Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Userspace for fans of keeping track of oldest people

There is a group of users who seem to be insistent on creating their own versions of "Lists of oldest whoever" as their main contributions here. So far, I've found User:Bensonfood (see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Bensonfood), User:Deaths in 2013(Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Deaths_in_2013/My_OR_stuff), and now User_talk:Pascar, User:Tanough/SC_Portal, User:Tanough/SC_Portal/Table_B, User:Tanough/SC Portal/Oldest people/Spain (blanked by anonymous users), User:Tanough/Top_10 and I'm sure there's more. There is a small amount of editing in mainspace for these individuals but I'd like to see if someone here can beat a cluestick into all of them about forking before I just block them all under WP:NOTHERE (although any other admin is welcome to do so). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Deaths in 2013, I'm just gonna leave this here. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is curious how widespread this is, check out the fun I'm creating at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#December_18.2C_2014. Already found four more users. Let's see how far this rabbit hole goes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This is probably the Yahoo World's Oldest People group and/or the 110 Club fanboys again. The area of human longevity ended up at arbitration about 4 years ago, and while some of the nastiness is gone from the area there's still a strong undercurrent of people who view longevity-related material as their own private fiefdom. Accordingly, they treat Wikipedia as the Gerontology Research Group's official output and insist on keeping massive walled gardens of content. See the history of User:NickOrnstein for an old example, just to show how longstanding this problem is. This sort of thing should be met with swift warnings and blocks, because if not immediately stopped the cleanup gets to be overwhelmingly large. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like it, there's at least a half dozen others out there. Note that I just deleted User:Deaths_in_2013/Sandbox as a copy-paste recreation of the one from the MFD. I hope that's not a concern. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I joined Wikipedia around a year ago. I don't who was the first to create these kind of user pages but I imagine that like myself, many other people with an interest in longevity saw other people keep longevity-related lists in their userspace, and so presumed that this was okay. I now understand that the guidelines do not allow for such things so am attempting to merge some of the content on my user page to existing articles.

But you know what, I see the comments that you lot have made above and I think: "Sod it, why should I bother?". Ricky, did you not bother to read the recent discussions on my talk page about this? If you had, then you would realise that I am trying to work towards a positive solution. But instead, you say that you'd "like to see if someone here can beat a cluestick into all of them about forking before I just block them all". Brilliant.

Maybe one of the reasons that others do not make more contributions to the main Wikipedia is because they do not wish to collaborate with "bullies". That is, people who show no appreciation of the fact that newer users are less experienced and do not seem to take in to account the intentions of the users.

Oh, and the Yahoo World's Oldest People Group is not for "fanboys". It's a place to post news/research about longevity claimants and is used by a number of experts in the field.

Ollie231213 23:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the members of the 110 club as fanboys, although in my experience the label does fit many of the participants at the Yahoo group as well. he What in the world is the utility of lists like those linked above? Setting aside the horrific formatting and blatant WP:FLAGBIO violations, which was one of the more bizarre and rancorous disputes I had to help force a solution to in the topic area, there is no possible way that anyone besides those referred to above would seriously want these as Wikipedia articles. Allowing them to indefinitely languish in peoples' userspace is therefore an obvious violation of WP:UPNOT, and encourages more such violations, so they should be deleted. Some of them, such as User:Tanough/SC Portal/Table B, are also blatant attempts to keep a preferred format (one that contravenes WP:FLAGBIO) and should accordingly be deleted on those grounds. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have another idea -- perhaps an editor concerned about other editors failure to follow policy could follow the recommendation at the top of the page:

• Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.

As Ollie points out, the most likely explanation for the behavior is observing it going unchecked on other editor's pages; I understand it's a hassle to post the same message to multiple folks -- if there's not a standard twinkle message perhaps one could be added. NE Ent 23:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Having visited (in one fashion or another) a few of these accounts I can tell you that they are resistant to sugestion... sometimes downright hostile. This is not a matter of a few slightly errant editors that just need a friendly little twinkle message to nudge in the right direction. This is an entrenched dysfunction that requires the very real threat of deletion to even get a serious acknowledgement. And even then there is perpetual resistance. In the end, the wall surrounding this group has to come down and either they participate constructively... or they don't. – JBarta (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at [1] and [2], I'm not seeing any evidence there was any attempt to engage that particular editor. Although the page is obviously not compliant, it's unclear what possible harm it's doing? It's not affecting mainspace, it's not affecting any other editor... why the rush? Of course we're going to get resistance if our first engagement is hostile WP:FAKEARTICLE wiki-ese. (It's also not following policy -- WP:AGF is a code of conduct, not a probability assessment. NE Ent 00:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Many of the experts/correspondents on the WOP Group are also members of the 110 Club. The latter was in fact created with the intention of making a forum to have semi-formal discussions about the topic of longevity. It has a wide range of members, from those involved in research to those who just have an interest. So, let's not start some petty name-calling.

Why do these kind of pages exist? They were probably created because Wikipedia has an auto-update function, so all ages change automatically. The tables are also neat, so user pages were considered to be a good place to keep these informal lists which were designed to be looked at by only the user and other users with an interest in longevity.

Now I'm not saying that this is okay. Clearly, these violate guidelines. Fine. I know that now, but I did not before, and I imagine that many others did not either. What I object to, however, is the way that this issue is being dealt with. We have a load of experienced users (who know the guidelines inside out) who just come along, like a stampede of rhinoceros, and accuse the lesser-experienced users of this that and the other (such as not wanting to help contribute to the main Wikipedia) and threaten to delete their pages outright.

These accusations may or may not be valid for individual users, but don't paint everyone with the same brush. I'm sure most people will be happy to cooperate with the administrators if they are polite and and explain why they are in the wrong.

However, when you see some say: "check out the fun I'm creating at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#December_18.2C_2014", it sounds as if they are getting a rush from having power over others. People are NOT going to be willing to cooperate with people like that.

Ollie231213 23:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yea, sorry about that. Unfortunately Wikipedia has very few administrators for the amount of work to be done, so sometimes they can get a bit cranky. Might I suggest using one of the Wiki hosting services? Some are free (advertising supported), and should support most of the same functionality. Once you've got your stuff copied over, we'd appreciate if you'd place a {{Db-userreq}} on your user page so a passing administrator can clean up the page. NE Ent 23:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for your helpful suggestion, NE Ent. I appreciate it.

Ollie231213 23:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

One thing that needs to be borne in mind is that some of these lists are entirely unsourced, and accordingly violation of WP:BLP policy - they make specific claims regarding longevity, which is obviously potentially contentious, and clearly should be sourced. They also give precise dates of birth, which may possibly violate WP:BLPPRIVACY. If there was any evidence that these lists were actually intended for article content, there might be scope for some leeway, but given the pointless duplication, the clear unwillingness to comply with sourcing requirements, and the disregard for multiple other policies, I can't think of a good reason why we shouldn't give them say a week to copy the lists elsewhere, and then summarily delete the lot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Another is that to these people, keeping track of the world's oldest people seems so obviously encyclopedic - as in the most appropriate data anyone could have in an encyclopedia, ever - that all the admins trying to get rid of it seem like irrational meanies. The prominence of the world's oldest person records in the Guinness books likely exacerbates that. --NellieBly (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia doesn't normally have multiple incomplete versions of similar content scattered all over the place - and per established Wikipedia policy, we require sources for content referring to living persons. If the contributors responsible for these lists wish to contribute sourced content to articles, there is nothing stopping them. That doesn't appear to be their objective however. AndyTheGrump (talk)

I found this to be a fairly accurate summary of the problem (for the now-removed section being linked to, see this and the associated edit summary). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:NE Ent, you seem to acting like I'm WP:BITEing these editors because I won't simply let them continue with their userspace lists that they've created and used for years. In partiuclar, User:Tanough hasn't edited since 2012 but the history at User:Tanough/SC Portal is continuous until today. I came here following the close of Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Bensonfood. The editor has been here for six months, and when told it's inappropriate, copy the contents to two other places for me to hunt down for deletion. User:Deaths_in_2013 has a similar AFD, I deleted that page, the sandbox page he copied the contents to and yet there's still this and this movement which shows little intent to actually deal with these issues. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when told at places like Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#List_of_supercentenarians_who_died_in_2014 is not going anywhere fast. Besides, under hte BLP policy, they should all be deleted immediately and the editors can try at deletion review or wherever to get them restored. Listing them for AFD is being extra-ordinarily nice in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I just follow the evidence. Bensonfood may have been here for six months, but the first talk page message I'm seeing indicating anything is amiss with his edits is this correct but less than warm and fuzzy message two days ago [3], followed 11 minutes later by a notification of this ANI thread [4], and I've already addressed the Ollie situation. Of course BLP violating content must be deleted expeditiously but it should be addressed in a manner consistent with the rest of Wikipedia policies. The first step should be a polite user talk page explaining why it's inappropriate, and a request for them to copy the material off-wiki and then CSD U1 it. Way less fuss than Mfd's and ANI threads.

I think the key word in Ricky's post is "these editors." They are individuals, and unless there is evidence they are sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or part of an intentional conspiracy, should be treated as such. I understand the frustration -- when I volunteered at WP:WQA there are days when I wanted to scream when the N + 1th new editor complained that an established editor had "rudely" just removed a message left on the veteran editors talk page -- but I forced myself to remember than the one was a different potential new editor than the N who came before. And when I just couldn't stand it anymore I logged off for a month ... or two ... NE Ent 23:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

My experience in the longevity articles is that most of these people are meatpuppets in all but name, and frequently in name as well (see WP:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts (2nd nomination) for a demonstrative example). Certainly not all, but most. There's little point in trying the approach above (an approach I highly endorse in most cases) because their presence results in things like what I linked to above being spread across literally hundreds of pages, and getting it down to a more reasonable size gets resistance at every turn. It's much easier and more efficient to head it off at the pass. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"MOST of these people are meatpuppets"? And how exactly did you come to that conclusion?

Ollie231213 12:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I was looking at random "List of supercentarian" articles and the selection of articles I looked at appear to rely heavily on Gerontology Research Group, a non-reliable an essentially primary source, to determine information and age about these people. There are also a significant number of non-sourced entries in the articles. Am I right in thinking that these are BLP violations, at least for the recently deceased and/or still living? If so, what is the best course of action for dealing with them? Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The GRG is a useful source for this sort of thing, it's about the best you're going to get in most cases, so that's not so much of a problem. Basically, the best way to deal with these is through AfD; if the only non-trivial coverage is in GRG records, they're not notable enough for articles here. As to how I came to the conclusion above, look through the two Jan Goossenaerts AfDs and the discussion here for demonstrative, but by no means exhaustive, examples. I am expressly not saying that everyone in the area is a meatpuppet, there are several editors who do excellent work in the area, but there are a disproportionate number of one-off and longer-term editors who habitually display the traits of the participants in these discussions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to hear why you think the GRG is a non-reliable source, James. Ollie231213 21:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ollie231213, please indent your replies by adding one more ":" than the previous reply to the beginning of each paragraph. I thought that the GRG wasn't a reliable source because the Wikipedia:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Databases says that No article should be based solely or primarily on any of these databases, and no article should rely on any one of them alone in order to make assertions about subjects' history of records broken, rank-order placement in longevity-related lists, or current status as alive or dead. I see now that this isn't exactly the same thing as not reliable - it's more like it's a primary source. I've struck out and changed my text above. Thanks for pointing this out. Ca2james (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

With regards to User_talk:Pascar, WP:FAKEARTICLE states that articles under construction are allowed if they include : "Short-term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template can be added to the top of the page to identify these)". The page even states that it is intended to become a full article. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

SiameseTurtle, it's a user talk page. It's not for creating drafts. I just blanked it, the history is still there. If someone actually wants to create the article, any editor can move the page. As annoying as it is, I'm willing to split up the talk page contents with the drafting editing and move it to Draftspace as long as all the unsourced names are removed (and kept out). Just ask me. The actual articles here have no sources and these ridiculous userspace drafts are what everyone is working on instead. There must be almost 30 pages listed all over MFD right now. The WikiProject was advised of this almost three years ago. Frankly the WikiProject people should be the ones wanting everything centralized so that they can create more robust articles rather than supporting this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Userpages are most definitely allowed to include draft articles, which you can learn more about at WP:UP. A constructive change would have been for you to suggest moving it to a more suitable page than the talk page - not taking actions against WP:POINT by deleting an article under construction. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Can't it just be moved to a sandbox? Afterall, it is a work in progress. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem; almost none of these are intended to become actual articles, they're here to languish in userspace. It'd be the equivalent of people keeping detailed track of baseball/hockey/[insert your sport here] stats throughout their userpages, those sorts of stats pages are regularly deleted through MfD. These present an even larger problem because many of them aren't sourced at all or have dubious sourcing, and given that we're talking about mostly private individuals it's a serious BLP violation to have these floating all over the place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That's simply not true though - many of the drafts have been moved to create articles. In fact, the page in question even explicitly states "It is a work in progress! In the future we could create a Wikipage article." , and was still being edited a matter of days before the deletion nomination. It seems to me that what is being enforced here is the deletion of all userspace draft articles - which goes against WP:SUB which states that userspace subpages can be used to develop articles. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why they can't. Equally, I also think we should add a notice at the top of these subpages to denote that they are not articles. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Even though this might be unrelated, I know this "Deaths in 2013" person. Under a different username, he was a (Personal attack removed) over on wikiHow. (He is currently blocked for six months.) --Biblioworm 16:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It is unrelated, and without English Wikipedia diffs supporting the accusation, it's an unwarranted personal attack. NE Ent 15:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

break

Humans learn intrinsically from imitation -- no kid ever read a How to walk or How to talk manual. That, along with bold, means that the WP:AGF explanation for these inappropriate user pages is new editors finding existing pages and therefore inferring it must be okay. Rather than repeatedly trying to deal with it ad hoc (which may lead to bitey behavior out of frustration), let's address the problem systematically.

• Clarify The reasons for deletion are not crisp; they're varying back and forth between WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:BLP. Although both are valid reasons for removal, the urgency and process involved differs. We should come to some consensus as to where they fall (scope). Personally, I don't seem them as a huge BLP issue, but obviously will support whatever the community consensus turns out to be.
• Identify To address the problem once, efficiently, we should enlist the technically adroit Wikipedia community -- I'm thinking either WP:VPT or WP:BOTREQ to scan userspace finding the problematic pages. Presumably there are certain keyword / names that could be used to flag these. The number of pages found -- 10? 100? 1000? will inform the next steps (extent).
• Engage As a first step, polite engagement of the creators should be undertaken. Depending on the extent (~10) manually copy pasting a message to each is reasonable; if it's larger someone could do a User:MediaWiki_message_delivery. Editors can be informed of why the content isn't appropriate, possible alternatives (e.g. wikia, et. al.) and asked to revert edits or CSD separate pages.
• Follow up After an appropriate period of time, content that hasn't been removed by the editors can be dealt with. Again the scope and extent will inform how to execute this step.
• Monitor Once the immediate issue is dealt with, we should monitor userspace for future pages to nip the problem in the bud. Perhaps a bot could make a list once a week or something of pages to evaluate.NE Ent 15:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I'd only add two things. One, given the length of time this has been an issue, the follow-up is going to be over a very extended period of time and in some instances will almost certainly require very firm handling. Secondly, reorganize the World's Oldest People project so it has a more coherent structure so people familiar with the area can handle these problems going forward (might require a name change, the discussion for which which would definitely need some extra monitoring). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I definitely think the name change is a good idea -- see [5]. (And yes, I was just kidding.) EEng (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC) P.S. Hi, The Blade of the Northern Lights!

That comment made my day. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a systematic approach would be best given the breadth of these pages. I think there's a broader issue here that isn't just confined to pages in userspace since there are issues in the mainspace articles, too. If the wikiproject is being examined, it might be good to add some kind of guideline and subsequent monitoring for what is and isn't acceptable for a mainspace or userspace page. As well, I think some guidelines and mentoring to help editors understand WP guidelines and policies is needed. I'm thinking not just of the sourcing and BLP issues but of Accessibility issues as well, since often only colour is used to determine whether an entry is pending or verified (see this article, for example). Should Wikipedia even be listing pending or unverified entries from the GRG tables when there are no other sources for those entries? Ca2james (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The best place to start these discussions would likely be WT:WikiProject World's Oldest People, and given the very insular nature of this area I'd recommend an RfC to get broader community input. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just discovered this discussion and must say that I am very glad that this project has become the subject of scrutiny. It's one of the most problematic projects that I know, trying to impose its own rules on WP. And because there are a number of highly motivated SPAs active in that area, any attempt at cleanup (such as AfDs of trivial articles) runs into vehement opposition. I have been avoiding this area for a while now, but will now start monitoring WT:WikiProject World's Oldest People. --Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLUD on Talk:Battle of Chawinda

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

---

• Battle of Chawinda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nawabmalhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yesterday Nawabmalhi edit warred until the page was protected. During the edit war, he continued to remove the maintenance templates and misrepresent sources.

In order to keep bludgeoning the process, he started to accuse me of personal attacks and copy pasted the same discussions two times in two different sections.[6][7]

One user hatted his conversation, and was told to whether change or remove the same copy pasted text. He has reverted that move at least three times.[8] [9][10] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• His bad understanding of English language(WP:CIR) as well as his avid nationalism probably prompts him to misrepresent the references and his decision to avoid the discussion and repeat same argument includes the misrepresentation of policies. He is incapable of understanding the matter. I would recommend a topic ban. Another option is a temporary block until RFC is finished. He fails to understand what others have written and pretends that he hasn't read anything. VandVictory (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Nawabmalhi has already been notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. In case there is any issue of nationalist editing, this should be kept in mind. It is a fact that we do tend to see disputes about the results of wars and battles, even on stuff like the War of 1812, because it may not be a simple matter of fact. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Yes, a few weeks ago he was reminded of DS. I agree with above comments that there is issue with nationalistic editing and competence with English. On Battle of Chawinda, he is trying to prove that the battle resulted in Pakistan victory, by labeling words such as "blood bath" as "victory".[11] On Talk:Siachen conflict, he had discarded a reliable source published by Stanford University as an "Indian source which may also be subject to bias".[12] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please donnnot Muckrake I did not make any edit on the Siachen Conflict nor did I revert an edit when you said the source was reliable I reexamined it and ended the discussion. I stand by what I said either way an Indian source(meaning from India) should not be used to indicate a victory or defeat in an India related conflict and that is why I donnot use Pakistani sources to back Pakistani Victory stance, only western in Chawinda article-- Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You have used WP:PRIMARY(statement of Pakistani commander) sources on Battle of Chawinda and misrepresented others. If the source is reliable you don't have to pinpoint the nationality of one author as a reason to reject. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

His discussions are uncalled for. His reply to my comment was indeed an attempt to joke or irritate. He was telling me about the same book that others had already checked and it seemed like he was supporting my comment, but if you see his few other comments you will find his misuse of this snippet for claiming problematic statements. That's how his discussions are becoming irritating for others. If he is blocked until the rfc closure, he will still come back to badger and continue same style of nationalistic POV on other articles just like he is doing now. Temporary topic ban on military subjects would be better as his ultimate aim is to derail discussions, not to gain consensus. నిజానికి (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if you got offended, but if you carefully read what I said that is not what I meant at all. Many people did not have the access to Fricker on Google Books due to copyright, through various searches on Google books I had a good portion of the page viewable. So when you said the conflict was largely affected by the cease fire I gave you a source which showed that the ceasefire was a result of the conflict and provided my new link so you could access Fricker and see for yourself. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Nawabmalhi

To be completely honest this to me seems like muckraking seems to be a trend developing in OcultZones tactics and can be seen at the AE Archives quite clearly. Here is my point of view:

• The only reason I copied and pasted into the other section because OccultZone was repeating the same argument from the section above on the the Talkpage and just created another section to do it. I specifically wrote that I was doing this as a formality and this was already discussed in detail above and did not want to indicate that I was ignoring him or that I felt that his maintenance template sugestions, in my view, were correct. It is just that I always thought it Wiki ettiquete to reply even though the points raised are repetitive assuming Good Faith but he seems to like to assume Bad Faith to anything or any user he is disagrees with.
• I did not edit war it was just that OccultZone did not discuss on the talk page and reach a consensus before adding the maintenance tags and I said lets discuss on the Talkpage first before we add these maintenance tags and if you must add them keep the source I added and keep the link to Fricker that I added and then re add the maintenance tags thankfully an Admin protected the page this is verifiable by the edit summaries on the page history.
• I did not even edit the talkpage for over 16 hours and nor did I plan too until VandVictory decided to hat what I wrote as Misrepresenting the Source which I thought was blatant vandalism and something an Administrator could only do since he was tampering and misrepresenting what I said, which I removed it and told VandVictory to stop tampering with what I wrote. OccultZone took advantage of that to bring me here and here I am.
• Also before coming to the ANI today I did not even know what 'hatting' was, and I was not notified remove or change the copy paste section by anyone as OccultZone says. Furthermore if you read what I wrote it was not unproductive and was relevant, plus it was only 60% the same. Moreover VandVictory Hatted what I wrote and marked it as Misrepresenting the Sources as the tempelate title/display and did it to both sections instead of one which would be different. All I knew at that point was that he was tampering with what I wrote and misrepresenting something I thought only Admins could do.
• Majority of the people who responded to DID the battle lead to Major Pakistani victory? agree with me that the sources indicate Pakistani Victory or Indian Defeat, I am not in the minority. I have provided my explanation for why the sources clearly indicate that Chawinda is a Pakistani Victory instead of responding by giving their point of View OccultZone and VandVictory instead talk about my Grammar, call me incompetent, say that I am a Nationalist(which others will testify I am not), blatantly say I am misrepresenting the source without substantiating any evidence etc.
• I have NO interest what so ever in delaying or bludgeoning but I due feel that a stalemate is completely contradictory and Pakistani Victory is much more fair and correct understanding of the sources so when OccultZone presents his arguement or attempts to pokeholes at my arguements I rightfully and responsibly as an active member of the discussion respond to him and give my point of view as it is discussion. If my actions are considered bludgeoning (which I think is absurd) then by the same criteria OccultZones edits are also examples of bludgeoning but with more force. Honestly it seems that they want to take the credibility of my arguments by having me topic banned.
• Before I got involved with the Chawinda debate (which I tried to resist to the best by ignoring numerous pings etc.) I was able to do my normal editing on pages and was thanked by numerous users. Infact, the week before I got involved in this mess, I was thanked for my edit by Users Sitush and Faizan on edits related to Jat people and IndoPak wars respectively. Now my edits on actual pages is going down and affecting my real life by chipping away at my real life by eating away MCAT study time.
• OccultZone might be in the heat of the moment, assuming Good Faith, but VandVictory, from what I have seen, seen carries around a Battleground mentality and has tried to instigate an edit war with me and others (from Dec 17) on the Battle of Chawinda page.
• Interestingly enough VandVictory has not even edited the page before Dec 17 while another నిజానికి has never edited the page at all and the talk page before Dec 19 which was during the RFC. Also both of these editors donnot even seem to have any substantial knowledge of the Battle or IndoPak war of 1965(based on the user contributions), they also seem to have edited similar pages so I think they might be Sockpuppets. (sorry in advance if I am wrong). I think there should be an investigation in case.
• My view:

My view copied from Article Talk Page

1. Fricker says: "After the Battle of Chawinda, which proved to be a blood bath for Chaudhuris Indian Army. India pleaded its case for an unconditional ceasefire..." Blood bath means massacre , disastrous loss or reversal according to dictionary.com as a note. This is important because it show that India suffered heavy losses, pakistan halts Indian Invasion and that the ceasefire was the result of the battle and helps justify the the term 'Major Pakistani Victory'. 2. Cohen, Dagupta call it a debacle which means a general breakup or dispersion or a complete collapse or failure according to dictionary.com as a note. They also compare the Major Indian Victory of Battle of Asal Uttar to Chawinda where India is on the receiving end. 3. Steven Zaloga calls the battle a defeat, and says specifically that the Indian 1st division(encompasses bassically all of the indian units) was defeated by the Pakistani 25th Cavalry which resulted in a UN mandated ceasefire. And also compares the Major Indian Victory of Battle of Asal Uttar to Chawinda where India is on the receiving end. 4. Canberra Times and The Australian both also say it is a Pakistani Victory.

I sincerely request you to end this Chawinda Discussion and pick whichever side you think is right as an administrator and close this case, it does not matter if they manage to get me topic banned or not, both sides are entrenched one saying Victory the other saying stalemate I think it is best, most fair, and efficient, if an administrator ends this. Whichever way a administrator goes everyone will listen, let go ,and move on.--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You have copied and pasted the same WP:SYNTH over and over, when each of my reply was differently written. You actually want "evidence" for your source misrepresentation? Here it is,[13] no where these sources[14][15] state that there was any "Major Pakistani victory" or even victory for that matter. Obviously you are not going to consider it at all, and continue to misrepresent sources, cast aspersions and edit war. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your replies are formatted a little differently but they are pretty much that exact samething. If you want the last word have it, I have learned my lesson I am not gonna repeat myself for you! I am more interested on Admin opinion after talk Page look. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

They must be same because they reject your WP:SYNTH and misrepresentation? Yet you are copying and pasting the same thing. You are still doing it and even here[16] now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

For admin so he knows where I stand, better than him having to search through the Talk Page and it is not meant for you, this is not the Talk Page discussion.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Nawabmalhi you are actually wrong because I have edited before RFC, see this from 2 December [17] VandVictory (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I was specifically talking about the article which you did not edit till Dec 17, but I did not know that you were on the talk page before that because you had not edited article and RFC had not begun.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think Nawabmalhi is emotionally attached to the subject, may not be now but later is surely going to disrupt a sensitive topic again leading into edit warring, eventhough an RFC was going on in talk page I feel the edits made were unwarranted, would support either topic ban or article edit ban Shrikanthv (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not emotionally that attached: I have never even lived in Pakistan, although I am part of the Pakistani Diaspora. I belong to the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam a heavily persecuted sect in Pakistan. I am more pan-South Asian and value my Religious affiliation, Ethnic origins, and Canadian Citizenship are far more than my Pakistani Citizenship. I just think that a stalemate does not make sense what so ever and is not supported by the sources.

If I am given a article or Topic ban(as a precautionary measure before I do anything wrong) ,OccultZone should get a Topic or Article Ban aswell since we are responding to each other, because otherwise it would wrongly discredit the support side plus I have already made my arguments and I only responded after 16 hours after VandVictory messed with what I wrote and I think it is best if an Administrator ends the RFC as both side are heavily entrenched this is creating pointless hostilities now. Administrator intervention and RFC closure would help people move on. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hello. OccultZone is guilty of same WP:BLUD look at talkpage. He also wants to close RFC early look at his talkpage. This is not WP:SNOW debate how can it be closed after 5 days. Please allow RFC for 30 days time. Maybe OccultZone can be topic ban other user requested to wait for neutral user comment. Nawabmalli reply are using reference just like OccultZone but OccultZone should stop replying more and more. He did too much BLUD with TopGun then get him topic ban. He had final warning on Arbitration enforcement page. He is doing it again now. Nawabmalli is reported first time he maybe told to stop replying to OccultZone verbally. VandVictory has done more than 17 revert in editwar! ---TheSawTooth (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Can you show where I had any warning from AE? I had none. I don't control AE that I got him topic banned, case was carefully judged by the admins, he was topic banned for misrepresenting sources, edit warring, same thing that you and Nawabmalhi are doing. Since none of the debates are based on votes(though majority supports exclusion), we are more supportive towards the correct representation of WP:RS, none of the sources support the statement in question, now that you have mentioned WP:SNOW, then exactly, it applies here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

TST, have you forgot that you were indefinitely blocked for pretending to be an admin on this page? I can't understand what you have written, care to speak in English? VandVictory (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It was misunderstanding. I was talking about real admin Nyttend. It is removed. Your revision was on purpose 17 time. -TheSawTooth (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Still can't understand what you have written. VandVictory (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Read AE result discussion of admins. References by Nawabmalli are correct. Do not give summary of RFC yourself you are involve in dispute. RFC will show who is right it is purpose of RFC do not try to close it early like you say on your talkpage many users are disagreed. Let neutral users comment more for regular 30 days time. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"Discussion" is not equivalent to "warning", you have made another unfounded claim and now arguing over it. None of the sources provided by Nawabmalhi are correct and by labeling them to be "correct" you are also misrepresenting the sources. Do any of them mention "victory" or regard Pakistan as the winner of Battle of Chawinda? None do. None of your arguments are policy based and they are only repetition of what you have already said before. Same with Nawabmalhi. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

So when Zaloga says Indian 1st division was defeated by Pakistani 25th calvalry which also resulted in a UN ceasefire it is a stalemate?When Fricker calls it a blood bath which made the Indians go to UN he meant it was inconclusive?...... I am misrepresenting the sources? --Nawabmalhi (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

25 Cavalry is just a cavalry regiment that fought another regiment, but that is not about the whole battle or both nations. "Blood bath" does not mean victory or defeat either, neither he says that it made "Indians go to UN". Obviously you are misrepresenting sources. I didn't referred results as stalemate, and some other editors did [18][19] as globalsecurity[20] states that. "Inconclusive"[21] is supported by a reliable source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is a perfect example of your bias, the Pakistani 25th Cavalry led the Pakistani BlitzKrieg like attack against the Indian 1st Division took them by suprise which led to Indias defeat at Chawinda.....Defeat is the word Zaloga specifically used
• Here is the Fricker Quote again: "After the Battle of Chawinda, which proved to be a blood bath for Chaudhuris Indian Army. India pleaded its case for an unconditional ceasefire..." and you could view it in more detail through my link if you donnot own the book
• When other sources are saying it is a defeat, blood bath, Indian debacle, and an Indian Asal Uttar you should realize that your sources mean it is specifically inconclusive in the sense there was no significant change in territory--Nawabmalhi (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Major problem is with your WP:SYNTHESIS, that you insert your own flawed definitions and claim "Major Pakistani victory". You are still bludgeoning the process and spamming on this thread with your source misrepresentation. None of the sources claim any victory or defeat, I know that you will never hear, that's why topic ban seems to be the only solution. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Ye they do! Did you even read what I said? To be honest I think you might be misrepresenting the sources, not me. Either way read what I said above as I am not repeating myself. This is not the discussion thread I only respond when you misrepresent my view and raise allegations and frankly if I am Bludgeoning (again absurd)than you are too with TheSawTooth.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Because they don't, repeating doesn't make it true. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Let consensus decide my friend. 25th and anti tank infantry was fighting India in this battle. Reference is saying defeated. Neutral users can read this reference and understand it. Why you respond every time to explain reference? I move that every one stop commenting on RFC let neutral users debate now. -TheSawTooth (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Performance of smaller forces doesn't count as results until the reference itself state that there were no other forces in the war. Consensus is different than what you are thinking, it doesn't means that 2 users with horrible English are allowed to misjudge sources and make unnecessary arguments without even understanding that what others have written. I don't know what you actually meant from 'Neutral users'. If you think yourself as a 'non-neutral user', I would agree. VandVictory (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read the Steven Zaloga reference from the article, it specifically says the Pakistani 25th Cavalry defeated Indian 1st division, not just that a smaller force faced off a larger force. Also please read WP:CIV and note most people who have responded to the RFC support some sort of Pakistani Victory. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to give up misjudging these references and learn English. A cavalry is not a country. 8 people opposed and 7 people supported the misjudgement of references, is that what you call 'most people' supporting your nonsense? Or you don't know how to count either. VandVictory (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The cavalry was Pakistani and the 1st division was India you are mixing the two and this is why Zaloga compares it to Asal Uttar

Actually only 7 people wrote opposed and one of them opposed a major Pakistani victory and wanted a local or tactical Victory. So 8 in suppport of some sort of Pakistani Victory and 6 opposed. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You are mixing up the things because you don't know how to speak in English and then you have also got a nationalistic POV that is making you look even worse. A cavalry is not a country. One of the user wrote 're-word' and his comment was against your nonsense. Don't count the IP that has made no edits outside. So we are back to where we were, 7 support and 8 oppose for your opinion. VandVictory (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not my opinion it is a fact, it seems you used control F I have counted the results twice and you should review it on the talkpage instead of making a fool out of yourself, only 14 people commented and TheBanner wrote opposed but said it was a tactical or local Victory; which means I am right: 8 in support of some sort of Pakistani Victory and 6 opposed.. And your comment about the cavalry shows that you donnot know much about this battle and I have already tried to help you understand above. --Thank You for continuing your False Personal Attacks Nawabmalhi (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is just what you think. The Banner said that it is just his opinion and it requires better references, he also said that the battle actually stopped after the ceasefire. You can see that because of your misunderstanding of English you are incapable to understand the meaning. VandVictory (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban on Nawabmalhi and TheSawTooth

They cannot understand English,(WP:CIR) they have rapidly removed the issue tags[22][23][24][25][26] from the article without ever replacing with a reliable reference or solving the issue. Repetitive and repulsive argument as seen above can be seen in these diffs where Nawabmalhi makes counter allegations.[27] TheSawTooth has made an emotional response with some false accusations and incorrect acknowledgement of arbitration enforcement proceedings, he seeks for a topic ban on other user,[28] while forgetting that he was blocked 2 days ago for pretending to be an admin on the same page.[29] Their continued misjudgement of these references[30] [31][32] for promoting a 'Major' victory of Pakistan, is nationalistic and disruptive. An indefinite topic ban from the military pages about India and Pakistan would be the best choice. VandVictory (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I already explained this before you never discussed adding the maintenance tags and I already discussed this above in detail. Here is my edit summuray:

Reverted to revision 639089574 by Nawabmalhi: Please dont edit war, most people donnot agree that these need verification, I added link to Fricker and name pg.# for Zaloga it is best to wait till discussion is over to brand the sources. I also said on the talkpage if you must add them, re-add them seperatly but thankfully an administrator interfered, I only reverted it twice and had no plan on doing it again and I appealed an end.

