of issues. I moved the section to the talk page and explained my concerns there. They kept complaining on my talk page and reverted me.

Based on the behavior, including falsely accusing me of taking group names out of ISIL and suggesting my account would be blocked, I suspect this is a child (or maybe an ESL person), but obviously can't tell for sure. A little admin guidance from someone else would be appreciated as they assume I am difficult to work with right off. Update stormtrooper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you're (inexplicably) a regular at ANI, you should know it is not AGF and a serious breach of WP:CIVIL that could serve no purpose other than to inflame a discussion to tell another editor things like "Are you a child?" and "your writing contains child like mistakes and your maturity level seems childlike." [[49]] This seems to be your M.O. in dealing with the content disputes you almost daily seem to find yourself entangled in with other editors on the ISIL topic; you have previously and repeatedly been cautioned by PBS and others. You also failed to notify Update stormtrooper you were dragging him here (I took care of that for you). (Correction it appears you did bury [[50]] a notice inside his Teahouse invite without creating a separate header.) Recommend one-year topic ban applied on Legacypac per WP:BOOMERANG in consideration of the dozen or so second chances he's already received. DOCUMENT★ERROR 10:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) DocumentError - considering the two reports above this one are yours? I most certainly notified the new user with my next edit. Legacypac (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The difference in our reports is that mine are efforts to protect the encyclopedia by ferreting out people inserting articles to promote their Facebook page. Yours is (as usual) simply alerting us to the latest personal wrong you believe you have suffered as a result of your combative interaction style on a topic already under discretionary sanctions. DOCUMENT★ERROR 10:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, this is why I've intentionally avoided all contact with this user for months and continue to avoid any interaction with him. He seems still frustrated he failed to get sanctions on me months ago. That discussion is done from my point of view . Anyway, I was just looking for an Admin to give some friendly help to a newbie that will help get them editing Wikipedia in a productive way. Legacypac (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me as I don't have the best grasp of English idioms, but I believe there's one that goes something like "a bull in a china shop" which you may find explains why you so regularly find yourself in these dramatic entanglements. DOCUMENT★ERROR 11:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Is there any chance you two could stop bickering and leave this report for an admin to evaluate? Squinge (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

(And, DocumentError, do not change or move my comment - it's addressed to both of you and I'll place it wherever *I* choose Squinge (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC))

Squinge is referring to this GF edit I made to place her comment into alignment with the above discussion between LP and myself [51], instead of dangling outside the discussion to which she was referring. Squinge, you're correct - it is certainly your right to slap a comment any old place you want on this page. I thought you had made a formatting error and was attempting to lend a friendly hand. I will ensure I keep my hands to myself in the future. DOCUMENT★ERROR 12:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I recognize you meant it as good faith help and I apologize for my snarky response (but the bickering between the two of you does not really engender happiness and smiles). But for the record, you were actually technically incorrect in placing my comment as a direct reply to you as that's not what it was, but I accept it was meant well. Squinge (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Apology accepted. DOCUMENT★ERROR 13:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no interest in interacting with the user. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Vitina/Vitia

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

---

I need an administrator to sort out this mess. We had an article titled "Vitina" about a town in Kosovo. Titles of Kosovo towns are very controversial because they all have two name: Serbian and Albanian. "Vitina" is Serbian name of the town, and Albanian name is "Viti". The article was located at "Vitina", and "Viti" was a disambiguation page. But, User:TheBloodyAlboz05 moved "Viti" to "Viti References" [52], so "Viti" was left as a redirect to "Viti References". Then, he replaced the content of "Viti" with the content of the article "Vitina" [53]. Now, there are two identical articles, "Vitina" and "Viti". "Viti" should be deleted, and "Viti References" should be moved back to "Viti". I can't do this without administrators. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Its really close to the Albanian border and the article says there are very few Serbs there. Just asking? Legacypac (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Asking what? I don't see any question. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry my comment was caught in a posting error. I was asking if the Albanian name was the common name, but I think the answer is pretty clear it should be. Legacypac (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Since TheBloodyAlboz05's entire userpage is just the black eagle, I assume - given this disruptive edit - he/she is only here to engage in anti-Serbian rhetoric and POV pushing. DOCUMENT★ERROR 12:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: An admin should delete Viti under G6 and then move Viti References back to Viti without leaving a redirect. It doesn't seem like a reference to Vitina is the primary usage of the name "Viti", though, so Viti should be kept as a disambiguation page. Epicgenius (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Vanjagenije , Legacypac Kosovo's total population is estimated between 1.9 and 2.2 million with the following ethnic composition: Albanians 92%, Serbs 4%, Bosniaks and Gorans 2%, Turks 1%, Roma 1% .

official language : Albanian - And you Kosovo municipalities and cities have been appointed in Serbian SHAME — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBloodyAlboz05 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a whose is bigger contest. DOCUMENT★ERROR 15:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@TheBloodyAlboz05 and Legacypac:This is not a place to discuss the name of the town. Feel free to make a wp:move request at the talk page. I will be glad to participate. There is a proper way to rename articles, and creating two identical articles is certainly not the proper way. So, please, take your arguments about Serbs, Albanians, etc. to Talk:Vitina. This is a pure technical issue for an administrator to fix the mess made by the user who created a duplicate article. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Move requested. I agree with Epicgenius's solution.Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Martinvl

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

---

Martinvl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Martinvl has been indefinitely blocked since 28 October 2013 for disruptive editing. Whilst blocked, Martinvl has continued to use the email functionality inappropriately to suggest changes to articles on his watchlist and to lobby against other editors see User talk:Martinvl#Unblock request. Martinvl has been warned previously this is inappropriate but has continued to do so, most recently this weekend [54]. At Nick-D's suggestion I am requesting an uninvolved admin to review and consider whether access to email/talk should be revoked for this editor. WCM_email 12:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Martinvl has requested the opportunity to explain his side of the story to the reviewing admin at his talk page. DOCUMENT★ERROR 15:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is another example (from June 2014) where Martinvl appears to have e-mailed an editor soliciting changes to an article while blocked. The clearest diff for his using e-mail "to lobby against other editors" is probably here; this edit was discussed in the section WCM notes.

The major problem with this sort of incident is that, because we can't read the e-mails and are never likely to, we can only go on what it looks like. It looks very much like Martin has been evading his block by trying the solicit others to make edits for him. That's certainly strongly implied by both conversations. Based on what we've seen - and noting that we haven't seen Martin's response - IMO there's a good reason to remove access to the e-mail facility to prevent block evasion through proxying. Kahastok talk 18:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've edited the title to remove the template (so history links will work, etc.). Revert if that's a problem. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all, thanks. WCM_email 23:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Martinvl does appear to have been misusing his continued access to Wikipedia's email functionality and his talk page. As well as the two examples of miss-use of emails given above (both attempts to recruit WP:MEATPUPPETs), he has also sent inappropriate emails to myself concerning Wee Curry Monster (as discussed at User talk:Martinvl#Unblock request) and what may have been a similar type of email to JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) as noted in User talk:Martinvl#Your email. In addition, he has used his talk page to solicit edits to an article on his behalf at User talk:Martinvl#Australian terrorist incident. Given what took place in User talk:Martinvl#Unblock request there is no likelihood of his indefinite block being lifted in the foreseeable future, and so he doesn't have a clear need for access to his talk page to prepare for an being unblocked. As such, I would recommend that an uninvolved admin turn off Martinvl's access to the email functionality and his talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Martinvl's emails to me have been mentioned, so I will give a little background about them. Martin posted on his user talk page an "edited version" of one of his emails to me. It gave links to content of web pages which he says proves that he was remote from the location of an IP address at the time that the IP address was used for edits that were attributed to him. How far that proves, as Martin suggests, that he did not make those edits has been disputed, and I do not wish to get involved in the dispute. In another email he explains his reason for contacting me. Martin has not published that email, so I will respect confidentiality and not give details, but it was a result of hints and innuendos made in an investigation I was concerned with, in which other editors were making veiled accusations against someone not named in the investigation. Martinvl believed that the unnamed person was him, and posted information to me to defend himself against the accusations. As far as I was concerned, no accusation had been made against him, so there was no allegation to defend himself against, so the emails seemed to me to be pointless. The comments were along the line of "someone is doing something, and we all know who it is, don't we?" Personally, I had no idea who it was until I received Martin's first email to me, but even if I had known, there would have been no question of taking any action on the basis of such innuendo and veiled hints. Also, the things that someone (perhaps Martin) was accused of had no relevance to the investigation I was taking part in. I therefore regarded Martin's emails as being of no relevance to anything, so I declined to do anything about them. However, now that it has become apparent that he has been emailing numerous editors, his emails to me take on a different complexion, being in effect a part of a prolonged campaign of lobbying and canvassing.

