Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email directly with your concern.

Sections older than 36 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.


When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Centralized discussion

Noticeboard archives


Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing[edit]

user:Springee has been disruptively editing and wikihounding individuals over the past few weeks. Springee has wikihounded user:HughD by following him to multiple articles and reverting his edits in part or in whole, as well as disruptively tagging his edits. [[1]][[2]][[3]][[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]][[8]]. In all of these articles, you can extend the list to 500 edits and see that Springee only became involved immediately after an edit by HughD and Springee's involvement was either to revert HughD's edit, or tag them under the guise of "undue" or "notability". You can do a simple Ctrl+F search for "springee" to see exactly where the user became involved in the article and see what their first few edits were. Springee had no previous involvement on these articles and it's clear he only became involved to disrupt the edits of another user.

Springee has also tendentiously reverted edits under the premise of "no consensus", which is a direct example of WP:TEND. As per wp:TEND "You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first. There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article." It's one thing to object to material for RS, weight, or NPOV purposes, but to remove reliably sourced additions because "they didn't discuss it first and get consensus" is a direct example of tendentious editing. Here are multiple instances of these types of reverts by Springee [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. What's even more concerning is that Springee applies his "no consensus" reasoning selectively. It appears that edits he/she agrees with don't get reverted for reasons of "no consensus" and Springee even goes out of the way, in some cases, to thank and welcome the addition of material added without consensus [17]. On top of that, the user protects information added without consensus by citing "no consensus" for removal. This inconsistnecy and selective application shows that this isn't just a matter of not understanding Wikipedia policy, but a matter of selectively disrupting disagreeable edits. I have discussed this matter with Springee here [18], yet the user persists in this type of behavior. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  • [Note, this is a later edit. Please note the date and time vs edits below. It is placed here to directly reply to the changes listed in the ANI accusation above]
  • The first list of 8 references are simply links to page edit histories. I'm not sure how I am supposed to reply to that material. Yes, I edited on all those pages for various reasons.
  • The second list of 8 references are to edits that Scoobydunk claims are WP:TEND. Note that this is a somewhat vague description and not a WP guideline. Scoobydunk claims I'm reverting (presumably solely) with the justification "no consensus". I'm putting forth that his claim is not true. I will go through all 8 of the edits in question to explain why.
  1. [19] This is an edit in which I reverted a removal of content by Scoobydunk. Another editor had added the material and I agreed with its inclusion. The related talk section is here[20]. Note the discussion regarding the edits in question began before the Scoobydunk reverted Rjensen's edits which I added back to the article.
  2. [21] This edit, like many relate to the changes HughD made to the Chicago-style politics page. On Aug 26th, 2015 an IP editor tried to return the article to the subject it had from its creation in 2011 through April of 2014 when HughD changed the topic to concentrate on a POV fork. The IP's initial edit is here[22]. I noticed HughD's involvement with this topic because this was during the same time period when he was attempting to insert a controversial Mother Jones article into a number of global warming related pages. In edits below I explain(ed) why I was involved in the MJ related content dispute. Since I am from near Chicago I decided to investigate the changes. That is when I saw that HughD had turned the article into a POV fork with no justifications on the talk page. The tag claiming the article was about a meme was simply not true historically and was added to justify removing other content. Thus I did have a reason for removing it that was related to the topic, not the editor. The topic shift was questioned in April of this year with no reply from HughD. The tag in question was only added after the IP editor tried to restore the earlier article topic sentence.
  3. [23] Removal of the same tag as above. This time HughD added it back in without responding to questions about the topic redirection on the talk page. Here is my question regarding the article redirect[24]. The tag was restored by HughD at the same time [25]. Restoring a questionable tag when other editors have made it clear that the existence of the tag should be discussed is not constructive editing.
  4. [26] This one is laughable. The editor in question was an "undercover" diarist at the Daily Kos. He was indefinately blocked shortly after this exchange [27]. The editor had added ~8k worth of content in a mass addition. Several editors, myself included objected to such a large and not well balanced addition. Several of us engaged in a discussion with the editor regarding the edit he was trying to make [28]. Prior to getting consensus and over the objections of the consensus of the talk page VVUSA/KochTruths added the content. I reverted it. For my trouble I was accused of being on the Koch brother's payroll on the Daily Kos.
  5. [29] This was disputed content which had already been added by HughD then removed by Capitalismojo then restored by HughD before he even joined in the talk page discussion regarding the content. I was following the edit history of Capitalismojo (not HughD) when I saw this content dispute. I agreed with the reasons for removal and hence joined in the editing. Note that this Mother Jones content was added to nearly a dozen article and thus what seem to be a range of unrelated articles are all part of the same content disagreement in which several editors were involved.
  6. [30] In this case, while there is an active AFD discussing both the Chicago-style politics and Chicago-style politics (meme) (the later a POV fork article created when HughD couldn't get consensus to keep the older article focused on the POV subtopic) pages with a likely outcome that the articles (the parent and the POV fork) will be merged, HughD adds a tag from the parent to the likely to be removed via merger POV fork. For the sake of article stability this sort of editing should be avoided hence I removed the tag. Note this was done after Fyddlestyx did a great job of restoring not only the older content that HughD had removed (see the article's recent edit history) but also did a good job of including mention of the meme content Hugh wanted to focus on. I don't think it was unreasonable to ask that we not put such edits into the article until the AFD and article mergers are complete.
  7. [31] This tag (no material was removed) is related to the Chicago-style politics and associated CSP meme article. Another editor tagged the newly created meme page as an orphan. Hugh then proceeded to add questionable "chicago-style politics" references to several articles including this one. The additions were questionable and I put both questions on the talk pages and in the article each time the content was added. As an example, in the Halftime talk edit list you will see I am the second editor [32]. Thus the article tag was an invitation to justify a questionable content addition. The tags were not stand alone.
  8. [33] This is an article which was discussing the Southern Strategy. An editor made a large 2.1K removal of sourced content. I reverted that removal and added a discussion page comment asking for justification for such a large removal [34].
  • While I can see Scoobydunk doesn't agree with my POVs on various subjects I think he was looking for a reason to claim WP:TEND and thus when he found posts that appeared to fit the pattern he went with it and we are here. I would question how he can claim this isn't about the content when it appears he isn't actually following the content discussions. I will also reiterate my claim from below that I believe Scoobydunk has an axle to grind. Consider this accusation of dishonesty on my part that he posted in reply to my comments [35]. Springee (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
2. (above) This particular edit is as clear an example of the reported user's blatant edit war baiting and tendentious editing as any. Several editors including the reported editor and an SPA IP were understandably confused about the relationship between our Political history of Chicago and Chicago-style politics articles and were approaching Chicago-style politics as a POV re-telling of Political history of Chicago, so an {{about-distinguish}} article hat was a completely appropriate, constructive, helpful approach to building our encyclopedia. Within the hour, with no talk page discussion, the reported user reverted the addition of the article hat with his favorite edit summary, "no consensus," which to the reported user means "I don't like it." The reported user characterized their motivation as "Since I am from near Chicago I decided to investigate," but WP:HARASS includes no exception authorizing harassment of editors from the same geographic area as one's self. By "I noticed HughD's involvement" the reported editor means of course he was digging through my edit history looking for contributions to political, but non-Tea Party, articles. My edit history goes back to 2006 including some 15,000 edits, 70% article space, and multiple good articles so respectfully if the reported user's harassment behavior is not addressed we should expect the harassment to continue for a good long time. I agree with the reported editor's strategy, I am a deeply flawed human and reverting my edits on articles from my history very likely should have induced a reportable edit war, and advanced the American politics ban he sought, but it did not this time WP:GAME. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that Springee's edit above is another example of tendentious behavior since he clearly disregards proper threading, as I've previously mentioned on this notice. Springee is clearly trying to justify the fact that he was wikihounding and reverting editors' comments for the reason of "no consensus" which is an explicit example of tendentious editing. I'd also like to point out that Springee regards this ANI notice and the over 16 examples of his wikihounding/tendentious editing as "jokes" [36]. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? It seems like you are trying to attack me because of a content disagreement on the Southern Strategy article and perhaps left over resentment because I disagreed with you and argued against your claims on the Americans For Prosperity RfC that recently didn't go your way (RfC[37] and your frustration that it was not decided as you had wished [38]). You have disagreed with myself and a few other editors on the Southern Strategy talk page recently. Today I proposed making some changes here [39], the first edit on the talk page since Aug 30th. You personally haven't edited that page since Aug 27th. I proposed adding to a section that you have strongly opposed since it's inception. So today when I proposed additional changes, changes you oppose, you quickly reply (your first content related reply to any article/talk page since Aug 27th). Note that your only edits between the 27th and today were to attack me attack me on Sept 3rd/4th. In that case you were siding with a blogger who initially joined here under the name "KochTruths" and filed an ANI accusing myself and three other editors of being paid stooges of Koch Industries[40]. It seems odd that as soon as I propose some changes to an article you appear to be watching, changes you wouldn't agree with, an ANI pops up, an ANI almost exclusively about edits to articles that you aren't involved with. It seems to me you are trying to game the system by using a ANI to block edits you don't agree with. Springee (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
That's not entirely fair, the concern that you were following HughD was raised by both Scooby and myself more than two weeks ago, in our comments on your edit warring report against Hugh. FWIW, there is pretty clear evidence of your following him too: especially to the Bernard Stone GA review, to Political History of Chicago, to Donor's Trust and to Chicago Style Politics. I was also concerned that you were one of several editors who seemed to be following Hugh, which is why I urged you (and Hugh) to avoid working on the same articles just a day or two ago. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The evidence of your wikihounding and tendentious editing is plainly clear. Please focus on the actual merit of the complaint instead of raising red herring arguments in the form of argumentum ad hominem. To address those concerns, I've raised these issues with you over the course of our discussions, and they've gone ignored. Now that the weekend is done and I have time to dedicate to addressing this issue, so I've raised a complaint here. It was specifically this edit [41] that prompted me to raise this issue. Again, you listed "no consensus" as part of the reason for removal, even after you were aware that removing material for that reason was tendentious behavior. Upon further review, I noticed "no consensus" in many other reverts of your's that I was unaware of before. This is continuing and prolonged behavior that needs to be addressed. I suggest you speak to the accusations levied against you, instead of trying to "shoot the messenger".Scoobydunk (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The second set of articles relating to HughD's edits all involve the Chicago-style politics article. This article got my attention as I was reviewing HughD's recent edits associated with the then active dispute over the Mother Jones article. Given the range of articles HughD was attempting to put the MJ article into and simply trying to keep up with all the various edits it was natural to check to see what edits he made recently. That is when I noticed the revert of an IP edit to the Chicago-style article (I'm from near Chicago originally so that also caught my eye). Then I discovered the history of the article. April of 2014 you will see that HughD totally changed the nature of the article without a single comment on the talk page [43]. The IP editor was attempting to undo that change. DaltonCastle also noted the change but his talk comment was not answered by HughD [44]. With the support of DaltonCastle I started to revert the article to it's earlier form. The result was HughD creating a second article as well as flooding the original one with edit tags. When an unrelated editor noted that HughD's newly created article was an orphan[45]. TO address this HughD added questionable references to other articles. Those articles include the ones I added "weight" tags to. The articles in question were Halftime in America [46], David Axelrod [47], Mit Romney [48], and Karl Rove [49]. Again these were all related to the same Chicago-style politics content dispute and were added simply to address the article orphan issue related to a newly created POV fork from the older article.
Scoobydunk did mention a few others that are unrelated to HughD (is original post seems to mix and match things). Some are related to the [Southern Strategy] article. This is part of why I think he is going after me as a way to address a content dispute. This one is Southern Strategy related [50]. I guess I'm wrong in thinking removing that much reliably sourced content without a talk page comment is questionable? Again the BRD cycle says if someone reverts it the next step is discuss. However, as that revert related to an editor other than HughD I'm not sure how this counts as hounding or much of anything other than the BRD cycle. Scoobydunk also listed this edit [51]. Well that is a content dispute with me on the Southern Strategy page. Note that I was reverting a removal of his, not adding/readding content of my own.
This final one is a bad joke [52]. That was my ONE revert of content added to all of the Koch Industires page by an editor who, as people suspected was a troll who was almost instantly blocked for the user name "KochTruths" then came back under a new user name and got blocked about a week later (indefinite block) [53]. The editor made a series of article changes, was reverted by another editor and then engaged in something that pretended to be discussion. When he went ahead and made changes that we had not agreed to in the talk section I reverted them. One of the charges made by Scoobydunk is that I was engaged in tagging edits or reverting edits without discussion or cause. That is far from true. I have extensively used the talk pages to try to discuss changes before editing the actual articles. Hence my edit history is heavy on the talk page end of things. For reasons that it can appear to look bad when one doesn't see how the edits I agree that I will avoid editing interactions with HughD once the Chicago AFD is closed out. But I can't help but question Scoobydunk's motives to get involved in something that in which he isn't at all involved. Why join in this boomerang ANI on the side of a trolling editor if you don't have an ax of your own to grind [54]. Springee (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
A couple of things to address. First, it is also outlined in WP:TEND that improper threading can also indicate tendentious behavior. Fyddlestix and I have already responded to GregKaye's post. If you want to respond to it as well, then your response would come after ours and be placed below our responses, in the correct chronological order. As per WP:THREAD "If you wish to reply to a comment that has already been replied to, place your response below the last response, while still only adding one colon to the number of colons preceding the statement you're replying to." If you are going to correct the placement of this most recent response, feel free to move my own response (this response), as well. Second, outlining your reasoning for the behavior is irrelevant. Just like the reasoning for edit warring is irrelevant to the fact that an editor was edit warring. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong in the addition/removal of material in an edit war, edit warring is seen as disruptive and comes with swift results. Harassment and tendentious editing is no different. Here we have multiple concrete examples of your following HughD around to multiple articles that you've never been involved in, and reverting his edits. We also have multiple examples of you trying to force people to get a consensus before adding or removing material from articles. There are valid reasons for reverting other users but the objection of "no consensus" is not one of them as identified and explained by WP:TEND. So it's not a part of the BRD cycle. The BRD cycle includes reversions and discussion that actually have to deal with WP policies, and gaining the approval of you or other editors is not one of those policies, as is directly expressed in WP:TEND.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Relevant context here is that Hugh was reported here multiple times (including twice by Springee) for his behavior on Koch and climate-change articles, and was topic-banned for it by Ricky81682 a few weeks ago. Springee has continued to follow Hugh since then, though, most notably to Chicago-style politics, which led to some squabbling between the two of them on the talk page, a spin-off article (Chicago-style politics (meme)) and this AFD. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're not sure about, so I'll repeat it more plainly. Reverting edits because there is "no consensus" is referred to as tendentious editing. Springee has made multiple reverts almost solely based on there being "no consensus" or "no consent" and has spoken this directly in the edit comment of the diffs listed above. I've addressed this issue with Springee, so he's aware that it's tendentious to require editors get consensus before adding/removing cited and sourced material from articles, yet he continues to do so.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's quite fair to claim Scoobydunk is attacking me due to a content disagreement. His posting of this ANI and the retort to my Southern Strategy talk comments were back to back. As for following HughD claims, well actually I agreed with Fyddlestix that it was looking questionable and thus once the Chicago article was settled I am planning on cutting back on editing in general for a while. I'm still rather frustrated by the external attack on me related to the Koch Industries page mentioned above. However, the claims of following all over are not quite right. In reality we have just two recent sets of edits. The first was the set of edits related to trying to insert a Mother Jones article into potentially a dozen articles. Those were the mid August edits. They all related to basically the same topic. I did accuse HughD of edit waring related to those edits [[55]]. Since this was a case of trying to insert a questionable citation into several articles it looks like I'm following to a number of articles when in fact it's all part of the same content dispute. I discovered the articles in question by looking at some of the activities of Capitalismojo and Arthur Rubin. I agreed with them that the edits were questionable. The Chicago-style politics article was one that I admit I found via looking through HughD's edit history. However, that is hardly the hounding Scoobydunk wants to claim. HughD was making lots of edits to lots of articles as part of what I saw as edit waring (again see the recent ANI). I noticed that he objected to some IP edits and immediately posted a "don't do that again" type message on the IP's talk page (one of the IP edits in question [56]). What the IP editor objected to was the way HughD had taken an article about the phrase "Chicago-style politics" and turned it into an article that discussed attacks against Obama. This was don't without comments on the talk page and against the muted objections of others. Sorry, that article caught my attention and I agreed with the IP editor as well as the editor who objected on the talk page. The details of that interaction can be seen in the following talk pages but they are on the up and up. After creating a new page of questionable value another editor tagged it as questionable for bing an orphan article. HughD added tags in several articles that were clearly of questionable merit simply to create links to the new article. That's the ugly history of that story. Note that I didn't go around reverting HughD's edits. I tagged them as questionable because I do think they are questionable. If editors have specific article questions I can answer them in more detail. Do note that what seems like a lot of different articles are actually related by just two edit/content disagreements, the inclusion of a Mother Jones article listing "the climate change dirty dozen" and the edits to and related to Chicago-style politics page and the POV fork Chicago-style politics (meme) including the addition of questionable links to the latter at pages like Halftime in America, David Axelrod, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 and Karl Rove.

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

The opportunity to step back was when I first raised these issues. This is serious behavior since tendentious editing and knowingly editing tendentiously disrupts the principles of Wikipedia and the enjoyment of other editors. Wikihounding is also a serious form of harassment which is not to be taken lightly. I believe a more serious and long term admin sanction is required to cover the behavior exhibited by Springee.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict with above post) Sorry for breaking this up, I have been getting interrupted while putting these posts together, hence things are not as organized as I would wish. Anyway, to further my claim that this is something related to Scoobydunk using the ANI to attack me please note these WP:BATTLE posts to HughD's talk page. Scoobydunk is trying to coach HughD into feeling hounded: [57][58]. Hugh has filed a number of ANIs against other editors [59], [60],[61]. Why encourage this action against me by a third party unless there is a personal motivation given the third party is more than capable of posting the ANI himself. There was also this out of the blue attack on me in the ANI that had nothing to do with HughD (the KochTruth blogger ANI) [62]. Why make such an unrelated statement in that ANI unless your intent was somehow personal or content dispute related. Again, I think this point to an attempt to bully to resolve the content dispute related to my post earlier today. Springee (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Without commenting on the other claims in this case, this edit[63] certainly looks like an example of "let's you and him fight". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Guy Macon, I'd like to point this out as another example of Springee's tendentious editing. In the diff Macon linked to Springee says "Do not add the material again without going through the discuss part of the BOLD cycle." which is another demand requiring consensus and seems potentially threatening. Springee's attempt to turn the subject matter of this post on me is what he typically does against other editors to avoid responsibility for his actions. The real battleground behavior here is exhibited by sPringee in the form of tendentious editing and wikihounding. Suffice to say, I've well witnessed multiple examples of disruptive behavior from Springee towards other editors and offered suggestions to those abused editors on how to address the issue. It's no surprise that they haven't pursued the issue because Springee and others attempt to "shoot the messenger". This is not okay, and though Springee now attempts to levy accusations against me and my motives, none of this should take away from the harassment and disruptive editing he's exhibited on multiple occasions. Scoobydunk (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Why didn't you post this ANI a long time ago rather than just today when I proposed making changes you disagree with?[64] These are changes that you seem to be the lone, vocal hold out against. You could have easily posted this ANI in a more timely fashion. Would you have posted this had I not edited [Talk:Southern_strategy] this morning? Springee (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I've already explained this above and also gave the direct link to the edit that prompted me to raise this issue. Your edits since that last "no consensus" reversion you made are irrelevant to the fact that I've been monitoring this and have been attempting to address this behavior for some time now. I'll also note, that I have raised this issue before in other ANI posts, but it got completely ignored by admins. I've already spoken to this fact and this behavior is clearly something that shouldn't be ignored. I thought my mentioning this on other ANI reports against you would be sufficient, but since those reports have been closed with no action taken against your behavior, I'm left with no option but to raise my own ANI notice. It's quite simple really.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
So wait, you are now claiming this is a conspiracy between several editors to intimidate more than just HughD? "Suffice to say, I've well witnessed multiple examples of disruptive behavior from Springee towards other editors and offered suggestions to those abused editors on how to address the issue. It's no surprise that they haven't pursued the issue because Springee and others attempt to "shoot the messenger"." Who are these other editors and who are these other people we are intimidating? It was less than a week ago I was accused of being on the Koch brother's payroll.