You are combining edits of two different users to say I edit warred, or are you trying to prove that you edit warred since you reverted the edits?--Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean we need to discuss your edits, until you learn English? Not possible. VandVictory (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. VandVictory (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support The fact that ThSawTooth and Nawabmalhi engage in edit warring and then tell to world not do so, it is rather childish. Honestly, grow up! --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Agree with @Shrikanthv:. This seems like an unstoppable campaign for posting same wall of text on every message. నిజానికి (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not post wall of text on chawinda. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose You have already topic banned TopGun. It is not fair to ban every one who disagrees. It is WP:BATTLEGROUND thinking. VandVictory revised the page 17 times deleting tags he should not talk of others editwar. I have not broken any rule. I do not wish to discuss or edit this page more due to these users they are acting so aggressive. Admin should read my argument and close discussion after 30days time. It does not need topic ban. Same users who give statement on TopGun case [33] have come here to ban us. Involved users can not ban other users. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• My note I was misunderstood when I was blocked. I did not misrepresent to be admin every one knows I am not admin. I was talking of admin action of Nyttend. I have not edited chawinda after I got unblock because I know this topic is under disruption. I should not be ban without breaking any rule. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support highly disruptive behaviour of both editors. The Banner talk 15:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose:
  • I have not made any edits to Chawinda for two days now seems like an attempt o discredit support side
  • I have already shown that I have not editwarred in any form and have given a detailed explanation above. Nor have I attempted bludgeoning the process but infact VandVictory and OccultZone have by stating nonsensical statements such as 'A calvary does not represent a country' not understanding that it was the small Pakistani 25th Cavalry that stopped the Indian 1st division(Bassically all the Indian Units) etc.
  • The proposer, VandVictory, is the only one on the page who has been blatantly edit warring from Dec 17 along with an IP address see page history he seems to be either a sock Puppet or POV pusher contacted by OccultZone as he has no association with the Battle of Chawinda and Indo-Pak 1965 war.
  • The only time I minutely came close to edit warring was when VandVictory kept adding a Collapse with the title: Misrepresenting the source which was blatantly misrepresenting with what I was saying and was tampering with what I wrote. And I thought, that editor at best could only do such thing and did not even know was before I came to the ANI.
  • Although these editor accuse me of repetitive arguements, they do it themselves, I had already answered all their allegations above and for a while they kept silent but now they have after a little while they raise same allegations again. All they're doing muckraking and doing personal attacks(OccultZone has stopped) but VandVictory is on a role
  • I am not even making any edits on the talkpage recently, and realistically neither will these 3, I think, they want a topic ban for me and now for TheSawTooth as well as, so they can discount the support side and freely Bludgeon article and successfully and wrongfully force the RFC to a Stalemate viewpoint.
  • This is a clear case of muckraking(see above) and canvassing (OccultZone was even advise not to go to the ANI) by them atlease 3 random Users ,who for some reason happen to be Indian and POV pushers with no prior conection to article, show up to the article Talk page. I just cannot see this as coincidental, through any form of logic.
  • If anything is still unclear please refer to the Nawabmalhi section where I answered these False allegations with more detail and is more comprehensive in general--Thank YouNawabmalhi (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Evident that they are unable to restrain themselves. After reading the statement of NawabMalhi and Thesawtooth, I would say that they are blaming others to hide their disruptive behavior. They are desperate to oppose own topic ban, while making the situation worse for the rest of the editors. Problematic language skills that are combined with POV-pushing and edit warring is still going to discourage editors from contributing on as many pages where they are contributing. Noteswork (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just unarchived this thread for a formal closure.[34] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)re-signed

• Support disruption after IPA DS notification given to both: TheSawTooth [35], Nawabmalhi [36] Widefox; talk 14:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

They don't take it seriously. TST spammed same message to at least 2 admins,[37][38] agreeable that he still don't understand the basics of Wikipedia policies and after so many discussions he still pretends that he know nothing. VandVictory (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion and Action Requested

• Now this should be closed? VandVictory (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I count 6 votes for a topic ban for both. The only oppose votes are from the editors that the proposed ban covers. I've not participated in this discussion so am completely uninvolved. Can an Admin close and topic ban please. Legacypac (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• 1 vote is from neutral user other votes are from dispute users. It is same weight as our vote. We should not be topic banned because dispute is in RFC. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• You don't know how to count. Yes you are a non-netural, but the rest aren't, are they? Your vote is nothing and there is no policy stating that votes of involved users are not counted, they are also important because they have problem with your editing. It has been proven that you have disrupted many other Indian-Pakistan military pages and then your problem with understanding language is also a big issue. VandVictory (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Instances of canvassing and campaigning include:

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

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

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

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

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

[numbers added to match comments]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GregKaye 15:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of P-123's Comments section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the second of the references here I replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment:
I've been disappointed to see P-123, an editor I used to really respect, become argumentative and combative, seemingly for the sake of picking arguments, because when pushed there is no substance or objective to the point. P-123 fails to grasp NPOV focussing only on the neutral part to the exclusion of the balanced part. The encouragement of disruptive editors on article talk and personal talk to continue disruptive behavior is quite annoying. It appears to me they have been hounding Gregeye across various pages including my talk page [[39]] and [[40]] I've tried to stay out of this fight, but now that we are here, decided to comment. Seems to me P-123 could benefit from stepping back for a bit to get some useful perspective. Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Digression

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lor is not an admin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by GraniteSand

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

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

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

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

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

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

[next comment added out of chronological sequence]

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

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

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

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

Further discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response by P-123 to AN/I charges

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

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

Further discussion (continued)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Voluntary Resolution

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

1. No posting to each others talk pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could, but I'd much rather you used the 3 months wisely in reflection. De Nile is not just a river in Egypt. Legacypac above noted them and I did a quick search of your contributions and saw this unsigned edit by you, right? [41]. 69.22.169.73 (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban and Iban for both editors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons for a topic ban on GregKaye

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diversion off section topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please close

My review of all this sees:

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

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

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

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

Igor the facetious xmas bunny - NOT HERE

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

---

Tagging my new article (seemly randomly picked) for speedy deletion apparently to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point - as seen in this thread on Jimbo Wales user talk. [42] New acct, created to disrupt by self admission and self name, now disrupting as promised, WP:NOTHERE. Please eject the "threatening and inappropriate" Xmas bunny from the zoo. Legacypac (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It certainly seems that way. The bunny complains at length on Jimbo's page about inappropriate rejections, and then tags an article that cites The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph for deletion. And then hats my question regarding this contradictory behaviour as "Unrelated discussion". [43]. And then restores the inappropriate hatting after I removed it. [44]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"NOT HERE"? I'm here. How does that make sense?

The tagging was entirely unrelated to the discussion on Jimbo's talk; I saw it on newpages.

Can't see any admin action needed here. Let me know if you need any more info. Happy holidays, Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That's WP:NOTHERE - not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia. As in tagging an article on a man who died in 1844 for deletion as an unreferenced biography of a living person. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor, I see that you linked Draft:Igor Janev from your user page. Am I to take it you wrote this? If so it seems you are here to contribute and that your comments on Jimbo's page are the sincere result of your experience trying to contribute as a new user. That being said you are acting a bit pushy, putting archives on other peoples comments for one thing. You don't seem to be using the CSD templates right. I think you need to slow down and perhaps start by editing an existing article instead of trying to create or delete one.

Please look through the links I welcomed you with on your talk page. Specifically the 5 pillars. There is a bit of a learning curve here when it comes to what is for keeping and what is for deleting. - Given this post on my talk page it has become clear this is not a new user. Chillum 03:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This guy knows his way around better then me, but just joined? [[45] should be deleted by an admin, along with the acct of the editor posted on ??? Just listed another article for deletion inappropriately [46] Time for Rabbit Stew tonight. Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

So I should be banned because I know my way around? My God.

Re [47] - If you can see the deleted contribs, I think my response is reasonable and considered. No?

Re Horace H. Hayden - I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for refs on this version of the page. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record the deleted contributions of AtrollSoYano consist entirely of racist nonsense. The posting was still not appropriate, we try not to feed the trolls. With that in mind I am going to step away and let others deal with this. Chillum 03:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Tagging an article on someone who's been dead since 1844 as an unreferenced biography of a living person is entirely unreasonable. And you only needed to click on the external link below to see that a reference was available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello AndyTheGrump. Welcome to ANI.

What admin action are you requesting?

If nothing, please close this section. Thanks. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

How about an indefinite block for trolling? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, anyone wanna block Mr. Grumpy?

I am just trying to discuss the entire process for new articles on Jim's talk.

Andy tried to side-track that with a specific discussion, so I hatted it. He reverted, and yada yada, here we are at ANI. The usual pointless crap.

I've no interest in the specifics; I just wanted to open discussion (on Jim's talk) about the way new users making new articles are treated differently in 'drafts' compared to making live articles.

Is all.

The rest is the usual argumets-for-the-sake-of-arguments, which I tried to head off by hatting that bit.

Is all

Happy xmas, Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Here the bunny admits he is "very familiar with wikipedia policy" and has edited under another account. Clearly WP:NOTHERE so I'm asking for an Indef Ban. Legacypac (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Wikipedia does not issue 'indef ban' because someone knows how to edit wikipedia.

If they did, it'd be a bit silly, really. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This thread evinces a lot of quacking. I don't know if a CU can be initiated without knowing who is cowering behind this account but I'd like to see admins fix the problem without using the bureaucratic tape. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor, I'm quite sure you know all about Wikipedia banning/blocking policy. Would you care to tell us the name of the account you were last blocked/banned under? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef block - I've seen enough to convince me. Jusdafax 04:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 04:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion Block was appealed and denied. Thanks everyone this thread is done :) Legacypac (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• This user has requested another unblock request. Chillum 05:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Back to the original point - the editor is only here to disrupt Wikipedia. It's right in their username. Nearly everything they have done under this account has been reversed by a wide range of editors. Legacypac (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not much of a regular editor anymore, so I doubt my comments hold much water to the regulars here, but this whole situation seemed a little unfortunate to me. I think "troll" is probably an overstatement. It was clear from the comments the user made that they intended to have an engaged conversation. At worst, they drew up a perennial subject, but that isn't counterproductive. Good content; bad form all around. Best, Blurpeace 05:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've unblocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

per User:Igor the facetious xmas bunny leading to User_talk:Becky_Sayles#Draft:Igor_Janev, it seems that the bunny was previously editing under 183.86.209.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) if that helps anyone link to a previous account. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

Couldn't respond before, of course, due to a block.

I spoke to Ms Warfare offline and confirmed I'm not a sock.

That's about all there is to say; my edits are not disruptive, it was a bad block.

I just would like to discuss the issue of drafts on Jim's talk (hence [48]) and... that's about it.

Anything else - or indeed anything at all - please let's discuss it on my talk page. No need for a banhammer. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Blanked talk page to hide all this with an open ANi. I restored talk page. So offline contact with GorillaWarfare confirms an acct created today is NOT a sock? How does that work? Every editor & admin who is not on bunny's speed dial judged a indef block appropriate. Guess we will just have to see if the bad behavior stops now. Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose time will tell if this unblock was wise or not. I know where my money is. Chillum 06:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy to have the unblock reviewed, of course, but this seems to be a poorly-thought-out block ignoring any history. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Having been unblocked, the bunny has immediately returned to the Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently article, and is removing sourced content. It seems self-evident that this contributor is only here to cause disruption. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I just hope you keep an eye on this user because now any other admin blocking will have to take great care to avoid the appearance of wheel warring. Chillum 06:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe, while not actually stated explicitly, that the real reason for the block was/is WP:POINT because he created an acct with the sole purpose of arguing policy on Jimbo's page then went off and did exactly what he does not like to make the WP:POINT. See examples which exactly match the behavior. "Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban." I'm surprised I need to explain this with an admin of GorillaWarfare's stature, but hey I don't have her phone number to plead my case. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @AndyTheGrump: This edit is indeed removing POV content. This edit appears to remove content based on an interview with a member of the group. I don't see either of those edits as block-worthy, though if you want to delve deeper into the propriety of the content and sources on the talk page, please do.

@Chillum: Will do.

@Legacypac: Any editor, including you, is completely able to contact me via email or IRC (both posted on my userpage) as Igor did. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've edited before. That's not a crime. People here shout 'sock!' about anyone who demonstrates a knowledge of wikipedia. Sock is all about disruptive editing.

If you disagree with my content edits, you (presumably) know where to discuss it. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You could gain some good faith if you revealed your previous account ID's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, and people could demonstrate AGF by not demanding them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

When someone says they previously edited under some unnamed prevous ID, experience indicates that it's almost certainly a block-evading sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

We are discussing it here. Would you like to explain why you selected an article at random for inappropriate tagging, and have returned to this same randomly-selected article as soon as you were unblocked? How does this article relate to your complaints about the way new articles are rejected, and why, if the process is as arbitrary as you make out, should your own arbitrary slapping of a tag on a 11-minute-old sourced article not be seen as a prime example of such arbitrary behaviour? What was the purpose of this improper tagging? And what was the purpose of the other inappropriate edits you made? What are you trying to prove? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I shall try to answer;

Would you like to explain why you selected an article at random for inappropriate tagging

I didn't select it at random; I used Special:newpages. If my tagging was incorrect, I'm sorry - perhaps we can discuss it in the usual manner, instead of on ANI?

and have returned to this same randomly-selected article as soon as you were unblocked?

I looked at my 'contributions', to see what had happened to them.

How does this article relate to your complaints about the way new articles are rejected,

It doesn't. That's why I tried to 'hat' the off-topic discussion of it.

and why, if the process is as arbitrary as you make out, should your own arbitrary slapping of a tag on a 11-minute-old sourced article not be seen as a prime example of such arbitrary behaviour?

Some (most?) new articles in Special:Newpages are utter crap, and need to be speedy-deleted. For example, I tagged William swinson.

What was the purpose of this improper tagging?

Sorry, not sure which you mean. Let's discuss it.

And what was the purpose of the other inappropriate edits you made? What are you trying to prove?

Diffs please? Thanks.

I hope that helps answer your questions, Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

aside:why the fuck is this on ANI? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

IT is on ANI because we are discussing your behaviour. And you have still given no explanation for why you tagged this specific 11-minute-old sourced article (citing amongst other things, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph) for speedy deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Explanation; I saw it on special:newpages, I thought it was a BLP because "Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently (RSS) is a citizen journalist" - sounds like it's about a person - and it makes (made) rather strong claims - at least, it did when I tagged it [49] - "RSS provide unique insights. The work is dangerous, with ISIL militants searching for, and in at least one case killing, RSS members" Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

So you hadn't bothered to read it properly, and tagged it for speedy deletion as "an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" because it made "rather strong claims"? Is that even supposed to make sense? It made claims certainly - and cited the sources for them. Sources which you clearly hadn't even looked at if you thought the article was 'a BLP'. It seems self-evident that you tagged the article with only the most cursory glance. And accordingly, we still need an explanation - why were you in such a hurry to tag an article for deletion if you were genuinely concerned about the way new articles are handled? And why did you also tag an article about a man who died in 1844 for deletion as an unreferenced BLP? What was the purpose of these rushed edits? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking; do you dispute that it was a BLP? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Which article, the one about a group of 'citizen journalists' or the one about the man who died in 1844? Actually, don't bother to answer that - just explain why you were in such a hurry that you tagged articles without reading them properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

BLP stands for "Biography of a LIVING person" and the subject has been dead for 170 years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Um, see above? "Explanation; I saw it on special:newpages, I thought it was a BLP because "Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently (RSS) is a citizen journalist" - sounds like it's about a person - and it makes (made) rather strong claims - at least, it did when I tagged it [167] - "RSS provide unique insights. The work is dangerous, with ISIL militants searching for, and in at least one case killing, RSS members" Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)" Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

17 people are literally risking their lives, their families lives, and in at least one case dying to get the world information about horrible crimes in Syria and you pick a new article about them to not even read properly or check sources on to disrupt Wikipedia over to protest that someone will not approve an article that could well be about yourself? Then you try to make this into a persecution off you? Do you have no shame? Legacypac (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

'How does "sounds like it's about a person" make tagging it as "not credibly indicat[ing] the importance or significance of the subject" legitimate? That simply isn't an explanation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Simple enough; I saw a new article about a living person making unreferenced and extreme claims. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggest a 30 day block with the warning that any further trouble and the bunny isn't going to make it to Easter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

A block for who? Me? For what reason? How will such an action help Wikipedia? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support reblock - A clear case of WP:IDHT and a bad unblock, as I see it. Jusdafax 08:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Diffs please?

If you are claiming I'm not here to build an encyclopedia, please take a step back and give me a chance. The reason most of my posts are to ANI and such are because I'm answering any questions; if you'll let me live, I can get on with editing articles. This is just the peanut gallery. I wanna go edit articles, how about you? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

He's been busy - tagged Kristina Webb for speedy deletion, but my quick Google search shows Google and a whole bunch news outlets say this young artist is super talented and world famous, just like the article he tagged said. What a way to treat a new wikipedian. Lucky he tagged my new article first as I have some clue how to deal with disruptive editors. Legacypac (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor has been griefing Neutralhomer and edit warring at User talk:Jimbo Wales [50] and been reported in a separate incident at WP:AN/EW. I agree that the unblock was unwise. It's causing a lot of people needless grief. The problem with Igor is widespread disruption, not socking. Focus on that issue. Jehochman ^Talk 08:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we've been concentrating on the disruption from the start. As has Igor. And he's been pretty successful at it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Igor isn't a sock of someone else. When I told him to read WP:DENY before using it, he wrote on my talk page that he "wrote a fair part of it". Not sure who that might have been, but maybe it helps. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone want to explain this post on my talk page? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Now two discussions regarding Igor's edit-warring (Link 1, Link 2) at WP:AN/3RR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And now he filed a malformed edit warring complaint of his own. And why in the world is this editor blanking long sections of an article about a Thai scientist Does he seriously think someone made up the guy's work history? Legacypac (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Promising to AfD my article again. Legacypac (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And, both of those (invalid) 3RR complaints were made by...you two!

The 'malformed' one is just as valid as yours.

Why did I 'blank long sections'? Because the BLP has been unref'd since 2009, so I put the info on the talk page to open discussions about it. That's where you can discuss it, Talk:Shaiwatna Kupratakul#Unreferenced info. Adding it back isn't good, per WP:BURDEN, as I said in my rv.

Fortunately, admins read stuff and have good sense; I suggest you put on some headwear, and look out for boomerangs. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The users above are now harassing me.

I chose a totally unrelated article to work on; from a cleanup category; and Legacypac is reverting me there, too - when I moved unreferenced info onto the talk page (and explained in the edit summary). He/she called it 'vandalism'. [51] [52].

I don't want to edit-war, but if I move to edit anything else, I expect they'll just follow me. Meh. 88.104.24.116 (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Which was me, not logged in - Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please can someone tell this "Bunny" to take Whatever this is away from my Talk Page? Thanks, TF ^{{ Contribs }} 11:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please can you undo your undo which put unreferenced information into the BLP [53] and - if you want - discuss it on the talk page Talk:Shaiwatna Kupratakul. Thank you. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't ask, 'Cause I won't do it. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 11:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And Now He is insulting everyone else on User Talk:Jimbo Wales. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 11:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Titus, he called us "ammeters", which is a "measuring instrument used to measure the electric current in a circuit". Not the greatest insult in my book. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you positive? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• rimshot* Ha. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy Break

Found a sock: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATitusfox&diff=639932019&oldid=639929916 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.104.24.116 clear as a England based IP can be. and started a SOCK investigation request. Legacypac (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

A clearer diff showing the socking of Igor and 88.104.24.116 can be found here. 88.104.24.116 posted a message on GorillaWarfare's talk page. A moment later Igor changes the signature to his username.

IP GeoLocator (located at the bottom of each IP talk page) shows 88.104.24.116 is located in Manchester, England.

This edit in particular is particularly concerning. It shows Igor trying to game the system by acting like another user who is being supposedly wronged by Legacypac and I (or others).

Clearly from this ANI thread, the two AN/3RR reports, the user's behavior and now clear socking and gaming of the system, it shows Igor is clearly not here for constructive editing. I recommend (as have others) that Igor be indef-blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Good God, it's a witch-hunt!

Yes, I'm in Manchester. Is that a crime? maybe it should be

Yes, that's my IP addy. Congratulations, Sherlock.

"Found a sock"? Because I edited with an IP? Sheesh.

I've done nothing wrong. I've confirmed my prior history with GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs), in confidence. She's an arb, so I hope that's good enough.

No socking, no gaming. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That was alot of hot air for nothing. Explain why you used an IP in this edit to pretend to be another editor. You didn't correct your username as you did in this edit. Getting signed out sometimes happens, I don't call people out for that, shit happens. What I will call people out for is gaming the system, which you attempted to do in in this edit. Now, please explain why. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I had to reboot my PC and forgot to log in. Simple as that. I didn't even notice; if I'd noticed, I'd have logged in and changed the sig. Is all. I can't see why that is 'gaming the system' - what was the gain in that edit? It was utterly obvious who I was. Why would I be being sneaky when writing in this thread about me that "The users above are now harassing me"? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Why would you do such a thing? Lemme see, adding another "person" who is being wrong might help your case that you haven't done anything and Legacypac and I (along with others) are just being mean to you. It's happened before...many times before...so it isn't unusual. If you have been here before (which is socking in my eyes), then you should know this, so don't act surprised. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your concept of 'socking' is not in line with policy. There is no "mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction". None of it. Just someone who hasn't edited for years making an account, so they can (in some days) move a page. You're looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist. I've "confessed" to an admin/CU/OS/Arb, what more do you want? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ease up. That's not such a big deal. If Igor wants to edit constructively we should support him. The tone of his recent posts isn't so bad. Let's let him have another chance. Igor, please work harder to avoid edit wars or other actions that rile other editors. Your friend the arb isn't enough to prevent you being blocked of there's more of that. Let's close the thread and move on. Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

What might still need discussion here is, the conduct of Legacypac. " ran out of steam after a marathon of maham session? Or maybe went back to his other acct?"

The user has constantly harassed me - accusing me of being a 'sock' with no evidence, filing 2 EW reports, and following me (and reverting me) on an unrelated article.

I'd like to go edit articles. I can see how it looks bad that most of my edits thus far are to ANI/talk pages etc, but the reason for that is all the harassment.

I've changed username, I've disengaged from the disputes, I've tried to explain all my actions.

Therefore, can I please ask that action will be taken if such harassment continues. Igor the bunny (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Shaiwatna Kupratakul

• Shaiwatna Kupratakul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have an impasse;

I found this BLP article in a cleanup category. It had been tagged since 2009; so I removed some apparently unreferenced info and put it on the talk page, and explained in the edit summary - [54]

Legacypac reverted me, incorrectly calling it vandalism [55], I undid that, saying Not 'vandalism' at all. Please see WP:BURDEN. Don't add it back without refs, thansk (sic) [56].

Legacypac reverted it [57].

I undid for a second time, saying Please do not add unreferenced info to this BLP. Please discuss it on the talk page. WP:V WP:BURDEN [58]

Titusfox (talk · contribs) reverted that [59] - thus adding back the unref'd info to the BLP.

I politely asked Titusfox to undo [60], twice [61], three times [62].

But Titusfox has not undone their edit, and has said "Don't ask, 'Cause I won't do it.". [63].

That means Titusfox has added unref'd info to the BLP, refuses to undo it, and has made it pretty clear they won't discuss. What do I do about that? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a contest ~by bunny against himself, how far can he go before he gets banned again. Legacypac (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor, walk away from conflict and do less contentious editing to build up a new track record for yourself. Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

So True. And Legacypac, WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 13:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And Also, IDK what happened and don't want to so that's why I Won't Revert. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 13:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Reblock discussion and poll

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

---

Note for future reference: {{gender|GorillaWarfare}} -> she NE Ent 16:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Linking my comments from my talk page for those of you following along at home. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support reblock - Since GW's not taking any further action aside from saying they have no objection to the unblock being reversed, we are back where we started. Jusdafax 22:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, back. Apologies for the delay—sometimes real-life gets in the way. To be clear, my unblock here was in my admin capacity—I'll state if I'm doing something on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Anyhow: this user has confirmed who they are to me. They are in good standing, and their edits as User:Igor the facetious xmas bunny are not in violation of the sockpuppetry policy. They did edit three times from an IP address, but I don't see how they were deceptive—there was no question that those edits were the same user, as they were responding to the same conversations. I'm a bit perplexed at what exactly it is that Igor did that was disruptive enough to deserve the original block. I agree that the speedy-tagging seems pointy and poorly-thought-out, but it also hardly seems block-worthy to me. The edits to Jimbo's talk page were criticizing AfC, but criticizing a part of the project isn't against policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@GW: Without revealing anything personal about the editor, did Igor identify him- or herself in a way that allowed you to check (within policy) that the identity they provided was actually theirs? And is it your understanding that this new ID is in the way of a WP:FRESHSTART? BMK (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes to both. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful. In looking at Igor's editing, do you think that it is consonant with the instructions at WP:FRESHSTART? (That's not a disingenuous question, I haven't read the policy lately, and am about to turn in for the night.) BMK (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Igor's edits went against that policy, no. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why Igor has been declared "disruptive" when this started by another editor failing to WP:AGF and discuss the matter on their talk page before filing an ANI, as is standard practice. NE Ent 03:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Reblock: I crash for a couple hours and this is still going on? I'm with Jusdafax on this one. A reblock of Igor is requested. In line with the summary User:Nick posted when closing the threads above, there is consensus with admins (and other users) for Igor to be reblocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support reblock: as per all of the statements from the above, including from Neutralhomer and the admins Nick, Neutralhomer, Jehochman, Chillum. I'm convinced that he broke WP:TROLL on Jimbo's talk page, but that's the tip of the iceberg. I don't think GorillaWarfare objects either. In addition, having read WP:FRESHSTART, which GorillaWarfare has confirmed is the case, I don't think Igor has acted within the spirit of the policy, causing havoc within a few short hours of freshstart, which suggests bad faith for the freshstart. In addition, I think that his username breaks WP:USERNAME policy through the use of the word facetious (Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humour; flippant). I think this particularly applies in the case of a fresh start, where it is important to to suggest the reason for a fresh start as being one of good faith; it is suggestive of a troll account. If Igor is not reblocked, at the very least he should be made to change his username to one more appropriate for a good faith freshstart. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  The inclusion of "facetious" in the username is definitely not against the username policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That may well be the case in normal circumstances. But taking into consideration that it was supposedly a good faith freshstart which was controversial enough to cause a block within a few hours of the new account being opened? If a reblock is not felt appropriate, perhaps a username change should be demanded to one more consistent with a good faith freshstart? It would make me considerably happier if this was the case, it would persuade me that any further editing would be in a more civil manner. I really feel that his username in conjunction with his behavior is highly inappropriate. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• • Note: For the record, I am not an admin, just an experienced editor. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Apologies! --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• None necessary, was just clarifying. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support reblock There are two sides to sock puppetry, there is evading your past which GW has confirmed is not the case. But the other side of sock puppetry is avoiding scrutiny. Creating a new account to act disruptively is evasion of scrutiny, not only should the new account be blocked but the parent account should at least get a stern warning. Even if this is not evading scrutiny(and it is) then acting disruptively is not acceptable on its own regardless of the past.

If this was a new user then their edits could be seen as lacking in experience, since we know this is an experienced user then actions such as placing BLP tags on the pages of people dead for over a century cannot be seen in good faith. This person was playing dumb to get away with disruption. If this is a "fresh start" then this user has already spoiled it. Chillum 22:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Chillum if Igor's freshstart (xmas bunny) account was blocked, would he breaking his freshstart pledge if he went back to his parent account? Would there be any repercussions to doing this? --Mrjulesd (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• In this case only GorillaWarfare would know which account that was, so I suppose it would be her decision. Chillum 00:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI is not supposed to be Wikipedia's version of the Colosseum where we engage in the public spectacle of thumbs-up, thumbs-down block this editor! (e.g. WP:PITCHFORKS).

If any admin really wants to wheel war with a sitting arbitrator ... Perhaps those calling for a block could provide the following. 1) Links to the actual policy or policies bunny is violating and 2) diffs of the violations. Note that WP:TROLL is an essay on meta, that doesn't count. NE Ent 23:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare as stated that her "unblock here was in (her) admin capacity" and she would state if she was "doing something on behalf of the Arbitration Committee". She also said "would not consider a reversal of the block to be wheel-warring at this point".

So your first point is moot, as is the second. Throughout this post, there have been numerous policies linked and diffs provided. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent If you don't like WP:TROLL try WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL 2 (a) Taunting or baiting. --Mrjulesd (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Who was, or how was, bunny taunting or baiting? By pointing out that a WP:AFC process with a backlog of three thousand is a healthy, functional process? NE Ent 23:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I would comply, but it would be a fair percentage of his posts. As Neutralhomer says take a look at the text above. I'm not here to hand-hold you. --Mrjulesd (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent: Take a look at Jimbo's talk page for LOTS of baiting and taunting. That's just a fair bit of his edits, the rest are here, his SPI and on his talk page.

At this present moment, Igor has 207 edits, only 42 are related to editing. 4 of them are related to edit-warring on the Shaiwatna Kupratakul, 4 of them were on the Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently article, which is what started this mess.

His first edit was on a user's talk page regarding the contentious Draft:Igor Janev, his following eight edits were playing word games in the main sandbox, followed by what can only be described as complaining on Jimbo's talk page.

Of his 207 edits, 165 were on Jimbo's talk page, ANI, the SPI related to him or on user's talk pages regarding the mess. There is a slew of edits that are ripe with baiting and taunting. Igor says on multiple occasions he was going to disengage from the Jimbo's talk/ANI/SPI mess, only to come back an edit or two later.