It is perfectly clear that Martin has been attempting to get others to edit as proxies for him, evading his block. In my opinion it is even more significant that he has been evading not only the block, but also a topic ban. Martin's disruptive editing in relation to appeals against that topic ban was to a large extent instrumental in leading to the block. Martin is clearly intelligent enough to be fully aware that he is using emails to evade both the block and the topic ban. I concur with Nick-D that "an uninvolved admin turn off Martinvl's access to the email functionality and his talk page", and I shall do so. (I do not regard myself as "involved". My only connection with any of this was, as I have attempted to indicate above, an attempt by Martin to involved me, which I refused to accept. The only thing I did, in fact, was to post explanations on his talk page of the fact that I was refusing to get involved.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Sneaky vandals

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

---

Davey Beals (talk · contribs) and Top The Ball (talk · contribs) appear to be closely linked accounts engaging in subtle (and not so subtle) vandalism. I'm not sure if there are any other related accounts that need to be looked at. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

SerakofVulkan is probably referring to this edit my revert on Ellie Harrison (journalist). It is no different to this edit[55] from an editor who has not been summoned to appear here. I wish to state that all I saw was information being removed by an anon which normally prompts an automatic revert, that was all. I am sorry if it was inappropriate. I didn't really read the content. --Davey Beals (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This and this were more what I had in mind. Compare that second one with Jack Smith (coach) and the current version of Jack Smith (cricket coach) to see what I'm getting at.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be common interest in Jack Smith (manager) and Financial endowment and the accounts are barely a few days old each. I would guess it is the same editor. Concerning my own initial re-insertion. My reasoning is the same as what is claimed by Davey Beals. I reverted an IP doing random blanking, but I couldn't understand a single word of the implied context, now neither. All mumbo jumbo. --Boy Seeks Girl Tonight (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See also this Top The Ball edit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Davey Beals and Top The Ball are now tag-team reverting on the Ellie Harrison article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing too terribly subtle about this edit, which reintroduces random meaningless content and includes a personal attack against another editor (me). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

And now Top the Ball is reverting my recent edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am, and I will revert them again as they are all vandalism. Top The Ball (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Revdel on this edit summary would be nice, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Block evasion of User:László_Vazulvonal_of_Stockholm, is anyone interested?

László Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on 02:50, 1 January 2015 for disruptive editing, but this editor is evading his block by using the static IP 213.114.147.52. The IP 213.114.147.52 was blocked in the past: [56] also for being "László Vazulvonal of Stockholm editing logged out" . He is adding unsourced infromation to biograhies of living people (e.g, [57]) 95.153.67.95 (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's interesting, thank you for reporting. HJ Mitchell has blocked the IP. Bishonen | talk 15:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

Yes, an anonymous editor presumably the same person as above, left an identical message on my talk page, and it seems obvious to me so I reblocked László for a fortnight and hard-blocked the IP to match. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be some serious WP:CIR problems. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Overall disruptive user

User:Johnmylove has been overall disruptive. Seems to be engaged in making personal attacks,[58]-[59] violating copyrights and other types of disruptive editing.

With the a clear Pro-Christian agenda[60] and Anti-Hindu agenda,[61]-[62] this user has been engaged in insulting other editors throughout these years and engaged in making many other types of disruptive changes to different articles. It includes 'Parveen Babi', where the user has edit-warred for a long time and even after the detailed discussion, user seems to be lacking competence to understand our writing standards. Eventually removed my comment[63] from the discussion for no actual reason.

Like all articles and images of this user have been deleted, whether the subject of the article was non-notable or the article was violating copyrights. One of the article(Wesley Degree College) still remains, that I had nominated for deletion.[64] It had been ripped off from wesleydegreecollege.com/aboutus.htm. Even the current version is violating copyrights. While the 3 votes are in favor of deletion, I would recommend a quick deletion because it is still violating copyrights. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've also given him a warning. By the way, Blades, do we happen to be the same person? I just bring it up, before somebody else does. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Insert ref for Johnmylove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Johnmylove, please can you present some kind of indication that you are not here just to push various religiously oriented POVs. On a personal level I would advise you to turn to your own religious teaching about treatment of others such as the good Samaritan and the like and on topics on not judging etc. should they apply.

Bladesmulti you will also need to place a notice of this AN/i on Johnmylove's talk page. GregKaye 18:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC) struck text just before this date stamp GregKaye 19:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you actually seen the user' talk history? I already had, right after I had started this section.

After so many warnings about the violation of copyrights, infringement is still largely visible, like whole article has been copied from the link that I have suggested above. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Was recently warned by Bishonen to refrain from making such comments on contributors.[65] Some of the recent examples of the same disruptive attitude..

Claims about me that:

He added Vulgar criticism against Christian and Jesus pages...

notorious for adding anti christian statements on Christian pages...

I have just removed them, as those were added recently by him....[66]

Recent changes:

Seem to me like heathen, Indian pagan, Indian stone worshipper, elephant worshipper, mischief.[67]

Who cares what a Hindoo thinks![68]

Bladesmulti (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice guy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I just took alook at his contributions-list: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=579966048 diff] "Sitush is a Hindu Fundamentalist, a garbage community of sort and Jobless man who edits Wikipedia pages 24 hours without any work, and there is constant attack on Pages related to Christians of India by him. Mind your own business!"

Not a nice guy at all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• After a while, long term low grade chronic bigotry becomes worse than high intensity acute bigotry. Blocked indef. If he wants to try to convince someone he's going to stop criticizing other editors based on their perceived religion and ethnicity, he can do it inside an unblock template. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Floq. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Sock circus on ANEW

Look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bladesmulti reported by User:93.171.217.170 .28Result: no violation.29, all these proxies are operated by one person who is repeating the same nonsensical argument. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Why wont Admins take action against Blades and the IP for edit warring here? It's AN/I for goodness sake, surely users can expect Admins to stop this sort of thing here!!! THREE exclamation points. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Action against me? Well, I am reverting changes that were made by a banned user. Evidence at User talk:Courcelles#Request for page protection. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That isn't evidence, it's speculation. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like this is all very new for you. Anyways that's how the evidence work for SPI, have you ever opened even one? Of course you haven't. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Banned editors have no right to edit and all their edits are subject to removal without any other reason required. That sort of policy enforcement is easily excludable from EW concerns. DMacks (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the statement by Bladesmulti the person making the complaint stated all these proxies are operated by one person so I am quite sure they were not calling for actions against you.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Bladesmulti made the complaint, and Roxy the dog said "Why wont Admins take action against Blades and the IP for edit warring here?" Pretty sure they were calling for action against Blades. 206.180.38.20 (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