Your edit that raised the issue wasn't today. You linked to quite a few edits. Which "no consensus" edit are you talking about? This one [65]? That would strongly support my view that this is an attempt to control content in [Southern Strategy]. Springee (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in my comment indicated a conspiracy and you can click the diffs supplied in the original complaint to see the different editors who you've tendentiously reverted due to "no consensus". The previous ANI notices with HughD and that Veritasvenci (SP) show you and other editors ignoring the content of the complaint to pursue accusations against the person who proposed the complaint. This doesn't suggest a "conspiracy", but there is ample evidence that editors have ignored your behavior to focus on others' behavior, and this is what I was speaking to. Also, I made a specific response to one of your comments where I outlined the specific example of your tendentious editing. You can find it here [66]. I'm not sure why I'm bothering linking it for you because it's clear you ignored it the first time to continue to pursue your red herring arguments.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
That edit was the one that broke your camel's back? Well at least that was only two days ago... unlike most of this stuff, some of which is almost a month old. But why reply just after I proposed edits on the Southern Strategy page? Your ANI and your negative reply to my proposals were just back to back. Regardless, do you think the tag I removed was proper in the case of two articles that are likely to be merged based on AFD consensus? Why add a tag to the article that is likely to be gone in less than a week or from an article which is likely to be gone in less than a week? Isn't adding that, given that consensus is clearly that one or the other will go away it's own form of tedious editing? I noticed that you are the only editor who complained about that edit. None of the involved editors objected. You are of course welcome to join the discussion if you think that tag should have remained. I think if you look into the specific histories of the edits you have cited you will find that they are not unreasonable and I do listen to group discussion and consensus. But if you think KochTruth/VeritasVincitUSA[67] was just here to build a better encyclopedia you are certainly welcome to argue that case. Springee (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not interested in discussing red herring arguments. I think it's more telling that you're attempting to justify your wikihounding and tendentious editing, instead of taking accountability for it. Even worse, you're trying to pass the blame to other editors when you say "Isn't adding that, given that consensus is clearly that one or the other will go away it's own form of tedious editing?" What other editors do is irrelevant to the fact that you're editing has been tendentious. You've been told about it, it's been previously discussed, yet you continue to do it. I'm not interested in content disputes about the tag and we're not here to discuss content disputes. Also note, I'm not complaining about any particular edit, I'm talking about behavior that is evident across multiple articles. So please stop trying to distract from that issue. Scoobydunk (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

In evaluating the reported user's proposal of a month long voluntary interaction ban, please note that since his proposal the reported user has continued his project of hounding, deleted a page I created and engaging me on my talk page demanding I not interact with him. The reported user is hounding me to comply with his proposed remedy for his hounding of me. The reported user is not here to work on our encyclopedia. The reported user may require administrator intervention or he will not desist in his project of harassment. Thank you in advance for your attention to this behavior. Hugh (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The above are reverts after discussions were underway and related to material on the talk pages. Given your recent history of disruptive editing (your block log has 4 entries this year including edit warring) and given that your year long topic ban was due to misrepresenting facts as you were attempting to have sanctions brought against an admin, I don't think we can just assume your presentation of the material is at least somewhat self serving. It seems this is becoming a tit-for-tat discussion. That is exactly why I told Fyddlestix I was burned out and ready to take a break [68]. I agree with his last comment (though I realized I didn't actually reply to it at the time). Springee (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The edits above relate to your blitz to remove content that didn't support the POV fork you added to the article. I was asking only that myself and others be given the time to correct the lack of citations in the older content rather than simply blanking it. You didn't bring your disagreements to the talk page but instead made edits without discussion when it was clear myself and others were now trying to get some agreement on the article changes. The "third party editor" was Fyddlestix and again you are misrepresenting the events. The one line I restored was discussion the history of the phrase the article was about before you changed the entire article into a POV fork without a single comment on the talk page. Fyddlestix took the time to really rewrite the article to include the historic information with references. I thanked him for a whole sale rewrite of the article, not for removing or adding a single sentence. It seems very questionable to present the facts as you just did. Springee (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
HughD, you were topic banned for being less than honest in your dealing with an RAE you filed. You claimed you stepped back when in fact you were topic banned under protest [69]. I can't help but think your above post is a self serving, opportunist set of claims trying to make you look like a victim. For example, on the Chicago talk page why did you start by attacking my motives rather than justifying your edits ([70], [71],[72])? Why did you attack me instead of answer a topic based question? If you look at that talk section in general you will see that I was trying to discuss the article topic and ask why you changed it. You were trying to avoid that topic. This is hardly a case of you being a victim, instead this is you refusing to engage in a dialog about your edits. Do you think comments such as this [73] are productive or focus on the content?
Anyway, as I said in the Chicago-style politics talk page and will say again here, I'm rather tired of all of this myself and I'm happy to take a step back for a while. To avoid the look of impropriety I'm happy to stay away from any new topics you are actively involved with for at least one month. That should give both of us a welcome rest. [User:Springee|Springee]] (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:HARASS: "It is as unacceptable to harass a user ... who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to harass any other user." Hugh (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
But in the same section it IS considered reasonable to "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." and "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." The edits you were making were very questionable thus there was an overriding reason. I joined the MJ related articles after looking at what others, not you, were editing. The Chicago related articles were to correct the way you created a POV fork in the original article. To claim this was to hound you you need to show that your original edits to the Chicago-style politics article were reasonable. Even when asked on the talk page you never justified the whole sale change you made to the article. Thus WP:HOUND doesn't apply in that case. The same is true of the MJ case where a number of editors disagreed with you and I ended up working with another editor to try to come to a amicable solution to the problem. Springee (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
FALSE, reverting HughD's edits on the basis of "no consensus" is not an example of "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." As a matter of fact, using the reasoning of "no consensus" is actually, itself, an unambiguous violation of WP policy as per WP:TEND. So your reversions are not covered in the scope of exceptions for following a user and changing their edits and actually are part of the reason you're being reported for tendentious editing as well. Also, claiming that his edits were "questionable" is a further admission that they were not "unambiguous" because "questionable" inherently implies ambiguity and uncertainty. You also just admitted to having an overriding reason of "no consensus" which,in and of itself, is tendentious. WP:Hound clearly applies and this comment of yours only further proves it.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I agree an interaction ban only partially addresses the serious behavior reported here. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
1-3 month site ban? Seriously? This again makes me think your intent is vindictive rather than anything else. WP states that blocks are not meant to punish but to protect the site. Thus if I agree to any self imposed limits and stick to them you should have no grounds on which to protest... unless your motives are vindictive. Furthermore, I provided examples of you trying to brow beat an admin with whom you had a disagreement[74]. Here was the last reply to you, "One of us is being aggressive and confrontational. It's not me. ... Guy (Help!) 22:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)". It seems I'm not the only one who would think you are confrontational and will try to brow beat to get it your way. Since you are attacking me with this ANI I am certainly free to call your motives into question. You did the same to me when I posted an ANI unrelated to you. You also did the same TOO me when KochTruth posted an ANI to attack me that resulted in a boomerang and indefinite block. It's funny that you accuse me of not assuming good faith yet you aren't willing to do the same with respect to the edits I was making. Springee (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, harassment is a serious issue. Also, I didn't question your motives, I simply raised the issue of your tendentious editing and wikihounding, thinking that an admin would be responsible enough to address those serious issues. Sorry, but I'm pretty sure "good faith" becomes a non-issue when there are over 16 instances of wikihounding and tendentious editing combined. I also already explained how your self imposed interaction ban doesn't address the issue of your overall tendentious behavior and harassment.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
You did question my motives. When you said WP:HOUND you have to question my motives because part of the test for hounding is this "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason.". So do you think HughD's MJ and Chicago-style politics edits were "reasonable"? Understand that you weren't involved in those discussions so you probably didn't follow their developments. My "over all tendentious behavior" is a farce. You have only three examples, weak at best, that don't relate to the topic disputes with HughD. The Southern Strategy one is clearly a content dispute with you. One is related to Koch Truth (again, are you defending his edits as valid?) and one is related to a large scale removal of content without explanation. I reversed that removal. I don't see that other editors objected (yourself included). Can you make your case on just the three edits that aren't related to HughD? Springee (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Nope, I never addressed your reason for wikihounding nor even spoke to your motives. I only acknowledged the fact that you were wikihounding and have supplied 8 instances of it with other editors contributing more examples. Also, tendentious editing is not a farce and if you would actually read other peoples' responses, then you'd know that trying to defend tendentious behavior is irrelevant. Just like trying to defend edit warring is irrelevant to the fact that a user was edit warring. Making tendentious reverts citing "no consensus" is a violation of WP:TEND and is disruptive editing just like edit warring is, regardless of whether you think your were right/wrong with those reverts. Again, you continue to make baseless assertions and strawman arguments instead of accepting accountability for your behavior which only further shows that you have no intention on correcting this behavior.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Thank you for your broad brush assessment of my contributions to our project, I'm sure readers of this report will find your assessment helpful. I understand you would like to see me react in anger to your assessment. I understand to the reported user all my contributions are "questionable." I guess according to you my gross incompetence makes it impossible for anyone to WP:HOUND me and so it's open season on Hugh and I should just get used to it; after all, the reported user has yet to confront me with 2006 through 2013. By the way, I think I may have asked you this before, but I can't recall your answer, how many good articles do you have? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. This is pure straw man. I never said anything of the sort, and of course you know that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Dr. Fleischman - Thanks for your input, but the examples of wikihounding I supplied all showed Springee trying to "confront or inhibit" HughD's work. WP:HOUND does apply some caveats for fixing unambiguous errors, or small corrections, but it doesn't include tendentiously reverting someone's edits for the reason of "no consensus" or because of a disagreement about content. Sorry, but people subjectively considering his addition of reliably sourced information as a "perceived mess" is not excused by the wikihounding policy, and using a reason of "no consensus" is directly an example of tendentious editing, not to mention the repeated removal of reliably sourced information.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I did not say that Springee did or did not hound Hugh. I simply made an observation about the relevant policy since you appear to be misrepresenting it in this thread (suggesting that simply following someone around and reverting their edits is hounding, in the absence of any intent to confront or inhibit), as well as elsewhere. FWIW, I agree with you that "no consensus" is generally a bad reason for a first revert. It is one of my personal pet peeves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe repeatedly reverting a user's edits is plainly considered "inhibiting their work". If I'm trying to add content to an article and it keeps getting reverted, then clearly my work is being inhibited. I used different diction, but the actions are synonymous. I also believe that the few exceptions WP:HOUND mentions clearly don't apply to an edit summary of "no consensus".Scoobydunk (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

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

There's a perfectly good reason it's been ignored. These kinds of arguments also keep going to WP:AE (which at least has a word limit) and no one particularly cares because everyone can see what this is. I'm hardly uninvolved here but what I see is editors using ANI to snipe at each other to get the other side kicked out so they can take control of heavily political articles and whitewash or blackwash or whatever they want to do to them. ARBCOM gave you rules for those articles and gave you a method for it and it's not here. I suspect the cases at AE haven't gone anywhere so that's why you're here. Either way, while you're here, you're going to have to be more specific on what you want. Suggest an I-ban, a topic ban, a block, whatever and see where it goes. The fact that people watch the same topics isn't necessarily hounding and the truth is the whole lot of you have made editing here less pleasant for everyone who interacts with any of you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Ricky81682 - I've already made a recommendation above, but I don't see why it's my responsibility to make a recommendation. Admins normally know what kind of action is appropriate. Also, you're making a red herring argument when you say "people watch the same topics" unless you can prove the Springee was watching all of those articles. The 8 different examples of wikihounding I supplied had never been previously edited by Springee before, so to suggest he was watching them and not following an editor is unsubstantiated and unreasonable. Regardless, he was still purposefully inhibiting the editing of a another contributor. Let's also not forget the 8 examples of tendentious editing on top of that. It is my understanding that arbcom deals with problems that have already been addressed multiple times in WP:ANI, but still persist. So I'm required to bring this here first and this is the type of behavior that's suppose to be addressed here. Your comment also confuses me because it's very clear that you had no problem taking action against HughD and that Veritavenci guy, even to the point of violating wp:involved concerns, but are doing nothing to other editors who have violated multiple WP policies. There are over 16 examples of WP policy violations by Springee in the form of wikihounding and tendentious editing and there are clearly defined by diffs and it's very clear that they are getting ignored and have been getting ignored. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Look, up to you. And no I did nothing "even to the point of violating wp:involved concerns", I'm sure I've never even edited all those articles. Other than taking a cautious approach to a problematic new editor, I issued a single article topic ban for two weeks on one individual and then expanded it when the concerns expanded, two things that no one has overturned. I consider myself uninvolved as I have little care about any of these actual article content (and barely any more about the editors). Otherwise as I said I haven't gotten more involved but the point is this looks like the same tit-for-tat fighting from various editors. No one here has edited remotely appropriately. Fine, I'll support Springee's proposal for a one-month interaction ban between Springee and HughD (including the Chicago-style politics article) whereby both editors agree to not revert the other directly. If there's a dispute, start a discussion and make an edit request and let an admin or anyone else be a third-party. Reject the idea of a complete site ban as overkill. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it's grossly inconsistent to give VVUSA a permanent ban for harassment concerns and then support a 1 month interaction ban for Springee when there are numerous instances of harassment and tendentious editing. I've also already proven that Springee's behavior isn't limited to his interaction with HughD but has been directed at multiple editors and an interaction ban does absolutely nothing to address this behavior. No where did you address this fact in your support for Springee's recommendation and no where did you address the bad faith accusations Springee has levied against me in this Ani notice and how he's acted aloft to this serious evidence. I think it's also telling that you believe the actions of HughD and VVUSA get perma bans and topic bans, but when it comes to the side of their opposition you consider it to be "tit-for-tat". Not that I condone the behavior of the editors previously mentioned, but there is a clear bias in how admin's have been handling these issues despite multiple editors voicing concerns over Springee's behavior over the course of the last couple of months. Finally, my "involved concerns" pertains to your removal of Kochtruth's addition to an article. I know admin's aren't considered involved for behaving in strictly an administrative sense, but I feel your criticisms/implications of HughD's relationship to Koc/VVUSA create a strong case of bias and that VVUSA's block should have been left to someone who hasn't removed his content or made speculations about his username. I think issuing blocks on both sides of the issue would have removed any sense of admin bias, but that clearly didn't happen. Just my opinion and they're simply concerns.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Please tell me I don't have to explain the difference between someone who's writing dailykos account of being an "undercover agent" here accusing editors by name and what Springee has done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Let's see, over a dozen examples of harassment by Springee against other users, and only one example of an offsite article that's assumed to be connected to a WP user. FYI, whoever posted the article here on WP in an attempt to connect it to VVUSA, violated WP:Outing, yet I didn't see any action taken on that serious violation either. Regardless, they're both defined as harassment by WP policy and you've been clearly biased with your application of WP policy. Regardless, a comparison is irrelevant to the fact that Springee has violated multiple policies, multiple times, and absolutely nothing has been done about it. That demonstrates a clear bias among the admin community. Scoobydunk (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Just as a point of order, there is "36 hour rule". The 36 hour time frame is when the old archivebot would move a thread to the archive. There is no solid rule as to when a thread is closed. If there are sanctions proposed, they should be properly closed by an uninvolved admin. Blackmane (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
We just need one more supporter for the Springee site ban and that's the majority here. (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not a vote. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

one year site ban for Springee[edit]

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

You've only made a couple of edits on this topic. What ID do you normally edit under? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:HUMAN. Some of us don't register. (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Read WP:SPA, for which you qualify. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
That's not an accurate assessment. The contributor that you've responded to has had an account since mid July and has contributed to 3 different topics. The one proposing a site ban hasn't had enough time to establish his/herself as an SPA.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs yet again attacks IP editors. Why isn't he topic banned? (Why, indeed, is he tolerated on ANI where his inflammatory but poorly thought out comments often make things worse) (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

topic ban ricky81682[edit]

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

You've come from out of thin air. What ID do you normally edit under? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't. I just reviewed the evidence here. (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering why this IP seemed familiar. A user from this range has a very big bone to pick with Ricky81682 arising from a dispute on the World's Oldest People pages where they received near unanimous support for a topic ban, here. This IP, among others, is used by the indefinitely blocked user:Kochtruth, who was blocked by Ricky81682 back in August and has been raising all sorts of noise about him ever since. Blackmane (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
So is that an oppose? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
BaseballBugs yet again attacks IP editors. Why isn't he topic banned from ANI or IP editors? (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Time to move on?[edit]

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

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

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

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

I think 2 to 3 month site ban works as well. (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps an indefinite site ban for you? Yes that would be worth a new thread. Blackmane (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Would an admin please close out this topic. It has dragged on over 2 weeks and seems to have been stale for much of that time. Most of the recent posts are KochTruth sock/meat puppets. Please close it out. Springee (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Was: IBAN. Is now: lame edit war[edit]

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

So you're calling the editor an idiot, and wonder if you should block them... for what? A personal attack?! Is this thing on? Doc talk 08:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
For iBAN violations, Doc. And his comments were re editing behavior, not re a person. You're not helpful here and seem to want to kick up drama - why don't you shoo!? IHTS (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Not helpful to you maybe. That don't mean much to me. Doc talk 09:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Guy your two mentions of "idiocy" should either be clearly substantiated or struck. See idiot, idiot definition and WP:CIVIL. I find it painful that you start with mention of IBAN and then introduce discussion like this. GregKaye 13:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Ask yourself this. Who does more to improve the encyclopedia, someone who finds original sources, cites them, and generally puts a lot of time and effort into improving an article, maybe even up to GA standard, or someone who interferes with this work by carrying on a 2 year old feud and sniping from the sidelines? Not to mention admin shopping, you're the third he's tried. Damn right it's lame, as is this thread. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Ask yourself this: do we give a toss? Your edit comes across as petulant and motivated by the identity of the editor not the actual content. And, to be absolutely clear, the idiocy is bilateral: you are both behaving ridiculously. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
So you don't give a toss about improving the encyclopedia. OK. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
No, I just don't give a toss about self-serving excuses. Every single restricted editor ever has probably thought at some level that they were improving the encyclopaedia. The whole point of restrictions such as IBANs is that the editors are engaged in good-faith editing - otherwise they'd simply be blocked. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
^ "...the idiocy is bilateral: you are both behaving ridiculously". What a cop-out. Keep calling editors "idiots", as an admin. It will make us all look swell. Doc talk 09:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh good, a one-man peanut gallery. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

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

So, despite what Guy says, you are not behaving ridiculously, and MaxBrowne is. That clarifies a lot! Doc talk 09:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Wow, IMO, this thread just gets worse. This is not normal for AN/I. GregKaye 13:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