Nothing, from his first edit to his last show the user is his to edit constructively, but to cause problems, taunt, bait and hide behind his so-called "good standing" previous account. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Status-Quo, and move on. The community should be offering support and assistance rather shutting the doors to a second chance. — Ched :  ?  23:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose block I still can't see any rationale for an indef here. Being irritating wasn't one, the last time I looked. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If I am not mistaken, WP:NOTHERE covers most areas of being irritating, some of which I believe Igor falls under. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    • In addition it has never been adequately been explained why his block has been lifted. The explanation is that it was done under his being a WP:FRESHSTART, but if anything it makes his behavior seem worse; an experienced editor is unlikely to make rookie mistakes, and if anything it makes his behavior less excusable than if it had been a genuine new account. --Mrjulesd (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Jules brings up a good point. If Igor is a previous "user in good standing" then he would and should know the rules of Wikipedia, how to act and not act. He wouldn't start off by causing so many problems. As Jules said above, since he is a WP:FRESHSTART user, any bad behavior should be viewed as worse since they should know better. A brand spankin' new editor is excused when he goofs or is a jerk first thing off the bat, they're new, they're learning. But a FRESHSTART editor already knows the rules and any problems caused aren't and shouldn't be as easily excusable. FRESHSTART editors should be held accountable for those problems even more-so than a brand spankin' new editor, since of their previous experience with the project. FRESHSTART isn't an excuse, it's a fresh start, not something to hide behind while causing problems. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Bunny, for your work. Carry on. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

And what work would that be, exactly, that is so deserving of your accolades? BMK (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know exactly, Ken. But as an editor in good standing Bunny has contributed to this collaborative volunteer project in some way, and I thought I'd take the opportunity to acknowledge that. Like GW and some others here, I can't see anything in the editor's pre-block behaviour as Bunny that would possibly justify a block (and so far I see nothing in the post-block behaviour to justify one) ... perhaps a mild telling-off is in order, but a block is way over the top. Jehochman, you really need to reassess the alacrity with which you dish out blocks. If Bunny starts seriously misbehaving, that's another matter, of course, but to date I see nothing warranting a block. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Uh Anthonyhcole what relationship do you have to this bunny? Are you the same person? Because I can see you share a like for Jimbo's talk page and like bunny are very familiar with Wikipedia policy and processes. Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No and no. I do understand your annoyance, but Bunny does seem to have thought your article deserved deletion under A7. It says something about the care with which Bunny reads - as does tagging a long-dead subject as a BLP. Please take more care in future, Bunny. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac - It's not such a good idea to sort of randomly accuse editors of socking on such a flimsy basis as that they both post on Jimbo's talk page and both know Wikipedia's policies, especially since that description fits a heck of a lot of editors. It's been established that Igor identified his old account to GW and GW verified it, so there's really no reason that we should be looking for a current editor of whom Igor is a sock. The issue now is whether or not Igor is being disruptive enough to be re-blocked, and whether his return to editing was consonant with what is expected from a fresh start.

If Igor was smart, he would abandon the Igor account and start with another one as a real fresh start, avoiding all the drama he created with this one, and he would inform GW in confidence that he was doing so, and the name of the new account. If Igor was able to fresh start successfully, avoiding all the pitfalls, no one would connect the new account to this one, and we'd be back to square one. If Igor is incapable of doing that, it would soon become evident that the new editor is Igor. BMK (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Support re-Block The body of evidence says the bunny is NOTHERE. A fresh start does not mean a concealed user history gets used to justify forgiveness of current stupidity. In addition to the sins outlined above he managed to convince me and a check user he was likely a globally banned sock master. His user name correctly describes his approach to editing here. He pushed a bunch of rules right to the edge while mocking other editors trying to contain his craziness. If the editor wants another fresh start using a new account under a proper name, that's fine, but the bunny needs to be banned. They wasted most of a day of my editing time and a lot of other people's time with pure stupidity.Legacypac (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's high time that we stop coddling disruptive trolls and provocateurs under the guise of following WP:AGF. If the project is going to make the atmosphere less toxic and more supportive of productive editors, we need to start getting rid of the disruptive elements who do not contribute to the improvement of the encyclopedia. That, first and foremost, should be the standard by which editors are judged. BMK (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Igor hasn't edited for 32 hours. I think they've gotten the message and hope they will do better in the future. If there is fresh disruption, any admin can issue a block to stop it. Jehochman ^Talk 03:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

...or perhaps he ran out of steam after a marathon of maham session? Or maybe went back to his other acct? Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the unblock by GW emboldened this user to go on a tear. It may be this user is waiting for the heat to die down before coming back. If the user comes back and engages in productive editing while avoiding disruption then I am all for letting things go, but I would not would my breath. Chillum 08:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Chillum, if he comes back and demostrates he can act and edit in accordance with the rules/policies, then I would be willing to let this slide. Like Chillum, I'm not holdin' my breath on this one either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well my view is at the least a username change to not include the word "facetious" should be granted, due to his dubious user history. But I'll go with consensus on this matter. If someone could assess consensus it would be appreciated, and then maybe we could move on, or at least until Easter :). --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd also support a username change per Jules above. I also agree that consensus needs to be assessed as we have consensus for a few things, but no real decision. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what? What's the issue with the word wikt:facetious? We wouldn't block "silly bunny" or "sarcastic bunny", why would we see a violation in "facetious bunny"? If it was "trolling bunny", sure, but this...nah. Whatever other issues the editor has, trying to nail them for some sort of username violation is a pretty big overreach. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well in my book facetious is not that far trolling. There is a whisper of difference between them as far as I am concerned. But I agree that you may not feel that way. And on its own it may not be a concern. But combined with him very dubious editing history (blocked within a few short hours of a supposed good faith freshstart) it leads to a very different conclusion. --Mrjulesd (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I've placed a username change request, [64]. I don't agree that there was a problem with the name, but I hope that might alleviate some of the concerns.

Are there any remaining concerns? Or can I get on with editing? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Change has been done. Igor the bunny (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion?

I believe, with the above section now 48 hours old, and with multiple support !votes for reblock, among other things, we need to have a decision so we can all move on. Is there an uninvolved admin willing to close this ANI thread and decide consensus one way or another? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

bunny has now leveled accusations of edit warring against me on an Arbitration Committee member talk page, accusations that have been seemingly accepted by that AC member and another Admin. However, the whole accusation is based on a lie about the timing of events. See how in bunny's 1st paragraph diff #1 is over 5 hours AFTER diff #2 yet bunny says diff #1 (walk away comment) was before diff #2 (he goes off to edit something else)? The crap continues. Nothing has changed. Had he filed this at 3RR it would have been boomeranged into a block on him. Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wut? Igor the bunny (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No, but, srsly, 'wut'? I do not understand that post.Igor the bunny (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Is there an uninvolved admin willing to close this ANI thread and decide consensus one way or another before this blows up once again? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer I think patience may be needed here. The truth of the matter is only GorillaWarfare knows the full details behind Igor's freshstart. Without knowing that, a hasty block may again lead to a hasty unblock, and yet more frustration. I really feel that Gorillawarfare, who is the only one of us who knows the full details of the case, needs to give us further input on the matter.

I've been away for a bit, but from a brief looks there seems more trouble brewing. Maybe a case of WP:ROPE? But at least he has a better username now, and for that I am grateful. --Mrjulesd (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This is obviously the unusual - if sadly not abnormal use of "WP:ROPE" to mean 'if we hassle this user enough, they'll probably get angry enough to commit some actionable misdemeanour and we can block them". That's possible, I guess; I'm human. But for now,

The only reason for keeping this thread open is to consider sanctioning Legacypac for harassment. If you wish to pursue that in the thread, it's fine by me.

But if you insist on pursuing the attempts at blocking me, please at least show the courtesy of stating what I have done wrong, with some diffs. Thanks. Igor the bunny (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support temporary IBAN between the Bunny and Legacypac for a bit. I'd rather see them avoid each other than continue down this path which has nothing good at the end. (I know that WP:IBAN often has "fail" written all over it, but it may be worth a shot. — Ched :  ?  00:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just a heads-up that the discussion continues at User talk:GorillaWarfare#Igor, where Mrjulesd might find the input they're requesting. (If not, please let me know more specifically what you are looking for...) I've already discussed this half to death there, and tried to assuage Legacypac's concerns that I was misled by a timing error, or that my service on the Arbitration Committee somehow affects this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks for that GorillaWarfare. I was wondering, would you feel it to be appropriate to close this case, for the reasons I have previously given? I feel if anythings are getting more complicated, and when that happens the noise tends to drown out the facts. If you don't feel that would be appropriate, maybe you could suggest an admin to do so? To be frank I don't know a lot about procedures here. Or would you feel waiting is a better option? The risk with that is that further editors could get involved further muddying the waters. But I really feel a decision should be made based on the further views expressed, at some point at least. --Mrjulesd (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's too complicated - if there's something you don't understand - please ask for clarification. No point brushing it under the carpet.

As far as I can see, I've done nothing wrong. Nobody seems to have contradicted that in any meaningful way. Nevertheless, the very fact that there is a lengthy thread here makes most people think, clearly they must have done something wrong. Especially with this being a new account with few edits.

It's important to note that the reason that I have made few edits outside this arena is because of this thread. I just wanted to edit stuff; not to argue.

It will - as usual - be nice and neat to close this thread down, but it misses the real issue; that new (and 'apparently new!') users are harassed to death over perceived 'controversial' issues, and whether they have done wrong or not, they're quite often splattered with a banhammer regardless of the merit of the discussion.

The longer a discussion continues, the more likely it is that others will just support block or something, merely to close it down, instead of dealing with the real issues.

Above, you can see people shouting for blocks - with not even the merest attempt at justifying why.

Ched is very well-meaning, but suggesting an interaction-ban is just another way of stopping the argument without resolving it.

Personally, I don't care all that much, and I imagine this will be closed down soon, because that is far easier than dealing with the real issues - those being, the way new editors are treated (and are blocked by the peanut gallery). Igor the bunny (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "new account" and "new editor", but hey, it's your WP:STICK ([65] — Ched :  ?  01:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

True, Ched, but as an experienced editor who looks like a new user, I am perhaps better-placed to see the problems. Igor the bunny (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

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

What should be done for pro-ISIL Wilayat type articles?

Many articles are being created which are Wilayat type and most of which are deleted or nominated for deletion, thanks Legacypac and to Spirit of Eagle for observing this problem. Now, should we wait for them to be created and then nominate them for deletion (because 99.99 precent of them are not notable and just self promotion or propaganda)? or should we stop their creation? How can we have them SALTed? Mhhossein (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mhhossein. For a start Wikipedia has long had a practice of translating Wilayat to Governorate of Province. WP:AT issues similar to those raised when the group called themselves "Islamic State" are raised as both elements of that title are disputable. A governorate, province or wilayat requires the existence of a state which in this case is not recognised either governmentally or in academia. A name such as Wilayat Sinai is suggestive that large areas of the Sinai have been governmentally controlled which is very far from the truth. GregKaye ✍♪ 07:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking hard and have only found one vague ref that says the ISIL linked group controls ANY territory in Sinai and considering the Sinai is nearly all desert, anyone could set up some tents and claim to "control" a bunch of ground. It is absurd to give them a name on WP that suggests they govern anything - regardless of what they choose for a twitter handle. Now how do we SALT exactly? Legacypac (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The articles have been deleted. If there are reliable sources that document that Daesh claims to have set up administrative units in various places, then I don't see why we shouldn't have articles to reflect that fact. Yes, they're absolutely horrible people and I hope for their imminent total defeat, but we're not in the business here of pretending the world is not as it is. I don't see enough of a problem with recreation at the moment to justify salting any article titles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

See Gregkaye's point - no State = no subdivisions of the non-State. It's not even about if we like ISIL or not. Legacypac (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

As Legacypac mentioned this is not exactly about liking or disliking ISIL. The fact is that creating such articles is a clear self promotion and using Wikipedia for propaganda. As I understood, Lankiveil thinks that ISIL may be recognized as an official state by countries in future! If this is the case we should not do any thing for recreation of the similar topics. However I think it is not the case and ISIL will stay as a terrorist organization for ever because of its Ideology and beliefs and because their behavior show that they have problems with almost every one. I reckon two things might happen: 1) ISIL stays as a terrorist organization (because of above reasons) 2) ISIL faces a total defeat as Lankiveil hopes. In both cases we won't have officially recognized provinces of ISIL.Mhhossein (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. Whether Daesh is recognised as a 'state' or not is irrelevant as far as we are concerned. If sources become available describing these entities, then we can and should provide coverage of some sort. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC).

No one objects to covering their activities in any part of the world, but not under article titles that say they are the legitimate regional government (that is what Wilayat means) of Baghdad, Raqqa, London or New York. If they declared a Wilayat of London (they want to raise the flag of Jihad on over Buckingham Palace after all) or State of New York would we start an article for Province of London (ISIL) or State of New York (ISIL)? Legacypac (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Which sources will cover the official control of lands by ISIL? How is it possible? Why should we spend times on deletion process of such non-notable articles? New cases are appearing and we are still discussing here! Mhhossein (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The newest one absurdly gives ISIL the Algerian equivalent of Washington DC, ya Walayat Algeria is the real life 2nd level government containing the country's capital. It's even unclear if there is a group in Algeria after the government killed at least 6 senior members including the leader in two operations this month. The editor that created this and is now defending it does not accept community concensus very well. Legacypac (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I deleted a bunch of them two days ago, but it does not mean I think there should be any special treatement for these. If there are sources, lets find a proper title and keep them, if not delete. Just as with just about anything else. And please, stay cool, there is no need to nominate for speedy deletion while 'regular' deletion discussion is going on. - Nabla (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There are no sources at the moment for most of these it seems, but I agree we don't need a separate rule for Daesh related articles. Our existing notability criteria and process will do nicely. Incidentally, we have plenty of articles on places that are claimed not to officially exist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC).

Your examples prove the opposite point. The Republic of China article details the situation of a widely recognized country's current admin districts (just the parts they control) and a map of the 1945 situation showing the areas they used to control. There is no Municipality of Beijing (ROC) article today. Everyone agrees Transnistria exists as an admin unit and agrees which government is responsible for local issues, the question is if it is an autonomous part of Moldova or independent, as discussed in that article. There is no separate articles for Transnistria (Moldova) and Transnistria (Independant). Legacypac (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lankiveil, Legacypac, Nabla, and Spirit of Eagle: I think the problem is clear; Some articles and redirects are being created. These pages makes the readers think that there are really some provinces officially belonging to Daesh, or at least there are really some provinces known to be that of Daesh while the fact is that there's not such a thing, is it? You can't find sources backing the self promotional creation of those pages. According to Nabla the pages can be kept if there are sources, but is it really right to attribute legitimate regional government to such a terrorist organization (recognized by many nations as terrorist)? Can we find third party sources verifying this (now and in future)? if the answer is yes, it means that it is possible for third party sources to recognize it as a legitimate governor which will happen only when some countries recognize it as legitimate. How can it be for terrorist organizations? Mhhossein (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The only sources claiming that there are ISIL Wilayats are ISIL and quotes by ISIL that appear in a small number of sources that are actually reliable, which include the quotes to inform readers of some of ISIL’s claims. Including information about how ISIL claims it controls Wilayats in the ISIL territorial claims article is in compliance with policy on primary sources. Actually writing articles about ISIL’s supposed wilayats when only primary sources are available is a pretty clear violation of policy on notability and on no original research. (Seriously, imagine how many articles on micronations we would have if the only requirement for their creation was that some person or group with a Wikipedia article claimed that they owned and operated their own country). In theory, we would have to create these articles if they actually started getting coverage and analysis by primary sources. However, in the present these articles are completely non-notable (and there is not a strong enough indication that they will become notable in the near future to invoke WP:IAR), so they should be deleted on sight.

At this point in time, I believe that the best solution to non-notable wilayat and redirect articles is to delete them through the normal AfD/RfD process, and then speedy them if they are recreated. I’ve been looking through many of the ongoing wilayat deletions, and most of the wilayats were actually created before the conclusion of the mass ISIL wilayat AfD. I fear that we may be jumping the gun a bit on some of these nominations, and that this may result in wilayats being kept because of technicalities. The best way to prevent this is to follow the letter of policy when deleting them. Most of the so-called wilayats have already been deleted in various AfD discussions, so I believe the best solution is to speedy delete any recreated wilayat articles and redirects and to nominate any new ones for standard deletion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Spirit of Eagle:. Why not stop their creation by having them SALTed? is there any reason for not doing this? Mhhossein (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:I normally like to wait for several articles to be recreated and deleted before requesting SALT since demonstrating that the article has been frequently recreated makes it more likely that SALT requests will be approved. However, WP:SALT does allow for pre-emptive restrictions, and you'll have my support if you make an official request. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of SALTing but there are various ways to spell Wilayat and the various city/regional names, Province is a synonym, title without (ISIL) have been created, al vs ar etc. so an infinite number of ways to skirt the SALTing of an exact title. A centralized updated list of deleted titles and deletion discussions is the best idea I've got right now. Legacypac (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

We could request that any article title that contains both the word wilayat/wilayah and ISIL/ISIS/IS/Daesh/ect be black listed. This would prevent a lot of wilayat articles from being created and would not prevent the creation of notable articles or redirects with the word wilayat in the title. We would still have to manually hunt down ISIL wilayat articles without the name of the terrorist group in the title, but this would cut down on their creation. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I could not figure out how to do that - can you? It looks pretty technical to get the result we need without impeding good articles. Include the terms "Islamic State" and "Province" if you can. And everyone be sure to vote on the newest titles below. Legacypac (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Black listing seems s a smart solution, but who will do that? Then we should be careful for hunting them down also for having the list below updated. Mhhossein (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Black listing is covered under WP:SALT, so I’m assuming that its requested the same way as ordinary SALTs at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested. Legacypac (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wilayats of ISIL & related list

Please feel free to update this list:

Previously deleted through AfD, RfD or various speedy deletion criteria

1. Wilayat Homs (ISIL)
2. Wilayat Haleb (ISIL)
3. Wilayat Fallujah (ISIL)
4. Wilayat Baghdad Al Shamaliye (ISIL)
5. Wilayat Baghdad (ISIL)
6. Wilayat North Baghdad (ISIL)
7. Wilayat Salah al-Din (ISIL)
8. Wilayat Nineveh (ISIL)
9. Wilayat Al Janoob (ISIL)
10. Wilayat Al Barakah (ISIL)
11. Wilayat Al Kheir (ISIL)
12. Wilayat Al Badiya (ISIL)
13. Wilayat Homs (ISIL)
14. Wilayat Idlib (ISIL)
15. Wilayat al-Sahel (ISIL)
16. Wilayat Fallujah (ISIL)
17. Wilayat Haleb (ISIL)
18. Wilayat al-Anbar (ISIL)
19. Wilayat al-Sina (ISIL)
20. Wilayat al-Sinai (ISIL)
21. Template:Wilayats of ISIL
22. Wilayat al-Dimashq (ISIL)
23. Wilayat al-Furat (ISIL)
24. List of Caliphs of the Islamic State
25. ISIL Caliphate
26. List of Islamic State Wilayahs
27. Wilayat Hama (ISIL)
28. Wilayat Barqah (ISIL)

Closed Deletion Discussions and bans

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_al-Dimashq_%28ISIL%29
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Barqah_(ISIL)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Baghdad_(ISIL)
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Kirkuk_(ISIL)
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Hama_(ISIL)
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Nineveh_(ISIL)
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_24#Wilayat_Homs_.28ISIL.29
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_NOTHERE_except_to_promote_ISIL
9. Plus many speedy deletes under various criteria

Under Nomination for Deletion or Redirected (input sought)

1. Wilayat al-Raqqa (ISIL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_al-Raqqa_(ISIL)
2. Wilayat Algeria (ISIL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_29#Wilayat_Algeria_.28ISIL.29
3. Wilayat ar-Raqqah (ISIL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_1#Wilayat_ar-Raqqah_.28ISIL.29
4. Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant_%282nd_nomination%29
5. Category:Governorates_of_ISIL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Governorates_of_ISIL
6. Category:Areas controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_2#Category:Areas_controlled_by_the_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant
7. Template:Provinces of ISIL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_2#Template:Provinces_of_ISIL

Related issues

1. Raqqah Problematic rewrite talking about supposed the ISIL government
2. Ar-Raqqah Governorate (content issues, title is ok)
3. Wilayat Algeria - redirected away from the ISIL linked Algerian terror group as its a real place, a province of Algeria
4. Several creators and major editors of these have now been indef or long term (for IP) banned.

AlexanderRa and original research at Diversity Immigrant Visa

Despite attempts at discussion, I've been unable to stop this editor continually adding their own original research at the Diversity Immigrant Visa article. Back in the autumn they added this section, based on their own spreadsheets and analysis, which effectively argues "although the government says X, the real situation is Y." Another editor, JoelWhy removed the material and discussed it with them, requesting a third opinion which agreed that, yes the material is original research. AlexanderRa simply ignored the third opinion and readded the material. My attention came to the article when I discovered this huge link farm, which I removed per WP:EXTERNAL. AlexanderRa, however, keeps readding it, presumably because it contains links to the spreadsheet analysis which they want to promote. Attempts at discussing this with them have proved fruitless, as they simply respond with vandalism warnings ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valenciano&diff=prev&oldid=639942796 , [66]) and as they appear to be a single purpose account, there also seem to be WP:COMPETENCE issues here, as they simply aren't listening. Valenciano (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely not a link farm. Dozens of links were removed including references to laws, agency regulations (DOS, USCIS), articles by US law firms. All those links are very relevant to the subject of the article in Wikipedia and are definitely not a link farm. Repeatedly removing those links is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 16:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The subject of the original complaint was misstated. Valenciano did not complain about Original Research. Instead, he complained about External References and about link farm, and he removed dozens of links that could not be and cannot be classified as those. AlexanderRa (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I *did* complain about the original research here and here. This is what I mean about not listening. Yes, I did remove dozens of external links, because Wikipedia articles, per WP:EXTERNAL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, should not contain dozens of external links. Wikipedia is not a directory. The guidelines are clear, links should be kept to a bare minimum. Even a quick look will reveal that links 4,5 and 7 are dead links. I'm sure they are not the only ones. Other links are invalid, such as links to spreadsheets created by AlexanderRa, which I suspect, is the whole reason why he is defending this massively inappropriate external links section. Others are for things like discussion forums, while four of them are veiled spam for a lawyer. There's also the issue of the huge original research section that he's added there, also contrary to our guidelines, and despite being told by three editors that this is material more suitable for a blog, not for Wikipedia. Valenciano (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Valenciano is a distinguished vandal. First, he or she removed removed almost all the links from external references section without any explanation other than WP:EXTERNAL. I undid his contributions, and he removed them again, again without any explanation except WP:EXTERNAL. Only then I started warning about vandalism on the page. As he mentioned, he put WP:EXTERNAL explanation, not giving any details. He also complained about "link farm". He or she started complaining about original research only later, to make a cover up, when he or she realized attempts to vandalize the page under illegal WP:EXTERNAL were uncovered. His attempt to reclassify his vandalism under another clause is a cover up for his initial vandalism. Now, let's talk about his arguments he is stating now. Link discussion forums contains an important legal document that was posted to the forum by a distinguished lawyer Gregory Siskind many years ago when lawyers did that for free. Now those documents are available only for a fee from paid services. Another link four of them are veiled spam for a lawyer is an artile prepared by a very distinguished lawyer Ira Kurzban, and his website Ira Kurzban is in fact his real website. That could be seen by the ip address, that could be obtained by ping command. If you do not know how to do that, I could explain, I am a computer professional. He or she also tried to vandalize the page by removing a couple of dozens of other perfectly valid links. One can see how bogus Valenciano's arguments are. I am sure he is capable of creating another set of bogus arguments. The reason is not I am not listening. I am listening very well. He has not provided any arguments yet why his original classification WP:EXTERNAL was valid. It was not. His or her attempts to reclassify vandalism under another clause are not genuine. Just a cover up for his or her initial failure AlexanderRa (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"which I suspect, is the whole reason why he is defending this massively inappropriate external links section". No the reason is different. The external link section has several dozens links that were carefully collected and saved. Vandals like Valenciano should be prohibited from modifying wikipedia sources, because they act on bogus suspicions while modifying the sources, not according to logic. That is not how wikipedia policy is done. AlexanderRa (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Valenciano suggested to, and I asked him to file Vandalism report on behalf of Diversity Lottery Page, because it is not easy to do that for an occasional wikipedia user like myself. So I believe we are currently considering the vandalism report. If we are discussing anything else, that means he filed not what he promised to file. Then vandalism report needs to be filed ASAP. According to the name of this page I suspect he filed something other than vandalism report. about this page. AlexanderRa (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia for over 9 years. If I am this "distinguished vandal" you accuse me of being, it's funny that I have never been blocked. Ever. I've already explained to the user that if they feel they have a case they should go to WP:AIV, though such a report is highly unlikely to be successful. Asking me to file a vandalism report against myself is just ludicrous. Wikipedia articles DO NOT contain links to absolutely everything ever written about the topic, per WP:EXTERNAL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Distinguished lawyers are just as prone to everyone else to trying to spam us with their services. Those Wolfsburg links say: "having a good lawyer will help to ensure success in properly preparing the application. Should you wish to review your options, we invite you to contact Bernard P. Wolfsdorf..." If that isn't veiled spam, I really don't know what is, nor do I see why we need the link repeated three times. WP:EXTERNAL is very clear on that: "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum..... In the "External links" section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website." I'm at a loss as to how dead links like this one, of which there are several, belong in the article. While some of the others are to official government websites, that's covered by WP:ELMINOFFICIAL: "Normally, only one official link is included."

Nor is there any attempt above at justifying the original research, which is what this is really all about. Several editors have now explained to them that the addition of their own analysis, based on spreadsheets that they have created is clearly unacceptable, but they just ignore this. A section which effectively argues that "although the government says X, the real situation is Y" backed up by primary sources created by the editor adding the material is against our WP:OR policies. Is anyone else going to weight in here at all? Valenciano (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I had a fairly frustrating discussion with AlexanderRa regarding the concept of original research. Right when it appeared he was beginning to understand the concept, I became extremely busy at work and wasn't able to follow up. I had hoped he would have removed the material that clearly amounted to original research, but I now see that has not been the case. JoelWhy?(talk) 14:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The material is still there, as are the links he's added to his own spreadsheets in the external links section. I've tried to explain this to him as well, but as you can see above, he resists its removal, becomes hostile and starts throwing vandalism accusations around. We'll see if anyone else comments, but the WP:OR is plainly unacceptable. Valenciano (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree the original research and excessive external links need to be removed. I am going to start some clean-up right now. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of referencing Wolfsdorf's website with his articles was to make certain things available to the wikipedia readers that are never mentioned in official government websites. Like the fact that you could be chargeable to a spouse's country of birth or parent's country of birth not only in cases when the direct text of the government sources says (when your country of birth is not eligible), but in some other cases as well (for instance, when your own country of birth is eligible) that are dictated by case law. However, now I understand that wikipedia policy does not allow including those sources because they come from websites of distinguished lawyers. So I modified the wikipedia article to exclude those references and those facts as well (because I am not aware of any other references to sources of those important facts). Thanks for clarifying the policy. I did not object about WP:OR policy, however, I though it was an attempt to cover up initial clumsy explanation about WP:EXTERNAL. Now I understand that wikipedia policy just does not allow references to case law that comes from lawyer's websites, because of a dangerous potential to be "a veil of a spam for a lawyer". Thanks for clarification. AlexanderRa (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is we think differently. I know content and do not know policy. You do know policy but not the content. You remove my contributions with WP:EXTERNAL meaning something that I have no idea about, while I have no idea why you do not like my links. It is obvious for you those links are not allowed. While I made a research to find them to get the right info and had no idea they are potentially dangerous. I see someone attacks my contributions under a bogus reason, and I clearly see him as a vandal. Then he switches to WP:OR when not able to explain me why he said WP:EXTERNAL. BTW, I needed several different links of Wolfsdorf because each of them proves something special that is lacking in direct text of the law. The same thing originally happened 3 months ago when WP:OR policy was applied. Government said" there are 3 fruit on the plate, - one apple and one orange, totally three". Making my own conclusion that 3 is an error, and there are only 2 is WP:OR. I am saying, that is not obvious for the one who knows content but does not know policy. If you guys want to attack my contributions to the article, you need to give exact reason why. Not easy for me to understand that 1+1 = 2 is a violation of the policy. Not easy for me to understand that I cannot reference lawyer's websites because they are not trusted source. You should say websites of lawyers are not trusted, explicitly say that. Saying WP:EXTERNAL is not enough, because I know why I included those links, but do not know the policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 22:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think maybe wikipedia policy has important limitations that does not allow writing about anything other than extremely simple things. If so, you need to tell me so, I would not just try to write about complex stuff. AlexanderRa (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wolfsdorf 2007 Says "A Japanese-born national (Asia) who is married to a European-born national can cross-charge to Europe and automatically increase the prospect of selection ...". Wolfsdorf 2013 changes this example to "An Argentine-born national (S. America) who cross-charges to South Africa automatically increases the prospect of selection ...". If you follow the process you would know that both Japan and Argentine were always eligible. However, if by 2010 Japan would become ineligible, the first example would be not so much impressive than the second one, that is why I enclose both. At the same time official instructions Official Instructions say only "Can I still apply if I was not born in a qualifying country?