We have an IP who doesn't understand IP, and so has multiple copies of himself creating multiple copies. Translation: An unregistered editor at multiple addresses doesn't understand intellectual property and so copies illegally. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

German Guatemalan

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

---

An editor is behaving badly at German Guatemalan where he is editwarring to change the population figure with an unreliable source using socks and rape threats and homosexual slurs in Spanish. The obvious socks are: Madrid, Oxford y Munich (talk · contribs), 186.151.43.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 190.148.81.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)Genova, Paris y Helsinky (talk · contribs). The threat is here I have tried reasoning with them at my talkpage in Spanish but there is clearly no reasoning to be had.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

the Genova, Paris y Helsinky (talk · contribs) account seems to be globally-locked. [69] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

And see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ELreydeEspana. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive Editor

Pidjamajstorovic is engaging in vandalism, to wit: (a) created four bizarre pages in the last 24 hours that had to be speedily deleted, one of which was deleted as a blatant WP:HOAX, namely Ninja turtles the next mutation kira,s birthday, Amityville horror house, April 10 2015, Miljana Marjanovic, (b) made a strange insertion regarding the latter WP:HOAX bio she/he created into 1991 (diff [70]), (c) relabeled the 2003 horror film "Red Riding Hood" as a documentary (diff [71]), (d) under the article January 27 added nonsensical text (diff [72]). DOCUMENT★ERROR 21:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Added final warning. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Edward Snowden vandal

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

---

Hey, a vandal operating from the following IPs has taken a liking to vandalizing Edward Snowden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The IPs he's used so far are 163.41.76.107, 163.41.77.42 and 163.41.77.70. Might be in need of a rangeblock (I don't know which template to use here, a pointer for that would be appreciated). --RAN1 (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the article, that should sort the problem out. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Good call BK. I've blocked the small range 163.41.76.0/23 for a week, as they've been doing other nonsense. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC).

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

User:Farsidan - Inflammatory remarks

User:Farsidan has made some inflammatory remarks against certain users on Wikipedia, as one can see here and on his talk page here (wrote a response to a user, but on his own talk page, claiming that the Iranian government will track them). Please take any necessary action. Thank you. Negahbaan (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've final-warned them, a block will follow if they continue. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Negahbaan (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunate User Conduct

DocumentError (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been biting my tongue but there is only so much that a person can take. I've avoided this unpleasant user for months and wish they would leave me alone. I've previously been very clear I wish to have no interaction with them and asked that they stay away. Without going into older misconduct, here is the activity over the last day or so.

Wild unsubstantiated accusations - often edited and reedited over each other

1. [73]
2. [74] [75] asking for 1 year topic ban
3. [76]
4. [77]
5. [78]
6. [79]
7. [80]
8. [81]
9. [82]
10. [83]
11. [84]
12. [85]
13. [86]
14. [87]
15. [88]
16. [89]
17. [90]
18. [91]

Stalking and Canvassing editors I'm currently interacting with

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]
5. [96]
6. [97]
7. [98]

Reordering my comments out of sequence and reverting an attempt to hat his off topic attacks

1. [99]
2. [100]

I'm not looking to engage in a debate and may choose not to respond to anything he says in this thread after I start it. I just want to put this activity out there rather then let him continue to spread unsubstantiated allegations about me. Happy New Year. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that bad to me. I guess you could ask for an interaction ban if you wanted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read through all those NinjaRobotPirate. The monthly ANI he files against me usually averages 20-40 raw diffs, most of which tend to just be random comments culled from my edit history (like in junior high when you double-space your book report to plus-up the page count). DOCUMENT★ERROR 09:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy, here we go. So ... I have had zero interaction with LegacyPAC (LP) for months until today when, as an uninvolved editor, I commented on one of the numerous ANIs he has filed against other editors to make the WP:BOOMERANG observation that LP had savaged this editor with comments like "Are you a child?" and "your writing contains child like mistakes and your maturity level seems childlike" before he dragged the unfortunate newbie to ANI. [101]

After I made that observation, LP went to Requests for Permissions (!?) to declare that me observing that he had made a personal attack itself constituted a personal attack. Of course he didn't ping me when he started accusing me there, as he should have (my interjection into that sans-ping thread about me is one of the things he has characterized above as "stalking" [sic] him). MusikAnimal declined to give LP rollback permissions and archived his attacks against me at RfP, apparently prompting him to come here and file the fourth of the many ANIs he's hit me with (none of which have gone anywhere).

If anyone has specific questions about any specific diff above, don't hesitate to ping me, but I'm frankly exhausted at having to periodically spend hours pounding out defenses to these as he's clearly using the ANI as some kind-of cudgel to warn editors not to "cross" him. Corriebertus, Lukeno94, Mbcap, and countless other editors have been on the receiving (or observing) end of LegacyPAC's aggressive style of interaction and I hope will endorse my reasoning in not continuing to devote time to replying to these walls of text. LP has recently come off a one-year topic ban imposed by Drmies for similarly whirling dervish behavior [102] and dealing with his drama just isn't on my to-do list for today. DOCUMENT★ERROR 08:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Minor correction: I just closed that thread; the BLP ban was imposed by Salvio giuliano. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• bigger correction - the BLPBAN was imposed in May 2013 and served out with zero incident during or since related to BLPs. Legacypac (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it may be worth having a look into Legacypac's behaviour at Outing certain people at certain times when at the same time allegations against them have been made. Though i will add that We do not discriminate on age Lor^Chat 09:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explicitly remind me where I had a negative interaction with Legacypac? I've definitely observed some pretty inappropriate behaviour, and I evidently voted in favour of the topic ban, but I don't remember a direct interaction with Legacypac that was overtly negative. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, I actually meant Martin451 (I get the two of you confused as you have similar rainbow sigs). Technically you have "been on the ... observing end of LegacyPAC's aggressive style of interaction," as you noted here [103] that I've seen Legacypac get away with these sorts of things far too often. They should consider themselves lucky it's not a lengthy block, to be honest. but, TBH, I didn't mean to invoke you at all and was thinking of a different editor entirely. My apologies again, feel free to strike your name from my comment, as well as this entire note, if you like. DOCUMENT★ERROR 11:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

There has been a ridiculous amount of arguing, minor personal attacks and accusations of sockpuppetry by so many people against so many others that I have completely lost track on Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant. Accusations of breaking policy are thrown by editors and called harassment/personal attacks which are responded likewise recursively ("his accusation of a personal attack is a personal attack"). Ridiculous amounts of ANIs for one talk page. 9356 words of argument over the question of POV in the title with arguments still going on about whether we should have a NPOV template in the article header. Pretty much every single WP:(insert something here) policy referred to which may or may not be playing policies off against each other. This isn't aimed particularly at any user or users. Is there some way we can get some kind of mediation to deal with the loss of good faith between pretty much everyone and pretty much everyone else which won't just make things worse? John Smith the Gamer (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, I stopped editing ISIL articles three months ago after LegacyPac denounced me as an "Iranian anti-American" terrorist [sic] [104] after which my userpage started being vandalized by IP editors threatening to "nuke" me (here and etc. [105]). (Amusingly, my rather muted objection to LP calling me an "anti-American" is among the diffs he's listed above in his ANI against me ...). So this issue stems from my decision to make a BOOMERANG point about 5 ANIs up as an uninvolved editor and not anything related to the slow car wreck at the ISIL articles. I've been full-time on Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities since self-extricating from the ISIL mess. DOCUMENT★ERROR 10:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