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

NE Ent! Yay! Thankfully you've come in to save the day. You, frankly, rawk!!! Doc talk 09:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Somebody clearly has a lot of time on his hands. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
About that particular edit, I saw it too previously, but let it slide because it was so minor (and probably an improvement by the other editor). But the three incidents of overlaying text I added, I did/do object to, they haven't been improvements and now a disimprovement. It's true iBAN was never something I wanted, advising that it effectively can become a roving topic ban. (And duh, that seems to be the frustration at hand, then wanting to have it both ways.) IHTS (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
"I want the terms of the IBAN, and the consequences of violating them, to be very clearly spelled out to avoid any gaming of the system. The terms being: (1) No posting to each others user page or talk page (2) No replying to each other in discussions (3)No referring to each other directly or indirectly anywhere on wikipedia. (4) No undoing each other's edits (but we can edit the same articles so long as we keep to the terms of the iban). Basically as described in WP:IBAN and WP:BANEX. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)". IHTS (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, by this stage I think you are both gaming the system. The IBAN should either be vacated or enforced, and in this case enforcement will almost certainly lead to blocks of both of you. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@JyZ/Guy, you openend this ANI on the basis of a revert which was intentional violation of iBAN (which was also, as shown, not an improvement but a disimprovement). How does one go about asking for enforcement of an iBAN they never wanted, when there is intentional flippant violation of it, without being accused by you of "gaming the system"? IHTS (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

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

MaxBrowne Can you see that an edit summary as: "Go to ANI or get lost" would better have been phrased differently? I see a potential here for a block having only considered the issue of civility but in a timespan of hours or days. GregKaye 13:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
A single edit out of context does not tell the whole story. This is an editor who has intentionally violated and expressed his contempt for the IBAN numerous times. Despite the IBAN he has continued to find ways to niggle me. This current excercise in petty point scoring seems to be aimed at getting the IBAN lifted, which I vehemently oppose as I have seen no change of attitude from this editor, just the same petty argumentativeness. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

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

The edit summary is clearly a violation of the interaction ban between MaxBrowne and Ihardlythinkso, and, thus, on its own, to my eyes is sufficient cause for a block of some length. It seems to be the first violation of the I-ban (correct me if I'm wrong, of course), so it could reasonably be a short one on that basis. Having said that, the at best dubious civility of the comment could not unreasonably lengthen the block. I might say three days in this case, maybe? John Carter (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
If you ignore the revert, which was intentional iBAN violation, then might you be encouraging more of same in future? IHTS (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for the phrasing. I wasn't ignoring the revert. But, for the first violation of an i-ban, I think the threshold is somewhat lower. In this case, I guess I was figuring one day block for the violation. The language, over and above the factual reversion, is I think cause enough to lengthen the comparatively short first block. Of course, if others think that the "base" block of one day isn't long enough, and I can well imagine I am not current on such things, no longer being an admin myself, I could reasonably guess it might be longer, although I would still think that the language used in the violation is sufficiently concerning to extend the "base" block to some degree. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarify. I don't know why these iBAN violations can't be handled by admins independent of ANI. Why is wide participation needed when a single admin can do something to enforce iBAN when there are violations? I asked admin Blade for help to stop the violations. He didn't. I brought to attention to admin JyZ/Guy that the revert was inconsistent with his previous ANI close. In response he opens this ANI about the revert, then without cause changes course to bad-mouth and recommend blocks. When he was at liberty to simply take his own action, or discuss with me at at his Talk. People talk about the virtue of minimizing drama & disruption; however, their actual behaviors seem constructed to maximize it. IHTS (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The ANI thread I raised earlier was to complain about this edit, which was a direct revert of my edit and a clearcut IBAN violation. Despite my calm language, the admin, the very one who raised this thread, refused to take any action and told me "stop bickering". This edit also directly addressed me in the editsum and so is also a clearcut IBAN violation, and was a partial revert of this edit which I'd made. Sorry, I shouldn't have acted as I did, I guess I should have raised another ANI - after my last experience though I didn't have much hope that anything would get done. All of the drama is being initiated by the other party, and unfortunately facilitated by this rather uncivil admin, who should recuse himself from any further involvement in this thread. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
And you respond by continuing to revert right back. You are clearly an intelligent person, why are you unable to see that all you are doing is making it impossible to say that X violated the IBAN or Y violated the IBAN, but only that both X and Y violated the IBAN and are now behaving like kids called before teacher after a schoolyard fight? It is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The word "continuing" is not accurate here since I have not previously done that. You were wrong to close the previous ANI before the issue had been properly resolved; this led me to take things into my own hands instead of raising another ANI like I should have done. You were also wrong to initiate the current ANI given your "involved" status. You initiated this ANI with an incivility, and have continued in the same vain. If anyone deserves to be blocked from this whole sorry business it's you. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"I'd face an immediate block by an admin like Sjakkalle or Chillum who have shown partisanship when enforcning(sic) iBAN against me"? Really? I blocked you exactly once after there was a clear community consensus to do so. Not only am I not "partisan" against you, I had to look up what you were talking about because I did not even remember you. Chillum 17:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Bull, Chillum. You've shown extreme partisanship/favoritism. If you are that degree of self-unaware, you should resign your tools. IHTS (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Diffs please? A bit of evidence would do wonders to improve my awareness and the awareness of others. It is hard for me to show partisanship/favoritism when I forgot who you even were. Perhaps you are not as big in my mind as you imagine yourself. Chillum 15:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion you want doesn't belong here, Chillum. And please believe, if I ever get a notion of self-"bigness", it'd never be gauged by anything whatever to do with the likes of you. (The simple fact is, if *I* were an admin, I'd be organized sufficiently to remember, or easiliy find, extensive dialogues I've had, with anybody, big or small would be irrelevant. [But that's just me.]) IHTS (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The way forward[edit]

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

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

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

(Where +/− is defined as "Clear advantage for White" at beginning of book. There is bibliography at beginning of book listing nine book and eight journal sources, but Lasker isn't listed as direct author of any of those [so I imagine the Lasker line is secondary source to one of those sources].) Please note it says "Better", not "Best", which mean differently of course. (So, "Best" currently in the article s/b changed to "Better". [My original paraphrased edit was: "Black does better with 15...d2! 16.Nexd2 0-0 according to Lasker, with a clear advantage for White." [75] [76], which was just fine of course.]) IHTS (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
OK I thought you meant you had a Lasker book where he recommends 15...d2. I think Lasker's recommendation was originally published in the London Chess Fortnightly in 1892 or 1893, I don't know which issue. Lipke refers to this in his article. There was a reissue of the London Chess Fortnightly in 2001 but I don't have it. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Could be. It's not listed in Harding's bibliography, but what it says there is: "We also looked at numerous journals, of which the following are noteworthy: British Chess Magazine (BCM), Chess, Chess Life and Review, Chess Player 1-9, Fernschach, Informator 1-19, 64, Shakhmatny Bulletin, Shakhmaty v USSR." IHTS (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
How about this, you go ahead and edit as you please on that article. I will not go running to ANI over wording changes etc so long as editsums are civil. Call it an experiment. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Damn, IHTS has gone and got himself blocked on an unrelated matter (unfairly in my opinion) so he can't respond to this yet... but if we can collaborate on this article without yelling at each other too much maybe we can look at getting the interaction ban lifted. I'm game to try it. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The block was lifted. But I think your idea is great. Behaviorally, I think we both have good understanding on what the other doesn't like. Let's play fair. The iBAN can always be reinstated (I would assume or guess), without a lot of red tape, at your request. Happy editing. IHTS (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, even though I'm sick of all the bullshit and drama, I am not yet comfortable with asking for the IBAN to be formally lifted. There are still a lot of festering sores. That's why I referred to this as an "experiment", a first step in that direction. You obviously care about the article too, so let's see if we can't collaborate on it. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
You seem to want full iBAN with exception that one article. Or creating whatever other gray area - confusing. You've also proposed lifting iBAN. (Which I agreed.) I don't think iBAN is as malleable as you want it to be. I think either the iBAN is there, or it isn't. I can agree with you to lift, but how can I agree to a modification I'm not authorized to, even if I did understand it? IHTS (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
No change of mind, just a clarification. Call it a suspension if you want. This is already a big shift for me, just a few days ago I was saying no way do I want it lifted. Certainly I'll be quick to ask for reinstatement if things get uncivil. Besides, technical breaches are only disruptive if someone complains, which I've said I won't. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, it seems you want some sort of gray area. (I don't know any WP definition for "suspension" re iBAN. If that involves removing it, then acc. J Carter an AN thread is needed.) IHTS (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
If you'll forgive me for saying it I couldn't give a shit what John Carter has to say about anything - very nasty and aggressive editor, prefer you don't mention that name. We don't have to be slaves to process and precedent. How about we find an uninvolved admin we can both respect to facilitate this? I suggest Callanecc. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, I have no idea what "this" means. I think either the iBAN is there, or it isn't. IHTS (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

How much analysis of Anderssen-Dufresne is there in Harding & Botterill? Do they go into 19.Be4, 19...Rg4 etc? Any mention of Lipke, Neishtadt, Zaitsev? Harding is usually very thorough with his research before he puts anything in print. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This was the history of the article immediately prior to MaxBrowne's (MB) 28 Aug 2015 indirect reverting of IHTS; the history clearly shows only two intervening, non-content changes by involved editors since both MB and IHTS's December 2013 editing. The WP:IBAN was placed at MB's request and its terms are clear. It's his responsibility to follow the terms and perform due diligence prior to editing: the state of Evergreen Game was such that any edits MB or ITHS to the article were likely to change some prior text the other had inserted.
MB says the ITHS concern about IBAN violation "looks petty to me" and then attempts to use alleged content improvement as a basis for ignoring their violation. The very nature of IBAN is pettiness; there are 125,086 active users and the overwhelming majority of them manage to edit without requiring the community to supervise their interaction.
As JzG / Guy states above, we need to either enforce the IBAN or trash it, as it's clearly not achieving the desired goal of ceasing chronic complaints about each others behavior from disrupting the community.
Note: Not that anyone should care, but it took me roughly 60 seconds to find the diffs showing the violation; article history -> diff first MB edit in August, find nature of change, use WP:BLAME tool to find insertion -- actually works reliably, not being hosted on WMFs tool labs -- done. NE Ent 12:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Your involvement is also unhelpful. You tried to prevent the imposition of the IBAN from the beginning, and any time I have complained about a violation you have muddied the waters - I can provide diffs if required. I am trying to come to a resolution here and your involvement is not helping. Please stand back. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
This entire subthread is not only unhelpful, but pointless. If you want to change the nature or terms of the i-ban, you are of course free to do so. That would be reasonable and I believe allowed by policies and guidelines. Simply saying that that the existing i-ban, something that the editor making this complaint requested, seems to me inherently problematic, as no alternative is proposed. It also can not unreasonably be seen as perhaps an attempt to use the i-ban to personal advantage. If you don't want the i-ban in place, please request that. If you want to change the terms of the i-ban, please request that. But, frankly, this subthread comes across as, basically, useless. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Prior to this ANI, the editor had undone three of my edits. In all three cases I documented my original text at article Talk, to facilitate the editor to restore them, but this was ignored. So I restored my contents, with editsum indicating why re iBAN. In the first instance there was no conflict, in the second instance the editor opened an ANI on the basis of iBAN violation, admin JzG closed it as "no violation". In the third instance the editor reverted my restore, telling me to "go to ANI or get lost". I went to the closing admin JzG instead, who opened this ANI. (The content of the third edit has not been re-restored yet, even though I've explained twice in this ANI why the undo by the editor was a disimprovement.) Today, a fourth of my edits has been undone by the editor, at a different article. Again, I'm sure the undo wasn't intentional. (The editor has refused to ever check edit histories claiming it is too burdonsome to do so. I can understand that. That is why I have in each case updated article Talk as mentioned.) So I've updated article Talk again [77], expecting the editor to notice and restore my content. So far he has never done so in any of the four undos. What I want (to minimize people-involvement such as asking an admin to restore the edits each time this happens, or opening an ANI on these inadvertent undos), is the freedom to do as I've done in the first three undos - which is to restore the contents myself, with appropriate editsum indicating the iBAN. (So far I have not been able to do that - once it resulted in the editor opening the previous ANI, once it resulted in his revert & the nasty editsum.) OK, so what does consensus want to do as way forward? The third and fourth undos are so far unrestored, and a method for future is also unaddressed. I've no desire to be held accountable for iBAN violations, so can there be some direction given or approved? Thx for consideration. IHTS (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Complaint concerning the conduct of admin Guy/Jzg[edit]

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

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

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

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

So now you are doubling down? And that's supposed to demonstrate that IHTS is the sole source of the problem? Let me know how that works out for you, I'm on a plane for the next ten hours or so. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm complaining about your handling of the dispute which was highly combative and insulting from the beginning. This is not how admins are supposed to deal with things. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I was not involved in the original discussions; my advice would be for everyone to just drop it and move on. Nobody has covered themselves in glory there, and if this keeps getting dug up, sooner or later someone is going to get hit with a boomerang. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC).
Lanikiveil, I appreciate that you want to calm things down but I have raised a concern and I want it to be addressed before I "move on". There are right ways and wrong ways for an admin to approach an ANI dispute, and I don't think the schoolmaster "stop acting like kids" approach is the right way. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Allow me to say that I am becoming increasingly concerned regarding the extremely tendentious nature of MaxBrowne's conduct, and am coming to the conclusion that a much longer block for his violation of the terms of an i-ban is not apparently the only problem. Max has started a subsection above, indicating that he thinks the "way forward" is to apparently do something other than adhere to the i-ban he has been placed under, and now he is seeking to blame others for having the guts to call him out for his own extremely combative behavior. At this point, I'm thinking a one-week block of MaxBrowne for both the i-ban and his tendentious efforts to try to do everything but address the nature of the misconduct which started the discussion regarding him here might be the minimum called for under the circumstances. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I saw some positives in IHTS's post and was hoping we could come to some arrangement. This prompted my "way forward" section. please AGF. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The arrangement is for you to cease wikilawyering and actually abide by the existing sanctions. You, however, seem to be perhaps incapable of understanding that, and, honestly, I have a great deal of trouble in seeing how that would do anything but perhaps strengthen existing concerns regarding your conduct, and, potentially, the length of sanctions to be imposed, considering you seem to not adequately understand the main concern here, which is a rather obvious violation of an i-ban. John Carter (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I am glad you are not an admin anymore. From WP:PUNISH: "Some editors, even some administrators on Wikipedia forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of Arbitration Committee sanctions in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content. This is regrettable and problematic, not to mention contrary to the reason for blocks, bans, and enforcements as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines and policies linked in the previous sentence. When proposing or supporting an action that could easily be interpreted to be punishment, ask yourself, "Will this action help make the content on Wikipedia better?" If the answer is not an unequivocal "yes" and you still end up supporting the action, you may be an adherent to the punitive model of Wikipedia. This may also mean you enjoy the perceived "power" that you get from enforcing your will through the various features (or bugs) of the Wikipedia community." MaxBrowne (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I think all of this is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on your part. You should be thanking JzG for being so lenient, because he would have been justified in blocking you for violating the IBAN, instead he's let you off with a stern warning not to do it again. I urge you to consider that you're digging yourself deeper into a hole before you continue your campaign, as every post you make is making it less likely you'll get what you want. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC).
Agreed. You have repeatedly done everything in your power to, basically, all but say you have done nothing wrong, and on that basis alone there is every reason to believe that you will have no reservations about doing the same thing again. That being the case, under the circumstances, a block is entirely reasonable, because there is every evidence from your own comments that you see nothing wrong with how you violated the i-ban and seemingly have no reservations about doing the same thing again. Under the circumstances, honestly, the only conclusion I can draw from your ongoing posts is that the block lengths that had been previously considered might not, given the nature of your subsequent posts, be long enough for the kind of WP:IDHT behavior you have displayed. John Carter (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
MaxBrowne, you must disengage here if you want to avoid getting blocked. IBANs are usually interpreted in a very strict manner and they are typically broadly construed. Getting into a ping-pong revert match at Evergreen game over a very minor matter is an example of what the IBAN is designed to avoid. Making a comment regarding IHTS on an unrelated matter here, even if your comment is in IHTS's favor, is also a violation of the IBAN. You should not have gotten involved with an AN/EW thread regarding IHTS and that has nothing to do with you. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sjakkalle good to see you here. I guess my post there is a kind of signal that I'm willing to consider lifting the IBAN if we can avoid the kind of nastiness that led to it in the first place. I indicated the same in the "way forward" subthread. A positive move for the encyclopedia if it can happen, yes? MaxBrowne (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Where on earth did you get the idea that the i-ban exists only on the basis of your own support of it? An i-ban is two-way, and, despite your repeated comments here, I get a very strong impression the person who has ignored it most is you. Of course you support removing any sanctions that could get you blocked, any idiot would. But the sanctions were placed by an administrator, not by you, and it truly amazes me that you are still incapable of seeing that, and that repeated failure to do so raises reasonable WP:CIR concerns. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
John C, I appreciate your clear eye on things, but my impression of the iBAN discussion is that is was mostly to accord Max what he wanted very much. (I didn't agree with that process, but that is water over the dam.) The fact is I'm happy Max sees now how the iBAN is problematical to both of our editing work, and, in fact iBAN is itself full of a lot of holes [shabbily defined, not a lot of history with enforcement issues], and who wants to spend time "creating new legislation" when a more desirable result is to put it in a drawer, if possible, and that seems to be possible for the first time, so I'm happy 'bout that.) Thx for your attention & consideration. IHTS (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
If there is a reason to believe the i-ban should be lifted, it would, of course, be reasonable to discuss that, probably in a separate section. However, I as an individual can say that the conduct of the other party involved here in no way inspires me with any confidence regarding his own ability to edit collaboratively with others. Also, it would be very useful if the two of you indicated that there would be some other means the two of you would take, other than the behavior which evidently led to the existing i-ban, which would help resolve the issues that led to the discussion here. However, to be blunt, I believe the behavior of at least one editor here might be such that others might still question whether it would be in the project's best interests to withdraw sanctions. Also, personally, I think it might be best to start that discussion at WP:AN, where the existing i-ban was imposed. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the reason is, that both editors would like it lifted. To edit freely. As mentioned to Max, I think we each know by now, without getting explicit, what the other doesn't tolerate. (For me, am willing to discuss more explicitly if necessary, and I assume he is too, but is it?) If protocol is to start AN thread requesting lift, perhaps most convincing is if he initiated it, for obvious reason. (I of course would immediately become joint to that request.) IHTS (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC) The other editor has apparently changed their mind. IHTS (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to come late to the party. Guy's behaviour is indefensible. See the complaints at [78]. Guy protected the page so Jimbo couldn't rule on the complaint against him. Ihardlythinkso, if you study the diff you will see that Guy works in collaboration with Future Perfect at Sunset. Why not add him to the complaint and kill two birds with one stone? (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The complainant (thread OP) is another user, not me. IHTS (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
That's pretty funny. You quoted a series of comments by CyclePat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who subsequently struck them and changed form oppose to support on my RFA, which was nearly ten years ago! Guy (Help!) 21:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I obviously myself see sufficient basis for some sort of administrative involvement, but I ain't an admin and so can't do anything in that regard myself. Yep, I talk a good fight but thankfully I don't have to actually make any of these calls myself. ;) I don't have the guts, basically. Anyone want to do something here, or should we start yet another separate subsection or more to discuss the various sanction options? John Carter (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The material cited by User: above was removed as being from an IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change when User: posted it.[79] Both IPs geolocate to London, UK, using the same ISP. For some reason I am suddenly in the mood for some roast duck with a nice CheckUser sauce to smoke out any stealth accounts. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • John Carter asked me to weigh in. There's been some discussion on my talk page and I had good hope that we could get rid of the iBan. I don't know what to do here. As far as I'm concerned, we lift the iBan completely, and then no one will have to worry about whether this or that edit or revert (they're making those anyway) is a violation of the ban or not. Just get rid of the ban and take it from there, dealing with possible disruption in the usual way. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • BTW, I have a long history of disagreeing with IHTS, but I gotta say, he's on his best behavior here. His opponent, not so much--those who called for a block (I think I've seen two or three calls from different people for a block) may have had a point. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
You do understand why I'm concerned about lifting the IBAN, right? Have only to examine the original AN thread to understand this, I was genuinely distressed and more than a little creeped out. I guess someone could propose it at a new AN thread but I wouldn't be happy about it. To clarify, are you in favour of a punitive block now, after a week? MaxBrowne (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, no, I don't really understand. And to clarify, I said, I believe, "may have had". I don't know about this "week": I think there was some displeasure with your comments in this very thread. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Please review the original thread. Note that serious consideration was given to making the IBAN one way. The whole thing was very upsetting and is still quite raw for me. It should be patently obvious why I don't want the IBAN lifted. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
There very definitely has been some displeasure with MaxBrowne's conduct in this very thread. John Carter (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
And with yours. You have been uncivil throughout. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Max, I am amazed at your inability to grasp the fairly obvious fact that it is in fact your incivility which precipitated this conversation, your incivility during the conversation which has caused others to question your self-awareness, your incivility in arbitrarily and unilaterally attempting to close a proposed option below, your dubious grasp of procedures and civility in starting this subthread, your rather obvious arrogance in attempting to apparently unilaterally dictate the outcome of this discussion in the subthread immediately above this one, and, in short, your dubious conduct and dubious civility throughout which is the primary matter of concern here. I will acknowledge that it is hard to effectively describe your conduct without using terms which are perhaps less than optimal, but if you want to blame anyone for the criticism you have received here, it is most reasonable to blame yourself, for being the proximate cause of that criticism having to be made John Carter (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of arrogance, please stop attempting to speak for the entire internet. You have been by far the most strident and aggressive person in this ANI, replying to almost every conversation with yet another personal attack and derailing any attempts I have made to dialogue with other editors. There was no need whatsoever for you to chime in here for example; Drmies was talking to me, not to you. Likewise there was no need for this particularly nasty personal attack while I was attempting to talk to Sjakkalle. Please go bark at someone else. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You are the best person to speak about arrogance here, of course, considering you have displayed the pretty much unheard-of arrogance to temporarily collapse one of NE Ent's proposals below as being other than a serious proposal. You still do not seem to understand that it is your behavior at issue here, and, in fact, by the above post, pretty much continue to display the same issues that have been remarked upon repeatedly by multiple others. John Carter (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
"....have been remarked upon repeatedly by multiple others John Carter." There, fixed it for you. The difference is that the "multiple others" you refer to have spoken in a reasonable manner instead of injecting themselves into every conversation and attacking me every step of the way. You know, as in WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA. Remember those? And I don't see any "except at ANI" clause in any of these policies. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
And those multiple others who have spoken civilly clearly excludes yourself, whose own conduct has been as I say below in the newly added proposal both inexcusable and, to the best of my knowledge, maybe in some ways, so far as I can remember, the worst I have ever seen at an AN thread. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let's review some comments from this thread (please see above)