There are two circumstances in which you still might be eligible to apply. First, if your derivative spouse was born in an eligible country, you may claim chargeability to that country. As your eligibility is based on your spouse, you will only be issued a DV-1 immigrant visa if your spouse is also eligible for and issued a DV-2 visa. Both of you must enter the United States together using your DVs. Similarly, your minor dependent child can be “charged” to a parent’s country of birth. Second, you can be “charged” to the country of birth of either of your parents as long as neither of your parents was born in or a resident of your country of birth at the time of your birth. People are not generally considered residents of a country in which they were not born or legally naturalized, if they were only visiting, studying in the country temporarily, or stationed temporarily for business or professional reasons on behalf of a company or government from a different country other than the one in which you were born. If you claim alternate chargeability through either of the above, you must provide an explanation on the E-DV Entry Form, in question #6. " allowing cross-charging explicitly in case your own country is not eligible and saying nothing about that if your own country is eligible. I reference Wolfsdorf as a trusted source to prove the point that your own country being not eligible is actually not relevant to be able to cross-charge to spouse's country. I believe Wolfsdorf got an award for being one of top 10 immigration lawyers in the Nation, former AILA President, and won a lawsuit in US Court of Appeals (Kazarian). At the same time I was not able to find any other trusted references about being born in a non-eligible country is not relevant to cross-charging to spouse's country of birth. That is why I include references to this lawyer's websites, and that is why I included this reference twice - 2007 and 2013 (because examples differ). If when attacking my contribution you started by asking me why I included those links, I would understand the reason. Instead, you mentioned WP:EXTERNAL without any explanations, you used examples that are very relevant and were not a link farm from my standpoint to "prove" they are link farm, and you did not mention you consider those articles were biased. How on Earth could I know that you consider them biased? Of course, I considered them as an indication my contributions were attacked by a vandal, repeatedly three times without relevant explanation. The same about all other links I used. You should have stated instead that lawyer's websites are biased and are not allowed because of that (not because of WP:EXTERNAL and should have provided a direct link to wikipedia policy about lawyer's websites. Then I would not see attack on my contributions as a clear case of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 12:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC) AlexanderRa (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC) When you are saying I could file a vandalism case on my own, I am telling you that is not so simple as you think. It takes a lot of time to figure out how to do it. I wanted to start figuring out how to do that after the fourth occurrance of vandalism. I have never filed cases against vandalism before, because my contributions were never attacked without a relevant explanation. And you suggested you would do that yourself. Then you changed your mind after the fact saying "would you really think I would file the case on behalf of myself". Yes, I would, because you had offered so. I am still not sure how to do it and whether I could do it only after 3 occurances, not after 4. AlexanderRa (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I also think I do not know a lot of wikipedia policies and my contribution could be attacked again and again by other wikipedia users is the same manner that could be seen as vandalism by a layperson like myself in the absence of relevant explanation. I think it is not easy to contribute to wikipedia under this type of hostile environment. You are supposed to clearly say what exactly is wrong, not just refer to WP:EXTERNAL. As I said, when I figured out you did not have any additional ties to WP:EXTERNAL, I saw that you switched the case to WP:OR, when you read more about this page. Of course, I considered that as a persistent attempt to vandalize the page. Because if you cannot vandalize it under one reason, you make a research about the page in order to figure out what else is wrong with it, to find another reason to vandalize it. AlexanderRa (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Alexander, you're not a victim here. I notified you of the OR policy months ago. You seem like a bright person, yet you refused to understand how your work clearly violated OR. So I brought in a third party to review. And, that editor confirmed what I had told you. You seemed to understand at that point. I shouldn't have had to babysit the page to make sure you removed the offending material. But, even if you didn't remove it, another user did. The fact that said user may have provided a different reason is irrelevant. You had already had two other editors explaining why the material needed to be removed, yet you persisted. JoelWhy?(talk) 13:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

JoelWhy, my contributions other than those discussed in September on WP:OR policy were attacked in December by another user. Those links to Wolfsdorf's website were perfectly legal under WP:OR policy. Another user started from links that had nothing to do with previous discussions. That is how he detected the page and attacked it. He provided more and more arguments to attack material not covered under [WP:OR]], and those arguments seem all bogus under either WP:EXTERNAL or WP:OR. And then he switched to WP:OR to vandalize material. As I said, I still do not see a clear wikipedia policy prohibiting references to Wolfsdorf websites. And that is exactly what Valenciano did not like on the page. Even if the WP:OR material is removed, the links he did not like would stay. AlexanderRa (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I perfectly understand now that logic "1+1=2, not 3, and 3 is a mistake" is WP:OR. No problems with that. Referencing to either WP:EXTERNAL or WP:OR however, does not cover vandalising those links with case law explanations that Valenciano vandilized without adequate explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 13:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"If I am this "distinguished vandal" you accuse me of being, it's funny that I have never been blocked". I agree, that looks really funny. AlexanderRa (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

AlexanderRa: "I have never filed cases against vandalism...And you suggested you would do that yourself." Totally untrue. I never said anything of the sort. My only interaction with you was in this section and on your talk page and I don't see any such suggestion. Can you quote where I said that? You simply don't get the concept of vandalism at all. WP:EXTERNAL in its entirety is the reason the section was removed. Quite simply, Wikipedia articles do not contain an extensive list of links to everything ever written on the subject, they usually only have 2 or 3 external links as a maximum. You still don't seem to get this, despite being told several times. I see that you've now gone from one extreme to the other and are now removing valid links like this one. Please stop. Overall, there are two possibilities. One is that I am a "distinguished vandal" yet one who has never been blocked in 9 years and that means that Dianaa, another long term user, must also be a "distinguished vandal", again without blocks and that means that you are right and four other users with more experience of you on the project are wrong. The other option is that you were determined to publicise your own original research and were too stubborn to accept that this was unacceptable. I go by the principle of Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Time to accept that you got it wrong and move on. Valenciano (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the links like this one this link is that it is not directly applicable to DV lottery, or at least there is no direct reference explaining connection of this matter and DV lottery. I took it from one of Wolfsdorf's videos, and do not clearly remember which one. If Wolfsdorf was mistaken, or if it is a veil of a scam for a lawyer, or if I misstated the missing link by those 3 references, they do not belong here. Because in the sense of you recent explanations about Wolfsdorf's website I was not sure how those 3 links are applicable to DV lottery, I removed the references. As I said, I believe I really do not understand a lot of wikipedia policies, including why those 3 links are valid links. It also seems to me you are not sure about wikipedia policies yourself. That adds one more possibility to the vandalism hypothesis - you think that you understand the policies while in fact you do not understand them. I am totally lost why those 3 links should be present. However, you should not seem lost but it looks you are as well. I would spend my time and file a vandalism report for you, however, it seems to me I would not have a case because you vandalized it on WP:EXTERNAL only 3 times, not 4. An example how to file it mentions the number 4. I have never said Dianaa was a vandal, especially a distinguished one. She made only one correction, and that is too little to be a distinguished one, and maybe too little to be a vandal. Also, as fas as I understand the policy, if a page is vandalised 3 times by one user by doing exactly the same thing, and 3 times by another one, that is not enough to file a vandalism report for either one, even though the total amount of acts of vandalism would be 6. I tried to understand the policies, I would say I agreed on WP:OR one, but it looks like other policies you and Dianaa are mentioning are still beyond my understanding. I also agree one should not contribute to wikipedia without clear understanding of the policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I would rephrase my statement. You just included 3 links (or maybe even 4 links) that were not there before your recent change to the page. You also included a statement connecting those 3 or 4 links to ability to use spouse's country of birth even if your own country of birth is eligible. That is your contribution to the page, not mine. That information was not there before your latest change. I consider your latest change a violation of WP:OR policy, because I do not see any explanation confirming applicability of those links to DV lottery. If you disagree, please explain me why you believe those links are applicable to DV lottery. AlexanderRa (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

JoelWhy? , would you agree Valenciano included those 3 or 4 links without proper reference, and his latest contribution violates WP:OR policy? You seem to be an expert in WP:OR. Please comment. Two days ago I thought I understood WP:OR policy, but my latest understanding tells me that is a violation of the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"I have never said Dianaa was a vandal, especially a distinguished one. She made only one correction, and that is too little to be a distinguished one, and maybe too little to be a vandal." AlexanderRa you're not making any sense at all. If me removing those links on the basis of WP:EXTERNAL was vandalism, then Dianaa removing exactly the same material was also vandalism, not "a correction." Either removing the info is wrong - in which case we're both vandals - or removing it was legitimate, in which case we're not. Which one is it? Do you accept that the large discriminate collection of links was wrong?

The point is, it was not vandalism. Did you even bother to read the vandalism page I gave you the link for? "removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." In this case, the content is clearly not legitimate and the explanation was given in the edit summary. That you're too lazy to read WP:EXTERNAL or WP:VANDAL is no excuse for your actions. By the way, you want to file a vandal report, as I've told you before, go to WP:AIV and if you still have difficulty, use the talk page and ask someone there to help you, or click edit, copy one of the existing templates at the bottom of the page and change the user name and details, using the preview button to make sure you got it right. You claim to be a computer engineer, yet can't figure out something so simple? Really?

"You just included 3 links (or maybe even 4 links) that were not there before your recent change to the page." Again, totally not true. They were there. You removed them with this edit. Are you deliberately telling lies or just plain forgetful? You also haven't provided the link to where I promised to file a vandal report against myself. I'm starting to think you're just trolling now. Either file the vandal report or move on, your constant complaining, because you're hurt that someone removed your original research is achieving nothing, so there's nothing more to say to you. However, I'll be keeping an eye on the DIV page to make sure you don't disrupt it any more. Valenciano (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Let' concentrate on those links you added last. Let's proceed to vandalism issue and EXTERNAL issue after that. I also agree I misread your intention to file vandalism report on behalf of yourself. You proved it to me you did not have this intention, fair enough. Now back to the OR issue. I removed those links because when I realized the policy better I figured out I had initially added them incorrectly, and OR policy was violated. That is why I removed them. I did not do that deliberately to violate the policy, but I did not understand the policy well enough at that point. So I removed them later to correct myself. Once they were no longer in the document, you cannot say they were there. Technically they were, but they should have not been there because I violated the policy when I initially added them. In order to reinstate them you need to prove either my initial insertion was not a violation of the OR policy, or you correction of my removal was not a violation of OR policy. In either case, you need to prove those links are applicable to DV lottery cases. Please do that with the help of Wolfsdorf's pages or without them, the way you prefer. Or you have to agree you violated OR policy be reinserting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC) AlexanderRa (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Dianaa vandalism issue and Okkam's razor there might be additional possibilities, like, for instance (among others) spending not enough time investigation the issues (they are complex ones) and whatever. Anyway, let's wait with vandalism issue or vandalism issues. Regarding me being a computer engineer, I could easily prove that if I want. For instance, by providing a LinkedIn page. I do not see your point challenging that, because I know well who I am. You cannot base your hesitation about accepting the fact that I am a software engineer on the basis that the idea of asking questions on personal wikipedia pages did not come to my mind. Yes, it seemed strange to me that I could not ask questions, but nevertheless, the idea of asking questions on personal pages did not come to my mind, true. I did not even understand the idea of personal pages until you said that. Yes, that gives me an answer how to figure that out. Anyway, at this point I want to concentrate on the issue of those 3 or 4 links violating OR policy and everyone here understanding the fact that OR policy might require removing certain information from wikipedia pages and making the pages less informative than they could be if OR policy is not followed. At the same time it is clear that OR policy has to be followed even if certain information needs to be removed. That is why I am going to prove those links violate OR, if you do not accept that at this point. AlexanderRa (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

AlexanderRa, I find your sudden interest in enforcing WP:OR curious, especially since you still don't seem to clearly understand it and you had no interest in enforcing it for several months, when you were defending your own addition of original research. Is this really because you care about original research or because you're angry that I ensured the removal of your own original research and now you're seeking revenge? You need to answer that honestly. Remember, you shouldn't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Valenciano (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Valenciano, how do you know I still do not understand WP:OR policy? I have an impression I really understand this policy well now. At the same time I am trying to learn other policies starting WP:EXTERNAL, as we will need to proceed to that one as you no longer have arguments against applying WP:OR to your latest change. My primary goal here was for the article to comply with this policy. But even if it were not, the policy needs to stay there anyway, right? Or are you making a statement that if someone is making a point, it would be better not to make a point by violating WP:OR policy? Please point me to that particular collision resolution. I also need to correct you on several points. I was not defending my own addition to OR, and I was not trying to enforce my original research. JoelWhy? forgot to enforce the policy and I forgot to make a change as well. On the other side I believe you do not understand some policies yourself, that is clear now. While making a "correction" on the page you introduced a WP:OR violation, and that is strange for a page patroller like yourself. That could be more appropriate for a layperson like myself. But it looks like I know this policy better than you at this point. Second thing I want to tell you before we proceed to EXTERNAL issue is that you feel everything that is going on the page too personally. You asked me too many personal questions and made too many personal statements during our conversation. It seems to me those things are not allowed. Are they? I'll give you an example. You tried to ironise on me being a computer engineer. I think it is not appropriate. Also, you made a lot of baseless guesses about the reasons of my moves (like revenge, being upset or whatever). I think it is absolutely not appropriate. AlexanderRa (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Usually when people attack me personally during a conversation, that means they do not have other arguments. Is that the case here? AlexanderRa (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You stated: "Removed references to info from a lawyer's website that could be interpreted as a veiled spam for a lawyer". No mention at all of original research, so that's like your claim that I offered to report myself for vandalism or that I added 3 links that hadn't been there previously. Totally false and you should have the decency to apologise. I reverted your edit on the basis that justice.gov, an official government website, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as spam for an individual lawyer. If you'd actually given the correct rationale to start with, we could have had a look, so again, that is your mistake, nobody else's. Valenciano (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That was not my mistake. That is some simple logic under the reasoning containing combination of two reasons. The logic is that if lawyer's websites are not allowed, then those links do not prove anything, because the sole reason why they were initially included was opinion of a lawyer (and, as I said, those links themselves were from one of his videos, I do not remember which one). So, it would not be an OR issue if I had a good reference to use on the page. Without a good reference it is an OR issue. I just did not realize you would not understand this logic. I think nothing to apologize, it was a misunderstanding on your side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC) AlexanderRa (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Notforlackofeffort

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

---

It seems that Notforlackofeffort (talk · contribs)'s primary effort in editing Wikipedia is to wikihound and possibly wikistalk User:Davey2010. Most of this editor's edits contain jabs at Davey2010's competence; for example, see the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tram and trolleybus routes in Tallinn and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperatriz (bus company). Even his comments directed at other editors who !vote against him do not assume good faith (assuming they don't follow WP:BEFORE or lack the necessary skill to comment at these AfDs, for example), and these comments ultimately are just a vehicle for bashing Davey2010 in a not-so-subtle manner. Since I've commented at those AfDs, I've been the target of some of that ire as well. Most of this editor's edits have been this sort of attack against Davey2010. I feel that the battleground attitude and the lack of good faith assumed by Notforlackofeffort is possible actionable, given the previous block for what is essentially the same reason, but I wanted to get other eyes on it since I am involved (having !voted in the AfDs). I had originally asked Davey2010, who had reported this to AIV yesterday, to open an ANI thread if he so chose, but given the fact that this behavior shows no sign of ceasing, I felt it prudent to do so myself. If nothing else, perhaps this will allow Notforlackofeffort to air his grievances in a proper venue, rather than through inappropriate barbs at AfDs. Thanks. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

From my discussions with the user, it seems that they are more than happy to spend time writing walls of argumentative text but have no desire to actually help build the encyclopedia. Sam Walton (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Basically the above user has some sort of issue with me nominating articles, and instead of discussing he'd rather just insult me - There's been various discussions on NFLOE tp, my tp, BBb23's, TokyoGirls and Sams TP (I've only 5 mins got in so bear with me!), I personally believe he ought to be blocked per NOTHERE. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Right. Perhaps there would be more evidence of me actually trying to discuss issues with you, had you not deleted it all from your talk page! You only want me blocked because you have no answer, absolutely none, when I ask you specific questions about the reasons why you want to delete article X or paragraph Y or list Z. If this is a lie, if I have yet again unfairly smeared your reputation, then by all means, go back through all our interactions, and provide the answers to all the questions you didn't answer then, here, for everyone to examine. If they make sense, if people see some logic in them that to me, is non-existent, then maybe I will change my opinion of you. Until then, I will continue to assume you long ago stopped being interested in justifying or explaining anything you do here, to me, or indeed anyone else who has an issue with it (since I rarely see you answer the sort of questions I had asked you when anyone else asks them either). Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I honestly feel like telling this idiot to fuck off but as they say "Dont feed the trolls, If I'm being honest I've never wanted to be blocked so much in my life for incivility but he just isn't worth it so I'm going for the next few hours before I do end up blocked!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Backdoor canvass NE Ent 11:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Quote your own essay. LOL. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• The only positive thing about Notforlackofeffort is he writes well ... and excessively. I blocked him once for personal attacks and harassment. I then revoked his talk page access when his comments continued the behavior that triggered the block. Since that time, I watch his contributions, although not all the time, and sometimes, frankly, I don't have the patience to read the tomes he writes. My view is that he now skirts the line with his comments, meaning that he almost attacks editors but not as blatantly as before. I suspect that's intentional. Although he is obviously intelligent, I don't see much use of that intelligence in a constructive way; nor do I see any evidence of collaboration. He's one of those users who is more interested in what he thinks is "right" than he is in collaborating or even being civil. All in all, he's a net detriment to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 - I take your meaning about the editor's writing, but in point of fact NFLOE doesn't really "write well". A good writer knows how to focus their words and not overwrite, making the desired points without boring the reader. As was once said (inappropriately) about Jack Kerouac and On the Road, what NFLOE does isn't writing, it's typing. BMK (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  I am extremely intelligent, even if I do say so myself. I know a hell of a lot about buses and bus transport, and I can read and understand Wikipedia rules quite well (especially when, on issues like NOTTRAVEL, they are ridiculously short). These are the reasons why I am apparently not welcome here - it seems I have embarrassed a lot of people here by being able to talk with some authority on a subject that is very poorly written about here, and being able to quickly spot when someone is using links like NOTthis and NOTthat to claim things that the underlying text of the rules categorically do not say. This is the only source of the disagreement between me and Davey, his name could be Susan or John for all I care about him personally. Yet I'm sensing that certain people are thinking that, rather than address these substantial issues of rule abuse and general ignorance of subjects by people who nonetheless apparently want to speak knowledgeably about, people are instead opting for the quick solution - just get rid of the guy asking the awkward questions. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

For someone who is extremely intelligent you've colossally misunderstood what the issue is here. Sam Walton (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The only thing worse than a dumb fool shooting off his mouth is an intelligent fool shooting off his mouth. Intelligence is a trait often vastly over-valued while other, far more useful traits, are often vastly under-valued. – JBarta (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I must be thick, as I had to read that three times before I realised you were intending to insult me. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The intent was not to "insult" you. – JBarta (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

These are false accusations, and frankly quite upsetting. As I said to Kinu, I have nothing personal against Davey, and I am certainly not trying to make him afraid or upset or otherwise miserable. I am following his edits, but with very good reason - it's very clear his claims to be a "bus enthusiast" and that he "knows a lot about buses" are simply not true (I can give you comprehensive evidence if necessary). His actions show that in fact, his only interest in the topic is to try and get bus route lists and bus company articles deleted, for reasons which range from either very poor, to downright dishonest.

I refuse to accept that pointing out when Davey has, and there's no polite way to say it, told lies, or otherwise distorted the interpreation of a rule well beyond the limits of reasonableness, is in any way unfairly "bashing" him. Perhaps if someone had by now acted on these complaints, it wouldn't seem now like it's all I do here. But the truth is, it doesn't seem like anyone here cares whether someone portrays themselves as something they're clearly not, or pushes a clear agenda to delete articles and remove information simply because they want to.

And certainly nobody seemed to care when Davey accused me of vandalism, or assumed bad faith toward me when he made the quite frankly ridiculous claim that I'm only here to "save every bus article" (at that point, I had voted to keep two). Can I now claim to be upset by these actions, so he can be removed? He only started to complain about my 'behaviour' once it became clear to him he wasn't going to be able to bluff his way out of our disputes, because I have the necessary knowledge to know the subject, and I can certainly read a rule page too.

As to these accusations that I am "not here to build an encyclopedia", what about the fact that yesterday I created List of trolleybus routes in London, which was up to that point a most ridiculous gap in coverage in this supposed encyclopedia I'd seen yet. How many people who seek to criticise me can say they have achieved the same in the last day or so?

You want me to stop caring that Davey insists on trying to delete articles just like that for reasons which frankly don't stand up to any scrutiny - then stop him from doing so! I'm sorry, but I can't figure out for the life of me why anybody here thinks I'm doing anything wrong by pointing out obvious facts, such as when Davey says things like a list of Tallin trolleybus routes cannot possibly be encyclopedic, he is only making himself look silly, since in the real world entire books are written about such subjects (see the reference in the London list).

Either people are interested in facts like that, or they're not. If they're not, then I'm happy to leave Wikipedia's articles about buses and bus transport in the hands of the people who aren't too bothered about what is written about them in the real world, even though the result of such a strategy can clearly be seen - the articles on it are either missing, or just largely crap.

From where I'm sitting, there's a difference between not assuming good faith, and identifying when another editor is deliberately pushing the envelope, or has otherwise not done what he should have done according to the rules. That is the case for Davey, and indeed Kinu. Everything I said about BEFORE and Imperatriz is 100% accurate. If Kinu wants to dispute that, how about he identifies precisely what I said that was supposedly wrong? If he cannot, then why can I not legitimately assume his refusal to do so is not bad faith? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the wall of text above does a better job of demonstrating your unfitness to edit here than anything any of us can say.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No, thank you. Thank you for dragging me here with the apparent expectation that I have to defend myself and explain why I am here to contribute (with examples) and why all the things I've said about Davey are true and weren't remotely examples of stalking or bad faith, and then USING THAT DEFENCE AGAINST ME. How very typically Wikipedia. Of course, the other option was for me to say nothing, and then you would have used that against me too. Or I could have briefly said the accusations were unfair and unjust, but not explained how or why (for brevity), and you would of course have used that against me too. Bravo. Well done for inventing the impossible game that is Wikipedia. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"You want me to stop caring that Davey insists on trying to delete articles just like that". What we want you to do is to stop hounding and stalking Davey around Wikipedia. You have said that you have tried to discuss this with Davey, when I've looked through his page history, most of the discussions you appear to have had are like this one where you actually attack him by calling him "deluded" etc. Wikipedia should not be used for attacking editors. The reason I refused the report at AIV yesterday was to give this the chance for more discussion and to try to reach a resolution - something AIV is not the place for. However, from what I have seen so far I would tend to agree with @Samwalton9: and that you are not here to build an encyclopedia--5 albert square (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want me to stop hounding or stalking Davey, you're going to have to justify those outrageous accusations a bit better than they have been so far. I follow Davey because he is doing bad things, like deleting information from an article because it's "already in the source" (which makes absolutely no sense), or is proposing things for deletion because he "literally found no sources", when it turns out that he's either not looking very hard, or is just plain lying. It's telling that not one person here who is making these accusations of stalking has even taken the time to examine my accusations to see if they are true. I assume that if it were proven Davey is doing bad things, things which need reversing or challenging, then I would actually get a pat on a back for following him around. Perhaps not. I don't know anymore. The concept of how you help Wikipedia seems very nebulous. And on a point of fact, I didn't call him deluded, I implied it would be deluded of him to do action X on the basis of Y. It was a hypothetical situation, and if anyone here actually bothered to take the time to familiarise themselves with the subject and understand the context, they would no doubt agree that someone would have to be deluded if they did X based on Y. If that's what counts as an attack here, then I honestly don't know how you manage to communicate effectively with each other. Although in my experience, it's not so much communicating, as lecturing/ignoring. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You write: If you want me to stop hounding or stalking Davey, you're going to have to justify those outrageous accusations a bit better than they have been so far. So, you admit that you are hounding or stalking this editor, in direct violation of WP:HARRASS. BMK (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Now who's trolling? Obviously I was not confessing to that - I was responding to the suggestion that I supposedly had to "stop" doing it. I would hardly be saying I will stop doing something as soon as you prove that's what I'm doing, now would I? (that was my whole point). I find it very ironic that I have been mercilessly personally attacked and now trolled in the very place where I am purportedly being reported for doing exactly that to other people. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

And "Now who's trolling?" wasn't a confession of trolling either, in case you decide to double-down on the crazy. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep digging, dude, you're getting in deeper and deeper... we can barely see your head now. BMK (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, you're just trolling. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, that, too, is something we come across quite often, the troll throwing around charges that everyone is trolling except them. You'll find it filed under "The best defense is (supposedly) a good offense", but it seldom actually works, because who is actually trolling, and who isn't is too obvious. BMK (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh I don't doubt there's plenty of people here who think I'm trolling, most notably all the people who have a motive in eliminating me, clearing the way to allow them to continue to do what it is they're doing, or are jealous/threatened by my capabilities and the fact I'm not willing to bow down to their ideas of how I should best show my true worth to them (that's you, in case subtlety isn't your thing). In a way, they have to make that accusation, because it's the only thing that will, in their minds, excuse their complete lack of interest in finding out the truth of what's actually gone on (why investigate the complaints of a troll, they will tell themselves). Still, even if people do think I'm trolling, which obviously includes you, common sense dictates that best practice isn't going to be to just troll them right back. Which you've been doing for the last few go-arounds now. If it's true that I'm the troll and you're the better man, then all you have to do to show that is let me have the last word, and not say anything to continue this thread in the manner which it has been derailed since your entry into it. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going offline for at least the next four hours. Since any further participation here in any form seems at best pointless given Bbb23's insightful reply, and since I have apparently "colossally misunderstood what the issue is" according to Sam (and oh what a surprise to see a comment like that delivered on Wikipedia without it being explained so I might 'understand' what the issue really is), I leave it up to fate to decide if I am "stalking" Davey, or if I am simply guilty of asking him questions he cannot, and indeed does not, want to answer, and would instead very much like it to be dealt with by the questioner just being gotten rid of. I presume from now on in he will take the tactical option of not saying anything at all, as he has done before. That is after all the golden rule on Wikipedia isn't it - your version of taking the 5th - if answering someone would require you to admit you were wrong, or had otherwise not fully thought out your position, or admit that your subject knowledge is otherwise somehow deficient, or that you had failed to do something equally important in the grand exercise of writing an encyclopedia, then take the easiest option of all - completely ignore them. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting

• Support block - obvious troll is obvious. Has no intention of contributing to the improvement of articles and says so. Has no intention of constructively discussing deletion nominations and says so. Has no intention of stopping the bad-faith insinuations and personal attacks and says so. Has no intention of familiarising himself with policy or guidelines and says so. Claims significant intelligence, but an inability to read what others have written, argue succinctly or follow even basic discussion formatting suggests otherwise. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  Um, if it's not too much trouble, if it wouldn't take too much time out of your busy schedule of not responding to me at the the two AFDs we have interacted at, might you find the time to, y'know, provide proof for when I supposedly said these things. I assume when you use the phrase "says so", it's a quotable thing, right? As far as I can tell, your only issue with me, until you came up with this long laundry list of supposedly quotable stances, is that I was not prepared to take your claim that you "did your own research" on Imperatriz at face value, and that I seem intent on criticising without fixing (as if there's some kind of quota - you can highlight one rule failure for every article created, something like that?). At the AFDs I was particularly interested in a reply from that time you said I "totally miss the point of most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". This concerns me because it's precisely the sort of thing someone would say if they were simply trying to smear another person in the hope they never get called out on it (it might even be a "personal attack" on my intelligence, but I know you absolutely abhor those as they are against policy, so I must be wrong on that at least). Believe it or not (and you clearly don't - hey, I like this AGF thing! I'm getting the hang of that one at least), I've always been very careful to read and at least try to follow the rules here, otherwise how could I possibly criticise people like Davey for not? I would be a hypocrite, and if there's one thing I hate being, it's that. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Where you've addressed queries to me, I've responded, in fact you've quoted one such response where you have subsequently not responded. Rather ironic. The exception is where your diatribe was simply a thinly veiled personal attack. I have no particular desire to afford you another soapbox from which you can attack other editors. You've been here for how long and you have one pointy article and a dozen personal attacks to your name. I don't know what the "quota" is but most would suggest it should be better than that. Also ironically, BMK sums that up perfectly below. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a simple request. You listed several things above that I supposedly said. If it was the other way round, if I was attributing statements to you here and refused to answer your request to back them up, you would no doubt be screaming the roof down by now. I don't care about quotas, I care about the rank stench of hypocrisy which is gradually enveloping this whole thing. And I see no irony in my failure to respond to "Yes, I conducted my own search. If you found something I didn't, feel free to post it here. Otherwise, your accusations of bad faith, your personal attacks and your non-policy nonsense have no place here.", since I don't actually even see a question there. What I actually see is a repetition of this idea I talk "non-policy". My request for that to be substantiated still stands too. If this is anything to go by, you appear to be practicing the theory that if you repeat something often enough, people will just believe it anyway, whatever the truth of the matter. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This dif probably says more than most people would need to reach the conclusion that you're WP:NOTHERE to build encyclopaedia - you openly admit you're, "really not interested in doing it for you, and I certainly wouldn't ever put my name to Wikipedia". I suspect you'll get exactly what you wish for. Plenty of diffs have been provided and given how few contributions you have, finding more isn't hard. I'm afraid I'm just not willing to do the leg work for you. You've told us many times you're not interesting in contributing. I don't need to repeat it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess half out of three will have to be good enough for everyone here then. If that's all it takes to support what were some pretty outrageous claims, so be it. Why would anyone want to put their name to such an obvious sham? This matches up with how (which I only just noticed) you apparently invented this claim that I had suggested Davey must "prove non-notability". I suppose that's where you got the non-policy nonsense from. A little twist here, a little distortion there, and hey presto, a narrative. Proceed straight to NOTHERE, do not pass go. This sort of thing appears to be your particular speciality. Either that or this sort of thing just comes naturally to experienced Wikipedia users, those who are genuinely 'here to contribute'. Yes, I think that about wraps it up for me - I wanted to show just how much you were having to invent in order to support this smear campaign of yours, and I think I just have. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Must be my SuperTrollGoggles2000 - I'll make a note to thank the manufacturer. You're either here to contribute constructively or you're not. You've told us, on a number of occasions, that you're not. Explain which part of "I certainly wouldn't ever put my name to Wikipedia" I'm distorting or twisting. They're your words, not mine. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I never said they're not my words. My issue is that your words, that 'I'm not here to contribute' is not something I have ever said, it is entirely your invention. You just made it up, out of pure expedience, to hasten this little hate-fest along. In other words, you lie. Just like Davey made up the fact he's a bus enthusiast. As soon as you start giving a shit about things like that, I'll start giving a shit about contributing here. Feel free to snip the last part of that sentence and transform it into 'OMG, he doesn't give a shit about contributing to Wikipedia!' any time you like. I expect it will make an appearance soon. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef block - In four months here, 74 edits, only 7 of them to articles, the majority (46) to Wikipedia space, with 21 to user talk (with the results outlined in the complaint above). This is the very definition of a free-rider who is not here to improve the encyclopedia, but for other purposes entirely. We don't need such non-productive people here, so block him/her until they promise to spend the majority of their edits improving articles, and to stay away from Davey. BMK (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, my rationale has nothing to do with creating articles, but with improving articles by way of editing them. You spend your time trolling instead of editing articles, and, in my opinion, that makes you an unwelcome guest, and is reason enough to block you and make you persona no grata. This is first and foremost a project to build an encyclopedia, not a place for random people to do random things. BMK (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A "free rider" is someone who demands that I use my expert knowledge for free to improve Wikipedia in an area it is wholly deficient in, after they've first used their non-expert knowledge to imply faults in articles where none exist, and have then proceeded to variously insult, frustrate, annoy and generally ignore me, all apparently in the name of collaboration. My contributions have not been random, they have been focused on preventing the wrongful removal of information from bus related articles, and the wrongful deletion of bus related articles. If that's what you call not helping to build/improve an encyclopedia, I bow to your superior judgment. After all, what would I know about whether or not Wikipedia is doing a good job summarising all the available reliable independent information in this subject area? Based on how many times I've been begged to write an article here, quite a lot. In all my time here, once I've been made aware of them, I have done nothing but consistently apply your own rules, rules that several of you, Davey chief among you, apparently do not want to follow, or want to interpret in ways that are simply unjustified. If that's what you call trolling, then you've obviously never met a real troll. A real troll is someone who ignores, insults, frustrates and annoys you, in the name of collaboration. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If you can't improve articles, create or fix templates, help with categorization, or do anything else that's actually useful in building an encyclopedia, than you're not needed here. There are plenty of productive editors who can do what little you do, and without the trolling and badgering. BMK (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of people here able to stop Davey and Charles degrading the overall quality of bus related articles here with their NOTthis/NOTthat/ignore tactics? I think you might want to check that claim for factual accuracy, as the quality of the articles that remain doesn't bear that out. Tokyogirl recently claimed to me that there is a consensus on Wikipedia that bus route list articles are always deleted. Why not take a guess at which two users were apparently heavily involved in establishing that, based on the examples she offered? Hell, why not examine whether it's even true based on those examples (it really isn't - not that she, or anyone else, is prepared to admit it - per the Wikipedia 'taking the 5th' rule). And as well as the poor participation levels involved in that issue, why not take a guess at the level of intellectual rigour those discussions to establish that supposed consensus involved, as far as critically examining Wikipedia policy goes. Here's a hint: Deleter - these fail NOTxyz. Keeper: How? Deleter: They just do. If you think you have plenty of people involved in this activity, you either didn't really research which area I was getting involved in here, or you want this area to be deliberately degraded. There is apparently so few people involved in this activity, that when two of us come to light, as you can see above (or it might be below, I lost track where I am) it is being automatically assumed we are one and the same person. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose to block. Yes, User:Notforlackofeffort is uncivil, but, frankly, WP does not block for common-variety incivility. Moreover, I believe the editor is contributing (albeit in an inefficient way sometimes). The edit to Imperatriz (bus company) was a good contribution. I also believe his opposition to the to AFDs in question, while hectoring and hard to follow, were in the end correct. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

They exist but they don't meet WP:GNG. They shouldn't have been created; you are the only other person who seems to think they are notable. That's your right but NFLOE is clearly trolling. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose block Notforlackofeffort has created one article while Davey2010 doesn't seem to have created any. As Notforlackofeffort is a comparatively new editor who has only made a few edits, he's winning on the NOTHERE front. Regarding civility, it seems to be six of one; half a dozen of the other. They are both trying to put each other down and neither comes out of it looking good. An interaction ban might be needed but for now, a caution seems adequate. Andrew D. (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• So let me get this straight ... Because I haven't created any articles that means it's perfectly fine for the insults?, Also I clearly here despite his behaviour apologized in an attempt to patch things up[67] .... I'm sorry but "They are both trying to put each other down" is utter rubbish and you know know it. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yeah, sorry, but that's an insane rationale for opposing a block. An uncivil, harassing troll with a grudge gets a free pass because he's created a single article? He created it to make a point a few days ago. That's not "content creation" in any meaningful sense. Just more trolling. And more people than just Davey2010 have been the subject of personal attacks from NFLOE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• If a personal attack is defined as playing the man not the ball, then by Christ I've been subject to quite a few here - including from you. And I think you'll find the only point I was making by creating that list, was that it didn't exist before I created it. As Andrew spotted, it was meaningful content creation in the sense that it's one more article than Davey has created on Wikipedia, ever. It was only after I created it, and then Davey started claiming in the Tallin AFD that such lists are "not encyclopedic", did I realise I could use the reference it contains (a whole book solely about the trolleybus routes in one city) as an example of how wrong that view really is. Honestly, I would really really like to know how making this sort of perfectly valid observation on Wikipedia is considered "trolling". I can't see it as anything other than bringing real world facts to a place which, where this editor is concerned, seem to be thin on the ground (this might be a good point to ask you if you even realised that, despite the fact Davey is from Strood in Kent and has said he is a bus enthusiast who knows far more about buses than I do, he didn't even know the single thing that makes the operator that runs right through his home town, Nu-Venture, more notable than the average company. He literally didn't seem to have a clue what it was.) So, is he just inflating his supposed knowledge of buses so that people more readily believe his claims when he says things in AFDs about companies like Nu-Venture? Or is he just not from Strood (although why anyone would pretend to be from Strood is beyond me). 03:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notforlackofeffort (talk • contribs)

• So we've gone from insulting me to now insulting the area in which I live in, ..... You my friend are a pathetic waste of space, You really are!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Another personal attack, per WP:NPA "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just like when Davey dismissed me because I'm a "bus fan". And all the other personal attacks he's made against me, that you just don't seem to have noticed. Perhaps "heavy bias" wasn't a strong enough term to describe your interest here? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Quick note - I've also notified Charles and Tokyogirl79 of this discussion since I brought there name up here and plus they've also had issues with NFLOE, Cheers, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• This seems to be blatant canvassing of editors known to be hostile to Notforlackofeffort. Andrew D. (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• With all respect If I mention anyones name anywhere they get told whether its ANI, AIV, UFAA, I personally find it respectful to tell that person I've mentioned them, and plus as they had issues with him I'd rather everyone gets involved and voices there opinion. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• (ec) It's standard policy to notify someone whose name has come up on the noticeboards. If Davey2010 had thought of it, he could have pinged them when he mentioned them and it would have amounted to the same thing. BMK (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support block - My strong objection to this editor is the obvious intent to insult, as shown on the talk pages. It's disruptive to the collegial effort needed to work together. They may have a point regarding the operation of this place, but there is a right way, and a hurtful wrong way. Let's show this person the door. Jusdafax 00:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef block - I'm sorry, but Andrew's comment is absolutely ludicrous and is one of the daftest I've seen in a while ("winning on the NOTHERE front"? Seriously?), to the point where I seriously think they should retract it. BMK's analysis is solid; we have an account who has a 10% mainspace edit rate (give or take), and whose sole activities otherwise seem to be hounding Davey2010 or generally causing a lot of disruption; they've even admitted to having a lack of interest in actually being constructive. It matters not one jot how many articles Notforlackofeffort, Davey2010, nor anyone else have created (if NFLOE had created a thousand single-word articles, would you support them based on that? Sounds like it.) I also strongly doubt Tokyogirl79 has a history of being hostile to anyone, from what I've seen, and I certainly haven't been brought here by anyone's request. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Insults are not ok, but apparently it is acceptable for User talk:Davey2010 to direct foul language at other despite not being asked not to. Does seem a touch hyprocritical that an editor with over 29,000 posts in 4 years has never added an article, yet regularly nominates articles for deletion.