DOCUMENT★ERROR As you know I recently got in contact with you privately which was really in response to your reference to the "poisonous atmosphere" at ISIL and to another comment that you made in regard to toxicity. Honestly, if you make uncited and unreferenced remarks such as this I don't think that you should find it surprising that issues are brought to administration. In one comment you say "A lot of us are at our wit's end". Who? How? Please, if you want to make accusation about an editor, collect your references and present. I see inference from you regarding the supposed conduct of Legacypac on other users pages. What efforts have you made to address issues directly? I have looked through User talk:Legacypac and through history of deleted content and see no record of any confrontation of an accusation of being called "anti-American" or anything else. If you make an accusation you have to support. There are enough battles going on in the world without unnecessary conflict here. Please edit directly, deal with problems directly and don't canvass. While we don't agree on all issues, the things that I have generally seen Legacypac write have been justified. Where are your justifications? The last presentation of your talk page with a large content of input by admin PBS is found here. GregKaye 14:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

#1 All the diffs you've requested have always been included above, including the one to LP calling me an anti-American [106]. Diffs are indicated by numbers in brackets, or purple text to show a wikilink. Let me know if you are still having trouble finding anything and I'll be happy to post them to your Talk page to avoid any unnecessary scrutiny you might face as this brings the subject back into the ISIL topic area under which (I think?) you're currently on a no-warning topic ban (forgive me if I'm wrong, there seems to be a rather complex series of blocks and bans going on here).

#2 I'd strongly advise you visit LP's diffs he's labeled as "canvassing" before staking your flag in them as they are just random links to an edit discussion in which I was participating about the name of a Serbian town [107] (the article's primary author is on my watchlist as I've recently pre-nom'ed them for Admin). Like many of LP's "diffs" they are just random pulls from my edit history that don't relate to the salacious headers he's assigned ("Stalking," "Canvassing," etc.) I guess he thinks if he throws out enough random diffs an Admin will just assume guilt by volume of paper without clicking on them. (see also NinjaRobotPirate's comment above) If you now feel it's appropriate to remove your comment, I have no problem if you also delete mine. No hard feelings. Best - DOCUMENT★ERROR 14:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

DOCUMENT★ERROR:

#1 (note: this is not the first issue as I have presented but within the sequence of your response) I have asked, please, if you have accusations please give a direct presentation of diffs. Please don't just point to threads as if to say that there is something over there. It doesn't carry favour.

#2 In the listing of diffs entitled stalking and canvassing I consider the third and seventh diff to be very clear cases of canvassing. Some of the other cases I also think may well fit a description of stalking. You have mentioned supposedly salacious headers:"Stalking," "Canvassing," etc. You have used the uncited slurs "poisonous" and "toxic". Please take some perspective and some responsibility. For the good of the editing environment such uncited representations of other editors and other editing activities have to stop. Please either substantiate what you say or say nothing.

#3 repeating: You stated, "A lot of us are at our wit's end". Who? How?

#4 repeating: What efforts have you made to address issues directly? ...

issue, the thing that I am now most incensed about is that, after you raised contention of Legacypac rearranging comments rearranging of comments here, you then edited my AN/I edit here so as to cause the last paragraph of my text to slip into the tail of the paragraph above. This was the text that presented the strongest content that I presented: "The last presentation of your talk page with a large content of input by admin PBS is found here." I find it appalling that you accuse an editor of an activity and then do the same in an important Wikipedia location.

GregKaye 18:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I consider another editor using terms like "cyber-terrorist," "your edits are childlike" and "anti-American" [108] [109] [110] to describe other editors to be "poisonous and toxic." I stand by that. DOCUMENT★ERROR 21:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to waste a lot of space refuting his rants, so I'll point to a simple case - easy to see - were he says above "LegacyPac denounced me as an "Iranian anti-American" terrorist [sic] [111]" but at the link you will see I never referred to him as a terrorist (there or anywhere). But DocumentError goes on to say at the link "If I had more time at the moment I would file a separate ANI about this as you've already been cautioned about race-baiting, LP, more times than I can possibly count. " which is an outright fabrication and we've never seen that ANi yet.The actual exchange, (note the poisoning of another editor against me) was:

I understand from DocError that Legacypac has had his way with DocError in scaring him away from editing certain pages by screaming and threatening him and whatever other aggressive interaction and unilateral editing style. If that would be true, we would seem to have in Legacypac an editor that basically threatens Wikipedia. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

DocumentErrors edits from a clear pro-Iran, anti-American POV and did engage in forum shopping, but his efforts to push the Iran intervention in Iraq over the American-led one were largely unsuccessful. I'll go so far to say that DocumentError specializes in error - I and quite a few other editors have spent far to much time refuting his erroneous accusations. I ignore him and yet he continues to HOUND me damaging my reputation (which is my job, thank-you very much). Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for denouncing me as "anti-American" (whatever that means) once again. I imagine we're just two more comments away from you declaring that I'm "pro-terrorist" and a "cyber-terrorist" as you've accused other editors who have disagreed with you. (here and elsewhere [112]) DOCUMENT★ERROR 21:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

True, Corriebertus. This latest ANI is the result of me sticking up for a new editor whom he'd been ripping into. DOCUMENT★ERROR 21:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And earlier in that discussion: "I think at this point Legacypac and @DocumentError: could benefit from a self imposed two way IBAN. ...-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)" which I replied I was operating under such a self imposed IBAN, which I've continued to do until yesterday when I responded to DocumentError's breaking into a thread where I was seeking some friendly assistance for a new editor. He then proceeded comment on me on various talk pages as detailed above. I want the wild accusations and misrepresentations about me to stop - I've refuted them over and over but they just keep coming from his keypad. I have no idea what value this editor sees in stirring up trouble. I've lived to the self imposed IBAN. He has not. Legacypac (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac you initial edit was "No one threatened DocumentError, but he was editing from a clear pro-Iran, anti-American POV and did engage in forum shopping, but his efforts to push the Iran intervention in Iraq over the American-led one were largely unsuccessful. ..." See diff the wording was different from that you posted here. Did you change it subsequently and before another replied? -- PBS (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I expanded my comment here before anyone replied. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

More error above - Gregkeye is not the subject of an ISIL topic ban. Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Question for DocumentError [113] here you say that unnamed (but possibly you mean me) editor(s) called you "an anti-Semite, anti-American, radical anti-American, pro-terrorist, cyber-terrorist, raving anti-American terrorist nutjob, raghead, liberal, etc. " and you added specific terms through a series of edits, like you found more of them. This is a very serious charge against whichever editor you are referring to. Can you specify which editor you think made these comments about you and can you provide diffs where these very specific statements are directed at you? Legacypac (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Propose a Community IBAN