  • "I think all of this is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on your part." Lankiveil
  • "MaxBrowne, you must disengage here if you want to avoid getting blocked." Sjakkalle
  • "So now you are doubling down? And that's supposed to demonstrate that IHTS is the sole source of the problem? Let me know how that works out for you" Guy/JzG
  • "The WP:IBAN was placed at MB's request and its terms are clear. It's his responsibility to follow the terms" Me. NE Ent 02:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You can see that this is a problem though? One particularly aggressive editor has repeatedly interjected with his personal attacks over the more moderate language of other editors, basically sabotaging any efforts towards an amicable resolution. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The difficulty seems to lie in your own refusal to acknowledge that your own conduct, including both that which prompted this thread and in this thread itself, is worse. The most significant problem, so far as I can see, is what seems to be your inability ro recognize that your opinions are not, and should not be, absolute laws. And once again you overlook not only your own refusal to speak in a reasonable manner, but your, to my eyes, unprecedented arrogance in preemptively hatting one of NE Ent's proposals before. Once again, the problem seems to be regarding your conduct, and your apparent inability or refusal to recognize that it might be problematic. Concerns regarding that have been expressed repeatedly. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal (lift iBan)[edit]

iban between Ihardlythinkso and MaxBrowne is removed.

  • Support as proposer. NE Ent 23:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

* Absolutely not. Anyone who reviews the original thread will understand why I requested the IBAN and why I don't want it lifted. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. The editor has repeatedly contradicted themself both re the edit undo proviso of iBAN, and the other aspect including making personal derogatory comments re the other editor (i.e., me). (If I need to go into detail with diffs to prove said points, I'm able to do that. [I've done much of it already here and at admins' user Talks.]) The iBAN s/b enforced, or lifted. (My preference is that it be lifted, so both editors can edit freely. I believe I have more basis for concern than the other editor of being on receiving end of uncivil comments in the absence of iBAN, since that has been what has been happening; however, editing in freedom is more important, and, the uncivil comments at Talks and in ANI threads have never been enforced by admins, the iBAN has been ignored on that level as well, so what good does it represent me?) IHTS (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC) And ditto Drmies below, thanks to NE Ent, for this proposal. IHTS (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Actually, I just recently looked and it seems that all sanctions of this sort can be taken to WP:AE, even those which are community imposed rather than ArbCom imposed. In general, people get better or at least quicker responses there. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer an alternative, such as making certain articles (and associated talk pages) exception, if possible. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    What articles are you referring, and why? (The only issues at Evergreen Game and Wayward Queen Attack are edit undos while under iBAN, and aren't based on any content dispute [at least none I'm aware of]. Are you suggesting to retain iBAN on articles where it hasn't worked or been enforced, for which this ANI was presumably opened?!) IHTS (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • More like, for the Chess example above, the IBAN does not help (as you said not all of the edits there would be considered dis-improvement). So not exactly what you suggested, but I hope my point is made. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 08:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm still not understanding. (Of four undos, two were disimprovements, the other two were equal-quality copyedits [neither improvements nor disimprovements], but still forbade by iBAN.) IHTS (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. If MaxBrowne is unwilling to adhere to the letter and spirit of an iBAN that only he wants, then let's get rid of it. Keeping it in place is only causing more drama. Other ways to minimize drama between these two editors (e.g. subjecting both to a one-revert rule with respect to each other's edits) should be considered. Cobblet (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    There has never been any edit-war episode between Max and me (if memory serves) at any article. The only reverts have been over inadvertently undone edits in relation to iBAN, which forbids undoing one another's edits. Although two of the undos were content disimprovements, none of the the reverts were related in any fashion to any sort of content dispute(s) (at least none I'm aware of). (My impression is that Max was simply upset about being reverted on basis of iBAN - that he felt reversion on that basis was unacceptable interference to his article improvement efforts.) IHTS (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Noted; this thread's title does say "lame edit war", but you didn't write that. Cobblet (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. IHTS (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's look at this. IHTS claims (naturally I disagree) that he has more reason than I do to worry about the consequences of removing the IBAN in terms of incivility from the other etc. Well in that case, let him put his money where his mouth is; he should have no problem with the following suggestion. Naturally any conditions would be worded so as to apply equally to both parties:
  • strict interpretation of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, with a minimum two week block and possible re-imposition of IBAN for any breeches, including but not limited to:
  • personal attacks
  • snide or aggressive comments (e.g. in edit summaries)
  • any kind of harassment or bullying
  • repeated references to past grievances (i.e. failure to drop the WP:STICK)
  • recommendation that the two editors avoid unnecessarily mentioning each other, refrain from personal remarks of any nature and avoid each other in general
  • strong warning against any form of wikilawyering or gaming the system MaxBrowne (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I can't agree with this. It'll be up to admins to impose the penalty for violation of such sanctions, if they are agreed upon, and I don't want that kind of precision because it will lead to...well, look up at where this thread started. Both of you need to adhere to the normal guidelines, the ones I and everyone else have to live by. It is entirely possible that admins will look upon this or that snarky remark with less leniency because it's you (whichever one I'm talking to right now), but drawing up a list of qualifications is not the way to go. Also, someone making a personal attack would lead to a reinstatement of the iBan? Isn't that asymmetrical warfare? Sorry MaxBrowne, but no. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Assurances? Two things. a. admins will enforce "civility" or whatever passes for it. b. What assurance do we have that you (singular and plural) won't continue this eteeeeernal wikilawyering if the iBan stays in place? Clearly IHTS was some kind of butt-hurt during those two weeks a year and a half ago and yeah, sure, he shouldn't have been talking about you so much (if I didn't know any better I'd call it cute in a high-school sort of way), but by the same token, isn't all of it on his talk page? What do you care what he does on his talk page? And that you keep an archive of bad diffs, isn't that telling as well? How long do you want to nurse this? At least on the part of IHTS I see something that suggests he's working to get past this. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The "archive" was copied from the original AN thread and has not been saved by me. Suggest striking that. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Appreciate the trivialization and insults to both parties too, btw. MaxBrowne (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Max, you s/ distinguish between my objections re admins (specifically The Bushranger, DangerousPanda, and [indirectly] Ched) picking up/keying off your "classic narcissist" epithet against me, versus your use against me, since therein I make a huge distinction. (I.e. admins are expected to demo conduct of a higher standard, re WP:ADMINACCT.) IHTS (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
IHTS has greatly reduced his editing of chess articles – that is assurance enough. It's time to move on. I think both IHTS and you are tired of this charade, although it is entirely understandable that neither of you feel like you can afford to admit that to the other. Cobblet (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Not aware of anything I resist "admitting to", can you clarify what charade, thx. (If you mean the iBAN, I never thought it was a good idea, but had no control over it being imposed.) IHTS (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────And once again, an ANI is being used by the other editor under iBAN, as coatrack for throwing mud (e.g. laundry list of diffs to "evidence" bad or uncivil behavior against them). (Do I get equal time? I didn't ask to go there, nor did/do I have desire to. But the hypocrisy is deafening. Am I being baited to prove why, so this ANI can be reduced to a cat-fight, with fingers pointed at the baited cat, to say "I told you so!"?! And this scenario hasn't been played out over-and-over?! And I'm accused of not dropping sticks?!) There is no WP venue anymore for ongoing WP:ETIQUETTE issue. But I'm not averse to opening a post-WP:ETIQUETTE thread with supervision by a third party, until Max is satisfied (though I presume, that would be never, based on the circularity). It seems to me the other editor is taking or getting in all the swipes they can on my character, at very public ANI. (Again. Same thing in previous ANIs.) Am I supposed to like or enjoy that? IHTS (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No, not doing that at all.... I'm talking more about me than about you. About my misgivings re lifting the IBAN. And you're in the best position to answer them. How do I know all this crap won't happen again? MaxBrowne (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, the "crap" flowed way more from you to me. Please stop the baiting. IHTS (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
In the weeks leading up to the IBAN you were attacking me on a daily basis in threads that I wasn't even involved in, as evidenced by the diffs I gave; this is a matter of record. I need to know that this is not going to resume if the IBAN is lifted. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
More circular baiting. More hypocritical standard. I asked if you would please stop it. ¶ In the days leading up to the IBAN you levied the following unwarranted personal attacks; this is a matter of record: "This is classic narcissist / Diva behaviour. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)" ""Classic narcissist behaviour" was my interpretation of your actions, based on a number of factors, including but not limited to (1) your hypersensitivity to criticism (2) your extreme hostility and argumentativeness over the most petty disputes (3) your flattery towards those who affirm or defend you (4) your absolute inability to see yourself as others see you. I've come across this sort of behaviour frequently on the net and I can recognise it when I see it. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)" "Here's the thing. If someone were to accuse me of having sex with sheep, that wouldn't bother me in the slightest, since I know I have no zoophilic tendencies whatsoever. It's so far from the truth that it's laughable. This is the effect that the majority of your insults have on me. On the other hand, if someone were to call me a loser who spends way too much time on the computer, that would carry a lot more sting, because it's much closer to the truth. If "narcissist" and "diva" carry a sting for you, that suggests to me that they're somewhere in the vicinity of the truth. If I'm totally wrong about this, maybe you could do something to correct that mis-impression? Believe me, I would love to be proved wrong. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)" ¶ You were not blocked for this (*I* was, for making a bated response) or even warned. So what kind of assurance do I have this behavior is not going to resume? The answer is none. No editor s/ have to face that kind of personal abuse - your link to Narcissist describes as a diagnosable personality disorder - especially from three admins who decided to pick up your epithet and throw again. But that is clearly the indisputable nature of the current lawless and stoneage WP all editor volunteers are subject to. IHTS (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I support Ent's proposal and thank him for it. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal (Nash Equilibrium iBan)[edit]

The existing iBan is replaced with a Nash Equilibrium ban such that:

  • If either editor complains about the other anywhere on Wikipedia, both will be blocked for a day, with each subsequent violation to follow a Fibonacci sequence. (The sequence has the nice property that the first values are low, but it grows rapidly in case the pair doesn't get the hint.) As this is a "no fault" ban, it should no require long ANI threads / discussions to enforce. NE Ent 23:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I honestly cannot imagine any situation in which we have said that someone is blocked because of the actions of someone with whom they are or have been in conflict. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually I'm quite serious (reviewers please see [89] and [90]). NE Ent 01:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Rather obvious oppose. The proposal violates two basic, if not codified principles that are essential to make the blocking policy come off as fair. First, legitimate complaints should not result in sanctions being imposed on the complainant as we want users to report actual cases of misconduct. Second, blocks should only be done for actions that the blockee had some control over; being blocked bacause of an edit someone else did is a capricious way of enforcing things. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't every iBan prevent editors from reporting some instances of misconduct? If you think about it, this just an iBan with easy to enforce consequences, as opposed to the current sort of, mayb, iBan currently in place. NE Ent 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban one, DS/final warning on the other[edit]

I propose:

  • 1) The existing i-ban remains in place;
  • 2) User:MaxBrowne is topic banned from all content related to chess, broadly construed, for three months
  • 3) User:Ihardlythinkso is subject to discretionary sanctions for a concurrent period in roughly the same area
  • Note: Both of the above are of course subject to it being the case that the problematic interactions of these two is limited to the broad subject area of chess, which seems to be the case from what I have seen before, but for all the words spoken by MaxBrowne in particular there hasn't been much to directly indicate that
  • 4) Any concerns regarding the conduct of either editor under the provisions above to be taken to WP:AE.
  • So far as I can tell, the statements at the AE page permit concerns about sanctions imposed by both ArbCom and by the community to be discussed there, and may be seen as indicating such is how such matters should be done, and it generally gets quicker results anyway.
  • This seems to me a more acceptable option than the one NE Ent proposed above, as it doesn't necessarily sanction both individuals for the misconduct of only one of them. Max is being proposed to be subject to the stronger sanctions on the basis that it was MaxBrowne's unacceptable behavior that prompted this thread, the grossly combative and dare I say self-righteous nature of many of his comments and actions, including in particular his action here in basically unilaterally hatting the proposal immediately above. To the best of my knowledge, I have never seen such a transparent display of blind arrogance at one of the noticeboards.
  • The arrogance Max has displayed, regularly, is to my eyes completely inexcusable and unsupportable. It is to be hoped that if this proposal is approved, Max will make some effort to become more familiar with procedures and conduct guidelines here. However, it is also possible that, based on what has been said, the other individual may take advantage of Max's topic ban if countermeasures are not in place. On that basis, the discretionary sanctions are proposed. I am going to assume, possibly incorrectly, that the first misstep by Ihardlythinkso may well be placing him under a topic ban for at least as long as Max's own. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Excuse please, but what are you suggesting qualifies as "may take advantage of Max's topic ban"? (Restoring two of the four edit content undos that were contrary to iBAN?) I don't know what bad thing you are supposing that I might do, can you be specific so I can know? IHTS (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not really myself presuming anything, other than the rather obvious distrust that Max has of you. I suppose it might be possible, however, for someone to go on a rampage of reversion, which I do not honestly think you would do, and, honestly, I don't expect any particular misconduct from you. It is pretty much just a generalized preventative measure, much like the i-ban itself. John Carter (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, but I think you're misreading Max's "distrust". (It isn't re reversions, rather re incivility. [Which goes both ways of course.]) IHTS (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


I think we can conclude from the entirety of this ANI thread, and from the initially cited edit summary ("Go to ANI or get lost") and NE Ent's summation of this ANI thread, that while IHTS is not blameless, Max Browne is by far the aggressor here and that something has to be done to stop the aggression and endless disruption. I'm not sure than any of the multiple proposals currently listed above are going to resolve the issue. I'm posting this as an outside observer who has seen this drag on endlessly for over three weeks. I'd really like to see it resolved. Although people did not bold their !votes, there was definite consensus above to remove the IBan. That may the simplest way forward, with the exhortation to the two parties to remain civil and neutral and to avoid charged words and insults (and to discuss civilly on article-talk when a disagreement arises rather than arguing or reverting). Maybe we could try that, and then if it doesn't work, come back here with the view to a more stringent solution(s). Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree on all points. (Except that, again, Max & I have never revert-warred re content, only re edits overlaid contrary to iBAN.) IHTS (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
If the IBan is lifted, I propose the two parties drop the past completely and start afresh, never referring to anything that occurred before this date. I think this is really the only way we can create a clean slate of civility and respect. The other editor's past behavior no longer exists and can no longer be referred to. All opinions going forward will solely be about content, and if the content in question already exists, do not refer to how it got there. Discuss content and policy, not other editors or their behavior. Softlavender (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

The recent POV issue began here [91], about 24-48 hrs after the GA review began after 4 months of waiting, if I'm not mistaken (end of Aug beginning of Sept). Godsy is the one that tagged the article after QuilaBird brought the issue to the TP. Mudwater had stated/argued repeatedly that the title needs to be changed to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". The title was temporarily changed to "Gun show loophole controversy", but reverted after later discussion. About the time I obtained photos for the article, and there was a consensus on which image to use, the article was submitted for GA review. Zwerg Nase and Winner 42 responded to our GA request. Here is the current state [92]. There was an impartial consensus to keep the original title (edit - consensus at NPOVN including two impartial comments on the article TP after the placement at NPOVN, then Markbassett commented there today, after it was "resolved" [93]. I mistakenly asked an involved editor to close ([94] Darknipples (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)) and they have changed their mind from (essentially) agreeing with the consensus, to saying the issue is not resolved. The issue has been brought up several time in the past year, especially by editor Mudwater. Each time the result was to keep the title as is. Other involved editors include @Etamni, Faceless Enemy, Godsy, Capitalismojo, and Altenmann:. I'm hoping someone can make sense of this and I'm not sure where else to go. Thanks for the help. Darknipples (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC) I seem to have forgotten a few editors QuilaBird & Scourge of Trumpton...Darknipples (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC) (Recent edit [95]) Darknipples

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

On the contrary, a consensus has never been reached on keeping the article title "Gun show loophole". A number of editors, myself included, feel quite strongly that the title of the article violates WP:NPOV, and that the article should be renamed per WP:NDESC. Others disagree. But the question of the article title keeps being brought up by different editors, not the same ones, which is an indication that there's a genuine issue here. Mudwater (Talk) 21:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Mudwater I was referring to the multiple impartial consensus' with regard to the current and previous discussions, RFC's, Name Change Request's, and Move Requests, etc..etc.... Darknipples (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Would it be prudent to involve/ping related WikiProject editors (Firearms, Law, and Politics/American)? Darknipples (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I suppose if a neutral notice was given, but as I said above, policy seems to be very clear on this so I'm not sure how more people arguing is necessarily better, as there has been lots of discussion already. My close above was after reading through it and weighing it against the actual policy that guides us here. Of course, I'm open to counterviews, but it seems obvious in this case. Dennis Brown - 21:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not sure what to expect, as I've never dealt with this kind of thing before on my own. Will an administrator close this on the article's TP when this discussion is finished, or should I ask someone like yourself to do it? I don't know if I'm allowed to close it or not since I'm an "involved editor". Sorry for all the questions, you've been most helpful. Darknipples (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