When it was stated that a post I had made to Vauxhall bus station, I asked at Talk:Vauxhall bus station for clarification as the post did not appear in breach. Rather than answer the question and shutting the issue down the editor (and one other who just reversed my posts) just dismissed my query as 'crap', presumably because my post was not in contravention as asserted, but merely different to his/her personal preferences.

Or in other words, dishonestly hiding behind policy that he/she knows doesn't exist.[68] Hardly the conduct of someone who aspires to be an administrator. Astbam (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Purely out of curiosity, how did you come to find this discussion Astbam? I just notice you haven't edited in months. Sam Walton (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, curious, that. The very first edit of User:Notforlackofeffort was an edit[69] on Aug 19, 2014 to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nu-Venture, an article that Davey2010 had nominated for deletion. On Aug 8, 2014 Astbam had edited[70] the Nu-Venture article, and there are some edit-warring warnings at User talk:Astbam from Davey2010 and from other users around July-August 2014. So both Notforlackofeffort and Astbam seem to share an interest in bus-related articles and a grudge against Davey2010. WP:QUACK anyone? Nsk92 (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nsk92: Quack. SPI anyone? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI report, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astbam. Nsk92 (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Update (after the below message). While I was responding to that investigation, I found the smoking gun which proves it's bullshit - Astbam was the person who put the seed into Davey's mind to delete the Nu-Venture article, which I then opposed 10 days later. So, unless any of you think I'm schizophrenic, then my alternate explanation below is definitely the right one. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Not reallya smoking gun. Please see WP:BADHAND. BMK (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh what a surprise, another example of someone on Wikipedia telling me to see a link, which turns out not to remotely explain why they linked it. What exactly are you trying to say? What possible reason would I have for pretending to be two people in that scenario? What does the person who wants Nu-Venture deleted have to gain by disrupting the ensuing deletion proposal by saying keep? Indeed, what disruption actually occurred over that issue at all? Other than it being kept, which is apparently what I didn't want? For the sake of understanding, just use plain English in your reply, for Christ's sake. No more bloody links. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You can lead a horse to water... If you don't understand how BADHAND applies to the situation as alleged, then I have to say that you're most probably not as "extremely intelligent" as you believe yourself to be. I think the rest of us understand the applicability, n'est-ce pas? BMK (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus. I think you're just full of it, and just don't really see it. I invite anyone here to explain what BMK apparently thinks is just obvious. For convenience, here's the full text of what is at the end of the BADHAND link - ""Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts: Using one account for constructive contributions and the other one for disruptive editing or vandalism.". If anyone here has a clue how that relates to the situation here, where supposedly there's something to gain by one person using two accounts to propose an article for deletion and then get it kept, please tell me, so I might learn why I'm such an idiot for not realising it myself. I'll take silence to mean that BMK was just trying to use the link as a convenient way to insinuate wrong doing. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

All right, in words that I hope are short enough for an "extremely intelligent" person like you to follow: the essence of BADHAND is the creation of two identities, one of which is antagonistic to the other, so that the two IDs can operate against each other, causing disruption and (presumably) amusement for the person behind them.

I'm not saying that you are Astbam or that you aren't, I don't know, but I don't think it really matters all that much, as your behavior as NFTLOE has been sufficiently disruptive to justify indef blocking on that basis alone, but your claim of finding a "smoking gun" that proves you are not Astbam just isn't the case, as anyone who has had to deal with good hand/bad hand sockpuppeteers can tell you. Is that clear enough? BMK (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it clears it up only as far as you seem to think people would find that amusing. Which is a revealing if disturbing window into the minds of the defenders and attackers in this giant game you call an encyclopedia. It doesn't explain why you thought that's what BADHAND says and I was just thick for not getting it, since it doesn't and I clearly wasn't. Nor does it explain why you think that scenario applies to these two accounts, since no disruption resulted from their interaction at the AFD. The fact is, me pointing it out really is the smoking gun insofar as proving I am not Astbam, because the claim that I am him rests on the fact we both had the same interests and both disliked the same person. I suppose you might now say that I am a complete genius, and that I only opposed myself in that AFD so I could have plausible deniability when I got to this stage of my dastardly plan where I could unleash the full potential of controlling not only this account but Astbam as well, but I'm sure even you can see how batshit insane that is when compared to the alternate explanation, which is that someone simply put two and two together and made five. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? Pay close attention. In scenario A, an editor trying to improve a bus related article, gets the NOTthis/NOTthat/ignore treatment from Davey and Charles, despite trying to have an actual policy based conversation with them in a way where both parties leave satisfied they have been heard and understood. In scenario B, an editor trying to stop bus related articles from being deleted, gets the NOTthis/NOTthat/ignore treatment from Davey and Charles, despite trying to have an actual policy based conversation with them in a way where both parties leave satisfied they have been heard and understood. Which is the more likely explanation? That both editors are the same person, or that the way that Davey and Charles attempt to brush off people who know about bus topics is consistently poor, and therefore has the exact same ability to piss off different editors interested in buses? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I've never created an article because I'd feel disheartened if it were nominated (I at times dislike nominating peoples articles but it's all part of editing here), Plus I've tried article creation and I'll admit I was shit at it, Also Bit strange after not editing since October that you decide your first edit this month is to this?, Also I don't want to be an admin as my temper as well as patience gets the better of me unfortunately.... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef block, (take note I'm somewhat involved in this, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NIBS (bus company)) NFLOE is constantly showing a battleground attitude, Davey's attitude wasn't great sometimes, but he apologized for his behavior, then NFLOE deleted his comment, for example. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  I'm glad you brought that up (AmaryllisGardener). Davey had deleted messages from me to him multiple times before that without comment. He then turned up at my talk page to give a classic non-apology apology - "If I have fucked you off in any way then I apologize". He knew full well he had fucked me off, and yet even in that non-apology apology he found time to tell another lie - claiming as he did that if I had just told him where to find information to prove NIBS was notable, he would have happily withdrawn. Well, funnily enough, that's exactly what I had done. Not only did I provide a link to a news report (which he made absolutely no comment about, not even to dismiss it - how collaborative!), I also told him the title of the magazine where, if I am not completely senile, I know for a fact he will find at least one (and very likely many more) articles on the company. Do I remember the precise issue number? No. Would he be able to find it if he actually wanted to? If he was sincere about withdrawing if the information exists, then of course he could. It would only take one phone call or email. But he's not sincere. Instead of commenting on that news report, he found the time to lecture me about how bad it is to comment on the person (while in the very same posts, dismissing everything I say on account I'm a "bus fan" and "want every bus company here saved". The first quote might be true, albeit patronising and borderline insulting (but is irrelevant if we're not allowed to talk about the person), but the second was just another lie. So damn right I ignored his non-apology apology. And I was not at all surprised he has since found time to hypocritically complain about that, while conveniently forgetting he'd done exactly the same to me several times previously, in situations where I actually had good reason to expect a response (because of all the people here claiming this is a collaboration). And yes, everyone please note that AmaryllisGardener is no doubt heavily biased here. Their original delete comment cited the fact the article didn't reference any independent "websites" (when the true notability test is sources, which include print media). Correcting people on basic facts like that when they're seeking to pass judgement on subjects about which they know nothing about, is the sort of 'behaviour' of mine that people are all bent out of shape about - I expose their failures to follow even the most basic rules here. Somehow though, every single time, including here, you people still manage to turn these failures around and blame me for them. I point out a subject will have been covered in print media for common sense reason x, y and z, thinking I'm doing you all a favour by letting you know things you apparently never knew before, and surprise surprise, it's then my fault the article will be deleted because I didn't drop everything I was doing and hunt down all the issue numbers and ISBN numbers. And now, somehow, not creating articles counts against me in the 'not here to help us' argument, even though for the most part I have been contributing by trying to stop articles that shouldn't be deleted from being deleted. This apparently makes me a very bad person, not remotely fit for Wikipedia. And who is my main opponent? Why, it's the guy who has apparently never created a single article, and instead spends his time trying to delete things. And he's a good guy. Well, if anyone can figure that one out, they really are smarter than me. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm... no article creations = bad guy? Not hardly. We all have different ways of contributing, and Davey's is AfD. Perfectly fine. It doesn't matter if you work with GAs, you work with creating articles, you copyedit, or work at AfD, all of those areas improve Wikipedia. :) About my "heavy bias", I don't know why you had to make it clear again, I just said I was involved earlier, but I can still discuss this here. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef block The idea that any editor "must" create articles before they can avoid harassment and/or stalking is ludicrous. BMK's analysis is spot on. Also, indef is not infinite. The WP:STANDARDOFFER is always available to anyone who wants to edit productively. MarnetteD|Talk 02:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support block: per not here. Vrac (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef block per Jusdafax and others. We are far too patient with disruptive editors who, in net, contribute very little to the project. Also, someone who cannot (or will not) comment succinctly, and ignores suggestion to do so, has no business working on an encyclopedia. - MrX 02:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  You can't handle the truth! Succinct enough for you? I have no business working here, that's for sure. But boy have I been begged to create articles for Wikipedia, based on my expert knowledge. At the same time as being told I'm a worthless piece of shit by the people who find that knowledge inconvenient when it contradicts their claims that this or that article fails NOTthis or NOTthat or GNG. It's a surreal experience, I'll say that. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose block at this time: We need to get better at editor retention; suggest mentoring and WP:AGF before totally and completely lowering the boom. If the editor is here for the reasons other believe (e.g., WP:NOTHERE, that will become obvious over time. If the editor has a mentor and someone watching his edits, maybe what's bad now could become better. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  A nice sentiment, but it rather misses the point. We need to get better about retaining editors who improve the encyclopedia. We don't need to retain the vandals, the trolls, the free-riders, and the other disruptive editors who do so much to make editing here problematic. NFLOE makes it quite clear in his bloated comments that they have no intention to change anything, that what they are doing is exactly what they want to do. Given this, showing them the door is the answer, not wasting time trying to change their character. If and when they grow up a bit and decide they want to contribute productively, they can ask to be unblocked and given another chance, BMK (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it misses your point and the point of the other circling sharks, but I don't see any harm in a mentor at this time. Of course, if the SPI comes back positive for violating policy, that will likely be the final nail in this individual's proverbial coffin. Personally, I think a little more actual AGF rather than just talking about it would be a nice thing to see. Then again, AN/I isn't typically the place for seeing that policy actually being followed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you've also missed the essence of AGF as well. It's not something that you hold on to come hell or high water, it's something that you start with when an issue is first raised, and there's little or no evidence that anything wrong is actually going on. Once there's been sufficient evidence presented, it's totally wrong to ignore it on the basis of "AGF". BMK (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

And where, may I ask, is your AGF concerning the people expressing negative opinions about NFTLOE's behavior? You call us "sharks", implying what, that our comments are motivated by uncontrolled base instincts and not by human reasoning? That we're hungry animals who will attack anything in the water that's bleeding and defenseless? That's hardly either fair or reasonable, is it? BMK (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support block. Having been told his editing is problematic, the user in question is continuing to make personal attacks on this very page [71]. Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. -- Calidum 04:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Block: I find Davey2010 an excellent example of the kind of heavily entrenched editor who chases away new editors through finely tuned incivility. He seems to have a serious double standard problem. It's not surprising that other editors get so frustrated with him that they engage in personal attacks. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"Chases away" would be a valid description only if Davey2010 was the only person supporting a block. And I'd rather have finely-tuned incivility toward trolls than blatant incivility and disruption from trolls. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support block We need more collaborative editors who make improving the encyclopedia their top priority at all times. We do not need tendentious, combative, repetitive editors who specialize in useless walls of text and feuding with their enemies. This editor is clearly part of the second group. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• On the issue of me supposedly contributing little to Wikipedia by way of new articles - is there a single one of my critics here who is even able to make an educated guess how long it would take to do something like write a half-decent Wikipedia article on the 1990s bus company London Northern? Which is just one glaring example of the many missing articles on Wikipedia in this field. If anyone here wants to put their money where their mouth is and claim they could do this in the same time it's taken me to comment in a few AFDs and "stalk" Davey (who it turns out by his own admission he couldn't write it at all, even though this is exactly the sort of article he's attempting to pass judgement on based on what he little he knows about what books and magazines are out there), then I will personally send them the money to buy the books and magazines required to write it. On one condition - if you fail to complete it, or if you do but it still has obvious holes in it (because you were too lazy or incompetent to do a thorough literature review, which someone who knows absolutely nothing about buses would have to do), then you send me back 10 times the money I sent you. Any takers? Thought not. Anyway, sorry to distract you, now you can back to your lectures about what I haven't done for Wikipedia, and how much other people like Charles and Davey really have..... Notforlackofeffort (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The "new article" thing you keep coming back to is a red herring. Many editors never create a single new article in their editing careers, and yet they contribute significantly to the improvement of the encyclopedia by editing articles (you're such a "extremely intelligent" person who who knows "a hell of a lot about buses and bus transport", you should be able to improve some of the articles about those subjects), by helping in categorization, by working with templates and in various other ways, none of which you choose to do. Instead you're doing what we see here, on your talk page, and on the talk pages of other editors. If you are really "extremely intelligent", you're certainly not demonstrating it here, nor is your extensive knowledge about buses anywhere on display. So, why should we allow you to stay around? Editing here isn't your right, it's a privilege that the community can take away when it sees fit to do so, and if you are interested in maintaining that privilege, you had better start to show it damn quick. BMK (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    • OK then, please explain where/when/why Davey was granted the privilege to make claims such as this idea he knows more about buses than I do, or that he is a "bus enthusiast"? Since he said those things, I await your personal report on the inspection of his own contributions. Is he doing all the things for Wikipedia that you would like to see such an expert perform? Since he isn't creating articles, does what he does make up for that with what else he's doing, in your mind? Or is he in reality often doing what I have observed in this area, and deleting information and indeed whole articles for reasons which barely stand up to scrutiny. Does your interest here stretch to examining what he has done, or are you solely focused on me? Given your passionate belief that editing here is a privilege not a right, would you perhaps like to comment on whether or not someone who removes information from an article on the grounds "it's in the source anyway", is abusing that privilege or not? What about someone who is playing fast and loose with the phrases like "there's literally no sources", or with the definition of a directory or indiscriminate information or a timetable any of the other NOTs he invokes but which never seem to translate into a proper, English language, justification for his actions, unless you take one particular interpretation based on some pretty shaky assumptions, and then just ignore everything else that contradicts it (or more accurately, anyone else). My extensive knowledge is on display in all the places I've been commenting at, including on people's talk pages. I didn't challenge Davey to write the London Northern article for a laugh or to troll or harass, I did it to expose the fact that even though he claims to know more about buses than me, this was quite clearly a total lie (I didn't even know at that time that he hadn't yet created a single article on Wikipedia). My intelligence is on display when I spot people abusing the rules to get outcomes they personally want due to their various likes/dislikes, rather than to get Wikipedia articles as close as is humanly possible to being a complete summary of all available information in reliable independent sources, whether they be online or offline. I have the intelligence and the knowledge to be able to do that for this topic, if I put my mind and about a million man hours into it, which I think scares the shit out of you, for pretty obvious reasons. Hence your multiple attacks on me, which long ago ceased to be based on anything I've actually done, or so it seems to me anyway. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not reading another one of your WP:TLDR comments until you write them in a way that a human being can read them. If I see something that's succinct and to the point, using paragraph breaks and less than 1K bytes, I'll try to read it and respond, but if you're just going to piss all over the many editors telling you that you're too verbose, I'm not bothering. BMK (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
        • And yet you'd gladly have me spend all my time to write a thousand times more words to create articles which you can't even begin to appreciate are even missing, let alone write yourself, just to prove my worth to you, and all for free. It's pretty obvious who's being pissed on and whose being shat on in this particular scenario. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Ah, ah, ah! Remember, "creating articles" is your red herring, we're talking about improving articles.

            In any case you clearly have not an iota of a wink of a jot of a conception of the difference between writing to improve the encyclopedia and the kind of verbal diarrhea you've been letting loose in Wikipedia space and on user talk pages, which doesn't improve the encyclopedia in any way shape or form and just adds unnecessary bulk. Yet another reason to indef block you, I'm afraid. (And, sorry, we never pay for anything, whether it's useful editing or random spew. BMK (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

            • I'm afraid I do. It's you who clearly doesn't appreciate the benefit to Wikipedia of people like me, subject experts, working to prevent the needless loss of information in a topic area, information which you would surely see was perfectly valid and acceptable if you only stopped to pass a critical eye and a healthy dose of common sense to the reasons people like Davey are using to delete it. You must have a screw loose not to be able to realise that if you can't repair the holes being left by the cowboys faster than you can build new walls using qualified builders, your precious encyclopedia is doomed. I mean seriously, do I have to ask for a third time what you, the almighty protector of Wikipedia, thinks of someone removing information from an article on the grounds it's in the source anyway? I mean hello.....I've just given you a slam dunk example of someone doing something that nobody here can deny is just monumentally stupid, yet it's being greeted by you, the person who holds improvement of Wikipedia as the One True Ring, with total and utter silence. Which is exactly what happened when they did it to the article. It only got fixed because I was following that editor and saw him do it, and exercised my right, or privilege, or whatever the fuck you want to call it, to fix what he had broken. You don't want me to follow that guy? You wan't to believe his crocodile tears and buy into his claims of stalking or harassment, just because I applied a little bit of common sense, logic, and yes, your own goddamn rules to what he's doing, and to all those AFDs, then fine. It's your project to fuck up I guess, since I was apparently never part of it anyway. I'll take my fancy book learning and my educashun and improve someone else's encyclopedia. Maybe I'll contribute to one of the printed works which call themselves encyclopedias of trams, trolleybuses or buses, the things that real Wikipedia people like Dave the so called bus enthusiast have never even heard of! Square that circle if you can. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
              • Of the many articles you've created here, which would you say are your top 5 or 10 best efforts? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
                • Out of the thousands of people you must have similarly tried to provoke with such obvious attempts at trolling, which do you think were the top 10 comebacks? Pick any one off that list and substitute it here by way of reply. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
                  • I don't think I've ever asked that question before, but I've never talked to a subject expert before (I'm guessing your expertise is in profane and abusive language). So your comment tops the list, by default. And is your comment a hint that you have not actually created any articles here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
                    • It was a hint that I'm in no mood to entertain any more obvious trolls today. It's a shame you didn't take it, as now I have to be so crass as to directly tell you to go and get your kicks elsewhere. No soup for you today. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
                      • Are you saying you have created articles here? Under which user ID(s)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
                        • All of them. All your article are belong to us. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support IBan between User:Notforlackofeffort and User:Davey2010 If that is why you think he is here, just IBAN him and if he violates it, it is an easy block. --Obsidi (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support block, it seems quite clear from the text above that User:Notforlackofeffort is mainly here to argue and pick fights with others. The long, rambling, pseudo-intellectual essays provided as responses here are as clear an illustration of the Dunning–Kruger effect as one could ask for. Perhaps unblock if they agree to cease all personal attacks and a mentor is appointed to keep them on the straight and narrow, although looking at their contributions, where one has to comb finely to find anything unambiguously positive, I'm not struck by a sense of optimism. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

  I agree. I have clearly miscalculated the capacity of other people here to tell the difference between legitimately following a user because they're breaking the rules, and stalking them for the purposes of harassment. I also completely underestimated the capacity of people here to recognise the difference between calling someone an asshole, and criticising people for failings to follow Wikipedia policy for reasons which stem solely from their own personal situation, such as a lack of expertise. I also simply underestimated the capacity for people here to just be completely biased toward existing users and hostile to new ones. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support block. Not one ounce of sincerity detectable in that user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  Ah, see, now, I knew there would be a price to be paid for not entertaining you. Sorry I didn't bite, but if that makes me insincere, I guess I'll just have to live with that. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  Your ID and any socks being sent to the wiki-phantom zone will be sufficient entertainment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  See, I had you pegged from the start. Maybe you need to get some real entertainment in your life, especially now that the Ministry for the Bleeding Obvious has just reported and, surprise surprise, it turns out I'm not Astbam. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI is not supposed to be Wikipedia's version of the Colosseum where we engage in the public spectacle of thumbs-up, thumbs-down block this editor! (e.g. WP:PITCHFORKS). The first thing I notice is this thread was opened without any discussion by the OP on NFLOE's talk page [72]. NE Ent 11:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I was already aware of his intentions. I had known what he was planning after I intercepted his 'secret' communication he was hoping to conduct on Davey's talk page. It's what we like to call 'good skills' at stalker school. And I suppose if we're being generous, Kinu telling me "I have nothing to say here. Have a good day" when I confronted him, sort of counts as discussion, right? It's certainly more discussion I've had with a lot of people here during that process they like to call collaboration anyway. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent: I felt that the back-and-forth with this editor at the indicated AfDs (that went nowhere) counted as attempts at communication. That being said, other editors have also attempted to engage him and encourage him to drop the stick, but these attempts were just as fruitless. Given the total lack of constructive conversation from the other side, it seemed more reasonable to get other sets of eyes about this editor's repeated behavior and to have the community consider what "action" could be taken... that being a broad term and not necessarily referring to a block (interaction ban? mentorship? other options?).

Notforlackofeffort: there was nothing "secret" about my communication with Davey2010; it's out there for all to see, as is everything else on this site. I avoided pinging you because I didn't want you to dig your own hole deeper with yet another wall of text, yet you chose to do that on my talk page. Honestly, I actually figured you would find it anyway, but your persistent belief that this was something that you feel you shouldn't have seen lends credence to the suspicion that you are stalking him. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Key word being back-and-forth Discussing NFLOE on the Afd page was just as wrong as his discussing Davey2010. Often showing someone how we want them to interact is more effective than telling them. NE Ent 23:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about this one. I don't think that voting here on an indefinite block in this case is truly warranted. He will likely be indeffed anyway, but I don't honestly believe that it is the correct response unless serious evidence warranting an indef is discovered/put forth. Doc talk 13:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I just realised, the guy who started this whole thing buggered off shortly after it started, never to be seen again. And the same goes for the guy who started the sock-puppet investigation too. And Davey is on a "wikibreak" too, presumably to recover from all the stress I've caused him. Is that a Wikipedia thing? Drop people in the snake pit, and run away, laughing? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Or, you know, they're volunteers here and have lives outside of Wikipedia? Sam Walton (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These kinds of statements really don't help you. Generally, the simplest explanation is correct: it's the holidays.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I am not familiar with the original dispute and don't plan to read it. However, User:Notforlackofeffort, you are in a hole and are continuing to dig. Many of your comments are too long, difficult to read, and some of them that are easy to read are just snarky and hostile. If you really think that Wikipedia is such a horrible place, you don't have to stay here. If you want to be a Wikipedian, be concise and civil. Please stop digging a hole. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

We have an article about that. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Leaning to support as long as this editor appears to have not taken the point that there is something wrong in his behaviour, nor he expressed any intention to change this attitude. Cavarrone 20:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Dragging someone to ANI so a bunch of folks can poke at them generally isn't a very effective means to that end. NE Ent 23:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Get over it, Ent, the guy's an obvious troll and a free-rider, he's not here to improve the encyclopedia, he's been dead clear about that, and your whining about piddling shit isn't going to help him, just annoy the rest of us. We're well past the stage where this can collapse back onto his talk page. BMK (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support block - my efforts to counsel the editor at User talk:Notforlackofeffort#Challenge were met with a torrent of abuse, as it appears was everyone else. Unfortunately some people are just not cut out to be wiki editors.

As someone who has edited bus articles extensively and has a reasonably good knowledge of the subject matter, although I wouldn't be as egotistical to describe myself as extremely intelligent, from an online perspective there is not much to be added to justify a stand alone London Northern article than already given at MTL (transport company)#MTL London. I am sure there are printed sources, but as the editor cannot/will not be forthcoming with these which he asserts exist, then per branch policy a stand alone article cannot be justified. Busgb (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Sectarian Agenda WikiStalking

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

---

• FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been Wikipedia:Wikistalking by proposing two articles that I created for deletion and one article from 2007 that edited also for deletion. [73], [74] and [75]. He has also tried to declare me as vandal but it failed [76].I simply removed the redirect and restored the page Islam in Kerala [77]. Then FreeatlastChitchat cyberstalking me edit the page and removed the previous editors historical information

from the page and added his sectarian Ahmadiyya info to the page. When he reverted his page and restored the information that he has deleted he called that vandalism. FreeatlastChitchat has made the major changes in that article while I have restored the article and wikified few words. he has been involved revert edit war in that page.I would like a resolution of this dispute. Thanks. Nestwiki (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As I do not engage in or condone edit wars. My stance is as follows.

• The articles which I tagged for deletion DID require deletion. you can view my Talk page to see that.

At least one other user was of the same view as is evident from his message on my talk page.

Hello FreeatlastChitchat, I agree with your reason to propose deletion of Pakistan Institute for Parliamentary Services, if you were to bring it up with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, I would support the article's deletion. Also, with Papri chaat, I would recommend proposing a Merge with Chaat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Hope this helps, Happy editing! Pjposullivan (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please go ahead and propose all my newly created articles for deletion especially Pakistan Institute for Parliamentary Services. Nestwiki (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• You can see from the history of edits by Nestwiki that he ALWAYS tries to vandalise/edit ahmadiyya related articles. He was warned once before by another user but his agenda continues. If you look at his recent contributions you will see that he has sustained history of disrupting ahmadiyya pages, hence his agenda is against Ahmadiyyah.
• If you look at the pages which have both me and him as the editor you will see that he has reverted me multiple times without any explanation. This was his "getting back at me" for tagging his pages for deletion. Which I did in good faith. This is borderline ridiculous.
• He mentions the Page about Kerala Muslism. I edited the page to include the fact that the Kerala Court has given its decision that Ahmadis are muslims. This is a major major event in the history of Islam in Kerala. Therefore I added it to the section.

Nestwiki then deleted this and wrote in the edit summary (WIKIFY). How this blatant POV deletion comes under wikify, only he can tell.

I also removed the unsourced parts of the section which were POV. a simple example is my removal of the sentence that all important mosques have a madrassa attached for religious education. This is unconfirmed by any reliable source and cannot be sustained. Which mosque will you consider "important"? the Sunni mosque or the Shia mosque?

Seeing this I removed this.

I also removed blatant POV sentences like "Below them are Arabs, said to derive from Arab inter-marriages with Indian women". Below in what may I ask? If muslims are made of different sects , with each sect a completely different hierarchy, then how can this be true?

I have explained the reasons for my edits and the reaction of this user. I will be looking forward to hearing from an admin on this issue , thank you.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As a quick observation here from an admin, WP:AIV should never be used to intercede in what looks like a straightforward content dispute. The way that WP:Proposed deletion works means that anyone may tag and article and anyone may remove that tag, however it should not be used for cases that are likely to be controversial. IF you really think an article needs to go, try WP:AFD, where it will get a review from the community who will hopefully be impartial. I don't see anything in either edit history that even remotely justifies the spite that you two seem to have for each other, I'd suggest the best solution would be for both you to go to lengths to avoid crossing paths with the other, for now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

FreeatlastChitchat is a sectarian contributor whose contribution is limited to adding Ahmadiyya agenda to all Islam related page. Now has added Wikipedia:Wikistalking to his portfolio. Nestwiki (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I am dealing with the issues relating to Islam in Kerala at the article itself. Whatever the problem there may be, it is clearly a content dispute. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush. Nestwiki (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Would like to get this resolved so I can finally be rid of this guy. He has now started to copy/paste the same message on numerous talk pages.

The text reads "FreeatlastChitchat a serial sectarian contributor now has added Wikipedia:Wikistalking to his portfolio."

He has plastered it at these places, I have no idea why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nestwiki#December_2014

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wanishahrukh#Pakistan_Institute_for_Parliamentary_Services

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TopGun#Pakistan_Institute_for_Parliamentary_Services

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan_Institute_for_Parliamentary_Services#Deletions_attempts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grave_worshiping#Unreliable_source

Usually this kind of hate is water off my back but I don't like it when some one starts to spread hate around.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

While I do not condone the wording of the messages left to the few random people above (including me), I think the prod of the PIPS article was hasty and atleast of equal disruption. This is probably a content dispute so it's best that you two stop interacting with each other and stop opening each other's contributions history unless you want to escalate it further into a behavioural issue. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with --lTopGunl (talk). I would appreciate it that I am not mentioned in random hate messages. If the admins just enforce that he does not link me in the messages then I will appreciate it. He can just write my name instead of using the link. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Still going on. Everytime he mentions me on some random page and tries to spread hate I itch to pay him back in the same but that will most likely lead to warring. WHY cannot he be cautioned by the admins? And just why in the name of all that is sweet and sour does he have to come at me? Cuz I tagged a couple of his pages for deletion? big meh. Pages get tagged all the damn time. They lacked sources so I tagged them. Why is he so possessive of the goddamn pages? Am I supposed to apologize to the creator everytime I edit/tag a page? Can someone PLEASE explain why he has such hate? I will be looking forward to cessation of this hate mongering. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I tested how committed User:Nestwiki is to this foolishness by using a RPA template on just one of his copy paste personal attacks under the provisions of WP:NPA. He has restored the offensive material 3 times now. Can someone sanction please?

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

SqueakBox and porn again

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

---

Per overwhelming consensus at #Proposed Topic ban for SqueakBox on all Porn articles (Votes), SqueakBox (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pornogrpahy-related articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

---

I reverted SqueakBox's blanking[78] of all the names of people involved in the video anthology Dirty Diaries. This included the name of producer Mia Enberg who is mentioned in several of the dozen or so references in the article. The article has a dozen or so references and none of the participants are listed as porn actors, but listed as directors (though some of them are performers as well). Two of them fairly notable, especially Ester Martin Bergsmark and to some extent Johanna Rytel. Besides obviously being listed by name in the actual films, there's confirmation of this at the film database[79] of the Swedish Film Institute. All of these references were present in the article at the time of the blanking.