Since a voluntary interaction ban between User:Legacypac and User:DocumentError either has fallen apart or was never in place, and since these two editors keep coming back to attack each other, it is time to impose a community interaction ban on them. The usual ban exceptions should apply, but we should note (since one editor tried recently to wikilawyer around a ban) that filing a WP:AN or WP:ANI thread against the other editor is a ban violation, not a ban exception. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proponent who is tired of this feuding. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment - I'm here only because the unfounded accusations are way out of hand. If some editor actually called DocumentError a "raving anti-American terrorist nutjob" they should be dealt with. If in fact no editor said that, he should be sanctioned. My post here is not an attempt to bicker but done under WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE Legacypac (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I appreciate the sentiment, I'd just note that prior to yesterday I had no interaction with Legacypac for 3 months; I have avoided him religiously for the sake of my own sanity. I happened to be in ANI yesterday and saw him using yet another new editor as his personal chew toy and made the mistake of sticking up for the guy after LP was ripping into him with "Are you a child?" and "your writing contains child like mistakes and your maturity level seems childlike." [114]. The savaging that's ensued was what I got out of it. As I told PBS I don't plan to make that mistake again. When LP begins his daily ANIs again tomorrow against a new editor I'll just bite my lip and keep walking. DOCUMENT★ERROR 21:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Question: Why did DocumentError just insert his comment in the middle of my comment in a way that makes my comment quite unclear now ? Legacypac (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe the fact that the comment was indented but the second was not. This may have led him to believe that they were not intended to be connected and that the correct way to respond to the first would be to indent more. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless you sign your name in the middle of your comment and again at the end, I didn't insert it into the "middle" of your comment. Perhaps PBS can take a look at it. DOCUMENT★ERROR 21:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, I don't see how this situation can work in the current situation. Personally I need to work trough the diffs to see what Legacypac is supposed to have done wrong. I do not think that it is right to put a sanction on an editor's record without there being evidence to support it. How would it work in the ISIL editing environment if two present editors can't communicate? GregKaye 21:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know if an interaction ban would be beneficial or not, but I do not think this would stop there from being another ANI revolving around Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant as I feel that there has been a loss of good faith. I'd rather not see just an interaction ban (or lack thereof), rather I'd prefer to see an attempt to find the cause(s) of the problem and solve it, with or without interaction bans. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you but, just to clarify, however, I do not edit in that or any ISIL-related topic, nor have I for at least a few months as a personal choice (not as a result of a topic ban as I have a flawless disciplinary record unlike two other editors in this ANI). DOCUMENT★ERROR 22:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Gaming ANI / Counter-Proposal

Legacypac, in his most recent ANI against me, lists 21 diffs without explanation, giving each a broad header like "canvassing" etc. I didn't go through these one by one due to sheer volume; NinjaRobotPirate did and said "they didn't seem that bad to me" (above). I did check a few out though. This diff he describes as "canvassing" is a move discussion about an article on a town in Serbia [115] - the active thread is here - I was participating in as the article's main author is on my watch list as I've recently pre-nom'ed them for Admin). Many diffs similarly appear to simply be random points from my edit history he's pulled out to "plump up" the ANI, presumably to make it look as salacious as possible through sheer volume of "paper."
As a counter-proposal to the IBAN, I suggest Legacypac receive a topic ban on ANI reports about me as this appears to be a rather blatant case of WP:GAMING. I also suggest that my supposed status as an "Iranian anti-American" [sic], which is one of LP's charges against me in this thread, is not something ANI exists to address. (As I've mentioned elsewhere, this is the latest in a string of ANIs he's hit me with [among countless other editors who have crossed him], all of which have been dismissed and I would welcome the respite from having to devote my time to these.) I believe Supreme Deliciousness and GB fan have commented in some of these previous ANIs and may be able to add perspective. DOCUMENT★ERROR 22:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous editor who only vandalises and trolls

My eye has fallen on User:96.251.137.43, who has been editing here for a year, and has contributions which are almost exclusively apologism for racism, although they're now branching out into transphobia. The entire user history is of interest, but these diffs are the most striking: [116], [117], [118], [119], [120]. I propose a block per WP:NOTHERE. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTiefling: That's an IP address, the best we can do is short 24-36 hour blocks when they begin to vandalise or cause disruption. These can be requested via the usual method at WP:AIV. If there's any evidence that the same person is using more than one IP address, across one or more ranges, then we could look at a range-block, but that would be unusual for low level vandalism that should be reverted and ignored. Nick (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Some IPs are relatively stable. There's no reason it cant be blocked for longer if it appears that this is the only user on the IP. Jehochman ^Talk 12:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This was my thought. It's a pretty consistent pattern. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Static IPs can be blocked for longer, but the IP in question is a dynamic Verizon IP address from their fibre broadband service, which always runs the risk of it being reassigned to someone else wishing to edit anonymously through that IP. It would need to be blocked, realistically, for 12 months or longer, to prevent even a small amount of vandalism. I suspect if you look through the rest of the range (96.224.0.0-96.255.255.255) then the same person will have been considerably busier vandalising, but short of blocking the whole range, they'll have been vandalising across far too large a range of IPs far to slowly to really worry too much about it. Revert and ignore is the sensible option here. Nick (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Battlefield behavior in Canadian article; interaction ban?

• Skookum1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• WhisperToMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I am not involved directly in this dispute. I found it in October 2014 following up on Skookum1's concerns of copyright violation in the article Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver (my first note on the topic). I found no evidence of copyright problems but was shocked by the hostile tone I found Skookum1 taking with WhisperToMe. From that thread on that date alone: "your complete ignorance of the subject matter"; "half-informed comments"; "your presumptiveness"; "arrogant rubbish"; "your speciousness, and your arrogance, in these matters, is breathtaking." (All still visible at Talk:Indo-Canadians_in_Greater_Vancouver#Focus_of_this_article.) WhisperToMe subsequently requested my assistance with ongoing incivility (see recent talk page note, including some examples of edits that concerned him; also older note)). Particularly concerned to find he had left this hidden note in article space, I wrote on Skookum1's talk page on 30 December urging him to calm the discussion down and work towards dispute resolution, or I would be seeking an interaction ban. (See the conversation in context as of this writing here.) The situation is not improved: "Here I am trying to educate the woefully uninformed." (1/4); "Maybe "someone" will take the time to read actual sources other than his own personal preference for ethno-focussed history and LEARN SOMETHING instead of treating me like I was a liar. I am not; and he's just ill-informed and prejudiced" (1/6; emphasis in original)

Skookum1 claims the incivility is mutual, but the only example I've found cited of incivility from WhisperToMe is in his requiring verification of Skookum's perspective. To quote Skookum1, from January 4th:

"I want verifiability and proof what you're saying' is AGF and NPA at the same time, as you're implying I'm lying (which is what your ethno-drivel sources do all the time, when not saying things out of pure ignorance of the reality); you have a responsibility to believe a senior editor who's been around here half your short life and who has read more on his province's history, and written more Wikipedia content on "Chinese in BC" than you apparently like to be blissfully ignorant of - or are too caught up in their own incestuous ivory tower to actually explore the province and read the local histories (not all of them written by "white" people and dismissable as such, as they are wont to do,even though those local histories are generally very flattering towards Chinese in their respective areas).

This is the same concern I noticed and addressed in my first note on the subject - in response to Skookum1's 10/23 note that said, in part:

I am at least three times your age, an experienced Wikipedian of long-standing, and very knowledgeable about my home province which you are NOT.... Who are you to say? You're a "Young Adult" (codeword for "late teenager") who just discovered this subject and now make pronouncements on it as if you were an expert to the point you can "assure" me of anything.

WhisperToMe has recently filed a request for intervention at WP:NORN (thread) which may or may not be derailed by this battlefield behavior, although I note that Skookum1 has produced some sources, perhaps in response to that thread. I considered waiting in case that was revolved, but I think that the battlefield behavior (even in that post, he attacked WhisperToMe) is once again escalating and in any case has gone on long enough.

Unless somebody has any other ideas for how to stop this, I'd like to propose an interaction ban. A limited duration may be enough to do it - perhaps until the core issue is settled by others - but I think the behavior here is toxic, a violation of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and especially WP:DEPE. Skookum1 undoubtedly will feel that this interaction ban should be mutual; I think a mutual interaction ban would be better than no interaction ban, but would suggest a one-way interaction ban restricting Skookum1 from engaging WhisperToMe unless there is significant evidence that WhisperToMe has been incivil beyond his requesting verification of his Canadian elder. Skookum1 has voiced his concerns about this article; if he withdraws from the conversation, perhaps others can see it through.