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

  • I'm ex-military, from a military family, had an FFL, CTC for years, etc., etc. I'm familiar with the politics, but what I do is set aside my own beliefs and focus on policy. The title should use "loophole" because policy says it should, but to keep it neutral, it makes sense to discuss how it very often/never/always/whatever really is/isn't a loophole, and how that is the term that is most often used to describe it only/sometimes/etc. I'm betting there are plenty of sources for this, and a short blurb in the lede plus a paragraph down lower should be more than sufficient to offset any concern about NPOV. What is at stake is policy, and policy says that most of the time, you use a non-neutral title if that is what the sources use. This situation doesn't fit into any listed exception, and WP:TITLE is the primary policy, everything else takes a back seat to it. When we use the word "terrorist" or dozens of other terms, there is the issue of bias as well, but in all cases, our job isn't to correct the sources or take sides, it is to document them. That is why we follow their usage, even if we don't like it personally. Dennis Brown - 23:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: I'm in favor of passing a new federal law requiring background checks for all private firearm sales. So, I'm not taking this personally. I just think you're off-base on what the policy is here. NPOV is extremely important. Just because a lot of people use a term, doesn't mean it should be the title of an article, especially when the term is as biased as this one. As far as "terrorism", I haven't done an exhaustive search, but so far I'm definitely not seeing it. For example, Palestinian terrorism is a redirect to Palestinian political violence. Analogously, "Gun show loophole" should be a redirect to "Background checks for firearms sales in the United States", or something along those lines. Mudwater (Talk) 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Is Talk:Gun_show_loophole/Archive_3#Requested_move_29_January_2015 the last requested move discussion? NE Ent 23:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think WP:NPOV is important also, but as I've already stated, NPOV clearly says to refer to WP:TITLE when it comes to titles. The issue of POV is covered in WP:TITLE quite deeply, including listing exceptions. This is why, again, I say that WP:TITLE trumps WP:NPOV here, the policies themselves say so. If you can't argue it based on WP:TITLE's wording, then there is no argument. Dennis Brown - 23:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
As HighInBC points out, "This is a content dispute pure and simple. ... Administrators cannot solve content disputes" Someone should wrap this in a close tag and request the parties start a move request if last January's is the most recent. NE Ent 23:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Ent and NE Ent:..."HighInBC" is seems to be referring to "an image" or something like that... [96]. Not GSL's TP discussions or ARTICLE EDITS... I think the diff you supplied may be unrelated...? Darknipples Darknipples (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes that quote seems out of context, I never commented on this issue. HighInBC 15:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@NE Ent: As far as actual requested moves, I could be wrong but I believe that's the only one. But there have been a number of other, later discussions about the article title, on the article talk page and also in other forums such as this one. @Dennis Brown: I appreciate that you're trying to apply Wikipedia policy to this question, but I think that preserving WP:NPOV is more important than the exact wording of WP:TITLE. Common sense should prevail over Wikilawyering. But I acknowledge that there's significant disagreement about what's common sense here. Mudwater (Talk) 23:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@NE Ent: January isn't the most recent according to the logs. April of this year just before we requested the GA review [97] as far as "recent" (Darknipples (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)), with EXCEPTION to the current discussion, as far as I understand THE TITLE is concerned. Darknipples (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm commenting as an uninvolved party and experienced admin, I've never edited in or around that article. I think to call my direct quoting of a primary policy "Wikilawyering" is a uncivil. Someone came for unbiased interpretation of policy and got it. You appear to be saying NPOV is more important because YOU think it is. I'm saying that very policy defers to TITLE clearly and without question, in the very wording of the policy. You are an interested party, I'm not. Dennis Brown - 00:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: You said, "If you can't argue it based on WP:TITLE's wording, then there is no argument." I think that's going too far, and it strikes me as being in the general direction of Wikilawyering. But, I would say it's not a full-fledged case. If that sounds like I'm only half-way apologizing, it should. But, you're right that I'm an interested party and you're not. I do appreciate your taking the time to contribute to the resolution of this dispute, so, thanks for that. Mudwater (Talk) 00:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I suspect (without, honestly, looking in great detail) there have been too many conversations. There's this fantasy if we all discuss enough we'll come to a point we all agree with ... the other 99% of the time if you good back and forth on an opinion more than maybe three times you're spinning your wheels, and it's best to get help before tempers start to flare. Help = more people. I think this is one of those times where WP:Process is important and the burden would be one the folks desiring a move to file another move request, with focus on what has changed since the January one. Then everyone votes, an uninvolved editor closes it, everyone moves one while respecting the other point of view. NE Ent 01:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • To echo Ent comment and good judgement, admin (including myself) don't settle content issues. My quasi close comment and comments since were to point to the right policy and offer an opinion about policy, not a judgement. I stayed off that page on purpose, but that is where it should be settled. Dennis Brown - 00:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Current discussion between Mudwater and myself on the GSL article's TP [98]. Darknipples (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC) FYI I'm referring to this (edit) particular "suggestion" from Mudwater " P.S. I'd be okay with "Gun show loophole" being a redirect to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". — Mudwater (Talk) 20:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)"(/edit) . (edit) AND previously to the one in charge of THE GA REVIEW Zwerg Nase [99](recent edit) (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC) , among other times I do not feel need mention at this point. Darknipples (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I suppose this [100] is relevant in a certain regard... Darknipples (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC). So Mudwater and (QuilaBird, the one that hasn't said a "anything new" (see TP) about the matter in almost two weeks), are reason enough to ignore WP:POLICY?. Nevermind...I digress. Mudwater and I simply don't agree. -- Darknipples (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I suppose Notifying (ping) Fuhghettaboutit and Bus stop is in order now...Darknipples (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC) To reiterate, unless GSL's title changes to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" - Mudwater and "future editors" will continue to tag according to "said WP guidelines/rules/???" Darknipples (talk) (recent edit - [101] - Darknipples (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)) I forgot to ping Checkingfax from my TeaHouse edit. Darknipples (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I have never edited the GSL article. I was alerted to the debate by the Teahouse thread linked above, and posted on the notice board and IIRC on the article talk page, once each. While I came to them independently, my view is pretty much the same as the one expressed by Dennis Brown, above -- the only policy based outcome is to use the common name, which is the current name. I reviewed the article at the time of the Teahouse thread not long ago. At that time it included a well-sourced discussion of the controversy over the terminology as well as the controversy over the policy issue. It also included sourced statements showing that many of the "pro-gun-rights" did use the "loophole" term, even as they protested that it was misleading or biased. If those sources are accurate, it is NOT correct that this term is used only by one side of the controversy. Rather it is frequently used, albeit sometimes under protest, by people on both sides, and overwhelmingly by the (at least ostensibly) neutral media. Hence IMO it is the common name for this topic and should be used as such. I have seen no consensus to move this article, and no policy=based reason to retain a POV tag on it, as the article itself clearly explains the various points of viw and who holds them. DES (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Now that I look at the records, I never actually asked Etamni "to close" the discussion [102], just asked if they had any experience etc... Darknipples (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Did someone say my name? As I noted at the relevant talk page, our policy, WP:TITLE has a specific section, at shortcut WP:NDESC which explicitly states, In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. (Emphasis mine, internal link omitted.) It would appear that this policy was specifically written for circumstances, such as this one, where the most common name is problematic. I also note that WP:TITLECHANGES is contradictory, in that it suggests not changing a name in this circumstance. I believe that the contradictory nature of these two policies means that we need to use common sense to resolve this issue. In this case, the article is about the fact that private sales of firearms, particularly at gun shows, do not require background checks in the majority of states. This is a political issue, with those favoring more controls on firearms ownership calling it a "loophole," while those who are against expanded laws finding the term "loophole" offensive because the term is pejorative and suggests that people are somehow getting around a law that was intended to apply to them, when, in this case, the legislative history suggests that such an intent was never part of the laws that were established to require licensed firearms dealers to conduct background checks; indeed, private parties are prohibited from accessing the system. Thus the term "loophole" is not factually correct. There is no neutral alternative term used consistently through the RS. In the discussion, several terms were suggested, but none found consensus. One of the suggested terms was Background checks for firearm sales in the United States but this was rejected. I believe that it is not a good title because it does not represent the subject of the article, which is the fact that certain sales are not subject to background checks. Another suggested term, and one that I supported, was Private party exemption but this was also rejected, apparently due to the lack of RS to support it (although I believe that WP:NDESC would allow it). Just during the past year, this issue has been raised several times, ad nauseam. I give credit to the editors involved for not engaging in an edit war within the article itself, but even the repeated discussions on the talk page are disruptive, so the issue needs to be put to bed. Closing the discussion with no consensus will simply lead to the same issue being raised again, perhaps by someone unfamiliar with the prior discussions (as has also happened before), and then the issues will be rehashed by the same parties again, who, understandably, don't want their opinions left out of the discussion. So either a title needs to be agreed upon that will satisfy everyone, or a decision needs to be made that the current title will stay in place, with a prohibition on raising the issue again for some set period of time, unless there is clear evidence that consensus has changed. Etamni | ✉   08:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that wasn't intended to be a wall of text. Etamni | ✉   08:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Etamni please re-read WP:NDESC. Specifically the second paragraph, which reads..."However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Since "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title "Political impact of the Boston Massacre" would also be acceptable.)" You, yourself stated on the TALK PAGE (just before changing your mind, oddly enough) "I'm fine with dropping this. I think a better summary of the discussion is that there is no consensus on a specific better name, even where it may be apparent that the current name is not perfect. I would suggest that, as we occasionally see on other articles, the talk page needs an advisory message box at the top with links to the discussion(s) in the archives. This may help prevent such a drawn-out discussion from being restarted, again, in the future. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 15:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)". Did someone else talk you into changing your mind? Also, to be clear I never "asked you to summarize the discussion" or anyone else for that matter. Darknipples (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
(late reply)> Nobody said anything to me other than what was posted in the public comments, which have not been removed. I found additional information (in the form of a policy that had not already been discussed). To be 100% clear, I am fine with dropping the entire thing, and I am fine with changing the name. What I am not fine with is having the issue raised over and over again. That is disruptive. That disruption interferes with ongoing improvements to the encyclopedia. I have made suggestions that I think are in the best interest of the encyclopedia, but am fine with whatever consensus emerges. I also understand that you (DN) do not consider your previous question to me to have been an invitation to summarize the discussion, and hope you understand how the question might have been interpreted as such a request (and I don't see how it matters now, anyway). Finally, (everyone) PLEASE stop pinging me for issues related to this discussion. I don't need my phone beeping while I am working, just to see that there is a new message that might interest me on Wikipedia. There is a real-life reason I have listed my status on my user page as attempting to take a WikiBreak of indeterminate length. I know where this page is and can look at it when I have time. Etamni | ✉   00:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the response Etamni (no ping) Darknipples (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone just host an RFC on "what should the article be titled" and let's move on? Make subheadings with different options and a single one-section discussion area (and keep discussion contained there). The talk page could use some outside viewers. Disagreeing with an article title isn't a conduct issue per se. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    We posted this issue at NPOVN two weeks ago and all the impartial comments were a consensus to keep the original title. Opposing editors (mostly UN-impartial) are seeking a LOOPHOLE in Policy over a title that has the word LOOPHOLE in it. Irony abounds...And that's why it's here now. I think WP:POLICY is clear, as @Dennis Brown: put it in the beginning. Darknipples (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    Well, I'd say the noticeboard is different than a formal RFC but didn't this section have only three commenters? You may be right but the argument is whether there's been a clear consensus and it seems like each discussion has basically five or six editors arguing over each other again and again. Either way, this is subject to discretionary sanctions so is that what you're suggesting? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
    Ricky81682 For NPOVN, one comment, originally. During that time we had only a few other impartial commenters, all in favor of keeping the title as is on the article TP. After I had already closed ("resolved") at NPOVN (only one comment at the time after about 2 weeks), Markbassett recently stated that "The WP:NPOV concerns seem reasonable, as a well-known partisan label and POV concern of editors here. Since this is neutrality board, and since NPOV is a core item, I will suggest the NPOV section WP:POVNAMING is the one to apply, not the naming convention article of WP:POVNAME." and recently that the issue is "Doing better thru the article TALK pages". So, in answer to your question, I do feel sanctions may indeed be necessary, for the sake of the article. I sincerely do not wish Mudwater any ill-will, and it's in no way personal, but I feel they have essentially forced the issue to this point. Darknipples (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Current GSL TP discussion between Mudwater and myself. [103]. Darknipples (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I think Mudwater's conduct has been perfectly fine. They didn't revive the discussion, and as far as I know they haven't edit warred over it. You have both been admirably civil about your content disagreement. No need to accuse the other party of anything untoward over a content dispute. As Mudwater pointed out, this is a perennial discussion because the title is inherently loaded. It *is* the common name for the concept, but the loaded quality is going to raise eyebrows. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
As you know, it was not my first choice. As Etamni recently stated here..."What I am not fine with is having the issue raised over and over again. That is disruptive. That disruption interferes with ongoing improvements to the encyclopedia." I realize that MW isn't the one that raised the issue or tagged the article this time, but they only just recently suggested re-tagging the article citing POV concerns over the title...
  • "Well, there have been some interesting recent discussions about the title of the article, here, and also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Opposing editors refuse to WP:dropthestick over Gun show loophole title NPOV tag. But I have to say, my views have not changed. I still think that the article name "Gun show loophole" violates the WP:NPOV policy, and that the article should be renamed per WP:NDESC, to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". But, at this point I'm not sure how to proceed. Someone could resubmit the article as a requested move -- there was one of those already, which can be reviewed at Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 3#Requested move 29 January 2015. Or someone could put the POV tag back on the article -- but that was just taken off, after no one continued the discussion about why it should be left on. So, yeah. What next? Speaking for myself, I'm going to ponder this further. For the moment, I don't have anything further to add, either to this discussion or to the article itself. If and when I have something further to say, I'll post again." — Mudwater (Talk) 00:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
They have consistently held onto the WP:STICK despite every consensus (impartial or not) thus far, and WP:CRUSHed by telling anyone that might listen "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" should be the title [104] since the article's creation. Darknipples (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Question/Comment I think Mudwater has a pending question. If there were a new RFC, would it be appropriate to do AT THIS TIME, as Mudwater has currently asked/suggested on the article talk page [105]? I'd like to reiterate that while I doubt the issue (NPOV title) can be (forever) resolved with another RFC over the GSL title, & despite WP:NPOV WP:POLICY WP:TITLE WP:NOCONSENSUS WP:COMMONNAME & WP:TITLECHANGES (IMO), I'm not against doing another one if that is what the WP:Administrators feel is necessary. Darknipples (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment FYI the GSL article review has been placed on hold [106] for 7 days, citing among other things, "Reviewing the title controversy, it is my understanding that the issue is still not fully resolved. However, as long as there is no edit-warring, I feel that debates don't stand in the way of this becoming a GA. The case would be different if the title would be a clear NPOV violation, which it is not IMO, referring to WP:POVNAME". Darknipples (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC) As far as WP:LISTEN, the continued discussion over the title, as opposed to taking WP policies at face-value, is a prime example of disruptive editing, IMO. Darknipples (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC) (RE:WP:LISTEN) "Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed." Darknipples (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Commenting since I'm pinged here and discussed over my NPOVN participation: For neutrality question at NPOVN, the WP:NPOV seems the relevant article and section WP:POVNAMING seems the relevant part -- particularly how it differs from the WP:POVNAME content. That difference seems to be guidance that neutrality handling for the article can be done by highlighting the label controversy in due weight and so reconciling as best able all the ideals of NPOV, WEIGHT, and COMMONNAME. Alternative seems to be that POVNAME be the title of a redirect to article with a descriptive title. Since I've seen this topic in January, I added to please record whatever the resolution is into the TALK FAQ so it might come up less often and be handled in shorter time. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Suspicion of multiple IPs operating on behalf of blocked IP[edit]

I admit to not knowing whether an SPI has already run regarding this user, nor if they're even opened for disruptive IPs. I came across the 82 IP some weeks ago, and see that they've continued unabated with hundreds of unsourced edits since being warned in August. That's often a tell for a user who's been through this before, and chooses to sidestep blocks and just keep going. Looking at the edit patterns, I think this is the same user who was blocked for a year, and suspect they've used several or many other IPs in these ranges. More eyes would be appreciated. Thanks, (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't done anything why did I get a message saying I have — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Merging this question into the related thread. --Kinu t/c 01:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Ponyo, you're being pinged here. (By me.) Drmies (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Drmies. My handiwork--shrewd on finding these users, not always sharp on noticeboard procedures. Cheers from 99, (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    • No, you're fine--I just saw that Ponyo had blocked and smelled previous history. Thanks again for helping to keep the place clean; Jimbo should put you on payroll. Or pay you for a portrait--one not painted with your John Hancock, of course.

      OK, I blocked for obvious block evasion and otherwise problematic edits--Ponyo, surely there's an SPI or some other report here, no? Drmies (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The 86.5 IP has popped up repeatedly at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harry (singer)/Archive.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I've expressed to Drmies[107], that there probably needs to be some more WP:DIFFs sufficient to justify a WP:SPI before this type of thing gets escalated or actioned in the future. As noted to Drmies, I can't see why an 82.24/14 (NTL/Nottingham) cable-modem editing mostly Nottingham-ish articles would have much to do with an editor from an 86.5/16 block. I hope that diffs can be provided to allow others to follow along. —Sladen (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Zurich00swiss and WP:NOTWEBHOST[edit]

This pains me to report as I was partially responsible for this user's return after an indefinite block for vandalism and sockpuppetry. (Their block apparently caused an innocent party to get blocked as well, which I queried and both users were unblocked. The tail end of the unblock discussion is here).

Zurich00swiss is an enthusiastic and apparently very young editor. He is now using his user page to host a "Aircraft of the week world competition" where " at the end of each month all the users that want to partecipate[sic] will choose their own favourite airplane and will write it on his talk". He has publicised this widely (e.g. [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118]) and now their talk page is stuff related to this too. In the section Aircraft of the week they were advised to remove it all as it was in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST which they briefly did ([119]), but evidently had a change of mind about an hour later ([120]).