I posted[80] a notice at SqueakBox's talkpage, but was then alerted to the fact that the user has been involved in controversial porn-related editing before and found this discussion. SqueakBox's editing is extremely heavy-handed and in this case, it's clear that there hasn't been even a minimal attempt to check existing references. This type of sloppiness is inexcusable. I'm not in the least interested in getting dragged into SqueakBox's contentious BLP drama on my own, so I'm posting here as a preventive measure.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that similarly absurd edits have been made in articles about mainstream porn films.[81][82][83] The level of sheer bloodymindedness is aptly illustrated by the removal of the names of both Jenna Jameson and Briana Banks from the article on the film Briana Loves Jenna.

This has nothing to do with upholding the spirit of WP:BLP. Please consider a warning or topic ban unless this behavior stops.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the BLP vio that admins should be investigating. Removing unsourced BLP violations is not behaviour that needs to concern admins. Peter, you ned to explain why removing BLP violations "is absurd" and why removing them should be of interest to admins. I have not yet been censured for removing BLP violations, I dont believe I will be either as I am simply enforcing our most important policy. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never heard anything quite so absurd in my life. Let me get this right - you removed the names of Jenna Jameson and Briana Banks - both well-known pornographic actresses, the former one of the most famous in the world, from an article about a movie called "Briana loves Jenna", starring both of them (strangely enough), because you claimed there wasn't a reliable source saying they were in it? Despite the fact there are reliable sources in it? I have reverted you (and I am the third editor to do so - you are at 3RR). Your stance on unsourced lists and articles I could totally stand behind - but that example is simply disruptive. Really, stop now. Black Kite (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

SqueakBox How's that an BLP ? Sure doesn't look like one to me. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

SqueakBox, The wording in WP:BLPSOURCES is that material that is "unsourced or poorly sourced" is fair game for removal. No disagreement there. This is not the case in either Dirty Diaries or Briana Loves Jenna. The sources are properly given, if not repeated for every single time the name is mentioned. If this is a requirement, I'd like to know where this is stated, either in practice or consensus discussions. It's also unclear why a film itself, a publicly available document, would not be enough to establish the names of the actors or directors starring in it.

Your actions in Briana Loves Jenna speak for themselves. You are single-handedly manufacturing the contentiousness stipulated in WP:BLP, which is merely disruptive.

In Dirty Diaries, Engberg's name is mentioned in something like half the sources. Marit Östberg is even the author of one of one of those sources, and it's published in Aftonbladet, the largest newspaper in Sweden. Johanna Rytel is explicitly mentioned in one of the reviews, also in an established regional newspaper.[84] And so forth.[85] Under "External links", there's a link[86] to the film data base of the Swedish Film Institute that lists all of those mentioned in the article. Again, as if the film itself wasn't enough. You obviously did not bother to look up a single one of those. In fact, you don't seem to have read anything beyond the lead and the infobox. I know that because you were so quick to blank names that you left the list of the individual films intact with those same names.[87] You don't seem to even be thinking your contributions through. Fighting BLP violations does not mean you can leave any semblance of competence behind.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy, this isn't ANI:List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films all over again, is it? That mess created A LOT of work for a great many Editors with little perceptible improvement to the average Reader IMO when all was said and done. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Not limited to just the above articles

Unfortunately this is more widespread. User Guy1890 posted this list of articles on the Porn Project Talk page that SqueakBox has been rather drastically editing. What makes this especially concerning is the fact that the Notability of porn actor articles is tied directly to wins of these awards.

• 27th AVN Awards
• 28th AVN Awards
• 29th AVN Awards
• 30th AVN Awards
• 31st AVN Awards

I guess maybe this is the incident with the List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films all over again.Damnit SqueakBox, why start this up again without ANY communication first?? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Topic ban for SqueakBox on all Porn articles (Votes)

• I suggest that SqueakBox be Topic banned from such articles, as the mass removal of actor/actress names that are easy to verifiable is purely disruptive. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. The edits to Briana Loves Jenna (including edit warring) and Dirty Diaries are the worst in my view, but these[88][89] are essentially the same thing even if the actors aren't as obviously notable as Jameson and Banks. The havoc wreaked on the AVN Awards articles is also nearly meaningless, especially removal of the names of people like James Deen or Skin Diamond.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. I've seen enough disruption. Legacypac (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose BLP patrol is important and a lynching because you don't agree with it would have a chilling effect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I kept an eye on this last time. While good faith could of been used last time, the continued removal of what appears to be well sourced content under BLP is just too much for me. Reluctant support for a topic ban from all porn-related articles. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support and Spartaz how about redacting the "lynching" part, that's very much an N.P.A. Bear in mind SqueakBox still hasn't answered how his removal qualifies as a BLP, he's just continued claim of BLP. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Spartaz, speaking of bearing in mind,[90] SqeuakBox seems to be extending the idea that just about anything related to non-normative sexuality is contentious and apt for immediate blanking. Like mentioning that Tom Goss has a song about bears called "Bears" in the article about bears (without an inline citation, God forbid). A statement about named actors in Glee made bear-related jokes was blanked in the same edit.

He also removed the name of Tori Black from the infobox in Tori Black Is Pretty Filthy,[91] but kept the image of a topless Tori Black on the cover image and left her name in three other places further down in the article. Same thing with Alexis Texas in Alexis Texas Is Buttwoman.[92]

Peter ^Isotalo 18:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo, Squeak is not alone in this belief, so please do not judge him too harshly or solely on this. This is a site wide problem that should be addressed by WikiProject Countering systemic bias and treated as such. Anything dealing with politics, religion, or human sexuality seems to bring out the worst in many Editors. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo, those covers are directly from the pornographic film itself. It seems with your comment that you're taking somewhat of an issue with the cover itself, when it's just a pornographic film. We're not going to use some other cover to illustrate the film itself. But uh, if I'm seeing it wrong--that SqueakBox is removing names where seriously, their name is in the article of the piece, then yes, that's outrageous and he needs to lay off. I'm a bit surprised however when this came up circa 2 months ago, there was -a lot- more people willing to topic ban him, but it wasn't actioned. Seems like he pricked a few wrong nerves or took it too far. Tutelary (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, I have no objections to the cover as such. I just noted the obvious contradiction between zapping someone's name but choosing to keep a topless image of the same person. The disconnect is striking. It's not just inappropriate editing, it's extremely bad BLP patrolling. Peter ^Isotalo 18:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, you have a point. I've said my piece.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support In prior occasions of this issue I felt this was not an issue. But this is getting out of hand. If there are BLP problems they can be handled by someone else as this user is not handling it logically. Chillum 18:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose or Support temporary TBan simply for the reason that I know from the previous incident that SqueakBox is well intentioned. But starting this up again on such a widespread basis and going after the core articles (the awards) of the project without any prior communication is just plain insulting to every Editor that productively edits these articles. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• BLP enforcement is vitally important, but requires a measure of common sense. This is taking things well beyond the point of absurdity. Perhaps SqueakBox will agree to voluntarily drop the stick and engage on talk pages. If not, then I don't see any other option than a topic ban. Even if he is acting in good faith, good faith is not (in itself) sufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. SqueakBox has demonstrated in their reply here and in their edit summaries that they consider any involvement in porn to be a bad thing bringing the BLP provisions against defamation into play. This makes them unable to edit porn articles neutrally, and there was apparently extensive support for a topic ban when this came up previously. The editor still has this problem, and is damaging articles as a result. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't edit porn articles but it is very unreasonable to suggest it is a BLP violation to list an actress as being in a movie that contains her name in the title and naked body on the cover. Tyler Perry's House of Payne does not have a cite in the infobox for Tyler Perry's involvement either. Why is this taking so long to ban him from Porn, an area he claims to know little about anyway. Legacypac (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support, as IIRC I did the first time around. ansh666 01:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - I am not active on this subject area, and I'm pretty heavy-handed when it comes to BLPs myself; but there is literally no condoning this sort of behaviour. WP:CIR, and I'm not seeing any evidence of this. Removing names of the main actors in a self-titled film, regardless of the subject matter, is bonkers. So is removing names and leaving in the pictures. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• If I remember correctly, I opposed sanctions last time this came up, but this is rapidly turning into a competence issue. The edits do seem well-intentioned, but if SqueakBox is unwilling to bring his views into line with mainstream BLP interpretation, it looks like a topic ban might be necessary to prevent further disruption. It would perhaps allay my fears of further disruption if SqueakBox acknowledged the consensus in this thread. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on pornography-related topics. While enforcing the BLP policy is important, Squeakbox seems to not understand that their extreme view of the BLP policy is not supported by the majority of the community. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 11:58, January 1, 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I also support our BLP policy, but it is not a "free pass" for editing against clear consensus that no plausible BLP issue exists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Per Chillum, Cullen328, and others, while there may well be a BLP issue here, this particular user seems ill-suited to the task, causing more disruption than benefit. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic-ban from porn (as alternative to DE/TE block) as violation of BLP policy by Squeak, for long-term refusal to accept cites and reliable sources as meeting verifiability burden for biographical claims. WP:V is how WP works; removing cited and otherwise-obviously verifiably correct info as being unsupported is not how WP works. CIR-fail trumps AGF. DMacks (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are problems with the way this user handles these issues, but there are also significant BLP issues that need to be addressed here, and topic bans even for overzealous BLP enforcement may have a chilling effect on good faith attempts to enforce the policy. Is there any reason this user's disruption can't be handled with a few ref tags? Gamaliel (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Sadly no. This editor is wholesale deleting obvious material like the actress's name in self titled films. They claim BLP reasons, but clearly nothing to do with BLP. Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Removal of sourced edits on the Nagorno-Karabakh article

• Zimmarod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hablabar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Zimmarod is both constantly removing my sourced additions on the Nagorno-Karabakh article despite that they're completely sourced with reliable sources. He/she is using arguments such as "rv anon; dubious sources" to disregard entire large edits, or, now even more interestingly putting in his edit description "Rv per WP:BATTLEGROUND, in reference to "This is insane" remark"., because I told that removing entire sourced additions easily like that, is insane. He/she is obviously reverting and acting here with an agenda per WP:JDL, as it's quite a politically active topic. He also switches between his presumably two accounts (Zimmarod and Hablabar) who edit on the exact same articles, write the exact same edit summaries [[93]], [[94]], and have the exact same usage of language.[[95]][[96]]

You can't just disregard sourced edits like that I think. Especially if you happen to use two accounts to hide behind this. I brought it here to have this problem solved asap instead of turning it into an edit war. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The interaction analyzer is pretty clear something is going on. The interaction timing goes back over a year for editors who intersect like this and it extends to Georgian scripts and more importantly the talk page which shows both editors interacting and not using edit summaries at all.[97]. Though Roses&guns also appears connected. The only question is meatpuppetry or socking? All editors with 500 or less being involved and supporting each other in a very unusual way over such a strange addition in the previous case.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Today I received a report that my name was mentioned. I would run a full sock search for 94.210.203.230 among the recently banned authors or those with a record of sanctions who were active on that page. Something indeed is going on and we need to figure out who is 94.210.203.230 and why she/he displays POV demeanor. All kinds of "info" is often "sourced" from unreliable and dubious sources and that "info" should be removed. You should go and explain why you think your "info" is worth keeping. Hablabar (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: As an uninvolved non-Admin editor I've looked into the disputed additions and deletions on Nagorno-Karabakh, including the sourcing. In my estimation 94.210.203.230 work is well sourced and good additions while Zimmarod and Hablabar are reverting without reasonable cause = edit warring. A minor issue against 94.210.203.230 is the use of Mesrob Mashtots over Mesrop Mashtots with Mesrop being the preferred English spelling (though I suspect that the b is used in some other languages including Spanish.) Legacypac (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. This is just ridiculous. Not only the fact that he/she constantly removes my good and well sourced additions without any reasonable cause, but also that he/she hides under presumably two accounts in order to continue with his/her "this is my neighborhood and only I own it" activities. Both these facts already are clearly violating numerous Wiki policies. Anyhow, I hope this can be fixed asap and I can restore my well made, and well sourced additions to the article. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

94.210.203.230 has asked me to resolve this situation lest it go stale, but as I noted at my talk page, I don't have time today, so I'm just moving this section to the bottom so that it gets someone else's attention more readily. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Observation and Suggestion

This appears to be an edit-war over Georgian scripts. Georgia (country) is in the Caucasus, which is the boundary between Europe and Asia as traditionally defined. Therefore parts of Georgia are in Eastern Europe, as traditionally defined, and this edit-war is subject to WP:ARBEE. Take this to arbitration enforcement to get the SPAs and disruptive editors topic-banned. If they are sock-puppets, report them at WP:SPI. (Aspersions or unsupported claims of sock-puppetry are personal attacks.) Stop wasting the time of "the community" when there is a streamlined forum for dealing with this edit war. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason I brought it up here is not because that edit war that happened some time ago, (I haven't checked his other violations as of yet in depth) but the fact that he keeps removing my well sourced/valid edits without a single normal reason. I will make an SPI later for the other issues, but the main reason I brought it up here is for the reason I just mention now again; aka the extremely annoying and disruptive removing of my well sourced additions to the Nagorno-Karabakh article without any reason..... - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks on RfA by this IP

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

---

Can somebody please delete 2600:1008:b009:6d32:d665:f9a5:1706:1eca's personal attacks against rcsprinter123 and his request for adminship? Link to revisions and much more (check the revision history): [98] Sincerely, StormContent 20:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You man you want the revisions deleted? Calling somebody an "asshole", while hardly helpful, does not come close to meeting the the criteria (that page also explicitly says that RevDel is not to be used for "ordinary" incivility, attacks, or for claims of editorial misconduct). Randykitty blocked the IP, so I don't see that there's anything much left to do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur. The transparency is preferred here. Didn't some president use that word once? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The revisions deleted? Perhaps it couldn't hurt to just review the revs first? This IP repeated the attacks many times it didn't just stalk the nominee but maybe an entire group of judges before the IP's block kicked into effect (just thinking). Who ever thought doing something like that? Besides, It's more like an harsh insult. StormContent 20:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobody likes being called an asshole, but it's hardly "grossly offensive, insulting, or degrading". Most admins get called worse than that on a daily basis. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

...but incompetent, immature, and a "hat collector"? These make everything else unfair for the RfA, and to give empathy, I feel the candidate's pain. StormContent 21:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Look more closely at the history. That particular piece of bile came from an established editor, though I've also removed that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur again. Someone once described looking at changes on Wikipedia as like staring into the open end of a raw sewage pipe. Happy editing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

(strong oppose) says the edit summary, but on Cloudchased's talk page rcsprinter123 is interested why the user willing to use words like the 3 above degrading. Does this mean the word "asshole" is degrading too? StormContent 21:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Can this issue be marked resolved now? To me I guess the purpose of this ANI entry is to remove any leftover personal attack or review the attack revisions by the IP... we still have that criticism but I think the worst is over? Reply with no if not. StormContent 23:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Impersonation account

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

---

Resolved

Just after I edited Truck driving schools in the United States and removed lots of non-notable entries, @Squinge1: account was created and continued to edit the article - looks like someone trying to impersonate me. Squinge (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks :-) Squinge (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Spotlesssunshine acting disruptive to consensus on Talk:Elite: Dangerous

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elite:_Dangerous#Refund_Quest - Section in question for reference.

Argument has moved from factual nature of article and article's validity as to whether the publication is a valid WP:RS (The Register is a long standing internet publication in the tech sector and is considered to be a fairly reliable second tier source of news in the profession), when the argument failed on that front the user then moved to have the article reframed as part of a larger section concerning social media and it's effect on Frontier's refund policy (this is extremely debatable because there's not yet any real citable sources that suggest such a thing has occurred), and finally when that element didn't stick the user then decided to argue the same route that got HyperspaceCloud temp banned by generating speculative conspiracy theories based on "opposition research" via some very tenuous links through reddit (see infringing WP:DOX and WP:FAITH).

Rather than just concede the matter and move on to more constructive and useful ground, the user seems hell bent on forcing through their specific vision and changes regardless of disruption or damage to consensus, has been caught making unilateral changes to the page (and later apologised) and in general has not been constructive in the sense of providing meaningful and useful dialog. Requesting a time-out for this user so we can focus on getting consensus re-established and get back to constructing the page in good order.LostPackets (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If it is not beyond the rules for me to post my own perspective here?

There is a reference in the Elite Dangerous Wikipedia page that refers to a singular incidence of a refund requester creating a game in parallel to the larger issue of removal of offline mode. The game itself does not reference Frontier or Elite Dangerous at all and the only correlation able to be drawn is from an opinion based hearsay article posted on The Register. There is no factual representation at all. Any attempt to highlight this fact is met with accusations of ill faith. For the record I am not HyperspaceCloud and will more than happily submit to any required requests for proof.

Accepted I made a couple of unilateral edits that I have categorically apologized for and assured the other editors that I would not do so again. As part of this I have been subject to two counts of direct abuse from external users editing useing anonymous IP only accounts. With regards to being constructive, I have made several suggestions for increasing accuracy and content all of which have been directly quashed by LostPackets for unknown reasons beyond 'lets wait to see what happens'. My concern with the specific point of contention is the following:

1) the evidence provided to back up the representation of 'facts' is hearsay 2) Any attempt at contextualising and more clearly categorising is quashed often by citing accusations of ill faith 3) Any attempt at adding additional information to the article is challenged so moving beyond the issue is difficult without outright conceding the point (accepting what is not demonstrably factual as fact). It has also been met with 'I'm just not going to talk about it as it's already been agreed upon' despite new evidence being presented.

There is adequate evidence presented to at the very least raise the question as to whether the reference lends anything to the article and as to whether it is actually valid as factual or situationally accurate. This discussion is solely between myself and LostPackets and I have requested other editors weigh in but they have not been forthcoming. Addition input from Administration would be appreciated.

It must also be pointed out that I have in almost all other cases submitted to consensus and dropped the case. Regarding Refund quest - I see no agreenance of consensus beyond that stated by LostPackets Spotlesssunshine (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

"The secondary source we're using clearly links it to Dangerous. --McGeddon (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Verified cite source 60's connection to cite source 59, the two are intrinsically linked and therefore the existence of both sources and their relevance to the wiki article seem justified. Cite source 59 satisfies criteria for WP:RS, this looks pretty solid if you take everything as a whole. LostPackets (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Well that's good enough for me, I guess it stays then. Thanks McGeddon and LostPackets. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)"

Consensus was established two days ago, and yet you persist in attempting to derail the matter by retreading old ground. Give it a *break* already. LostPackets (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Have I not just clearly demonstrated that the citation is hearsay and have requested those that decided on consensus to subsequently weigh in again? I don't think that this is an unreasonable or overly belligerent request?Spotlesssunshine (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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

User:IZAK harsh incivility

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

---

I am reporting User:IZAK for incivility and a possible threat. The editor is complaining about Wikipedia cheers templates I sent, one sent in October for a Halloween Cheer! and this December for a Seasonal Greetings!. Apparently the editor believes that I'm up to something, but I'm not up to anything at all as I explained: [99]. IZAK then started accusing me of "spamming" and requested I send "Jewish holidays only" instead of apparently "bombard" the editor's talk page with holiday cheers, which I only sent two so far: [100]. I became upset and told the editor that this discussion over two templates was "pathetic": [101], then IZAK sent me this semi-threat and viewed my archives as leverage for accusation: [102]: "given from what I read here of other users' obvious irritation with your patterns of uncalled for behavior, I would strongly suggest you take a look at WP:SPIDERMAN before you get yourself in over your head with trouble you don't need. Consider this a warning! Take care." The entire discussion is on my talk page and not very long. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: I wanted to add this ending of reply, but I removed it: [103] — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The user requested you didn't fill their talk page with holiday templates, and that's not an unreasonable request at all. I don't know why this is an issue? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Move to close. I read through the entire linked discussion; I laughed when IZAK asked you to send a silent message in the future and I cried when you continued harassing him after he asked you to stop. All in all, it wasn't worth the price of admission, the sound was too loud and there was something squishy on the floor. Since there's nothing for anyone to do here other than pick up a BOOMERANG from concessions on the way out of this bad romcom, I give this thread two thumbs down. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently this is a laughing matter, I already know what's going to happen then. I want this report closed. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Dude, have some compassion. I'm trying to spare you and everyone else from reading IZAK's 5,000 word reply. Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This exchange was good for a laugh. I'm going to keep sending cheer even if it annoys you! Agree, please close thread. Legacypac (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Help with non-standard list

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

---

I'm not sure where I should go for help with this one, so I thought I'd ask here and hopefully someone can direct me. I found Truck driving schools in the United States, which was a mess of all sorts of unlinked non-notable driving schools and basically just being used as a company directory - see this version. I cleaned out all the unlinked entries, added the usual request to keep the list to entries that have Wikipedia articles, and then a new account (@Spoontoon:) was created and reinstated them all again. I reverted and gave the new user the appropriate policies, that Wikipedia is not a directory etc (and noted them on the article talk page). Now the user has apparently created another new account (@SpoonToon2:) and reinstated all the non-notable entries again. I obviously don't want to get into an edit war, so what do I do to get this person to follow policies and to discuss rather than just revert? And, indeed, to get some feedback on whether I'm right here? (Finally, I apologise for my rude edit summary in the article this morning, which was due to early-morning frustration). Squinge (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

And just a thought; with an edit summary of "Wikipedia is not for helping people? Really? No wonder they have to beg for money", this doesn't sound like a genuine new user. Also, my changes to this article attracted an impersonator by the name of @Squinge1:, which is similar format to the above (ie name and number) , so things are looking a bit suspicious to me. Squinge (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole article should be deleted - Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Only the community colleges, not the private businesses, would merit their own article, and then only because they are colleges, not driving schools. So nominated for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll comment there. Squinge (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Denisarona

This user appears to do very little except revert people's edits, and as far as I can see they never leave an informative edit summary. I challenged them recently to explain why they undid two of my edits [104], and they responded by undoing a third edit for no reason whatsoever [105]. They then removed the talk page discussion.[106] They further removed a warning to use edit summaries, making a personal attack as they did so.[107]

This kind of behaviour is immensely damaging to Wikipedia. I hope someone will take steps to discourage it. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Most complaints of this sort are by vandals annoyed at being caught, so let me start by saying that 200.83.101.225 appears to be in the right. Denisarona, what is the matter with this person's edits? Why must you treat as vandalism an edit that clearly improves a header, for example? Even if 200.83.101.225 were a banned user's sock, you wouldn't be justified in reverting an obvious improvement. Why must you insert a quotation when it's been properly paraphrased? Remember that our fair use standards prohibit the incorporation of nonfree content when it can be adequately replaced with free material, and this IP had replaced it. Do not again insert an unfairly used nonfree quote. Nyttend (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's disappointing that this user did not have the courtesy to respond here. There's virtually no community pressure or disincentive to encourage people not to behave as he did, and people who revert for no reason, to the detriment of the encyclopaedia, are very frequently encountered. For as long as they are tolerated with as little action as this case was, they'll continue to disrupt the encyclopaedia. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Where did you notify the user about this discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just notified them in case no one else did (could not see where) Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Amy Pascal

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

---

I was summoned to the article by the RfC bot, and noticed a legal threat that's somewhat stale but evidently no action was taken, and it is rather prominent on the page. See [108]. I actually have neutrality concerns about that article, as too much of it is devoted to the recent hack. But editors need to be able to deal with this article without "warnings" like this. Coretheapple (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

My impression was that it was meant to intimidate and harass, and enforce censorship of in-line referenced info. The page was temporarily protected by an administrator to stop that IP address from censoring referenced info and turning the page into a fanpage. (I felt harassed and victimised until the administrator stepped in.) I have added some referenced info about her philanthropic engagements to flesh out the page. More could be added about her career, but I was unable to find more frankly. I don't think the threat was serious, as it was mostly targeted at the vast majority of media corporations which used the word "racist" without inverted commas for her "jokes," which we did not do. The page seems completely neutral to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether serious or not, as you say it was intended to intimidate and harass, and we don't allow that. Coretheapple (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

True. I was glad when the administrator stepped in and protected the page (if temporarily). I guess I did not know I could have alerted admins here. Good to know if this ever happens again.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks a bit stale and the IP hasn't edited since then. Of course the section continues on. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely is a bit stale; I just became aware of it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Legal thread removed [109], IP warned (for what it's worth, stale, but meh) [110].

Done? Igor the bunny (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Abuse of Talk Page ownership

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

---

I feel slightly foolish raising this as an issue here, but I think an incident I have just experienced raises serious questions about the ownership of talk pages and the way in which they can be used to suppress discussion. I recently made an edit to the page Blithe Spirit (play), which was contested by another editor, and then altered by User:Ssilvers. Ssilvers chose to comment on my edit by expressing his views on my talk page [111]. Since Ssilvers had written on my talk page, I replied on his. I have alweays considered this the polite thing to do, as it leaves a visible sign that a reply has been given. My reply was, I think, polite, though critical. I wanted to explain the context of my edit [112]. The reply was very detailed. Ssilvers' response was to immediately delete the reply with the edit summary "rm old message" [113]. The message was two minutes old. I was rather shocked by this apparently lying edit summary. I restored the comment with some spelling corrections, only to find it again deleted by user:Jack1956 with the edit summary "removing from Talk Page. This is Ssilvers Talk Page - any discussion about the article should be taken to that of the article" [114]. I left messages on Jack1956's page explaining why I had commented on Ssilver's talk page (because he had first done so on mine), but these were simply deleted.

Why have I raised this here? The standard view is that editors have the right to remove content from their talk pages. I understand this, but I think that this case raises serious issues about civility and about honesty. Ssilvers chose to use personal talk pages rather than the article talk page for the issue. I politely followed his lead by replying on his talk page. This gave him the inappropriate privilage to delete my carefully explained comments and to, apparently, lie about why. Jack1956 repeated and confirmed this practice. I have previously tried to raise an issue on an editor's talk page [115], only to find that when it was transferred to the article talk page it was deleted as "inappropriate" trsnsferral from a talk page [116]. It is important that editors should not have honest, carefully thought-through material intended for discussion summarily deleted with outright dishonest edit summmaries. It is also inappropriate that "friends" of such editors should delete responses from their own pages without discussion.

This raises questions about the apparent right to use talk pages as a private space in which to justify the process of, as the old phrase has it, "dishing it out without being willing to take it". Paul B (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Paul, perhaps you were not aware, but convention states that removal of a talk page edit is acknowledgement that the message has been read. As for all the rest, I'd let it go. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not aware that you have missed the point. The reply was not a warning or other "standard message". It was on the talk page because the editor had chosen ro initiate debate on talk pages. Paul B (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Your response to my comment was uncalled for. In addition to reading WP:SIGCLEAN, brought to your attention below, also consider reading WP:BOOMERANG. Your actions here and in the referenced incident may be reviewed as a consequence of your posting here. If you are really so spoiling for an argument, perhaps you need a brief break. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Outside of removing active block templates, users have a pretty wide latitude when it comes to their own talk pages. The actions you are describing may not be civil or terribly constructive on the other user's part, but they aren't actionable either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Paul, May I direct your attention to WP:SIGCLEAN: "Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving. Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history. Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it." - SchroCat (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Schrocat, may I direct you to what I wrote. I am fully aware of existing guidelines. Repeating them misses the point. I am rasing the matter becuse I want to draw attention t what i think is an abuse of talk page privilages, as the title of thre section says. Do tyou really brlieve that it's approriate to lie in edit summaries, just because it happens to bne on a talk page? Do you think it is right that another editor (one who ia not the "owner" of the tlek page) should independently delete comments onr someomne else's talk page? The central issue here is that the guidelines themselves contain a problem. Paul B (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You'd do better starting a discussion on Talk:Blithe Spirit (play). If you get a consensus there (or nobody responds), consider your change accepted.

If the other user doesn't respond there, that's their own problem.

If you can't reach an agreement on that page, ask for input from others.

Content issues are best discussed on article talks, not user talks.

You tried a dialogue with the person, and they chose not to answer - that's fine. Doesn't matter. Igor the bunny (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You too miss the point. The editor, Ssilvers chose to initiate discussion via the talk page, not me. I would have been perfectly happy to discuss it on the article page. You also miss the point that I have also had edits removed from an article talk page because they were previously posted on a user talk page. This creates a "catch 22". Paul B (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

There's no reverts on Talk:Blithe_Spirit_(play) since 2010.

Sort out the issue with that article there. If someone reverts, that can be dealt with.

If you have problems elsewhere...explain them and show diffs. Igor the bunny (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no problem with the user removing edits from their own talk page. Igor the bunny (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Paul, I also suggest you stop being uncivil in calling the editor in question a liar. He deleted your message: it doesn't matter. He left an edit summary calling it an "old message": if he's read it and chooses to do no more, it is an old message. Again, it doesn't matter, but he's still not a liar, and the inflammatory language doesn't help anyone, if you wish to press the substantive point regarding the article, post to the article's talk page. – SchroCat (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is what really happened

• First, Paul Barlow, an experienced Wikipedian, made this edit to the Blithe Spirit (play) article. Note that he did not add a reference for his assertion, and that his edit contained several typos. He did not include an edit summary.
• Next, User:Tim riley reverted Paul Barlow's edit, with the following edit summary: "rem trivia (not supported by citation)". [117]
• Next, instead of bringing the disagreement to the article's Talk page, per WP:BRD, Barlow reinserted a similar change to his original one, this time even more poorly written, following it with the exact same reference that was already there in the text, which reference does not support his assertions that there was more than one episode of The Archers involved, and which does not make sufficiently clear how the BBC Radio 4 broadcast of the play was "directly linked" to episodes of The Archers. [118]
• I then made a series of edits to streamline and clarify the text and to remove the duplicate ref that Barlow had added. [119]
• At the same time, I added a statement to Barlow's talk page (1) mentioning the duplicate ref, (2) noting that the ref did not support the assertions that he had added, (3) trying to explain why Tim riley had assumed that his change was "trivia", (4) asking Barlow to bring the matter to the article's Talk page per WP:BRD instead of edit warring further, and (5) trying to explain what sort of reference was needed. I thought that the message was polite, under the circumstances. [120]
• Instead of going to the article's Talk page, as I had suggested, Barlow then responded with a rant on my Talk page. [121]
• I thought that his message on my Talk page contained many statements that I disagreed with, and others that were angry and unpleasant, and so I did not want to argue with him any further. If you look at the top of my Talk page, I state very clearly that I often delete messages from my talk page. Having read Barlow's message and decided not to argue with him about it, I deleted his message from my Talk page with the edit summary "rm old message", hoping that he would let the matter drop. [122]
• Next, Barlow reverted my edit on my own Talk page, reinstating his rant, and calling me a liar (?!) in his typo-filled edit summary. [123]
• Barlow also copied his rant from my talk page to his own. [124]
• One of my friendly Talk page stalkers, User:Jack1956, then reverted Barlow's edit. [125]
• Barlow also posted to Jack's Talk page, complaining that Jack was trying to "suppress discussion". [126]
• Jack deleted this, and Barlow then demanded a reply from Jack. [127]
• Barlow next opened this "discussion", but he did not inform me of it. Another editor had to point it out to me.

So, in summary, I don't understand why there is a bee under Barlow's bonnet, why he thinks I am a "liar", why an experienced Wikipedian would violate WP:BRD and then insist that everything is everyone else's fault, why he wants to berate people on their Talk pages instead of opening a relevant discussion on the article's Talk page, and why he wants to waste everyone's time at an ANI. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This is obvously a content discussion, and belongs on the article talk page.