This is out of my usual area (copyright), but I really can't stand by and not try to do something when I see a situation like this. I believe that fights of this sort can and do wreak havoc on Wikipedia. I think it needs to stop. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If I might register a non-administrative opinion. First, I appreciate Moonriddengirl attempting to assist an editor who feels accosted. Many editors of all stripes lately seem unwilling to do that because of the pain and suffering it usually entails with no reward. That said, I think Skookum1 is simply expressing natural frustration at a proposal that seems to be pushed at a more rapid rate than is perhaps advisable. WTM and Skookum appear to be the only two editors active on this topic which seems to be the genesis of conflict. Instead of an IBAN, I would personally volunteer to involve myself in this article to increase the range of voices, if the discussion could be restarted in the form of a new and fresh proposal and the previous 3 sections archived. That might be unconventional but an IBAN should really be avoided in this case if at all possible IMO as it would leave the article derelict of editors. DOCUMENT★ERROR 13:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a new proposal. Perhaps the reason why I have been pushing strongly first for a rename, and then a split, is because I created the article to focus on Vancouver in particular. The user unilaterally moved it and changed the focus, and my move proposal (my way of opposing the unilateral move) failed. - My guess on why this behavior is this way has to do with Talk:Indo-Canadians#Merge_discussion. I first started Indo-Canadians_in_Greater_Vancouver. After he suggested making a Indo-Canadians in British Columbia I started it, and the interaction went south. I had the impression he thought the content from other parts of the province was neglected, so I would make one to collect the rest of the info, but he saw it as preventing a merge/page move he felt should take place. I was seeing as "I started the article on the subject I want to write about, and you can write about the subject you want to write about here, so we both can be happy". In retrospect I should have made a userspace draft as such a thing is easily reversible and not on the mainspace. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My interactions with the user began here: Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#If_you_make_articles_on_ethnic_Indian_populations_in_Canada.2C_be_sure_to_include_info_on_Air_India_182.27s_impact_on_the_community.

For full disclosure: There was one edit in October I made where I was criticized by User:Antidiskriminator, in Talk:Indo-Canadians#Merge_discussion (background is in the first post about Air India) - He argued that I had made an error in conduct

• See: "Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)"

It concerns this text that I made at (WhisperToMe (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC) ): "Oops. I didn't mean to imply that I'm of Indian heritage. I'm not of Indian heritage. Nonetheless, I have a revelation that you may be interested in. Let's discuss a lovely thing called WP:GNG. Let's review what it says. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." So what do we have? [...]"

Talk page discussions about the reply:

• User_talk:WhisperToMe#Indo-Canadians
• User_talk:Antidiskriminator#Conduct issues

I don't recall receiving any messages like that since October. Antidiskriminator also talked to the user here: User_talk:Skookum1#.22that_merge_discussion.22

On 2 November User:Blueboar asked both of us (myself and Skookum) to let other people talk: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_31#Should_titles.2Ffocuses_of_articles_be_determined_through_reliable_sources_or_personal_experiences_and_opinions.3F and Talk:Indo-Canadians_in_Greater_Vancouver#Seek_a_third_opinion_please

In November a user reported that there were no issues on my end in that discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Third opinion

"Comment 4: Skookum1's behaviour here has been pretty awful. Skookum1 should review WP:CIVIL and take it seriously. I commend WhisperToMe for keeping remarkably calm in the face of Skookum1's provocations, and for not being drawn into the cesspool of personal attacks and obscenities. We really don't need that in Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)"

I haven't received any other feedback about my conduct. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My past interactions with Skookum1 were not so positive and in line with the behavior quoted above. He went to the wall saying nasty things to defend an erroneous news report about a birth name at Talk:2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa, a position overturned by other editors in a RfC. A one way interaction ban may be justified. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How to deal with well-meaning user adding large chunks of illegible text in highly visible article?

The new user Quebecshoes is editing the highly visible article Montreal quite extensively. I believe the user is well-meaning, but some edits have been entirely in the form of unsubstantiated personal opinions (in 1980 ,The city "Ville De Montreal got cheap and stop investing and keeping this beautiful tradition.Less christmas decoration means less shopping, means less spirit.)[121] (Theres alot of Gay people that enjoy this neighborhood its very open and respected.) [122] (the neighborhood is verry vibrant with bars,clubs,restaurents,late night places,parks,festivals,Tam Tams every Sunday at Mont-Royal.) [123], (Students complain about tuition fees they should complain about this) [124] and so on. The other problem, already evident in those examples, is that the user writes very poor English. I'm not a native speaker myself and I don't think we should be too strict, but I fear this is too much. Some further examples Its also the area for artistic studios and gallery bistro cafes are verry popular here.
The Area aslo Part of the Biggest LGBT community in Canada and in The province of Quebec, There is 2 a Main streets s-Cathrine Ouest and Amherst
Montreal Is the most expansive of all canada and does not tolerate fees cheap for a day.
For 10$ is a day pas very ridiculous when you compare with other cities like Ottawa,Vancouver,Halifax,New york,Detroit,Boston and Toronto.
I don't know quite how to deal with this. I've reverted these edits because of the above reasons (strong personal opinions and improper English) and I've informed the user [125], but it just goes on. I do think the user has good intentions.Jeppiz (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Heavy long term abuse by sock army.

For several months already, articles related to Uzbeks and to Tajiks have been under attack by a never-ending list of socks of a nationalist Uzbek. This time he calls himself KanishkaKagan and is again performing exactly the same kind of nationalist vandalism in infoboxes (inflating Uzbeks and deleting Tajiks) [126], [127] that he has already been doing under the names of Turan22, AlexUzb, YulbarsTiger, George$653, and Izzy.neon. As per WP:DUCK, I dare say thatO.Turani is also the same user. This has been going on for several months, and temporary protections and blocks do not really help as the user just continues to create new socks to repeat the same nationalist POV.Jeppiz (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong at all I'm O.Turani an Uzbek from Afghanistan and all my edits are based on sources. I don't have any relation or contact with above mentioned users. It's better to say there is anti-Uzbek army probably origins from Iran vandalizing Uzbek Identity. User:O.Turani (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Absurdity, it you misbehave. I always on sources refer. You in my opinion HistoryOfIran? Tell me what relation has to Tajiks of Al-Biruni, Al-Khwarezmi and other great scientists? Yours faithfully KanishkaKagan KanishkaKagan (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Jeppiz, are you aware of WP:SPI? I recommend you go and file a case there, as that will help establish who is a sock and who isn't. Feel free to ask for help on my talk page if you need it :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Lukeno94, that's what I usually do (asking for as SPI]] but I took it here as it gets very tiresome to file requests and when the socks are banned, the user already has a few new socks ready to continue. It's an example of how a dedicated puppetmaster can impose his POV by creating enough socks. Creating an account takes much shorter time than filing an SPI, so those trying to keep tracks of the socks have to spend more than the puppetmaster does. I think it's a bit of a flaw in Wikipedia, actually. As I said, this has been going on for months on several uzbek-related articles. And it's not just keeping track of this user there, he also has "delightful" surprises like this one for people disagreeing [128].Jeppiz (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Correct; however, do they usually target the same articles over and over, or are they different each time? If it's the former, then you can file a RFPP request citing the sockpuppetry. Also, if CUs are able to confirm the accounts, then rangeblocks of the underlying IPs might be able to be applied. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I filed an RFPP last time and it helped for a short time. However, the puppetmaster has around ten articles they target long term. PP is helpful against occasional vandals but does not do much against a dedicated puppet-master who carry on for months.Jeppiz (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• If the master keeps coming back to the same articles over and over, particularly if BLP comes into play, then I think you have a good case for very long term protection, maybe even indefinite, if you present the evidence of how long the abuse has gone on for, and how quickly it started again after the previous protection(s) ended. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Update As a case in point, here is yet another account that obviously is the same user (performing exactly the same actions again, and accusing all others of "vandalism"). [129], [130]. It's clear that the user has a large number of low-activity socks. Honestly, what can we do? RFPP is no good as the user has a very large number of socks (here is just a small list of some of those blocked, but note that several socks of the same user is not include). The sockmaster can quite happily revert four times, as he's currently doing, with some of the socks, and normal users undoing it would risk being blocked for 3RR. Even if some of the socks are banned, it's obvious there are a large number out there.Jeppiz (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you really pay attention to my references? For example I believe [Temur] is Uzbek I have reason for this claim and provided reference about him to prove that he was Uzbek. 1rst his tribe is called Barlas, and Barlas is one of 92 tribes of Uzbeks. 2nd eveyone knows that his birth place is located in current Uzbekistan kish city, currently all the population of this city is native Uzbeks. Besides according to his own notes we can understand that his language was Uzbek dialect of Turkic language. So please do vandalize Uzbek historical figures. O.Turani (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