Given their past, the recent poor judgement and now the disregard for policy pointed out to them I have to regrettably conclude this editor is not here for the right reasons and would be better finding a new outlet for their enthusiasm. They've ignored my advice - could an admin take over? RichardOSmith (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I remember this somewhat tortured discussion back when. For the moment, all I've done is delete the userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, if he's not going to take the hint, you eventually have no choice but to use the stick... HalfShadow 01:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:OUT? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not think I'm on Wikipedia just to the AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK ... just wanted to know if I could keep eliminating voting and putting Only I every week a AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK.
because you have eliminated my user page?
The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
What did you say? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
<step aside please, TEFL emergency response team coming through>
"I don't think I'm on Wikipedia just to do AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK... I just want to know if I could keep my userpage if I eliminated voting and only put up one AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK.
Is this why you have deleted my userpage?"
(Native speakers of English - especially native speakers of English - should learn another language.) --Shirt58 (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I echo RichardOSmith's comment above, "This pains me to report as I was partially responsible for this user's return after an indefinite block". In July I unblocked Zurich00swiss to give him a second chance, on the condition that he avoid all the problems that led to the block. Since then I have from time to time looked back at his editing to see how it is going. I have frequently felt uncomfortable about his editing, but until now I had not seen any clear violation of any guidelines or policies, and certainly nothing that has led me to consider reblocking, but enough to make me wonder if that would come sooner or later. For example, I have seen a sufficient number of examples of reverting other editors' edits without obvious reason to give a general impression that there may be a touch of ownership, though I have not seen enough of that on any one article to constitute edit-warring. Some talk page posts also look rather as though there may be some use of Wikipedia as a sort of social network site, and a few warnings to IP editors look questionable.
Against that background of continually seeing editing which I feel mildly unhappy about, I now see the more serious incident discussed here. The use of a user page as what effectively amounts to a blog was probably just a matter of an editor not realising what is and what isn't acceptable on a user page, and it should have been possible for it to be dealt with by a friendly message explaining that it wasn't acceptable, followed by Zurich00swiss abandoning the event. However, that was not to be so. After several editors had politely and patiently explained to him that such use of a user page was unacceptable, he persisted. However, what disturbs me most is his announcing that he was removing the unacceptable content, and then after a while quietly restoring it. What was that about? If he had had second thoughts about accepting the other editors' views on what the user page guidelines allow, then surely the natural and honest thing to do, on restoring content after having told them he was removing it, would have been to have told them he had changed his mind. Could it be that the removal and then restoration of the content was a deliberate attempt to mislead? I hope not, and I would like to be able to extend assumption of good faith, but with an editor who is known to have in the past made deliberate attempts to mislead other editors, one has to have one's doubts. If it wasn't deliberate deception, then it was extremely thoughtless; in either case it was stupid, as it was bound to be noticed. What is more, this restoration of the removed content came after he had been warned "intentionally violating this policy even after it has been pointed out to you may just result in a permanent block for you".
For the moment, the offending user page has been deleted, and I see no need to do anything else. However, I have deliberately taken the time to place on record here my general uncomfortableness with Zurich00swiss's editing, because it all adds up, and if more incidents add up then there may come a day when either I or some other administrator will decide that, even if no one incident warrants a block, the accumulation of incidents does. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, ok, I've made a mistake...
But I stayed a month to write and think about the "AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK" and now I've see that an aministrator delates all things in my user page.
many users sayd that they block me because I'm on wikipedia just for the "AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK" I've done this section only to involve users in aviation sector and for write interesting thing in the same sector.
could be my user page restored?
And could be the section of the "AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK" re-written definitely without the opinions of others users and not in form of blogs?
The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Zurich00swiss: No. Aircraft of the Week has no place on Wikipedia (regardless if others contribute or not) since it's considered to be a blog and as explained by others, blog material is not suitable for Wikipedia. There is no wiggle room around this and I'll openly say that part of the requirements of you remaining unblocked will be that you never add Aircraft of the Week to Wikipedia again in any format. That this is unsuitable for Wikipedia has already been explained to you quite thoroughly and I'll be very honest: at this point I have to wonder if you're really here to positively contribute to Wikipedia or if you're just here to use it as a social media or blog website. You trying to argue for the inclusion of content that has already been deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia does not give off a positive impression, considering that the option of re-blocking you is on the table here if you continue to try to re-add this information and the person who unblocked you is essentially saying that he believes that a re-blocking may be inevitable. The worst thing you can do is continue to lobby for the re-addition of this page, so my advice to you is to drop it and agree to not re-add the page. You're just shooting yourself in the foot by doing this and re-adding it after it has repeatedly been stated to you that it is unacceptable (hence why I bolded and italicized it above) may convince one of the other admins that it might save more trouble if they block you then and there. I want to make sure that you are very aware of this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
But who could it be? I can't think of a relevant aviation troll. No, beats me... Begoontalk 11:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's a troll. I think it's just a kid who is enthusiastic about writing about a subject in which he has a keen interest, and doesn't always clearly see what kinds of writing about it are suitable for an encyclopaedia project. Unfortunately, he is also not always ready to accept anything which restricts his freedom to use Wikipedia in the way he would like to, and that is what turns minor problems into bigger ones. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
James, in my experience, you are usually right. Perhaps I'm too sensitive to aviation trolls. I should probably be more receptive to the "innocent newbie" thing.Begoontalk 12:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we are dealing with an enthusiast here, but his long history of personal attacks, using fake refs and now lots of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT over using his user page as a private blog are all evidence of ongoing difficulties. I suggested that he move all his personal stuff to a real blog, but he didn't act on that suggestion and just keeps reinstating inappropriate content on his user page, even after being repeatedly told it is inappropriate. Very few of this person's edits have been useful or constructive and he seems determined to argue over the user page issue and not accept policy. If he were blocked he wouldn't be missed on the project as his useful contributions have been minimal and disruption large. - Ahunt (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I only want to say that: yes, I've deleted all the things that you asked me to remove, just little things like my favourite aircraft or my favourite airport, but there are a lot of other users (without revealing names) that have on their user pages all the airport or the airlines where they have travelled or countries where they've set foot! In my opinion there is a paradox because I have to remove these small things also risking a block!

P.S. I had two barnstar in my user page, and I'd like to get them back as it has been deleted! THANKS
The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Zurich00swiss: Yes, there are many editors with content on their user pages which shouldn't be there. Sometimes unsuitable content remains for a very long time because nobody notices it: I have known grossly unacceptable content to go unnoticed for a couple of years. In your own case, marginal content was left there for a fair amount of time (whether because it was not noticed, or whether because it was noticed but nobody thought it important enough to take action on) until you went beyond just marginally unsuitable stuff, and started using your user page as a sort of game site. Even then, you were merely asked to take down the totally unsuitable content: if you had just done that then probably nobody would have bothered about the more marginal stuff. It was only because you persisted in keeping the whole lot, and moreover pretended to take it down but quietly put it back, that it reached the stage it is at now. If you call attention to the contents of your user page by that sort of action, then of course that page is going to come under greater scrutiny than user pages of editors who don't go around calling attention to them. Also, if an editor has a history of being troublesome, then of course people are going to allow less leeway in doubtful cases than they are in the case of an editor who just peacefully edits without any problems. I strongly suggest that you concentrate on contributing to the encyclopaedia: a user page should be a very small concern, telling people a little about you in relation to your Wikipedia editing. Any editor for whom user page editing is more than a tiny proportion of his or her editing has the wrong priorities. (About 1 in 8 of your edits so far have been on your user page. About 1 in 650 of my edits have been on my user page. I am not suggesting that everyone must have as low a proportion of user page edits as I have, but I think it illustrates the difference between on the one hand an editor who is largely here to use Wikipedia as a sort of social network site, and for whom continually posting new stuff to a user page, mostly unrelated to the encyclopaedia, is a major focus, and on the other hand an editor who is largely here to contribute to the encyclopaedia, and for whom a user page is not a major focus.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Cough, Troll. (consider the reaction to that characterisation...) Begoontalk 14:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think Ahunt has made the correct call, above, and that the user is clearly NOTHERE, and moreover is a net negative. It was a fine experiment to unblock him, but now we have to be crystal clear about the continuing outcome of that experiment and the obvious solution to it. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

mop to the edit summary , please[edit]

Could someone with a mop take care of this [121]. Sometimes bots are a little thick. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Why? It's just repetitive swearing followed by garden-variety nonsense. There's no reason to hide it from non-admins. Graham87 06:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
This is not a diff that needs to be DevDel'd, per policy. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Bryce Carmony (talk · contribs)[edit]

Bryce Carmony (talk · contribs) is systematically going through articles and incorrectly changing "were" to "was." He's done this at The Beatles, Washington Redskins and Genesis (band). I've tried to reason with him, and this was his response [122]. Calidum 04:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually I changed the washington redskins from "are" to "is" not "were" to "was". Using were for a current team would make zero sense. "Genesis" was a band. If they called themselves "the Genesi" (plural for Genesis) you could make MAYBE a more compelling argument. I wouldn't say "the miami heat are" since they are one team and heat itself is singular. If there is a disagreement we can work it out in the article talk pages. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
So in the case of British bands we use British english which treats singular bands as plural. however the Washington Redskins is not an article in British English so we would use is. This is why we use talk pages not user pages to discuss. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
You are starting to edit war on various articles. You have been reverted at least twice by two different editors on Washington Redskins alone. Editing on claims of "NPOV" and "fringe theories" is not exempt from edit warring.[123] Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
No edit warring has occurred, I encourage you to participate in the talk pages and discuss if you disagree over an edit. we actually resolved it all. Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Er, someone look at the user talk history and block log. Just an institutional memory hint. Begoontalk 11:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed I had noticed a bit of possible pointyness following on this last disagreement. JohnInDC (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. Bryce strikes me as here to do what Bryce wants, rather than anything else. And willing, or eager, to play games to get there. (a timesink). I'd just block him, indef, right now, but, hey, what do I know? Begoontalk 12:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
As someone who was involved in his previous kerfuffle I can see that this particular row has all the same characteristics - dogged insistence on his own particular idea of grammatical purity, aggression when challenged. Luckily, not my quarrel this time round, but it's worth noting that what finally persuaded him to start behaving reasonably, at least for a while, was the threat of an indefinite block. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Catharsis. Underused, IMO. Begoontalk 10:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
As a result of the foregoing disagreement, he has pointedly changed several U.S. sports team articles to the plural, contrary to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Plurals, which indicates that in the U.S., the verb accompanying a sports team typically follows the nominal number of the team name, restoring the plurals after the MOS was, err, pointed out to him. This is not the first problem with WP:POINT - link. JohnInDC (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
So block him, already. The tolerance for this kind of crap is the reason good folks won't edit any more. Begoontalk 13:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Notice how quiet he's gone? A massive swathe of edits (just see his contribs) and lots of shouting and then someone mentions blocking... silence. Don't be fooled, just read his talk and block history. IMHO this guy is like a neighbour from hell doing a spot of gardening - he tidies up a few leaves, then runs a mower right through your flowerbed and tries to fight you when you complain. But when you call the police he's as quiet as a mouse, says he was only trying to tidy things up, officer, and anyway the flowers needed mowing. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Bryce Carmony in the past has blanked legitimate comments and denounced them as spam [124] [125] [126]. He considers other users following the policy of keeping block notices on his talk to be harassment [127] [128].. Granted these diffs are old but it shows that his inability to functionally co-operate is long-standing and not a temporary lapse. He has previously been blocked for trolling and pointy edits but, according to this ANI, has not changed. This thread on his talk page here shows him being silly, trying to make a British vs American English pluralisation issue into a dispute about fringe theories and NPOV. How long will we let him mess about? BethNaught (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Indefinitely, apparently. Welcome to wikipedia. Begoontalk 09:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
He's broken his recent silence with a crazy edit at Tunnel boom where he contends that physics is being used as a plural, which is odd enough, but then only changes the grammar in one place, leaving the rest of the article in the singular. This is just the kind of clumsy, hit-and-run editing that has got him into trouble in the past. Disruptive and completely unacceptable, especially while he's being discussed here. Andyjsmith (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I've given him a uw-3 for disruption. Andyjsmith (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
There are more physicses in this world than you will ever know... Obvious disruptive editor is obvious.
Hmm... Beatles ends in 's', let's disrupt that. Ooh, so does physics - I'm on it. See you at "mathematics", Bryce... Begoontalk 09:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • He has continued to make pointed edits contrary to MOS:PLURALS and claiming that "physics" can be plural, despite Wikitionary calling it uncountable in the sense of "science". He's contradicting his own grammar rules by this point. His edit summary in the last diff was unduly patronising. BethNaught (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


For tendentious and pointy editing often contrary to the MOS and for a long-term pattern of inability to co-operate, Bryce Carmony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is blocked for a period of six months.

  • Support because apparently we need bold letters to draw outside attention. He hasn't learned how to respond to legitimate concerns since his last appearance at ANI and he is continuing to display competence issues. BethNaught (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It's clear that attempts to discuss it aren't going to shift the "my way or no way" mentality. We've been here before, and he managed to avoid a site ban, but that escape just seems to have made him even more convinced that Wikipedia's rules don't apply to him. ‑ iridescent 07:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. He is convinced he knows best and has never listened to anyone else. He is a very poor editor and his attitude is disgraceful. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Contentious editing, edit warring, failure to communicate - perhaps two edits in 50 are constructive. He requires constant monitoring and is a detriment to the project. JohnInDC (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support We need a "proposal" now? Sisyphus'r'us. Siteban is obvious, but support this in the absence of common sense. Begoontalk 15:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    Apparently so. I would also support a siteban, but I wanted to be sure at least something would happen. BethNaught (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Paco Arespacochaga and Aleck Bovick AFDs[edit]

I made a number of contentious AFDs (at least by the Wikipedia Tambayan Project (see [129])), the most important of which now are those of Paco Arespacochaga (see [130], [131], [132]) and Aleck Bovick (see [133], [134], [135]). ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I was made aware of this largely by the efforts of User:Obsidian Soul and User:Jondel, at least when those efforts were positive and informative. As a result, I either withdrew the nomination, or if too late changed my own vote to keep in these two cases, a public acknowledgement of my failed vetting process. Is there anything wrong with either of those things? I even tried to improve the articles (both a tad threadbare) by adding text from sources both Tambayan editors assured me were reliable Philippines media sources. I don't know what has happened but I have since been subjected to verbal abuse and threats from @Obsidian Soul, accusing me of adding "potentially libelous" info and being POINTY by having changed my own votes (with detailed explanations for the record) because @Obsidian Soul claims I am afraid of "losing" the AFDs. I can say that, unfortunately, I have lost AFDs in the past by WP:SNOW and I made no attempt to either withdraw the ill-fated noms or change my votes. ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In other words, I realized that in certain of the AFDs recently nominated I was wrong -- yes I admit it. And I acted on my conscience, and did what I believed was appropriate. Now, I am threatened (with opening an AN/I) and accused by this seriously passive aggressive editor (@Obsidian Soul) for doing what he relentlessly told me I should have done from the beginning. I cannot control my "western bias" but I can try to make things right as best I can. I genuinely have no idea what @Obsidian Soul is going on about this time, but I am sick and tired of it. Quis separabit? 19:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt: verbal abuse? Are you claiming Off-wiki harassment? RichardOSmith (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
NO, no. Sorry, not "verbal". I am old (way pre-millenial) and did not use the right term. I meant what I consider verbally abusive wording in many but certainly the most recent (today) postings by @Obsidian Soul. Quis separabit? 20:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
verbal ≠ oral. common misconception. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Obsidian Soul notified. Your pings won't work that way. To ping an editor you need use this format {{ping|Obsidian Soul}}. Also, pings are not considered appropriate notification for AN/ANI. Blackmane (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Blackmane: I did notify @Obsidian Soul (see [136]). Sorry if I didn't do it right. Quis separabit? 23:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
It's unclear to me what kind of remedy you are seeking. Can you post diffs of these "threats"? Because telling an editor you are going to bring a dispute to a noticeboard is not a sanctionable offense.Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I know that. What I want him to do is stop making inflammatory comments, accusing me of making "potentially libelous comments" that come straight from a reflink he recommended to me as a reliable Filipino media source and when I haven't done anything wrong and have no idea what he's talking about, and harassing me with his passive-aggressive nonsense. Not all communications have to be done at an AFD discussion. I have a talk page. And those diffs are at the top of this AN/I but there may be others I can scare up. Quis separabit? 23:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't notice that it was mixed in with the section above my notification. Blackmane (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade. Your "improvements" to the articles on Bovick and Arespacochaga are potentially libelous and violate WP:BLP despite your oh-so-innocent protestations otherwise. And that is behavior actually worthy of an AN/I. Your edit summary of "very important biodata added" is a dig at how you think the WP:RS provided in the AfD discussions were not satisfactory because they're subjectively "gossip" to you. Whatever bullshit you think you can get away with in the talk pages (including your persistence in using inappropriate {{od}} templates on everything because I criticized your indenting practices in your last AN/I against me, and admins don't seem to mind), don't carry it over to the articles. Period. It's actually funny that you're the one claiming harassment. You've accused me of nefarious things how many times now? Three? In AN/I no less. If that isn't classic WP:POINTY behavior, I don't know what is. All because I had the nerve to tell you to do a WP:BEFORE in your nominations. Something several other editors have also told you to do. If admins can't see through that, it's not my problem. Believe me, I don't want to deal with you ever again either. But again, keep your vindictiveness in the talk pages. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 23:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice he refuses to address his accusation that I posted "potentially inflammatory text" from the url he referred me to. The indenting nonsense is his own paranoia. He told me on one occasion to fix my indenting. I did my best twice on a long confusing thread. He didn't like it and re-indented it himself. It's absurd.
"All because I had the nerve to tell you to do a WP:BEFORE in your nominations. Something several other editors have also told you to do. If admins can't see through that, it's not my problem" -- this is untrue. He repeats the same thing over and over. I have acknowledged making some AFD nominations that I shouldn't have -- whether because of sloppy research or what he calls "Western bias". Does he want me to wear a hairshirt or a sackcloth with ashes? Do penance? Should I debase (that's a euphemism) myself? I acknowledged his points (to the extent I agree with them, depending on the individual AFD nom) already and thanked him when his advice was constructive. I withdrew some noms and/or changed my votes. He refuses to acknowledge or accept or update anything or turn down the passive-aggressive relentlessness and yet I am vindictive. Quis separabit? 00:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
For starters, how about dropping the wide-eyed pretense of being the innocent victim? You know perfectly well what you're doing. Just like this can not ever be construed as "fixing" anything. And no. I'm definitely not avoiding it. I am accusing you of adding potentially libelous information to articles to illustrate a point. Why don't you explain how a paragraph on implied nepotism is a good thing? Or how someone's mother being a dancer ("in Cubao") with 18 children from three different men, who died "from blood loss [due to giving birth repeatedly]" is "very important biodata"?
Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. -WP:BLP
-- OBSIDIANSOUL 00:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
For the hundredth time, the indenting problem you are obsessing about was not an attempt by me to gaslight you. I tried to fix it twice and gave up, and you fixed it. No one else complained. If I am misusing {{od}} then let someone (not you) tell me how so, because you are no longer credible on that point. Quis separabit? 00:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
You must have missed the point of my last post. So here. I'll repeat it: why don't you explain how a paragraph on implied nepotism is a good thing? Or how someone's mother being a dancer ("in Cubao") with 18 children from three different men, who died "from blood loss [due to giving birth repeatedly]" is "very important biodata"?-- OBSIDIANSOUL 01:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I am very glad it was your mess up because when I was posting my lengthy response I hit an edit conflict so now things are not out of sequence, I hope. The quote regarding Arespacochaga:

"His father was a former vice president of a production company, Paco had easy access to famous persons in the local showbiz industry – such as the late Fernando Poe Jr, actor and currently Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada, and star-builder German Moreno, thus opening valuable doors for him to begin his career." [137]

came from the url @Obsidian Soul recommended to me from the website of the GMA Network and I don't or didn't think it indicates nepotism, any more than the fact that Alfred Hitchcock's daughter Patricia had roles in some of her father's films or that Liza Minnelli appeared on her mother's television show, or that Barry Van Dyke had a long-running gig on his father's Diagnosis: Murder. If this is something potentially libelous I would guess Paco Arespacochaga sued GMA when it was published in print. Oh, no, wait, he didn't. I guess Arespacochaga had no problem with but somehow @Obsidian Soul does. And I may as well add that @Obsidian Soul's edit summary deleting the info was "remove per WP:BLP. I think it's time to open an AN/I". So he is twistedly seeking reasons to harass me, using innocent quoted text.
As far as Bovick goes, it's the same thing. I wanted to spruce up a threadbare article. Yes I found the fact that her late mother bore 18 children (by 3 husbands) interesting, in fact fascinating, and her death from leukemia thus a multifold tragedy. The statement "from blood loss [due to giving birth repeatedly]" came from her own daughter, Bovick! What did you think, I made it up? I certainly wasn't posing it as a medical opinion, only her daughter's comments. I cast no aspersions on anyone (see [138]). Overreaction somehow by somebody?? Doesn't anyone see anything wrong here? If I made any mistakes in using reliably sourced biographical background material, I apologize. I don't think I did but .... Quis separabit? 01:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. My link. And you wished to illustrate how those links might not be reliable, right? Gee whiz, that oughta show em! I gave it to demonstrate WP:GNG, not so you can pick the most sensationalist part and insert it into the articles. Have someone else explain WP:BLP to you. Because I'm not doing it. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 01:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary,[[WP:POINTY| I was confident the links were/are reliable as I trusted you. You've accused me of POINTY about a hundred thousand times since we crossed paths. Your accuracy at tossing that dart hasn't improved despite the extensive practice you've had. Quis separabit? 02:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
They are reliable. I do not wish to interact with you further. If someone else disagrees with my reversion of your edits, or actually believes that you were acting in good faith, I wish to hear their opinion. Otherwise, this thread is as pointless as your earlier two accusations of stalking. I have much better things to do. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 02:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, all of the arguments about content should stay on the article's talk page. As for the rest - apart from someone telling you two to leave each other the hell alone, what administrative remedy are you seeking here? What do you want us to do? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
He should desist from communicating with me, making edit summary threats, launching endless POINTY accusations, especially at AFD discussions, and bring whatever issues he may have in future to an objective third party or admin. Quis separabit? 14:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Since Obsidian Soul says that she or he does not want to interact with Rms125a, and Rms125a doesn't seem to want to get communications from Obsidian Soul, that sounds to me like both editors would be glad to have an interaction ban between them. If both were to indicate their agreement here, it can be logged and this thread could be closed. BMK (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
So no one actually sees the problem with his edits, huh? Go figure. You really believe his little story about finding it fascinating that someone's mother has 18 children by 3 men and is hinted to be a sex worker, and that's why he labels it as "very important biodata"? Or the fact that he picked the one part in a long news article that can be taken the wrong way (nepotism) and then includes it in Wikipedia under a bullshit rationale of using a reliable source that someone else recommended to him?
Regardless if they are in the sources or were actually spoken (in jest) by the subjects, they violate WP:BLP. And he's doing it in the obvious hope that a third party would notice that the links I gave in support of my Keep !votes in his AfDs (as he's emphasized a few times) may have some things that are sensationalist. That is WP:POINTY is it not?
Let me ask just one question to the administrators here: are his two additions to those articles potentially libelous or not? If you can say no to that and can restore those content in good conscience per WP:BLP, then I would accept an WP:IBAN. If not then no. I dislike interacting with him intensely, but I'd rather not have my ability to fix his childishness gimped by bureaucratic bullshit if no one else bothers to do so. I spent 30 minutes fixing his indent trolling in his last frivolous AN/I just to make it readable because no one else apparently saw any problem with that behavior either.
And no. Despite my dislike of him as an editor, this is not personal. I suggest looking at his actions, not his words.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 18:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
"You really believe his little story about finding it fascinating that someone's mother has 18 children by 3 men and is hinted to be a sex worker" -- I hinted she was a "sex worker"?? That's news to me. Since the quote came from her daughter, I seriously have to wonder where the "sex worker" angle came in. Because this is the first time I am hearing it.
I just caught the error by another editor in synopsizing my editing, and I must, as a moral imperative, clarify that I did not say "3 men", I said "3 husbands", as per her own daughter (Bovick)'s comments. Quis separabit? 01:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
While you do that, you should also clarify that you copied the whole paragraph verbatim without quotes (yes that's WP:COPYVIO too, but whatever). The author said "husband". Not you.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 02:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
"are his two additions to those articles potentially libelous or not?" - If they are they delete them and block me. I no longer give a shit. By all means let him fix what he finds objectionable and I will ask for advice from a third party if I disagree.
"I spent 30 minutes fixing his indent trolling in his last frivolous AN/I just to make it readable because no one else apparently saw any problem with that behavior either" -- indenting obsession paranoia (again; see above); I don't know how I am screwing up so badly at indenting yet no one else mentions it.

(Redacted) Quis separabit? 18:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
That last paragraph went way over the line. Don't do that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. Quis separabit? 19:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


Since and Obsidian Soul didn't respond to my suggestion for a voluntary interaction ban, but preferred to keep sniping at each other instead, I propose a non-voluntary interaction ban imposed by the community; your standard off-the-shelf pret a porter iBan, with no unusual bells and whistles.

Not even going to answer my question? This isn't even a content dispute. Were his edits in good faith and do they pass WP:BLP? It's a simple enough question that actually addresses the underlying problem to all this. An iBan is convenient, but it doesn't fix anything. Unless you're actually agreeing that I'm doing this to "stalk" and "harass" him? -- OBSIDIANSOUL 23:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - As proposer. BMK (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I apologize, @Beyond My Ken -- I was unaware of the "suggestion for a voluntary interaction ban" thus did not apologize reply, although I have been keeping tabs on this page obviously and did not see anything which required my response. Apologies. I need to read upon on IBAN; hopefully it will work. I will contact you if I have any questions. Thanks. Quis separabit? 00:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@BMK: I think I understand. One question -- if a there is an edit that needs or can be substantively improved made by the other IBAN-involved editor, does one go to AN/I or start a talkpage discussion? How would that be handled, in the unfortunate event that such a situation arose? Thanks in advance for the 411. Quis separabit? 00:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that you bring your suggested change to the talk page, and allow another editor to make the change if they agree with it. You do not revert the edit yourself, or engage in discussion with the editor you're I-Banned with. BMK (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The interaction between the users is toxic. appears to have made good faith attempts to learn from his mistakes and even if his attempts have been imperfect Obsidian Soul's rebuff goes far beyond a simple failure to AGF. If these two editors plan on working anywhere 'near' each other at least an interaction ban will provide consequences for continuing the conflict. Interaction bans do often cause trouble but in this case letting the situation fester seems worse. It would be better if both editors accepted the IBAN voluntarily but Obsidian Soul appears to have refused above. JbhTalk 00:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
"Appears". And still no one actually seeks to understand why I reverted him or why I left a note concerning his edits, other than just assuming it's a personal vendetta. Even though unlike him, I don't have a history of such behavior. I accept the voluntary iBan, if that's the only thing you can come up with. I'm tired. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 01:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@Obsidian Soul: Yes, I did seek to understand both of your positions before I commented. I think you, quite rightly, got angry at some poorly researched AfDs and the conflict spun out of control from there. You were right Rms125a was making some bad nominations and they have admitted it. What you see as POINTy behavior I choose to see, barring clear evidence otherwise, as an attempt to learn, move on and work to repair damage caused by carelessness. This is what we want editors to do and we are bound to assume good faith when others try correct mistakes. I hope the iBan will give each of you time and distance to see each other as something other than opponents. I do empathize with your frustration, assuming good faith can at times be a pain but without that all conflicts here would turn into iBans and Wikipedia would close up because no one could talk with each other. JbhTalk 01:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
These aren't clear enough? [139] [140]. He's not that stupid or (given his time on Wikipedia) that clueless about WP:BLP as to not realize that what he inserted say pretty terrible things about the subjects. When he seemingly retracted his bad AfDs ("reluctantly" as he characterized it), I didn't comment. That was AGF. But then he added those. What will he do next to "repair damage" in the AfDs that gets kept? Insert another titillating factoid bordering on scandalous from one of the sources I gave to demonstrate GNG? There's assuming good faith, and then there's swallowing bullshit. That said, moot point. As long as he doesn't do anything like that again (and no, I don't mean the AfDs), I'll be absolutely ecstatic if I don't ever deal with him ever again. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 01:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


What is the OP alleging, and where are the diffs to support his allegations? (Otherwise, this thread is just a meaningless series of backbiting and bickering.) And what remedies is the OP possibly seeking (or else why post here?)? Softlavender (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Quick block needed for persistent edit tester[edit]

IP blocked for 24 hours by Philg88. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 20:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/2602:306:25A5:89D9:8168:1DCE:9F97:F00A is adding the month and year to a dozen articles, with nothing about the date being relevant to the article. The guy is reverting me, too. He needs to be stopped. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Anon block applied.  Philg88 talk 09:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threats on Tube/Subway Challenge[edit]

Raising this here since it's ongoing: shifting IP addresses (apparently socks of User:Palkanetoijala) are making strong legal threats on the Tube Challenge and Subway Challenge articles and talk pages, claiming to be acting on behalf of a challenge world-record holder who wants his name removed from Wikipedia.

They're not being very clear, but so far as I can tell from this talk page, the user wants Wikipedia to include an unspecified (and presumably unsourced) "actual fastest time" for the London record, and believes that holding a sourced world record is some kind of useful bargaining chip because they mistakenly think that Wikipedia does not have the "rights" to mention a person's name without their permission. They seem to be saying that if Wikipedia won't include the unsourced record, then the record holder won't let Wikipedia include the sourced one either, and they've been making capslock "25 days to comply" legal threats as a result.

Since this claims to be coming from a named individual and this IP talk page says "stop this hello contact me by email" and gives an email address, is there someone who could talk to them directly? --McGeddon (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I've dropped them an email through OTRS. Mdann52 (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Previous report on this case Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive900#Legal threat by IP. —Farix (t | c) 11:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
As an addendum, I would also suggest semi-protecting the talk page because the only posts from IPs for the last few days have been to repeat the legal threat. —Farix (t | c) 15:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
It's actually already been semi-protected for this reason, since yesterday. --McGeddon (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for making legal threats. Since this person changes IPs often I made it a short block. HighInBC 01:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Recio persistently/stubbornly vandalizing articles about the single Latin alphabet letters[edit]

With the apparent excuse that all or most articles such as A used to have a section called "Related letters and similar characters", the user in question added several characters to those list that in his opinion may have looked visually similar, while having no connection, such as Arabic numerals or other unrelated Latin letters (like 'P' in the article for B, or 'V' in the article for A).

He was reverted by me and other editors, although he makes this hard by inundating those articles with edits, and he was explained the situation on his talk page. I also changed the section name to remove the unfortunate mention of "similarity", which is clearly not verifiable (needless to mention anyway, perhaps, the user did not even attempt to cite any sources for his additions), and included a comment to explain why such additions should not be done anymore.

My comment was, however, silently removed.

This has continued pretty much in real time, and the edits from this user have become more and more absurd-sounding.

As another editor warned, the three-revert rule has been violated to an extent it's very hard to follow by now.

I will now not attempt to fix the obviously broken edits from this user any further since it's basically impossible to even keep track, until some action is taken.

  • Follow-up: More edits are coming from this user and they seem equally as inane as the previous ones: [141] [142] [143]. After the ultimatum, he did this edit plus others: let me state the obvious, that his calling the check mark a "v mark" is his original idea and the article itself doesn't support that, nor does anything claim that it is related to the letter V... so the disruptive pattern continues.
  • Follow-up: Now that the user is blocked and his edits don't have to be chased anymore, I've been able to take the time to explain the situation to him at length. Hopefully I've done it properly and he will understand and respond.

LjL (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 days for continuing disruptive editing after Favonian's warning. I hope that a short block will at least get the editor talking. (Note: It looks as though there's still some cleanup to be done on Mark Recio's edits.) Deor (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to clean up further now. I gave up doing that until some action was taken since it came down to racing against him and I didn't really want to end up being the one violating revert rules, which would have been quite ironic. LjL (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Done, please have a look if you anything further wrong. LjL (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sting's sales figures doubled[edit]

(non-admin closure) Article semi'd. Sting still rich. BMK (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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

There's a new IP from Israel doing the same thing that we saw last year from three other IPs from Israel: doubling the Sting (musician) sales figures from 100 million to 200 million. The new IP is:

(Rodericksilly has been doing yeoman work to counter this guy, and he brought the situation to my attention.)

Last year the IPs were:

Should we protect the Sting biography or block the recent IP? Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

John just semi'ed the article for a month. Suggest blocking the IP for two weeks or so as well. Softlavender (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Sting is a hard-working bugger, so I'm more than happy that these unverified, anonymous edits are 100% correct. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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

New apparent SPI/COI editor misusing user talk page, no other recent edits[edit]

User indeffed by HighInBC. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 20:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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

I believe User:Byronmarchant has received more than one final warning on his user talk page regarding his misuse of that page. He has made few if any other productive edits, seems to have, based on his comments, a possible WP:COI regarding the work of Bruno Bauer, which he has apparently translated for publication, and is, so far as I can tell, pretty much exclusively using his user talk page to WP:SOAPBOX for his own personal opinions.His recent history, as per here, is pretty much exclusively to his user talk page, where he regularly belittles both other editors and in the case of Bart Ehrman published academics and experts in their fields, something the editor himself seems to believe he himself is, perhaps as per User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet, As multiple editors have told him at this point, I believe his activity is counterproductive and that there is sufficient reason to believe there is good reason to believe, at this point, he is not here to build an encyclopedia. I request an administrator review the editor's activities and history and, if they so see fit, take the appropriate action. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Byron showed up here and in no time was describing wikipedia as a cult and declared their intention to "reveal fraud". I very much doubt this is a new user, I have no reason to think they are here to write an encyclopedia. Their few contribution have had to be reverted as being very much outside the scope of an encyclopedia.
The following quote sums up this users attitude clearly: "Wikipedia is a cult. Like other cults (Catholicism, Islam, Mormonism...) I will do what I can to destroy it/them, since cults are dangerous for the general welfare". I have no confidence that this person is here to contribute productively to our project.
Based on their stated goal of destroying our project I have indefinitely blocked the account to prevent... well the destruction of our project. As always I am open to community feedback on my actions. HighInBC 17:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Over the top admin conduct terrifying new users[edit]

Closing it all up. FYI, this range is used by indef blocked KochTruth. Blackmane (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

(non-admin closure) Over the top accusation requires no admin action. BMK (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Apokryltaros/The Beast Legion. Is listing these kinds of pages for deletion and terrifying off users really the kind of conduct we expect from admins? Content creators should be left free to create content not attacked by admins who do nothing but post nasty messages threatening to destroy and delete their content just because they take a small break. Suggest a trouting at the very least. (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

With edits like this, you're certainly the one to teach lessons, aren't you? Anyway, I have no idea what you mean by "new" user given the page in question was userified in 2012. LjL (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
How on earth does putting up for deletion a page that hasn't been touched by anyone in three years "terrifying" to new users? No one is going to take your complaint seriously if you engage in such hyperbole. Gamaliel (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm quoting the user himself. read the discussion. [144] And that prior edit wasn't me. ~~<~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Very much resolved - It is an MfD, there is 7 days warning and plenty of opportunity to discuss it. Not only is nominating something for AfD not a terrible admin action, it is not an admin action. There is nothing to be done here, this is not the place to pursue this matter, you can comment at the AfD. HighInBC 01:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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


Isn't anyone concerned about users having to deal with their userpages being deleted from underneath them without warning? The user shouldn't have to monitor their articles in case someone deletes them years later. (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, nothing on Wikipedia belongs to the user who wrote it, even user pages. It's always smart to keep a local copy, especially if it's something that hasn't been touched in years. That said, WP:UP#DELETE suggests bringing it up with the user first, so there should always be a warning (except in cases of copyright violations, etc.). clpo13(talk) 23:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
precisely. No warning was given. Terrible admin actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

third try[edit]

Obviously same editor or group of editors hounding Ricky81682. Blocked. --NeilN talk to me 01:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Still, admins are expected to lead by example. Admins who violate policies like WP:BEFORE need to be challenged. I think it's worth asking questions here. We shouldn't have editors in fear that articles they created can get deleted just because they don't show up here for 20 or so months. That's a minor part of life. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks NeilN--you just beat me to it. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Macrophilia article[edit]

I would take this to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or to the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, but there is a backlog at the former and this matter has already been taken to the latter in the past. Furthermore, the problem repeatedly going on at the Macrophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article is that editors, WP:Newbies and other inexperienced editors, keep changing the content away from what is supported by the sources even after being told of the WP:Verifiability policy and WP:Reliable sources guideline. The article has also been plagued by WP:Socking. All of this is why the article has been WP:Semi-protected in the past. The article is bad enough as it is, without having to worry about WP:Synthesis being added to it. The issue is that macrophilia is predominantly documented in men, but some male editors keep trying to give "equal weight" to women being macrophiles; or, in the latest case, even to genderqueer people. For that latest development, see this, this and this edit made to the article, and this, this and this edit made to the talk page. ‎Jitenshasw (talk · contribs) has stated, "This is NOT opinion. Half of this article doesn't apply to women like me or male gay macrophiles. Changing to nongendered pronouns will fix everything. This article currently is appropriate for GTS not 'macrophila' as a whole. WE EXSIST STOP IGNORING US." Jitenshasw has stated that he or she is "taking a stand." Also see this edit. I don't see what is left for me to do on this matter, except take this article off my WP:Watchlist and let these editors have their way with it. I came upon the article in an incidental manner anyway. As far as I'm concerned, the article should be indefinitely WP:Semi-protected. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

From what I am observing in the article history for Macrophilia, ‎Jitenshasw is in violation of the 3RR policy (also, looks to have edited while logged out here), has engaged in edit warring today, and a 24 hour block for edit warring should be applied. From what I am observing on talk:Macrophilia, ‎Jitenshasw has made it clear that (s)he does not care about Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and that (s)he'll continue to edit war and violate Wikipedia's policies despite being asked to stop. This user clearly has personal ties and conflict of interest with this article and subject area, as indicated with his/her edits here, here and here, and is a SPA by the looks of his/her contributions. This user also appears to possibly be forum shopping now? (see here)
With this behavior in mind, the edit warring that has already occurred, the clearly stated intention to keep edit warring and violating Wikipedia guidelines without any regard to Wikipedia and the community, I believe that a topic ban should be imposed indefinitely upon ‎Jitenshasw and any articles regarding sexuality, broadly constructed. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm redacting my support for a 3RR/edit war block due to the below statement made by ‎Jitenshasw, so long as it doesn't continue. I'm striking out my support for a ban at this time, as I see that possible collaboration progress is being made as well. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I've already stopped the editing. I wasn't aware of the 3 revert rule, it wont happen again.

Dear administrator reading this. I realize you might not be part of this community, but it is a thriving and diverse one. I've been part of the macrophilia community for over 10 years as an artist and contributor. I run a NYC based Macro/Micro meetup which has women members (like myself) and many gay members as well. Here, take a look at a photo from our last meet in Central Park: While I'll agree that the majority of those 'out' are male and heterosexual, there is a significant portion of us who read the article in it's current form, and it does not read true to us.

This is an important matter of identity as most macrophiles like myself think about size on a day to day basis. Women in the community already often suffer greatly because their own desires are not respected by men. We're are supposed to assume this is a Giantess fetish by default, and if we don't conform, we're sometimes ostracized. That is not correct. Our own preferences should be respected! This has been argued before, and I strongly feel that changing the pronouns in the articles will keep information the same but without excluding women and those in the LGBTQ community. Please think about the morality on the subject. Many women (including myself) have suffered greatly from the back and forth of harassment and ostracizing tactics used by some men in the community. Please give us a voice.