I cannot imagine anything admin-actionable. Igor the bunny (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• My attention has just been drawn to this discussion. I deleted Barlow's comments from my Talk Page, along with one or two other sections, as I am entitled to do, because I had read them and did not want to get drawn into a dispute with this editor, whose tone I found rather aggressive. Jack1956 (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive SPA on Zeitgeist talk page

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

---

There is a user .Encyclopedia-account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that has been engaged in essentially nothing but soap-boxing on the talk page for the Zeitgeist film series article. A perusal of this editor's minimal contributions shows edits exclusively to the article talk page save one response on the user's own talk page to concerns about the user's conduct on the article talk page. Here are the two most recent comments for an idea: [128] [129]. Plenty of editors have asked this individual to cease such disruptive commentary to no avail.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The editor you bring up should find a new hobby. I also recommend you cease demonstrating so much zeal in getting others sanctioned all the time. Wikipedia is not a battlefield.--MONGO 05:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Can't see anything wrong. Saying "get rid of the zeitgeist page" is fine. A content discussion. Igor the bunny (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Except this editor has basically done nothing for the past few days but pop up to say "Zeitgeist is shit, we should delete this article" and I hardly think this editor has any intention of actually engaging in constructive discussion on the talk page. If you want some more clear policy violations then the following comments about Peter Joseph should suffice as they would constitute violations of BLP: [130] [131] [132]. This editor is a textbook WP:NOTHERE case, in my opinion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Are they disrupting wikipedia? Igor the bunny (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

They appear to be using multiple accounts - see User:.Encyclopedia-viewer, who made much the same comments on the same talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case, you want WP:SPI Over there. Igor the bunny (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The accounts are almost certainly the same, but they don't overlap. I've left a note on their talk page that this needs to stop immediately. A block for being unable to participate constructively if this behavior continues is warranted; that said, if another admin feels like they've already crossed the line, I won't object to a WP:NOTHERE block. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that this user's viewpoint is essentially the same as User:Earl King Jr. --- has anyone checked to see if this is a sock of his. I've followed the Zeitgeist stuff on Wikipedia for quite some time and noticed something odd recently regarding the talk page timing.[133] --- Without access to checkuser I'm obviously unable to verify what is what but it would be helpful if someone looked into it. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, this is pretty obvious NOTHERE. I've left a nice note, and if it continues, I will indef block as NOTHERE. Gamaliel (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Contributions to the debate so far

the next step is deleting this page.Encyclopedia-viewer (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC) I think it's safe to say that bullshit zeitgeist doesn't belong on wikipedia..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC) a bunch of conspiracy theorists can hang around on Facebook or their forums for all I care, there's really no reason to have a zeitgeist wiki page, it provides Nothing of value to anyone since the subject is bogus in itself. This zeitgeist page doesn't belong on wikipedia, it should be deleted. Period..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Zeitgeist should be deleted from wikipedia, there's no doubt about that. Maybe it should be added to the NWO conspiracy wiki article among all the other conspiracy scam nonsense, alex jones, esoteric agenda, david ike, reptilians etc. But it's own page? I completely disagree..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC) As you point out, that zeitgeist is dead, this page should be deleted I mean it should never have been made, leave it to conspiracy theorists to pay tribute to it. Nothing would be lost by Zeitgeist being deleted from wikipedia, wiki would be better without it. I assure you, it would not be missed..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Zeitgeist cannot be given a neutral POV, since it isn't a topic, it's a scam. The flood of zeit-cult defenders on this talk page shows how wiki is being used an advertising platform for this cult. Best to have it deleted to make room for real topics or a very brief mention in the NWO conspiracy article..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC) I agree with you Earl, but, well it doesn't just "appear" to be an advertising arm of PJ, it is. Giving zeitgeist a Neutral POV is impossible, it's an internet cult group. If I make up a bullshit conspiracy video, it gets followers, "likes", and gets borderline popularity, naturally that should not deserve a real wikipedia article, so why does zeitgeist have one? Maybe on a list of "cults", but not as anything which shows it something real. NWO conspiracies, cults, false advertising campaigns, that's where zeitgeist belongs, not it's own article. .Encyclopedia-account (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Good point there, since there's zero being written about zeitgeist, it shouldn't have a page it should be deleted. Maybe a little mention on a conspiracy related page, but not its own page..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC) I'm with you here Earl, Zeitgeist is nothing more than a self-promoted, self-sourced internet cult, false advertising campaign. Really it should be given that status on wikipedia in a list of NWO conspiracy theory internet scams, alex jones, david ike, "what the bleep do we know?" etc Zeitgeist should be deleted and if even put back on wikipedia, put under such a status..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC) The concern should be removing the whole article, not simply "parts" of it, zeitgeist is quite overdue for deleting for something so bullshit..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC) I don't think we should have a page for zeitgeist since neither the group or the movies are real..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC) I think Long-term Page Deletion - They can't edit a zeitgeist page if there isn't one, I suggest a brief mention on the NWO conspiracy page or if there's a list of conspiracy theory fringe groups, but not it's own page. There's so little to be said about zeitgeist that I think giving the group it's own page gives it too much credit for what it is..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Not a bad idea to get rid of the whole zeitgeist page, zeitgeist isn't a "subject" it's a scam, a documentary movement to make peter joseph money, solutions involving a fantasy utopia, largely related to communism, shit looks good on paper, doesn't work. the reason why there are so little sources and mainly "self-sourced" is because zeitgeist desperately wants to give you the impression it's "for real", when it's general existence is brought into question. This needs to be cleaned up into a page on internet scams/false advertising..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC) It's about time to remove the zeitgeist page completely, it's the only rational thing to do considering zeitgeist is bullshit..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC) I'm pretty sure if this zeitgeist page was deleted it would not be missed, that doesn't mean zeitgeist shouldn't have a very small mention on a list of conspiracies but it's bullshit, nothing legitimate about it,.Encyclopedia-account (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC) I'd say the best thing for this page would be deleting it..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC) It is now time to get rid of the zeitgeist page of wikipedia, the movement, the movies, it doesn't matter it's all bullshit..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Only saying the truth Earl, this Zeitgeist page would be better deleted, not kept, edited etc. Peter Joseph has taken a massive shit onto the internet, and it would be better if it was flushed away. I only wish you were able to see that..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I got them all. A bit repetitive, considering the discussion involves pretty much the same people all along. It's not like they don't know you, User:Encyclopedia-account, think the article should be deleted and Zeitgeist is shit. Perhaps you might develop other arguments. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• User Some Different Stuff says Given that this user's viewpoint is essentially the same as User:Earl King Jr. --- has anyone checked to see if this is a sock of his. I've followed the Zeitgeist stuff on Wikipedia for quite some time and noticed something odd recently regarding the talk page timing.[132] --- Without access to checkuser I'm obviously unable to verify what is what but it would be helpful if someone looked into it. user some Somedifferentstuff. I think that is a nasty uncalled for remark by Some Different Stuff who edits in tandem with The Devils Advocate on the article with the Zeitgeist clones from their blog sites [[134]] Those two are pov pro Zeitgeist editors and have tried every attempt possible to reflect Zeitgeist Faq's material into the article and give Zeitgeist the major 1st. party voice in the article. I agree also with Mongo above that The Devils Advocate is very good at this battlefield mentality of accusing people of things and being litigious in general on talk pages and by that I mean not following general consensus of neutral editors. Calling another editor here a potential sock puppet S.D.S. is really a low blow and it is no wonder that you and Devils advocate have long block records. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems the user is still at it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm has resumed BLP violations

User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm (aka IP 213.114.147.52), after being automatically unblocked when the block (set by User:Black Kite for BLP violations) expired, has resumed his disruptive editing. In spite of warnings, he is still adding unsourced material to biographies of living people: [135][136][137][138] Please do something about him. 94.156.66.152 (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 94.156.66.152. VoS is continuing to push his agenda on adding unsourced info regarding "ethnic Hungarians" into BLP articles, either as a logged in user or the IP address. They've been contacted many times on their talkpage, but doesn't seem to want to cooperate. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Correct user name is: László Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).--ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Black Kite, in the spirit of Christmas I blocked for only a week; I can see a NOTHERE block as well. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Drmies - please also block his IP that he often uses to edit unlogged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.114.147.52 (he violated BLPs using this IP just recently) 91.201.173.103 (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Igor the bunny and WP:SOCK

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No violation of WP:SOCK. There may be one or more prior accounts but they aren't being used concurrently, per GorillaWarfare's statements and my own understanding of who this user is. Jehochman ^Talk 18:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

---

User:Igor the bunny has stated that he's operated by someone who has another account, but he has not acknowledged the connection between the accounts, i.e. there's no way to determine what the original account is. This is unambiguously a violation of the third bullet of WP:SOCK, Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. I was planning to request enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings principle three, Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates, but the header at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement says that it's only for people violating remedies, not other policies that are based on the principle. Elsewhere on this page, we see that Igor's privately told GorillaWarfare of his other account name, and she notes that the other account is not behaving problematically, but Igor's continued involvement in WP:AN#Steeletrap on libertarian articles is unquestionably a use in a discussion internal to the project; as of right now, his signature appears thirteen times in that and other sections of the page. Rather than requesting an immediate block for repeated violations of WP:SOCK, I warned him, but all he does is scoff at the warning. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The editor has discarded his/her earlier account and so the bunny account is not an alternative account ... it is his/her only account. As an editor in good standing bunny may engage in debate here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Not unusual for Wikipedia policies, there appears to be some tension between WP:SOCK and WP:CLEANSTART. Since at least two admins know what Igor's previous identity was, and another suspects he knows, would it relieve the tension if the original account was indef blocked by one of those admins, or another admin they designate? Then the Igor ID would truly no longer be an alternate account, he wouldn't have to disclose the connection between the accounts, his CLEANSTART can continue, and he can participate in "internal discussions". BMK (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

One of Igor the bunny (talk · contribs)'s most recent IP's was 88.104.28.116 (talk · contribs), which is not a secret.[139] That was one of Light Current's subnets, although that by itself doesn't prove anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: I just now restored the above after someone clobbered a number of new entries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Problems with the editing behaviour of user Sawol

Hello, I'd like to report an issue with the edits of user Sawol over the last couple of weeks.

He seems to be from Korea, and has repeatedly been damaging disambiguation pages concerning Korean metro stations, tagging them with a speedy delete tag ('uncontested move', sic) in order to promote one or either metro station to be the primary topic. Moreover, he has been agressively reverting users who got in the way with commentless reverts (example here, there are more but many page histories have been deleted as a result of page deletions). I noticed because one of my objections in which I told him to follow proper process was reverted, followed by a page deletion by an administrator who failed to do his due diligence and didn't notice the move was actually contested.

Now, needless to say a user is not the sole judge of what could be seen as a primary topic. There are processes and guidelines to follow, which he has chosen to ignore. Therefore I'm asking:

• For the disambiguation pages which were deleted to be restored. At least Jungangno Station, Dongbaek Station, Geumgok Station seem to be concerned, maybe others as well. If Sawol feels a topic should be primary, then he can always follow proper process and file a request so the move can be discussed in concertation and consensus.
• User Sawol should be reprimanded.
• It is to be examined why admins can be tricked into deleting pages just like that. It shouldn't happen that a user, any user, can just tag a page with a speedy clause, followed by a rapid execution of the request. Admins should do their due diligence, either that hasn't happened here, or something is missing from the procedure. E.g. adding a line saying they should examine the page history to check if the deletion is actually contested or not.

Thanks, and regards, --Midas02 (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Can someone fix this?

There seems to be a coding error, so that the explanation[140] at the archive top of "Legal Threat at Talk:Amy Pascal" is not visible. Can someone fix this? I can't figure out what's wrong or why it's not appearing. Coretheapple (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It was missing the "result=" before the description. Fixed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

See Template:Archive top for the template documentation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarek fixed it but somehow it got unfixed.Coretheapple (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

User:KahnJohn27: Removal of referenced information

Issue #1: KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs). He has not been blocked even once for any of this:

Removal or corruption of referenced information: [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146] (referenced information changed)

Previous sections created at ANI: [147] (behavioral issues, problems with sources), [148] (edit warring, civility)

Other incidents: Notices left for recent edit warring, [149] "Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material", [150] disruptive editing and personal attacks

Issue #2: Unconfirmed but there may be a connection between this user and a previous banned user.

Account Creation:

• KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs) (account created 6 September 2012)
• Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) (account banned 10 days later on 17 September 2012 for long term editing issues). He had 65,000 edits and has his own cleanup template.

KahnJohn27 (Edit analysis, top 100 articles edited):

• List of best-selling video games — 27

Also he edits articles related to Islam.

Jagged 85 (Edit analysis, top 100 articles edited):

• History of role-playing video games — 320
• List of best-selling video games — 238
• (Articles related to Islam)

Issue #3: Is there no way to stop people from corrupting the content of this site such as removing or changing referenced information? It is sad that this happens so frequently on Wikipedia and some editors can maintain a presence on this website for years before they are stopped and many times the damage is not reversed. --Chrisonp (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Chrisonp You are confusing me with someone else. My account is completely original. I am not Jagged85 and this is a legit account. All the users who complained about me at [151] have bern thmselves been reported at ANI and many other users have complained those users who complained about me of being disruptive. Additionally you forget to mention that I was I who made it possible the usage of [Boxoffice.com] as a reliable source for box office gross.

Now about the Jizya article, I only removed the referenced material because theyvweren't properly cited because page numbere weren't specifically mentioned in some book sources which immaturely caused me to think it moght be wrong information and biased. However it was a completely immature and wrong decision on my part and I accept that. I only removed it from the article Jizya only once or twice that too months ago and it was an immature decision on my part I accept that.

Also about this [152] edit where according to you where I changed referenced information on Muhammad bin Qasim, I actually had later added much more reliable and additional info about Al-Baladhuri's Qasim's death then there was earlier and you can see about this here [153]. You have deliverately ignored that I later added much more reliable and referenced information then there was earlier. Referenced information can be changed if new reliable information is to be added or it is incorrect. It is a shame that people on Wikipedia keep picking bones of the past and use strong arm tactis, false and incorrect complaints and bullying to impose their opinion.

I therefore request the administrators to close this thread since it has no merit and is based on false claims and past incidences and also doesn't mention anything about my my contributions in improving the content Wikipedia. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Also pleace notice how that User:Chrisonp whose account was created just yesterday makes his first edit about complaining me? Notice all his edits. How did he so quickly came to knew about my edits on Jizya? Additionally notice that he hasn't made even a single edit that isn't about me. Also notice how extremely skilled he is in editing Wikipedia. This is almost impossible for a new user. I suspect his account might either be a sockpuppet or he is from a Wiki on internet that lists info about a certain topic? And if it is user of a Wiki from the internet then I think I might already know who he is and from which Wiki he is and why he is here. This guy seems to be very suspicious indeed. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, you said that "I only removed it from the article Jizya only once or twice that too months ago and it was an immature decision on my part I accept that." So you've admitted some of your mistakes. Have you added that information back?

Regardless of your later edit, you cannot change information in a reference as you did here.. For example if we had this statement: Room A has 10 boxes.<ref>A reference </ref>, I cannot change that statement to something else unless the reference says that.

Could you go through the links I mentioned in the "Removal or corruption of referenced information" section and make sure you have added back all the referenced information that you removed? For example this edit that you made about 3 months ago. Information cannot be removed simply on the basis of being biased against a group. An experienced user like yourself may already know that. thank you. --Chrisonp (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chrisonp Yes I admitted it and I also said it was an immature decision. Besides actually the whole of my edit on Jizya was later reverted by Latifa Rafaat and I had already checked it. All of the information I removed had already been added back months ago.

Additionally you are completely wrong that referenced information can't be changed. I had added much more information to the Muhammad bin Qasim article. Referenced information can be changed. Besides the text that about al-Baladhuri's account of Qasim's death was actually very brief and also somewhat incorrect and I had expanded it and also corrected it. If the referenced information can be improved or expanded or new reliable information can be added to it or if the information is incorrect or does not match the txt in the reference then it can be changed. Room A having 10 boxes is not the same as historical account of a person's death. Parameters are different under different conditions. Also even Room A has 10 boxes can be changed. For example I can say "Room A has 10 boxes x amount of y material in each box" if they contain that material or I can say that "Room A has 10 empty boxes". Additionally it can also be changed You clearly do not know how Wikipedia functions. You should try to find out all the facts before reaching a decision and stop beating a dead horse by unnecessarily raking up events that only happened once that too months ago. Instead of having a discussion that only wastes time let us focus on improving the content of Wikipedia.

Plus would you care tell me how is it that you find out so much about me so quickly and how is it that you are so skilled in editing despite being a new user? You either seem to be a sockpuppet or one of those editors from WikiIslam who blocked me for absolutely ridiculous reasons. Your whole complaint is based on either mistaken belief, incidences that happened much back in past, lack of knowlege or false accusations. You have even portrayed my constructive edits at Muhammad bin Qasim in negative light. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, please note that I am saying you have misrepresented sources being cited without updating the original reference (such as this edit).

You said "Additionally it can also be changed You clearly do not know how Wikipedia functions." , you're a person who has removed entire sections of sections referenced information often without even giving edit summaries ([154], [155], [156], [157] etc) after two years of being an editor so your statement is like the pot calling the kettle black.

On your user page you mention "provide the reason for reverting in the edit summary box of the article", yet you choose to remove referenced information from the website and on top of that you dont give edit summaries for these vandalism-type edits ([158], [159]) even though you explicitly demand edit summaries from others yourself. Kindly apply the same standards to yourself that you expect others to follow.

As for me being an experienced editor, note that knowing how to edit wikis before joining Wikipedia or leaving the site and coming back later with a new user name is perfectly acceptable behavior, and your trying to attack the complainant rather than address the charges is a fallacy. So please focus on the work being done, not the person.

You have been warned here before about incivility multiple times ([160], [161]) but you have not understood the WP:NPA policy (which is a mandatory core policy to be followed, not an optional essay) and have continued to make recent offensive statements such as "I was here to edit not to get involved in a stupid edit war" ([162]) and "That is a very stupid rationale." ([163]). Please read WP:NPA which asks people to be civil to each other and this includes not making statements like 'your rational is "stupid".' Please be civil to other editors and refrain from making inflammatory/offensive remarks.

As for you being blocked on other websites I suspect it may be because of the same kind of editing behavior you have displayed here in the past (deleting referenced information or being offensive). But now that you have said those were "immature decision"s on your part that's good. Referenced information is what Wikipedia aims to be made up of so it must be treated with respect and care. I hope you will make better decisions in the future.

The summary of my message to you is: (1) Please refrain from removing referenced information from the website (2) Provide edit summaries in your edits (3) Remain civil and (4) apply the same standards to yourself that you expect others to follow. --Chrisonp (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes User:Chrisonp, I had already realized my mistake after my removal of referenced edits was reverted. I am sorry for displaying such stupidity. Additionally I do remain civil.. And the only real reason I was blocked on WikiIslam.com is because they thought I was a tine waster. Additionally they were also criticising Wikipedia but when I said unlike Wikipedia, WikiIslam is not neutral they said I was attacking the site. Additionally they didn't even listen to even my valid arguments of their being ridiculous mistakes on the websites. Additionally when I tried to contact them they said I had to either create an article about critique of Islam or an article about Islamophobia. I am not good at creating articles and all the Wikipedia articles I have created are not much good. However I did hekp them with other tasks. They still refused to unblock me. They did block me for completely ridiculous reasons. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Spam-only account

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

---

User:Mehreen at Vebkraze (User talk:Mehreen at Vebkraze) is a purely promotional account with a spam username. Vebkraze is a commercial website [164]. The user's name was originally Vebkraze; after a warning they changed it to Mehreen at Vebkraze. When cluebot warned them about the new name, they just deleted the warning and kept editing. All of their edits are to replace a deadlink in an article with a link to their website. I reported the above at WP:UAA, but all that happened was that their (empty) userpage was deleted. I think a block may be in order. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Domain blacklisted for SEO spamming. MER-C 02:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Move of Cultural Marxism to User:OverlordQ/Cultural Marxism

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

---

OverlordQ has moved Cultural Marxism to a subpage in their userspace. This includes the entire history of the page. The page, as some will be aware, was recently subject of an AfD that ended in deletion. When the user was questioned, they claimed it was a userspace draft. Upon further questions, they removed the thread from their talk page with the summary "Hi, I'm a spider /\/\/\(OooO)/\/\/\", hence why I'm bringing the matter here, so it may have further input as how to best approach this. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this restoration was only the second admin act by this user in 2014. I am wondering given the "spider" comment if the account is secure. Chillum 19:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Black Kite is working on moving the page back, I think. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

OverlordQ appears to be deleting his userspace, including his user talk page... Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I've put the history back where it should be, minus OverlordQ's edits. I've restored his userspace page as it was. I'm not sure why an admin is saving the history of deleted articles and advertising them via a dropbox link on their user page, but I fear, given the history of this article, that it cannot be good. Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You've reinstated the deleted article history also; the edits prior to my redirect on the 29th shouldn't be present. Sam Walton (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see the article was never deleted, only redirected? (and then moved to userspace). Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted then redirected. My redirect was the first edit to the article post-deletion. Sam Walton (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've clearly lost my ability to read. Will do it now. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Could somebody restore User talk:OverlordQ per WP:DELTALK? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the talk page. -- GB fan 20:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

If it wasn't before, it's painfully obvious now the agenda-driven cliques are more interested in playing politics then actually making an encyclopedia. So, I'm done. GLHF. Q ^{T C} 20:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You could have participated in the AfD if you had such a strong opinion on the subject. Chillum 20:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure of why you think your own POV justify violating consensus and policies, but it's sad to see you doing this. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Google still has the article: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YnfWyT1EKWcJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Dustin (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it will do for a while, until the page is crawled again. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Question - When an article is deleted, but a redirect is put in place - the entire history of the previous article is removed? Wouldn't it be more of a wiki-like solution to have the history in the redirect? — Ched :  ?  20:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The consensus from the discussion was to delete, but a redirect seemed sensible (and is now being debated). Sam Walton (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Editor posted the link at KIA, and is also active on 8chan. Dave Dial (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Does anyone think that it might not be ideal for this user to have admin tools? Black Kite (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Considering the above and the fact that they've hardly edited over the past few years, I can see removal of admin tools being a sensible idea. Sam Walton (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Ummm .. all things considered, could you clarify "this user" please. And TY to all for the replies. — Ched :  ?  22:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - OverlordQ. He used his tools to undelete the article. I didn't qualify it as he was the subject of the thread. Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

He used his tools to move a page deleted from AFD to userspace (common use of the tools I think). That userspace was his (probably not too common). Is that really something to be used as a club? The ensuing GBCW is what it is. Let it fade away. Arkon (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks BK .. I assumed as much, but given that until this month I hadn't been around much - I just wanted to make sure. No view on OverlordQ at the moment - still reading and catching up. — Ched :  ?  22:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Closing admin needed

Hi, there was an RFC open for a while here, but it was never closed with an assessment of consensus. One user resorted to sockpuppetry to promote his perspective, which muddled the discussion. If anybody has a moment to close the discussion out, that would be appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to close this right now but the best place to request RFC closes is at the RfC admin noticeboard, where this RfC is already listed. Sam Walton (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Samwalton9: Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Rollback usage by Modernist

I allege misuse by User:Modernist of rollback to revert, without explanation, edits that do not belong to the cases in "When to use rollback". I replaced a low quality image on several pages with a high quality version and was rolled back several times. The editing history shows other recent uses of rollback ([165][166][167][168]) that do not follow the guideline because they are not fixing vandalism or widespread nonsense. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Without a word User:Hekerui began unilaterally removing an important Mondrian painting from several articles, frankly it appeared to me to be vandalism...Modernist (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing?! I replaced a Mondrian painting image on Wikipedia with an identical but higher quality from the Commons. By now an admin has removed the lower quality image as redundant. This is not vandalism. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? You were adding an inferior quality image to the articles; apparently you still do not realize that the image you added was in fact an inferior image...I spoke to the admin in question here [169] in which I explained that the image you removed was the better image...Modernist (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As to the Greenberg edit - I reverted to the original wording so as not to disparage an extremely well respected but often targeted art critic...Modernist (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not give an explanation when you made the edit? The word "disparage" is not by itself vandalism. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess you just don't know anything about the people who are constantly looking to disparage Greenberg...Modernist (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The American Gothic edit was essentially vandalism by an IP who refused to read the reference used that clearly identifies the female in the painting, and who repeatedly made the same edit; the Cafe Wha addition that I removed while technically was someone's utterly unessential opinion about the article and his inaccurate opinion regarding his friends seems like vandalism of a sort and I added a coherent reference in my next edit...Modernist (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP in my last example was a newbie, why not copy-paste their comment on the talk page and explain there? Instead you rolled it back. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the IP is essentially a newbie. A newbie whom Modernist chose to not WP:AGF, rather, to WP:BITE with these words at the American Gothic talk page: "Your opinion is not required. Find a source for what you are asserting or find something better to do..." (found at the following link:[170]). Apparently, in this case, Modernist's poor choices weren't limited to the improper use of rollback. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A little overzealous with the revert feature, perhaps, but the items you cite are all garbage edits which Modernist removed or repaired. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

How was my edit garbage? I replaced a low quality image with an identical higher quality image because the image entered the public domain. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody called your edit garbage, he called the edits you cited garbage, re-read the above comment please...Modernist (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Note Hekerui, more pixels is not always synonymous with better quality. The image you uploaded of Gray Tree by Mondrian had several problems: its was apparently scanned from a book, catalogue or magazine (i.e., it's riddled with halftone dots of different shades and colors), the contrast was overpoweringly pushed, the paintings edges were significantly cropped, and the colors (tones of grey) were not accurate. I've replace that image with one that does not present these problems. In the future, if you do upload more images of paintings, by Mondrian or others, please check the website of the museum (or gallery) where it is located. They usually have professional photographers that attempt to reproduce the picture faithfully (which is quite difficult). Unfortunately, others often accentuate contrasts and colors (because they like it better that way) deviating from a true representation of the original work. Thanks for your comprehension. Coldcreation (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Note too, I've also upload the Gemeentemuseum version: File:Piet Mondrian, 1911, Gray Tree (De grijze boom), oil on canvas, 79.7 x 109.1 cm, Gemeentemuseum Den Haag, Netherlands.jpg. While the pixel count is lower than the work linked above, the painting is uncropped (i.e. the entire work is visible), contrasts are not exaggerated, and no half-tone dots are present (since not scanned from a book reproduction). So this is actually the best version we have so far, even though the pixel ratio is lower. Coldcreation (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

What you wrote is not a reason to roll me back and it's certainly not the reason given by Modernist. Modernist gave none, until I asked for one. That's misuse of rollback. "reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with" is the issue, a behaviour. Hekerui (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

User Modernist did what anyone else familiar with the reproduction of paintings would have done. The image Modernist reverted to did not present the problems of photographic reproduction which plagued the version you uploaded. It has nothing to do with behavior. It has all to do with publishing faithful representations of artwork. Coldcreation (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

False, Modernist used rollback to achieve that. That's not what the feature is for. Roll back is for obvious vandalism, our own user space, your own edits, edits by banned users, and widespread/bot edits provided there is an explanation posted. None of this applies. Just because someone "guards" a page does not mean they can misuse a tool. Hekerui (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line - you added an inferior image removing a good image; I put the good image back; and told you on your talk page to discuss first before re-adding the image...Modernist (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue has been solved. That questionable image of a painting by Mondrian has been replaced at Wikimedia Commons by one that more accurately depicts the work of art. Coldcreation (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that the better image was re-added to the articles. That was what I told User:Hekerui when he asked [171] and here [172]...Modernist (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is solved. I'd like an admin to give an opinion. Hekerui (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm an admin and I do not see anything actionable here. Seems like a misunderstanding which has been resolved. --John (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I want to point out that even though Modernist's changes were justified, using rollback was not the best choice, and he should be more discreet in the use of rollback in the future. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I want to propose a New Year's resolution: that Baseball Bugs edits articles instead of Admin noticeboard pages. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion/citation evaluation, and uncivil conduct by user

Earlier today, I edited the articles about two Polish cities with what I sincerely believe to have been constructive edits. Here we can see a removal of substantial content regarding demographics of Gorzow Wielkopolski (Landsberg), for the supposed reason of the source being unreliable. user:Volunteer_Marek feels as though he does not need to explain his rationale to me, which I find to be both personally insulting and poor conduct on the part of the encyclopedia editor.

Here, the user falsely alleges that I am a sock-puppet of a banned user. When I brought these issues up on his talk page, he responded by deleting my entry, adding "aren't you banned?".

I then decided to log into my account ("bring out the big guns", so to speak), Vrinan, and ask for a third time for Volunteer_Marek to provide an explanation for his reversions. I also brought up his uncivil behavior and suggested that if he, for some reason, has a problem with me, it would be best to bring it to my attention. He has refused to do so, and I feel compelled to bring this censorious and rude display to the attention of the administrators. I hope we can all get to the bottom of this. Vrinan (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason you've used a source from 1906 to support a claim for "[b]etween 1249 and 1945..."? Woodroar (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The 1906 source presumably explains the proliferation of Germans in the region from the 13th century to the 20th century. From 1906 to 1945, the population distribution of the city presumably became even more German, as following WWI, many Poles migrated into the revived independent Poland, reducing the extent of this minority population in the Weimar Republic. 71.169.181.208 (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned that no attention has been given to these incidents. The user in question has been deleting content seemingly in the interest of Polish nationalism. Mainly, he is deleting content pertaining to the German history of towns that have been Polish since 1945. I really hope something can be done to prevent this flagrant historical negationism. 71.169.181.208 (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP is most likely a sock puppet of indef banned User:Kaiser von Europa, who has a long history of disruptive editing and sock puppeting on both English and German Wikipedia (possibly others, I can't remember). There just aren't that many people in the world who are obssessed with the "German" history of Gmina Szczytno within Szczytno County in a corner of northeastern Poland. We're talking about a division of about 10k people. The use of the archaic (and unreliable) source also indicates that this is Kaiser, as that was basically what they did in their previous edits.

As to the merits of the edits themselves, the info is undue (the results of a 80+ year old and controversial plebiscite in a short stub of couple sentences, inserted as some kind of exercise in "territory marking" for a village of a couple dozen people) and the source unreliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The source (Max Meyhöfer: Die Landgemeinden des Kreises Ortelsburg[173]) is perfectly reliable. These stubs need to be expanded, it's completely absurd to remove information from a stub because it's a stub. That's just censorship because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. VolunteerMarek needs to stop his slander and editwarring. 80.136.85.134 (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that the book was written by a notable author and published both in Austria in 1967 with a second edition in 1971. The copy on Google Books is/was held by the University of California. It is quite possible that the book is biased (virtually all sources are). Describing a 1967 book as "archaic" is hyperbolic exaggeration. If Volunteer Marek thinks the book is so awful - then let him find some evidence in the form of book reviews, or other books that explain how wrong the book is, or something - then add this information to some articles.

Volunteer Marek has not taken this matter to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. I wish that he would do so.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that many people are interested in the German history of Pommern, Schlesien, and Ost Preusen. Among them, the millions of descendants of German inhabitants who had been murdered and expelled in the ethnic cleansing of the land to open it for the Poles and Russians. Do I as an editor have a POV? Yes, because I happen to be one of those descendants. I find the deletion of valuable and well-referenced information regarding former German history in the region to be insulting to my family, who suffered so greatly in their flight from their homeland.

Since I have been open about my motives (preserving the memories of not only my ancestors, but the ancestors of millions of Volksdeutch), I would be happy to hear your motivations, Volunteer Marek. I do not wish to assume too much about these, but I feel the best option for the encyclopedia is to get it out in the open.

And for the record, I am no sockpuppet. I occasionally edit with the IP 71.169.181.208 , when I am logged out of Wikipedia due to OCD cache and browser clearing every night before shut-down. I have been open in the congruence of these two accounts, and since neither are banned, I hope we can agree that there is not real issue. Vrinan (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

IP user making threats on talk page

I've been around for a while, and I've seen a few strange things on Wikipedia, but here's something new for me. I've got an IP user threatening on my talk page to file a police report against me for making edits to the J. J. Arrington article (see [174]). I last edited the article in September 2014, and none of my prior edits were controversial in the least. The whole episode is a little weird. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal threats are not tolerated on Wikipedia and the person making them should get an indefinite ban immediately. However, that person may still have legal rights if the person he is 'alleging' that you are defaming is indeed their father. An admin should look into this right away, explain to them Wikipedia policy and discuss with them their complaint and the best way to solve it, as it may be valid. 193.109.199.132 (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the account (which may be a temporary IP so it might not be effective) and left a note. Zero^talk 04:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that I can't find any mention of a child anywhere, and it would seem that if the child could compose a message like that, they would probably been have around when the person was still playing professional American football. Of course it's still easily possible the subject does have a child, but still the claim seems to raise more BLP issues than anything Dirtlawyer1 did. Also I took a look at the page, and don't see anything of real concern, so I think WP:DOLT is satisfied. That said, complaining to Dirtlawyer1 is not quite as weird as it sounds. Although the edit was 4 months ago, they were the last person to edit the page so may have been the obvious person to message (particularly if the OP was using the mobile site, although it doesn't look it). Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for linking the DOLT essay, Nil Einne. Unfortunately, it's a scenario I have witnessed first-hand several times in my 5+ years editing Wikipedia, and it's a scenario all of us should keep in mind when dealing with article subjects or their family members when they are objecting to inaccurate or potentially defamatory content. I, for one, do not believe that immediately blocking article subjects or their family members is usually the optimal way to handle such complaints and/or threats.