O.Turani, I said I wasn't sure about you. As for the others, I have absolutely no doubt that KanishkaKagan and Amir.Temur are just the current socks of Turan22 as they are performing exactly the same actions with the same words and the same summaries as the already blocked socks AlexUzb, YulbarsTiger, George$653, and Izzy.neon.Jeppiz (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

 Checkuser needed Jehochman ^Talk 16:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Best thing to do is to get the complete list up on an SPI so that we have a record that we can refer to next time. Then we can evaluate the pattern and decide if any further action (like protection) is needed, and a CU can determine whether rangelocks are plausible and so on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner

This post is a request for a simple warning to the title editor on the subject of edit warring, civility, and adherence to WP:CONSENSUS, and that he be required to remove material added to his user Talk page stating his intent to disregard WP:CONSENSUS and expressing a negative view of other editors in apparent violation of the user Talk page guidelines.

On the article Organic food, The Banner repeatedly restored material to the lede that had been removed by other editors, who had offered the explanations that it was poorly sourced and covered material not addressed in the body of the article as required by WP:LEAD. The material was repeatedly restored with the explanations:

• That the removal of the material in question was "annoying"
• In response to a request that he discuss his concerns on the Talk page, he reverts again stating that the editor (myself) making this request was engaging in "whitewash"
• Reaching his third reversion and unable to continue, he finally comes to the Talk page and again accuses me of "whitewashing inconvenient information".

This event seen in isolation is certainly not the largest behavior issue of the month at Wikipedia, and I probably did not help the situation by failing to recognize that an edit described by The Banner in his edit summary as a reversion actually contained new citations. But it is troubling in the context provided by his user page, which

• States that he intends to pursue his individual ideas about what is best for the encyclopedia irrespective of consensus. As I understand it, this is a violation of user page guidelines
• Features a picture of an individual being run over by a truck, with the caption "Unconventional but effective support for Wikipedians involved in the War against Vandalism, POV-pushing, Spamming and bad faith edits". Overall the page expresses a lack of confidence in other editors with respect to their good faith and / or competence and reinforces the previous comment about ignoring WP:CONSENSUS.

I respectfully request a simple warning regarding adherence to WP:GF, [[WP:CIVIL}, WP:CONSENSUS and that he be required to remove material stating his intent to disregard WP:CONSENSUS from his user page. With respect to my own behavior in this incident, I'll stipulate that it was not by any means perfect, and that I undertook 3 reversions in 24 hours for what I believe to be the first time in my career as an editor here. I'll do better in the future. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be far better when a large bunch of editors start looking at what is really happing at the article Organic food. To my opinion the article is hopelessly POV and unnecessary vague and negative due to the constant removal of anything positive. The article is victim of misusing of WP:MEDRS, that is used to remove everything what can remotely seen as a health claim, like the chemical contents of an item. Even when you publish a statement sourced by an item published by an university or agricultural college, it can be removed as being in conflict with WP:MEDRS (while organic food is about agriculture, not about health or healthcare).

The article is completely ring fenced and there are always a few people at hand to step in and help out. The consensus Formely 98 is not a real one, just one of a good organised and very loud group. The many discussions on the talkpage are proof of that.

In fact, in this case it is Formerly 98 who is POV-pushing and removing a sentence that is backed up by three sources. And he removed it without an explanation but with a warning that I could be blocked. That warning is what is very friendly described as "unfriendly behaviour", I have saved him the word starting with a "b" and containing a "y". This AN/I discussion seems the reflection of an editor not winning the discussion on arguments... The Banner talk 17:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Template edit affects hundreds of articles, but nobody cares

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

---

About 27 hours ago, a seemingly minor change to Module:Episode list, that clearly was not properly discussed or investigated beforehand, resulted in compliance with WP:REFPUNCT being removed, affecting hundreds and possibly thousands of articles that use {{Episode list}}. After I noticed the problem I reactivated the edit request and asked that it be reverted but nobody has done so. Edokter made the change but, while he's edited Wikipedia since I asked, he hasn't come near the discussion. Technical 13 was also involved but he is reluctant to modify the code, even though the fix is a simple reversion of this edit. I've looked at the edit histories of all of the editors listed in Category:Wikipedia template editors and nobody seems to be around so I thought I'd ask for help here. This is not the first time this change has been made. Edokter made essentially the same change back in 2012,[131] but it was eventually reverted.[132] The change results in a space being added between text and references contrary to WP:REFPUNCT, and was done instead of making a very minor change to a single article. An example of the problem caused is shown below:

Title
"Episode Title"

References

An in-article example can be seen here. It's a simple problem that has wide-ranging effects ({{Episode list}} is used in more than 6,000 articles) with a simple fix but nobody seems interested. I'd fix it myself but, silly me, I've never asked for template editor permission. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted that change. I'm sure Edokter would have done so on request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure Edokter would have reverted too. He did last time. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It didn't entirely slip my attention, but I considered the 'impact' to be minor enough not to revert immediately. Sertainly not worth a thread here. Your concern has come up in the initial proposal, which made me hesitate, but as both Technical13 and voidxor deemed the issue as minor, I went ahead. Now... what is the impact? A space before a ref... that is hardly worth the attention. How many more uses require the space that the initial edit catered for? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Since I've been summoned... This is a hack and should be avoided at all costs. As I mentioned on the talk page, the proper solution would be for the spaces to be added when RTitle doesn't start with "<ref". I know this can be done in Lua, I'm just not exactly sure how it can be done. I'm uncomfortable with Lua, and generally avoid making any edits to Lua modules unless they are my own code that I thoroughly tested in the sandbox first. Yes, this even applies to edits that are a simple reversion. On that note, I'm not sure there is anything left to see here, and I would think it appropriate for an uninvolved editor to close this section as such. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The nbsp's are a hack, but using |RTitle= is not; The "R" stand for "raw", basically meaning BYOM (bring your own markup). Sure we could use some logic to see if there's a <ref> tag, but there are potential so many other scenarios that demand special treatment. In essense, |Title= and |RTitle= should not even be used together. Perhaps a |TitleRef= parameter is more appropriate? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Andcarr

User:Andcarr has restarted babysitting the David Ross (businessman) article again and is deleting any content that he has not added himself. He apears only to edit this article, yet he has accused me of adding PR to the article. Please can he be stopped, at least from editing this article? Bleaney (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually User:Saskia2309 also appears to be babysitting this article, it may be better to look at protection for the article - Bleaney (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say there a definite case of ownership going on. I just tried to remove a self-published blog from the BLP, and I got reverted. Annoyingly, there's also an accusation of COI in the edit summary when I was merely trying to follow policy, as I linked in my own summary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And Saska2309 made a similar accusation against Bleaney in this personal attack. It seems we've got a pair of POV-pushers owning an article on a person they don't like. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

He is also using the Daily Mail as a blp source now [133] Avono (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Andcarr has reverted the article at least four times today. I gave him a warning for edit warring. If he keeps this up, we'll have to take it to WP:ANEW. I'm guessing that he's not going to let anyone else edit this article but Saskia2309. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Denisarona

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Drop the WP:STICK. Jehochman ^Talk 21:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

---

This thread was archived, but having noticed that the problem with unexplained reverts by this user was not restricted to recent times but has been going on for years, I added a statement to that effect. Someone complained that no-one would see it on the archive page so I thought I would un-archive it.