We are real people who suffer deeply with identity issues due to this fetish. I'm a normal person, a wife, a hard worker. I go about my day to day silently suffering with this insecurity, my friends, family and co-workers unaware. I want to look at this page and say that I identify with this, THIS IS ME. But that's not what I'm reading. This is all wrong. A simple genderless pronoun change would solve that and make everyone happy. Jitenshasw (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I would support the gender neutral wording "giant" (as opposed to giantess) while keeping in language noting that it's primarily a heterosexual male fetish. clpo13(talk) 00:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I support the editing of this article based on reliable sources, like we ought to. There is only one actual book cited, this one, in the article--the rest ranges from Salon to Gawker. In other words, the sourcing for this is atrocious, and that book actually suggests that it's a male fantasy, supporting gendered language. That's not to say this is what it is, but the sources right now support the gendering (the newspaper articles certainly do). Honestly, I couldn't care less if this were ungendered--though I do object to this article having been an alt-forum, a directory of fetishistic links, and a collection of movies that supposedly play into the fetish. Feel free to peruse the academic literature, or MEDRS, as should be appropriate for such an article--nothing. Perhaps James Cantor is ready for AfD number 2. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

IP editor shoehorning images of marginal relevance to articles[edit]

IP in question blocked. GABHello! 01:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

I'm bringing this here as (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be driven more by an agenda rather than any interest in improving Wikipedia, and would appreciate other input.

The IP has been adding images to multiple articles. While I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, these additions seem to be attempting to wedge in images of marginal encyclopedic value into multiple articles, their only common characteristic being toplessness. This seems to be more of someone attempting to push an agenda rather than adding meaningful images. For instance, these three images ([145], [146], [147]) do next to nothing towards illustrating the subject of the article.

I didn't touch the addition to the swimsuit article as that one appears to be genuinely relevant to the material it illustrates; and for now I've left the addition to the tattoo article, as I can see an argument for that one (although that article is so overloaded with images that a different discussion on pruning to the best quality and most illustrative images may be needed on that talk page). It's the overall behavior of the user that is of concern to me. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think a Suicide Girl opening a refrigerator is strictly necessary to understanding the topic. This user is obviously trying to be edgy. clpo13(talk) 23:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I removed the addition to "Tattoo." Gratuitous and unnecessary with a misleading edit summary. Keegan (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Keegan, aren't you aware white people exist, too? /s clpo13(talk) 23:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I know, I know... Keegan (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is censored in many ways and this is one of them: we do not condone the placing of images just to get a rise out of viewers--or for the editor to get a rise out themselves. I'm reminded of a dude who kept adding pictures of his own dick to our articles, just a week or two ago. If anyone doubts they're sticking in nekkid girls for kicks, well, I don't know how to finish that sentence. Blocked. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Trigger-happy nominations By Dharmadhyaksha[edit]

I'm closing this since there seems to be no one who believes in the plaintiff's good faith, and that includes yours truly. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Dharmadhyaksha likes nominating works of other good faith editors for AFD, MFds.Quite a large number of his AFDs and Proposed deletion get rejected. A well sourced article, which he doesn't like personally, he will nominate the article for deletion. If he doesn't like an artist or an actor, he will nominate the article for deletion. If he doesn't like a particular region, then articles related to that region must be deleted according to Dharmadhyaksha.

Other than that, he abuses the Keep voters by replying to their comment with words as "Duh", "Huh", "Bah".

If he nominated some article for deletion, others can't vote keep?

He doesn't bite newcomers, but he bites old senior editors, by wasting their time in useless nominations for deletions.-- (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at Dharmadhyaksha's editing history and don't see anything particularly egregious that requires the attention of this board. The !vote / outcome percentage at Articles for deletion is 74.5%, which is not unreasonable.  Philg88 talk 05:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
If there are specific edits you feel are problematic please link to them with a diff. Dharma has nearly 30,000 edits and not many people are going to bother searching through all of them just on your suggestion. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
To be frank I hear loud Quacks coming from the nominator. how does an IP with four edits learn about Dharma's long history of nominating articles for deletion? I think it is just some pissed off editor who does not have the moral fibre to make this complaint while logged on. Pretty bad faith to be honest. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with the user above. It seems the IP just has some grudge against them. There is nothing wrong in replying to people on AfDs. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
It could very well be one of the many users who registered an account on Wikipedia just to create an article-like user page for themselves. —Farix (t | c) 14:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Strange moves[edit]

Looks like this issue has been taken care of. Going to go ahead and close. (non-admin closure) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

This is going to need some administrative cleanup:

  • (Move log); 11:36 . . SaboorB (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia:Omer Kauser Malik to Omer Kauser Malik ‎
  • (Move log); 11:35 . . SaboorB (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia:SaboorB to Wikipedia:Omer Kauser Malik ‎
  • (Move log); 11:35 . . SaboorB (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia talk:SaboorB to Wikipedia talk:Omer Kauser Malik ‎
  • (Move log); 11:35 . . SaboorB (talk | contribs) moved page User:SaboorB to Wikipedia:SaboorB ‎
  • (Move log); 11:35 . . SaboorB (talk | contribs) moved page User talk:SaboorB to Wikipedia talk:SaboorB ‎

Vrac (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I have repaired the inappropriate moves and have nominated the article Omer Kauser Malik for deletion as A7 (not notable) and G12 (copy vio; copied from LinkedIn). Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Socking and undisclosed COI editing[edit]

Socks blocked after checkuser, COI editing cleaned up, so I guess this is

ʍw 01:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Batteryoperated2012 (talk · contribs)

Pius Source (talk · contribs)

Vivos Command (talk · contribs)

Shelterist (talk · contribs)

Vivos (underground shelter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Talk:Vivos (underground shelter)

This is a somewhat controversial if low-key page. I've been following the above article for some time, trying to strike a balance between the vitriolic rants of the detractors and the all-too-obvious COI editing of the supporters. The detractors are easy enough to deal with (there simply isn't enough RS to include their wildest claims); the COI editing, until lately, had been largely constructive and also easily dealt with.

However, the COI editor(s) mentioned above have recently taken a new direction, with clear violations of WP:SOCK and WP:COI even after I notified them. {[148], [149], [150]}. I followed one on to Commons, and nominated some of their clear copyvios for deletion, which provoked these {[151], [152]}, effective admissions of socking (and COI) after the warnings posted above. Note that User:Vivos Command was renamed to User:Shelterist shortly after I posted the template messages, showing that they did receive and read them.

I suspect some administrator action should be performed, but know next-to-nothing about how Sockpuppet Investigations are carried out (in fact, I think this is my first time reporting here), or what sanctions are applied to undisclosed COI editors since the Terms of Use were updated. So, I defer to you all: What should be done?

ʍw 17:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

In retrospect, I probably should have posted this at WP:COI/N; I've left a note there. (Like I said, I don't do this sort of thing often.) ʍw 17:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this from a WP:COIN perspective, we have 3 SPAs, and an article that reads like an ad. There's enough press coverage for notability. It appears that the company has built one modest shelter in Indiana, owns a surplus Russian bunker in Europe, and everything else is proposed. So, per WP:CRYSTAL, cut the article way down to what has been built.John Nagle (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@Nagle: Good edits (here). ʍw 22:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Any admins care to comment on the sockpuppetry & COI issues? Again, the Commons links above strongly suggest User:Pius Source is User:Shelterist, and the images suggest that they are a very close associate (all I can say without outing) of the company's founder, Robert Vicino (see here for whom the photo Shelterist claims to have taken is copyrighted to). User:Shelterist has continued to edit the article. ʍw 22:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion further suggests a connection between the users mentioned above (given that one started a discussion on the others talkpage), and that they are not here to build the encyclopedia. ʍw 23:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Given the lack of input here, I've started Sockpuppet Investigation (here). ʍw 00:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Bad faith closure on talk:Main page[edit]

Thread/poll has been re-opened. (non-admin closure) -- Softlavender (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Talk:Main_Page#Proposal:_Remove_WP:In_the_news_from_the_main_page. I think it's clear that any closure that thinks that makes it very clear that the closer has strong bias against the proposal, and wishes to stifle commentary is a bad faith closure.

You can't close debattes you yourself have a personal interest in. That's a basic rule of Wikipedia: Closures are meant to be neutral, not tools for stifling debate you don't want to happen. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Unless I'm missing some behind-the-scenes activity, I see no evidence the proposal was made in bad faith, so it should not have been closed with that assumption, after 4.5 hours. However, a change of this huge nature to the Main Page would require a site-wide public community discussion, such as an RfC somewhere (including possibly a Signpost heads-up about it), etc. So I think something other than a main-page talk-page thread should determine whether ITN is broken, and if so what to do about it (including possibly abandoning it). Softlavender (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Though I oppose the purpose and rationale of the discussion, I actually agree it probably should not have been closed. I also agree that a much broader discussion should take place if radical change or abolition is desired. That said, such changes are almost a perennial proposal. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I opposed Adam's suggestion, but I don't think admins who, in effect, snow-close discussions should take it upon themselves to unilaterally and publicly declare the proposing user guilty of "bad faith." Violates WP:AGF and the principle of due process. Sca (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Note that I am not an admin. I closed the discussion because I didn't see it go anywhere else. As for mentioning "bad faith" in the box, I have already struck it and apologized. I think this will be my last closure for the foreseeable future. In any case, I will be much more careful with my language and actions. Isa (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I don't disagree that the proposal would be unlikely to find favor, but perhaps the discussion should be reopened as a courtesy? (Not that I'm in favor, understand.) If there's little further comment over a few days, someone else could close it. Sca (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
BMK has already reopened it, but even if he hadn't, I don't think it would make much sense for me to get anywhere close to this thread again. I'm leaving it as it is for people to see and take appropriate actions if necessary. Isa (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no justification for closing a discussion after less than 4 1/2 hours and 4 !votes, even when all the votes were "oppose". I'm going to re-open it. BMK (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Can I put in a plea that some of us in time zones remote from the UK/Euro/US centre of things need plenty of warning. I have no interest in this particular issue, and that's fortunate because it all took place while I was asleep overnight. Admins, please be mindful of participants' time zones. Akld guy (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War[edit]

Something strange is happening with moves related to this page. It has been unilaterally moved without discussion to this page. People copy-paste large chunks of text. I think this page should be moved back to the original title and move-protected. All procedures must be properly followed. If people want to rename the page, they must make an RfC and wait for consensus. Furthermore, it seems that someone modified redirect to hinder moves by other participants. This is just another reason to move it back per this Arbcom decision. Administrative attention required. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

To move the page back, you may go to WP:RM#TR and file an Uncontroversial technical request (following the instructions and using the template), with the rationale that the prior move was made without discussion. An admin will then make the move shortly.

I believe this thread may therefore be closed, as ANI is not the venue desired. Softlavender (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You can also ask David O. Johnson about the move, since he was the one who performed it. It would be good to get his input and collaborate with him. Notice of this ANI has been left on his talk page. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
No, I can not go to Uncontroversial technical request because I think this move is controversial. My very best wishes (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Parsa1993 is the one who originally moved it to the current title [153]; I just moved it back. I thought their arguments in support of the move were valid. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Redacted my statement above. Sorry! ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I see. OK, one possible solution is to keep both pages for now and discuss their merging. Therefore, I just made revert in the redirect and marked them to discuss merging. But it seems that both pages have the same talk page.My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
There are now articles Russian intervention in Syria, Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, Russia's role in the Syrian Civil War, Russian-Iranian military intervention in Syria, Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War, and Syrian Civil War. I may have missed others. There's extensive overlap. A neutral party is needed to organize that mess. Syrian Civil War should probably be the lead article, with the usual arrangements for subarticles. Is there some relevant WikiProject that can take this on? Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
And no one noticed WP:NOTNEWS, in their eagerness to get the scoop on the article, the title, the content. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps this thread can be closed by now, but I think some admins should watch these pages.My very best wishes (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
One of those articles just hit the front page of Wikipedia. The subject is important enough and complex enough that it needs serious attention. But none of the task forces under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/History and society#Military and warfare seem to cover that conflict. The original poster here wasn't sure he was in the right place. There is no obvious right place. Sugggestions? John Nagle (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Status quo[edit]

There are currently only two overlapping articles (the others listed above by John Nagle are overarching parent articles), plus a redirect:

(NOTE: currently a redirect, but with 23,000 bytes of content prior. HOWEVER, the page was a cut&paste move and rename of Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War anyway)

Since September 30 there has been a Requested Move that Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil WarRussian intervention in Syria.

Since today there is now a MERGE proposal to Merge Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War into Russian–Iranian military intervention in Syria.

Somewhere in all of the recent and fairly recent cut&paste moves (numerous), pop-up redirects, re-namings, double redirects, normal moves, and a change from hyphen to en-dash, things got duplicated (or possibly also overlapped or lost or whatever). (It's a bit hard to untangle as it involves half a dozen titles and page histories due to the various intervening titles and redirect pages.)

ADDENDUM: The two existing articles [[[Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War]] and the currently titled as of 13:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Russian-led military intervention in Syria] are virtually identical and one needs to be deleted.

-- Softlavender (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC); edited 05:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: EkoGraf has just moved Russian–Iranian military intervention in Syria to Russian-led military intervention in Syria. At least it wasn't a cut&paste move. I am going to re-do the titles above to reflect the change. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

All of these pages should be labelled as under general sanctions[edit]

See Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. See Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community-authorised sanctions. They need talk page notices and Edit notices for the article pages. Doug Weller (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Use {{Editnotice SCW 1RR}} for the article page and {{Syrian Civil War sanctions}} for the talk page. To make an edit notice visit Wikipedia:Editnotice. Doug Weller (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, most of these are done, although some of the redirect pages may need them if they are moved back. Doug Weller (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


It might be worthwhile for an admin to lock Russian-led military intervention in Syria, merge Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War into it, and delete Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War before unlocking. That would save a lot of hassle because the articles are being edited as we speak, leading to more and more text to worry about. After the deletion and unlock, people can debate about the title as much as they please. Anyone who then moves without RM consensus, or cut&paste creates a new article, should receive an immediate block. Softlavender (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Block requests can go to RPP, but it's not our role to make content or merge decisions such as the one above. Doug Weller (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The later article was an exact duplication of the first, and I've seen admins fix that sort of situation before it got out of hand. Given that the articles are being treated as newspapers with daily if not hourly updates, the sooner the page duplication is zapped the better, in my mind. That's my personal opinion, anyway. Softlavender (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Nothing prevents anyone from making an AfD or using an RfC to discuss merging. I do not think this case is anything special. My very best wishes (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible spam links being added to websites about survey datasets[edit]

I've noticed that recently, numerous links to have been added in the External Links section of articles about survey data, e.g. Survey of Income and Program Participation. These links aren't really relevant to an encyclopedia article, but rather seem like advertising for the user's blog. While I don't know if the user is actually affiliated with it, his response to another (IP) user doesn't, in my opinion, provide enough rationale for why these links should be included in every article for which the blog has a topic. Fortranso (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I warned them: these links are not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you. It looks like the website links to a personal page at, so it definitely seems like the author of the blog and the WP user are one and the same. Fortranso (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) One thing, though, is that the second diff you posted took place back in April; moreover, s/he hasn't edited at all since June. I'm not sure anything else needs to be done here. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 21:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Ok, I'm happy to leave it at that, then. Should the links that are already in place be removed or blacklisted? fs (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
          • It's spam to promote personal software (all spam including free and charitable sites is prohibited) and should be removed. Have all removed now. On a sidenote, such a statistical tool can be written by every semi-capable developer in a few days. It's really not that extraordinary - the main work is to understand the incoming data structure. GermanJoe (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


Although I suspect some IP-hopping here (particularly with the second IP's very first edit being in this forum), given the OP's original comments to the user s/he is reporting, it indeed appears that a boomerang is present. At any rate, Drmies has already warned the user (to which s/he responded), so it doesn't look like anything else needs to be done. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

I'm a very sensitive contributor and this post [154] on my talk page has hurt my feelings. It is related to edits at RT (TV network) and Talk:RT (TV network), especially [155], [156] & [157]. I'm also a very busy contributor, so I don't really get into a long discussion about it. Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, a half an hour before that you told them they were acting like an ass. Perhaps they are delicate too. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • "Sensitive" people are sensitive to the feelings of others. (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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


The editing environment at Ahmed Mohamed clock incident and the associated talk page is bad, and everyone there (myself included) needs to to work better at focusing on article content rather than attacks. Even in that context, though, I feel that User:Winkelvi has repeatedly crossed the line, and their disruption is making any sort of improvement in the tone impossible. Yesterday got into a bit of a row with them and figured a little time would do us both well, but today their replies to posts as carefully worded as I know how have continued to be attacks. I think per their comment here that Winkelvi is misinterpreting discussion on a contentious topic with BLP concerns as obstinance, but that doesn't really help me see a path forward. Help de-escalating the situation would be appreciated.

Examples of edits I find inappropriate:

Attempts to resolve the issue on the user's talk page [159], [160]. Notified here.


VQuakr (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That Reddit discussion is toxic and really has no place being linked on the talk page. Talk pages are for improving the article, and pointing out how people in an anti-Wikipedia subreddit feel about the article doesn't help one bit. clpo13(talk) 23:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
So, VQuakr, are you reporting yourself? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
In the sense that my edits are going to be scrutinized due to my posting here, sure. VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Charla del calcetín[edit]

Obvious block evasion is obvious. HighInBC 16:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous discussion at Special:Diff/683957721.

That naughty Future Perfect at Sunset is in trouble again. He's been removing content from the archives, something which is not done [161]. He's also been badmouthing she-who-must-be-nameless - again.

Eva Carneiro made a very telling comment on Friday:

I wonder whether this might be the only formal investigation in this country where the evidence of the individuals involved in the incident was not considered relevant. Choosing to ignore some of the evidence will surely influence the outcome of the findings.

No, Eva, it's not. If Future Perfect at Sunset put his case at the SPI page and if it was unprotected he would be shot down in flames. E a vida.

I think we should grade administrators on the number of policy violations they make per hour (p.v.p.h.). You know, an annual appraisal sort of thing, like they have in offices. Future Perfect at Sunset would come out top (bottom?) or very close. (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

So, do I gather that this yet another "Vote (X) for Change" sock? BMK (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) The diff provided does not show any involvement of the named editor, no evidence whatsoever supporting the claims made and to boot, the header is a pejorative. Can somebody please return the WP:BOOMERANG? Kleuske (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
In case anyone missed it, let me note that the heading that the IP user emplouyed for this section, "Filha(o) da puta", means "Son/daughter of a bitch" in Portuguese. LjL (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I've changed the title to something more appropriate. BMK (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
IP is a clear case of block evasion. Note that both originate from London, UK and use the same style to make "reports". —Farix (t | c) 16:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Any admin willing to throw this boomerang back? GABHello! 16:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

An IP editor has been posting from multiple IPs over the last four to six weeks consistently against consensus and in todays batch of edits (many of which have had to be reverted) has become abusive. Several editors have tried to engage via talk-pages and he did enter into very limited discussion at Talk:Jim Clark, but basically has taken very little notice of what people have tried to communicate to him. His editing has been disruptive over a few weeks now and many involved in the F1 project feel that wit has been allowed to continue for long enough. Please can somebody advise how we should proceed? There is available a list of approx. 20 IPs he has been using, but the diffs must be possibly over 1,000 by now. Thanks for any assistance. Eagleash (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The notice placed on his (today's) talk page has been replaced thus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagleash (talkcontribs) 17:40, 4 October 2015‎
I have given the IP a 72 hour block for being abusive. If they come back within this time let me know on my talk page and I will re-block for evasion. If they come back after this time and are disruptive let me know and I will look into it. HighInBC 17:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, if it follows the usual pattern there will be a drop off in edits until the end of the week when it will resume from yet another IP. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)