--original post begins--

This user appears to do very little except revert people's edits, and as far as I can see they never leave an informative edit summary. I challenged them recently to explain why they undid two of my edits 1, and they responded by undoing a third edit for no reason whatsoever 2. They then removed the talk page discussion. 3 They further removed a warning to use edit summaries, making a personal attack as they did so. 4

This kind of behaviour is immensely damaging to Wikipedia. I hope someone will take steps to discourage it. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Most complaints of this sort are by vandals annoyed at being caught, so let me start by saying that 200.83.101.225 appears to be in the right. Denisarona, what is the matter with this person's edits? Why must you treat as vandalism an edit that clearly improves a header, for example? Even if 200.83.101.225 were a banned user's sock, you wouldn't be justified in reverting an obvious improvement. Why must you insert a quotation when it's been properly paraphrased? Remember that our fair use standards prohibit the incorporation of nonfree content when it can be adequately replaced with free material, and this IP had replaced it. Do not again insert an unfairly used nonfree quote. Nyttend (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's disappointing that this user did not have the courtesy to respond here. There's virtually no community pressure or disincentive to encourage people not to behave as he did, and people who revert for no reason, to the detriment of the encyclopaedia, are very frequently encountered. For as long as they are tolerated with as little action as this case was, they'll continue to disrupt the encyclopaedia. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Where did you notify the user about this discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just notified them in case no one else did (could not see where) Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

--original post ends--

I notified them when I posted this report.[134] They attempted to remove the notification but only removed my auto-added signature.[135]. The original notification is still there, just a little up the page from the second one. I am adding to this report now because I was sure I had experienced inappropriate reverting from this user on numerous occasions and I just chanced on another set, from two years ago: [136], [137], [138], [139]. Note the false accusation of vandalism in the last one. So this is a long term problem with this user. Again, I hope someone will take steps to discourage such destructive behaviour. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

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

At this point, I don't think that there is a satisfactory solution to this whole multithread mess. The "Best Known For IP Editor" is acting like a jerk. Kww and Jehochman are acting like jerks. The IP's enemies are all acting like jerks. This situation has even managed to make Drmies act like a jerk (I'm acting like a jerk too, but that has nothing to do with this particular issue). And now here it is again at ANI, Wikipedia's Jerk Central. Yngvadottir is pretty much the only obvious non-jerk exception (maybe also Ritchie333, I didn't take detailed notes and have only a vague recollection), and for her trouble and willingness to try to help, now half the people involved think she's a jerk. Expecting anyone uninvolved to wade into this mess and make it better is not realistic.

There are legitimate issues here - the IP does have a valid point - but it is literally impossible to solve them now, there's too much water under the bridge. So while "Drop the WP:STICK" is condescending, it's basically true. Best Known For IP Editor, because of the way you've traditionally dealt with conflict in the past, you are not going to get satisfaction here, even if in this case you're right (or, much more accurately, partially right). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Why only partially right? And where did Drmies act like a jerk? I didn't see it. And what do you think should be done about a user who has, over many years, pointlessly been undoing good edits? Remember that it's obviously not just my good edits he's undone - trying to make this all about me is misguided. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

He claims to be the Father of Wikipedians

• Saadkhan12345 (talk · contribs)

Edit-warred with me and other users(with two in the past week) at Operation Zarb-e-Azb, violated 3RR many times and even today. Filing an SPI a month ago, storming the archive after it was closed [140] [141] [142], he stopped edit-warring during the case, but as it got closed, and failing to get me blocked, and failing in tries to influence many administrators .e.g. User talk:Mike V#Heyyyyyyyyy he has started edit-warring again. He has a history of mismanagement and faulty editing. Created hundreds of malformed stubs about Pakistani constituencies, and ignored warnings and pieces of advice on his talk. I have made the article Operation Zarb-e-Azb a good article, but this user has just spoiled its history and my SPI archives. Today violating WP:CIVIL, he called me "my son" while replying to my post at the article's talk. Currently, he is under 3RR there, and I am considering reporting him for edit-warring too. I am here to ask for the advice of administrators. Please guide me. Faizan 20:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Complete history of edit warring at the article:

• Undid revision 632197198 .... What do you mean its not involved...you cant remove something just because you don't like it
• Undid revision 632303523 by TheSawTooth (talk)
• We dont know whether militants are afghan or not ...anyways fazlulah tehreek e taliban baloch national army nd mehsud tribes (waziristan) are the ones attacking paki forces.
• i removd afghan militants because they were believed to be involved in cross border attacks but according to source it was TTP..for reference: http://tacstrat.com/content/index.php/2014/06/13/securing-the-durand-line/ 9th paragraph
• i have removed afghan militants because it is the view of User:Faizan and User:TheSawTooth....according to rules ... discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. will hve to wait until the mattr is resolved on talk.Pg
• TTP is involved in cross border attacks...for reference TTP(infobox) and talk page
• (Talk page)
• No Summary
• Undid revision 635463330 by 39.41.185.43 (talk)
• Reverted 1 edit by 39.41.212.125 (talk) to last revision by Saadkhan12345.
• Nowhere in the referenced article it says "Afghan militants". clearly says "Elimination of terrorist sanctuaries and handing over of TTP elements that have taken refuge in Afghanistan are the first important steps in that direction,” the spokesperson sa
• have provided proof on talk page (for a while and no one seemed to be interested). if cant discuss there please stop from reverting.
• DIscussed on talk page. Users not intrested in replying
• Undid revision 641250941 by Faizan (talk) yea I am.
• Undid revision 641292591 by Faizan (talk) wheres your consensus

And this is how he wants to achieve consensus. Faizan 21:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Look bro...you see when I say bro dont take it personal. I say "my son" to my cousins and family members. I didnt know you were going to take it personal so sorry for that. On the other hand, Im glad you have opened up here. First of all, the only so called editors that I have "edit warred" on the article Zarb-e-Azb was you, TheSawTooth and your friend "TopGun" . Its no secret that you enjoy his support. And I didn't storm the archive but it was closed and I was busy for a while and the fact that your clearly said to me "accuse the other user of socketpptry" is a clear violation. You were trying to recruit editors to influence decisions on wikipedia (Admin Mike V closed the SPI and so I wantd to discuss it with him). BTW And so failing in tries to influence many administrators .e.g. User talk:Mike V#Heyyyyyyyyy, well Mike V is not many but one user whom closed the SPI. This guy is busy posting "warning template" onto users pages violating WP:CIVIL without following the rules himself. With a clear look on the Operation Zarb-e-Azb article and the fact that he stated above 'I have made the article Operation Zarb-e-Azb a good article" is a violation of WP:OWNER. I don't have to further prove. Just look at the article. How his permission is needed to do just about anything and that's since June.Saadkhan12345 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Also the above point where hes making fun of my way of reaching consensus well like I mentioned on SPI:

"So there was this edit war on the article Operation Zarb-e-Azb here from November 2 with User:Faizan. We tried to sort it out on the articles talk page Here and also on users talk pages. But consensus was in no sight, and so therefore I opened a DR/N here. I did notify so here and here but User:Faizan ignored the notice (he made contributions to wiki while DR/N was open)." To me after all of this, he didnt seemd to be interested in reaching consensus but simply extending the dispute till I give up.Saadkhan12345 (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)