My interest in the J. J. Arrington article is the subject's status as a consensus All-American player of American football, and my edits were related to his college football career and formatting his college honors in the article infobox. As a practicing lawyer, I am very sensitive to the unfairness inherent in the DOLT scenario and the rising level of frustration that can be caused by the often mechanistic responses of some Wikipedia editors and administrators, and I have intervened in a number of such scenarios to address the legitimate concerns of article subjects or their family members. I reviewed my article edits after receiving the talk page message from the IP user, and also checked the article for controversial content; my edits were non-controversial, and as far as I can tell, there is no controversial content in the article. That's why I brought the IP user's complaint here: it seems to be an irrational threat without any remotely valid basis. Rather than trying to engage the IP user, under the circumstances, I thought it better to draw on ANI's community resources. We will see what, if anything, the IP user does to follow up his threat/complaint. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

A Scandal Amongst Admins on Wikipedia: Fake Wikipedia Accounts Created by Admins for Edit Warring

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

---

Calling on admins and editors to take look at my comment [175] and the disturbing related exchange that triggered it, and do something about it. This may be the tip of the iceberg and may even be a much larger scandal on Wikipedia. I don't find this neither funny nor appropriate. 193.109.199.132 (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• I could ask the little doctors to comment here, but that would be a violation of WP:SOCK, and I wouldn't want to get them in trouble. Not that I know who they are, of course. Happy new year to all admins and editors who are still up! Drmies (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• I took the liberty of making the headline more appropriate, but I would like to point out that only one admin created the accounts; the other merely abused them. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Not that I necessarily agree with fooling around like this but I only count 2 mainspace edits, 1 reverting the other removal within 2 minutes. The other few edits are simply fooling around on the user talk pages of those involved. Are you really calling such irrelevant nonsense as a scandal compare to all the other stuff that we know goes on? Also speaking of not appropriate, is there any reason you didn't inform either party which the header clearly tells you to do when you visit this page and edit it? You may not have named them here, but you did link to the discussion and were clearly referring to 2 editors (I'm only referring to the 2 main accounts, I'll say it's fine to ignore the joke accounts). Nil Einne (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am not an administrator but just a mere editor trying to figure out what's going on, with limited success. But I thought we had an allowance for accounts created for the sake of "humor", broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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

constant addition removals on any Greek related topic

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

---

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

It seems like the user Alexikoua almost cringes anytime the word Persian is added to any article directly related to Greece, despite all additions I put in these statements related to it are fully sourced and well written literally every time. Look how many times he instantly removed my sourced additions, all of them only those related to Greece, with none of them having a valid reasons at all. ("IP disruption", no edit summary, and so go on) [176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186]

This is just a tip of the iceberg and just look at him hammering on any addition I make on Greek related articles. Anyway, the reason I brought it up here is not just the sole fact that his allergy towards additions related to my edits is extremely annoying, it's even more funny when he literally obliges me to, after reverting whatever he can revert, in order to make any of these additions to any Greek related page, I need to bring it to the talk page first(!) So I need to ask him permission basically to edit on any Greek related article, per his own words.[187] That's crazy and probably one of the most ridiculous things.[188][189] Not only did I make the first step numerous times and ask him on his talk page to mediate firstly with me if he really just doesn't approve of certain additions (which he just deletes instantly afterwards and labels it as "trolling"[190]) It just doesn't work like this, on top of the fact that it's very disrespectful and disruptive. I've told him so many times not to remove well sourced statements/additions without a good reason, or not doing any effort himself to thin the information down he think is too excessive, or at least writing me on my talk page before reverting everything (a very basic thing, really, but even that he couldn't)

I left him another note about this as well today, which he instantly deleted as well.[191] Obvious WP:JDL is obvious and this has to stop. Maybe I'm right and he's wrong, or maybe I am wrong and he's right, but this is just ridiculous in my opinion. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

All the specific edits clearly fall into wp:undo weight, as stated in the edit summaries, while the unlogged editor was welcomed to initiate a discussion in the correspodent talkpages. For example he insists that the "History of Greece" article should have an "Persian era section" [[192]], quite weird for a 1-2 year period that concerns the Second Persian Invasion (480-479 BC) to have a section, while the article concerns a total of ca. 4 millenia of history (not to mention that historiography usually prefers to term the specific events as "invasion" or "war" not as "era"). Same undo weight in the rest of the above mentioned articles, such as in Greeks, Thessaly and Classical Greece [[193]]. In the last article for an unexplained reason he inisists to add the map of the Persian Empire, while at the same time vital information about the Persian invasion against Greece is absent.

Although the unlogged user has been continuously asked to participate in the correspodent talkpages (in one case I opened a discussion in Classical Greece but still no response [[194]]) he just insists to post unacceptable comments in my talkpage simply accusing in general and ignoring wp:undo weight.Alexikoua (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

An "era" [[195]] in historical documents doesn't just always mean that a territory was part of another territory; it also can mean that a certain nation/political grouping/empire, you name it, dominated the politics and history of that respective nation for example. The Greco-Persian conflict and everything affliated to it lasted more than a century, and are exceptionally crucial for the rest of Greece's/Greek history and European history as well. It completely dominated both the former and the latter for a long time. Disregarding the "Persian era" as merely the era in which mainland Greek soil was occupied is an utterly redudant way of argumenting.

References

You "welcomed" me to initiate a discussion in the correspodent talkpages, after what, - reverts without either an edit summary/calling everything "IP disruption" and after a message I placed on your talk page suggesting to talk? (which he instantly deleted as well) [[196]] Quit presenting yourself better than you actually did.

Alexikoua made his first real attempt at mediation on 07:30, 25 December 2014 [[197]], while he had been on his ridiculous WP:JDL reverting spree since 11:30, 24 December 2014.[[198]] After this one on the 24th of December, he made another 13 unreasoned reverts before trying to look for a debate [[199]][[200]][[201]][[202]][[203]][[204]][[205]][[206]][[207]][[208]][[209]][[210]][[211]]

His attempts here to disort facts are not much more than endearing and sad at the same time, to be honest. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to initiate a discussion in the correspondent talkpages, going straight to wp:ani accusing coeditors isn't a sound approach. In general there was no era known as "Persian era" in Greek history & no wonder not a single reference given supports this.Alexikoua (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Transphobic accusations at Leelah Alcorn

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

AFD has been closed Snow Keep, and plenty of eyes are on the situation now. Jehochman ^Talk 00:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The Deletion discussion of this article has consended to unfounded accusations of transphobia[212] and proclamations to disrupt the projectincase their preferred outcome is not met [213] by Rubashkyn (talk · contribs). This Article needs admin attentions and probably more uninvolved editors as it is starting to get emotional. Editors should be able to vote in this discussion without having to fear personal attacks. Thanks Avono (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

'Accusations of transphobia' is not a synonym for 'transphobic accusations'. It would be helpful if you could clarify which you mean, and which user(s) you are levelling the accusation at. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Then I point towards Rubashkyn, who headed a proclamations with "LGTB Phobia", I removed the IP, from the evidence, because I misunderstood that as anybody who removes transphobia from the article is transphobic. Avono (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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

can some admin please help me

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

---

thumb|original version of political party Party of the Swedes

can someone please make it look like the long term consensus original version of the Template:Infobox political party? Dannis243 (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion to the talk page... I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 12:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Edits by IP 108.11.225.129 to King v. Burwell

IP user 108.11.225.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has engaged disruptively in repeatedly adding material about Jonathan Gruber's non-subsidy PPACA comments to the article King v. Burwell (see [214], [215], [216], [217]). There is a consensus that the non-subsidy comments are irrelevant to the topic of the article and should not be included. Similar additions of non-subsidy material were made using other IP addresses in November 2014, which resulted in the article being semi-protected [218]:

• 173.67.163.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224]
• 173.67.166.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [225]
• 173.67.170.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231]

Notice that these edits have very similar edit summaries that make me believe the same user is IP-hopping as part of the continued disruption. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The page has been semiprotected for 3 months, hopefully the IP gets the idea. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

IP creating article empty article sections, editing disruptively after numerous warnings

For about a week, IP user 70.190.229.97 has been creating sections in various articles but leaving them empty except for the article improvement tags he leaves in each empty section he creates. He adds no content, just the improvement tag. He has been asked not to do so several times, has been warned that this equates disruptive editing and that he could be blocked for doing so. He never responds to any warnings or comments on his talk page, even after being advised to do so by an administrator, he just removes the warnings, occasionally saying "sorry" in the edit summary. He has stated in edit summaries that he understands the warnings and won't do it again, but then goes right back to the same disruptive behavior. His other disruptive behavior has been adding Ref Needed banners on articles when plenty of references are already present. He also has a history of edit warring and has been warned about it by editors as well as at least one administrator. After numerous requests and warnings, he continues to not use edit summaries. He has removed categories and established content without explanation or even an apparent productive motive.

• A few diffs and examples of empty sections added and inappropriate refs needed tags along with reverting all of it back after being warned on his talk page that the edits are inappropriate and disruptive:

Matthew J. Munn article: [232], [233]

Paradise Cay, California article: [234], [235], [236]

Mike Elliott (comedian) article: [237]

• Examples of necessary wholesale reversion of article edits when IP has removed categories, content, added extraneous content, and made strange, unexplained section changes:

Jim Meskimen article: [238]

Jason Lee (actor) article (previously had to be been rewritten due to the IPs strange edits, empty sections, and inappropriate subsections and undue weight added - it was all reverted back in today with the following): [239]

• Inappropriately adding references needed to article with an existing ref needed banner, but where plenty of references already exist:

David Cross article: [240]

• IP's talk page revision history showing warnings left and removal of warnings, including his apologies for edits and indication that he would not repeat the disruption: [241]

Edit warring comment from Drmies: [242]

These are just a few examples. My guess is there are more articles across Wikipedia where empty sections have been created by this IP. Either he doesn't understand the warnings and comments that have been left on his talk page or he doesn't care. It's strange behavior, to say the least. If he had an account and was looking to rack up edits, I could better understand his motivation (not agree with it, but understand). But as an IP account, it doesn't make sense to me, outside of intentional disruption and possibly now seeking to win. Some of his edits have been fine, some of it has been helpful, but the seemingly intentional disruption and ignoring of MOS and general procedure and policies is concerning and seems problematic. Perhaps a mentor is what's needed? But, until then, I expect the defiant disruption and inappropriate editing to continue. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Again on Little Jimmy Dickens, btw. Connormah (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Pope Leo X and biased deletion of well sourced material.

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

---

Hi all. I have a problem in the article about Pope Leo X (1475-1521). A member of the Medici family, he was the Pope who condemned Martin Luther's 95 theses. He had many enemies, he had several assassination attempts, and someone put graffitis in Rome saying "the pope is Gay". Now, a section of the article included this claim, citing an ex-priest, a novellist, and an antipapist writer of the XVIII century. They also mentioned as authoritative contemporary historians both Francesco Guicciardini (1483-1540) and Paolo Giovio (1483-1552), claiming they both supported the allegations of the Pope's homosexuality. Over a year ago I went to the talk page and reminded them that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources" (WP:EXCEPTIONAL).

Everything had a huge turn because a few weeks ago I searched again and now both Guicciardini's and Giovio's books are available online. It so happens that they deny the accusations of homosexuality. I wrote a lengthy post in the talk page including copypastes of the original texts. And then I proceeded to rectify the article. I was automatically reverted by User:Contaldo80 and later by User:Frimoussou. No explanation, they just reverted me because they wanted to. The latter user had never edited the article and he had been away from wikipedia for almost a month, but he promptly jumped in only to censor my edit. I assumed good faith and asked in the talk page what was the problem he saw in my modifications. He said I was not allowed to translate the Italian and Latin quotations into English because the translation would be an "original research". I addressed his issue (explain what the authors said without including my own translation) but then he reverted me once more, with a newly invented reason.

Guicciardini's book is right there: anyone can read it! There is no point denying his words, if we can all see them. So please, dear wikipedia administrators, would you advice me how to proceed? I don't want to be automatically reverted just because well sourced information does not fit someone's ideology. El Huinca (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

These books have always be "available". There's nothing new. They don't deny the homosexuality of Leo X. El Huinca quotes no recent reference denying the homosexuality of Leo X. That's original research Frimoussou (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I have suggested on Talk: Pope Leo X that the editors should stop the personal attacks (allegations of lying) and should take the content issue to the dispute resolution noticeboard for volunteer moderation. Administrative action should only be necessary if the editors do not take the advice to be civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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

off site planning of vandal activity

I saw this and thought you should know.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8823908

"Honestly, I thing a dozen Nim users should band together and register at Wikipedia to turn the vote the next time someone tries to delete the article. If the deletionists come with formalistic arguments, just synthesize a few articles on sites that fulfill their WP:RELIABLE criteria. There's got to be somebody working for a commercial (read: non-blog) website who doesn't like deletionism and would post a small article on Nim (or any other topic suffering from the same problem) just to stick it to them."

--Tamestan3 (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

In reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nimrod (programming language) (2nd nomination). The Article is deleted but I will watch-list it in case they come back. Thanks for notifying us. Maybe it should be salted just in case? Avono (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

on reddit as well http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2r06ej/what_is_special_about_nim/cnbeog9 Avono (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Avono: It looks like the article was salted on 3 June 2014. May want to be on the lookout for similar titles, though. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Revenge edits/disruption from User:Pagesclo

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

---

Pagesclo (just off a block imposed by Black Kite a few days ago), appears to be engaging in some revenge edits (apparently not the first time). After I twice reverted a problematic edit (which indeed seemed a good faith mistake) at Tor (anonymity network), Pagesclo's next edits were all to revert edits of mine on other pages which he/she had not previously edited (and all, it seems, without very good reason): Glossolalia, comparison of crowd funding services, Black Market Reloaded. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Crazinesses. I saw his editions were wrong, and corrected, all editions of this user are thereby. --Pagesclo (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Fed up

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

---

The article Weekly Shōnen Jump has seen a lot of censorship and removal of important content recently. Several editors have added useful criticism of the article to the page but it was reverted without reason and they were BLOCKED. This is a censorship attempt because Weekly Shōnen Jump now contains no criticism whatsoever of the article.

Examples of adding useful content that was later reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&diff=631117453&oldid=631117298 (reverted) without reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&diff=627636001&oldid=627635836 (reverted) without reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&diff=prev&oldid=627635818 (reverted) without reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&diff=624912068&oldid=624804058 (reverted) without reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&diff=623682056&oldid=623666650 (reverted) without reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&diff=623385185&oldid=622169060 (reverted) without reason

I believe that editors who work at Weekly Shōnen Jump are trying to hide the true problems that have been exposed at their organization. This needs to be stopped, immediately! --Higher & Higher (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG, toomerang... --00:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)

They were BLOCKED because they were SOCKPUPPETS of a VANDAL. See the SPI. Bobby Tables (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone is as naive as me, don't waste your time looking at the diffs. It's just Cow cleaner 5000 (talk · contribs) again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Higher & Higher isn't blocked yet, actually... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Is now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

The Rambling Man forgets the IBAN once again

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

previous evidence for last block of TRM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Knock it off Medeis - you're obviously trying to get a Rambling Man blocked. How about we ban you from mentioning his name anywhere on this encyclopedia. I fully support such a ban KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Uh, that's already there. It's called an Interaction Ban. And again, if you try to impose such a ban, you'll encourage behind-the-scenes behavior, which I can't see as an improvement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replace IBAN with very strong warning

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

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

• The interactions in this section indicate to me that the IBAN is still needed to prevent disruption. So I'd much rather see the IBAN enforced with an iron fist (which I'm happy to help with) than a civility parole (which have proved ineffective in the past). What about adding a clause preventing them both from commenting on each other's enforcement requests and from making any comments other than the initial report on their own enforcement requests. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That kind of leads up to what I was pondering earlier today. A given party could report a complaint, and then let the admins here decide whether it's a valid complaint or not. No further comments by the complaining party and none by the one being complained about. That might work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I seldom respond to these endless requests, so mandating that I shouldn't in the future will make little or no difference to me. This was an exceptional circumstance as the double-teaming (as is clearly evident) has kicked off once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • You are mistaken about the "double-teaming". I have no quarrel with either of you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
      • How are you, Bugs, not violating your IBAN by chiming in here? Jehochman ^Talk 09:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I was under the impression that ANI was a safe haven for reasonable discussion of IBANs and the like. And as you may recall from your "arena" (i.e. "sandbox") page a month or two ago, there are no real issues between TRM and me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
          • You two need to officially shake hands and end the IBAN before you join a thread like this one. Please cease commenting here about TRM and Medeis until that happens. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 10:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
            • How should I go about doing that? Should I ask here for the IBAN to be revoked? OK, I will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

IBAN request

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

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

Violation

• 05:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification

• 06:13 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In the reported edit, DD2K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) accuses me of being an "8chan troll" and reverts my comment letting him know of a possible violation of WP:OUTING by him done here [243] in which he attributes a comment made on reddit to OverlordQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and somehow knows he's "active on 8chan", implying of a brigade encouragement regarding the deletion vote for the article Cultural Marxism. I had posted this on the General Sanctions board for GamerGate since admin Black Kite recused himself of the closing of said case because he participated in the GamerGate ArbCom, but was told it was better here. In my opinion, this user attributes bad faith on both me and user OverlordQ. Looking at his editing history he often accuses people of being sent from Stormfront, "/pol/" and other sites in a WP:BITE-esque behaviour. He accusses another editor here of being "delusional" [244], and he has been let known of his uncivil behaviour here. [245]

I had no intention of reporting this and was just at first letting him know so he could fix his behaviour. He also reverted my General Sanctions entry notification here [246] in seconds and I know users are free to clean their user pages but reverting is less civil than simply deleting. So since this is a repost I consider the user notified, if not let me know and I'll repost a notification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I commented on the ANI concerning OverlordQ raising my concerns about what I saw as a possible attempted WP:OUTING by DD2K, but gave him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't aware of the recent rule changes. [247] After discussing my concerns with Black Kite he removed our conversation and the possibly policy violating external link (though it's still in the history, the linked to comment is deleted). I still had concerns with DD2K's edit because of the 8chan accusation against OverlordQ but I was willing to let the issue lie and just chalked it up as an isolated thing and the case was closed anyway. It wasn't until Loganmac reported DD2K to the General Sanctions board that I looked into his edit history, primarily to find if he had ever been notified of Gamergate Sanctions. I found that he hadn't despite being involved in the topic relating to ANI requests, Arb Com, and Arb Com requests, but also found other troubling comments. I know users are free to remove notices from their talk page, but the violation diff cited here carries the edit summary "Rv 8chan troll." Other troubling edits [248] [249] [250] [251] [252]. Uncivil accusations of political beliefs: [253]. DD2K brings up neo-nazis in quite a lot of discussions in a way that looks like Godwin's law, saying the neo-nazis are doing this and so are these other people in the same comments. Weedwacker (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I got tired of accusations being thrown around for everyone voting Yes to keep the article that we were neo-Nazis or "right-wing" thrown as an insult, as if we never covered notable neo-Nazi ideology as sickening as it is. Wouldn't this be BLP violation against William_S._Lind accusing him of furthering a neo-Nazi agenda? [254] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganmac (talk • contribs) 07:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

IP NOTHERE except to promote ISIL

I've been aware of this Pakistan based IP User:175.110.139.126 for a while, but digging into their edit history I found this is a single purpose account engaged in editing to further the goals of ISIL. They are going against Wikipedia WP:OR (you can't create and delete countries for starters) and other policies. I can't see where they have added one source yet. They will not communicate on talk pages and don't use edit summaries. Because they tend to do a few edits in a row, I'll sometimes link to the reverts by other editors as its easier to see the effects of the IPs edits in one link. Here are the low lights:

1. [255] soft peddling the self-proclaimed wording
2. [256] and [257] and [258] and [259] changing away from rebel group to caliphate against hidden note. He was blocked for edit warring on this.
3. [260] and [261] removing Iraq and Syria from map description.
4. [262] Working on an article for a fake state of ISIL, adding a link to a possibly official terrorist site (facebook sure hates this site, deletes them every couple days)
5. [263] adding pro-ISIL template, now deleted.
6. [264] add ISIL propaganda photo of Sinai attack.
7. [265] add ISIL as an historical unrecognized state, wiping out another entry on list.
8. [266] wiped ISIL off the list of rebel groups that control territory.
9. [267] Added ISIL to List of states with limited recognition while wiping Somaliland of the list. \
10. [268] unsourced addition of Kurd deaths.
11. [269] broke Baghdadi infobox taking out the Rewards for Justice info and inserting crap about him succeeding the prophet.
12. Building [270] and inserting [271] and rebuilding and reinserting new Template:Provinces of ISIL to replace the just AfD'd Template:Wilayats of ISIL. The first template and the names in it were judged to be inappropriate under a number of criteria including promotion, manufactured etc.
13. [272] Removing a AfD tag on an ISIL article.

I'm requesting an indef ban under WP:NOTHERE. I have not notified the IP due to the pro-terrorist narrative nature of these edits and their complete lack of any communication in any talk page or edit summaries to date. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• SUPPORT: This is an easy case and a well presented incident. The IP is from Pakistan, btw. 208.123.223.74 (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

And to save you looking, the above diffs are pretty much their entire contribution history. The rest is inconsequential little changes and fiddling. Legacypac (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Wow, I'm surprised it's gone on for so long. Blocked for six months per POV-pushing and WP:NOTHERE. I wouldn't be optimistic about being rid of the type of editing, though; it's only too easy for dedicated individuals to jump to some other proxy. If you hear quacking, I'd say block on sight. Thank you for reporting, Legacypac. (Incidentally, for several edits in a row, you can show the combined real diff by using the Compare selected revisions function; it's not necessary to go via the reverts.) Bishonen | talk 11:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for the block and the tip - learned something new. No one gave me the block hammer just yet, so I'll leave that part to others. Legacypac (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know — in that sentence, I was addressing other admins, I hope some of them may be watching this. If you should see new similar stuff, Legacypac, please report here again, or on my page. BTW, I didn't indef because it's an IP (even though static), and we can't do that. It wouldn't stop the person, anyway. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC).

User:Hashemabucu120 and repeated advertising

This user needs to be blocked because he has created 4 pages with different titles but essentially the same content which are entirely advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kges1901 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Please provide wikilinked username and diffs of your claims so that the matter can be looked into. See above incidents. 208.123.223.74 (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  You can't provide diffs to deleted articles (and an admin isn't going to turn this down just because the username isn't wikilinked - which it is now). Squinge (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  Good job Squinge (talk). 208.123.223.74 (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you kindly for reporting, Kges1901. The user has been blocked by Tokyogirl79. Bishonen | talk 12:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC).
• Definitely thanks for reporting, Kges1901. I blocked this guy, but sometimes people fall through the cracks for whatever reason so I'm glad that you're being vigilant. I know that sometimes I'll forget to block someone because I have to do a cleanup or because I'm deleting a bunch of pages or whatever, so I'm always glad to see that there are people coming behind me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Sock of Hashemabucu (talk · contribs), now also blocked, who created ten versions of the advertisement, compare this AN thread. Hashemabucu120 was created only four minutes later than the puppeteer account, and the accounts have been creating these articles pretty much simultaneously. Perhaps there are more out there, both socks and articles? Can versions of this name and this article be, hmm, blacklisted? I'm not good with this stuff. Pinging User:Kww. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC).
• Three additional socks blocked. Blacklisting of usernames happens at Meta, I'm not in a position to do so now but someone else can ask for this, or contact a steward/global admin who can assist. Risker (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack in edit comment.

I would like this edit comment to be expunged please. The description of what I said is, of course, bogus.     ←   ZScarpia   12:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Bishonen | talk 12:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC).

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   12:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor subverting "XfD" discussion and edit-warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Edokter has continued removing/reverting these in spite of this discussion: [273], [274], [275]. What are you thinking, anyway? There's no urgency to remove all these, there is no compelling problem that requires this. I've seen no evidence of this "confusion" that Edokter repeatedly invokes. This is completely out of line for an administrator. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why my actions are considered so controversial, while the initial change is not. But I will let the discussion run its course. Whatever the outcome, I do expect that (after the RfD) any reverts on my part are considered no more controversial; since the initial changes were unnecessary to begin with, I am simply restoring the previuous state. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned, with good faith, that Edokter's messages suggest he has lost good faith and perspective and may continue to edit disruptively. I note that reversions/deletions/etc seem prevalent in his editing history and I wonder how many are dogmatic rather than e.g. purely anti-vandalism. I don't know what actions have been found to transform such situations elsewhere in the past. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Don't try and make me the bad guy here... that is quite bad faith. Yes, I revert a lot; that is certainly not uncommon, for both editors and admins, and certainly not limited to fighting vandalism. Perhaps I should make some snide remarks about your edits being primarily in template space? My main problem with you is your lack of understanding the basic technical principles of Wikipedia; your multiple (too) bold edits of some core templates without testing them in a sandbox; reinstating your edits after a revert in the hope it will stick, showing a poor grasp of WP:BRD; your complete lack of regard for small or mobile displays judging from the many hardcoded CSS properties you use to fit your screen, and overuse of inline CSS in general to micro-manage template's display; moving templates multiple times leaving a slew of redirects behind for others to clean up; and the reason we're here: creating redirects to existing templates and then changing existing calls to the redirect. That is just bad practice; I see it as a very sneaky way to enforce a preferred name. If you really want a different name, request a move like anyone else would. I am very intolerant of these underhanded paractices and that is why I revert them. In short: you are a loose cannon in template space, and I have been monitoring you since I spotted you, reverting when necessary and averting some potential accidents along the way. I have had to explain some principles of template coding multiple times before you adhere to them, and sometimes you slip back into old habits.

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

Sanction appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Promotional username

Dear sir/madam

During my study of Wikipedia's internal infrastructure at MIT, I learnt that this page is the right venue for such queries. The following user @Publicstep: seems to have the same username of a copyvio page that he made Publicstep which I marked for CSD. According to the username policy "Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company" are not permitted. So could you please review this case and possibly ask the user for a change of username.NetworkOP (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@NetworkOP: reported at [276] good luck with your project. Avono (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.NetworkOP (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the place to report these is not here but Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. That one has been reported by Avono and dealt with by another editor. Thanks, OP, for your efforts to keep things right here. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring between User:ChumleeS and User:Lackope

ChumleeS (talk · contribs) and Lackope (talk · contribs) are edit warring on a lot of articles (just look at their contributions). Both have received warnings (the latter removed one). This has been going on for weeks. Maybe someone can get them to stop? APK whisper in my ear 23:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I gave both users a final warning against edit warring and invited them to explain their point of view here. The amount of edit warring here really is unacceptable, and the only reason I didn't immediately issue blocks is that both users appear to be relatively new. Dragons flight (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the edits seem to relate to Serbia and Croatia, would this also be getting into an area where discretionary sanctions could be applied? —C.Fred (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Shit. I came across the pair at RFPP and blocked both of them. ChumleeS has been here since April but with fewer edits than Lackope who arrived in December. If anybody wants to change the blocking or remove it go ahead, it's fine with me. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

SPA Rebecca1990, possible industry insider

As you may clearly see in her User Contributions, User User talk: Rebecca1990 is a 19-month old WP:SPA that edits solely in pornographic discussions, and only (LITERALLY as in 100%!!!) in favor of pornography or a certain pornographic actor/actress. In Afds relating to pornography she always votes "KEEP." Like literally (again), she has NEVER, EVER, EVER voted "Delete" or against a pornstar page in the entire time she has been here.

Recently, users have picked up on her conduct and have begun suspecting her of being an insider for the porn industry who gets paid for AVN or some firm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_December_26 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eva_Angelina

One user said, "for the love of Buddha/Jehovah/Flying Spaghetti Monster, will someone take "Rebecca1990" to ANI and propose a topic ban already? If this editor isn't a paid shill for AVN or some related PR firm or whatnot, I'll eat my shorts." And another said, I would observe that you appear to be here solely to promote and defend pornography articles, as it's 100% of your activity, and so strong reasons exist to assume you're an industry insider in violation of Wikipedia:TOS.

That is why I open this discussion, If she really is an insider for the porn industry and gets paid to protect them here, then her edits violates WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:SPA, and WP:NOTOPINION. I think a temporary topic ban would help or a firm warning. At the very least this noticeboard can force her to explain her outrageous 100% pro-pornography, promotional-based edit history. BBnumber1 (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you see the irony of creating a new account for the sole purpose of reporting a single purpose account? Chillum 00:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I will also mention that WP:SOCK says that Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Chillum 00:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment If you look at their contributions, you'd see they are obviously not an SPA and that their deletion !votes are not a violation of policy. It seems the IP is taking issue with the fact that they vote !keep in certain afd discussions, and is attempting to get them blocked for that. That's not against any policy or guideline. The IP is also going on a witchhunt with the terms "If she gets paid" and saying that she is possibly in violation of WP:ADVOCACY. I think a boomerang is in order. Addendum: I believe that OP might be an illigitimate account of this user. This diff is what led me to this understanding as well this discussion. Tutelary (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  Agreed with this comment, this should go to SPI and the filing editor looks to be a sockpuppet created to hide personal disagreements with the reported editor. Weedwacker (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - members of the porn project tend to be passionate especially in defense of articles and subjects that have been so routinely on the receiving end (in a usually detrimental way) of, to put it lightly, very non-open minded attitudes. As evidence of this, I refer you to the recent discussion above, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SqueakBox_and_porn_again. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: "...members of the porn project tend to be passionate especially in defense of articles and subjects..." ...which makes them no different than anyone else around here. They are granted no dispensation or special privileges to create a hostile debate environment by slinging ad homina. (Disclosure: I created the Eva Angelina AfD which the other user referenced above; this is its current state.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, I suspect the opener is yet another sock of infamous User:Redban who was banned less than two weeks ago. A SPI would be appropriate. Cavarrone 10:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Requesting speedy delete, but also a salt

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

---

Hi, may I please request a speedy delete of Talk:Tarzan III: Tale of Two Jungles under G8 criteria (Talk page dependent on a non-existent or deleted page) and G5 criteria (creation by banned or blocked user). I'd also like to request a salting of the talk page and the article. Background: A persistent vandal from Vietnam keeps creating disruptions to Disney-related articles, and keeps creating this pointless Disney-related talk page. (Three times so far according to page logs) There is zero indication that this is a valid project, and the user keeps creating unattached talk pages where he stores hoax content, presumably to escape scrutiny. There is, however, an indication that it is some fan-based wishful thinking. fan project. Requesting salt on the basis that there is no likely reason for this article or talk page to exist for N-span of time. Grazie, and please drop me a note if you have any further questions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threats at Satyananda Saraswati

See Talk:Satyananda Saraswati#Legal Implication of Adding Controversy/Controversies section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Which specific entry is a legal threat? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"Adding a new legal section. In case the Controversy section is opened in a rush there are legal implications". Maybe not exactly a threat, yet, is it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I see what you're getting at. It might be the rumblings of a legal threat about to sprout. But do the complaints have merit? Is the "controversial" information supported by valid sourcing and does not constitute a BLP violation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Bugs, he died in 2009. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If so, then BLP doesn't apply. Even so, the sourcing for whatever the controversy is, needs to be valid and notable. Be sure of that, and then you can call the other editor's bluff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Major Australian newspapers reporting on a hearing by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse . Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

hi Joshua,The comment was certainly not a threat to anyone and certainly not to the news papers as you have mentioned.(at least speaking of myself) but more for the wikipedia contributors to be mindful of sensitivity of the Royal Commission currently on.The interim report is not yet out. Adding a Controversy section and parts of that could be quoted by any party on both the sides to go after each other. Infact by adding new section we are making life difficult for both the parties( Parties mean the Australian Yoga center and the group of people who are aggrieved.) Protocol108 (talk) 08:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Protocol108 (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Protocol108 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible Legal Threat by Jqadrij

Jqadri has been edit warring on Saman Hasnain. This is there latest edit on Saman Hasnain[[277]]. A couple of lines stick out "Anybody including Chadd who tries to alter thefactual content of this article without providingevidence should be criminally prosecuted"' and "Anybody who challenges these facts should produce evidence or Wikipedia is responsible"

I am not sure if this is a legal threat or if this is just the person saying they should be charge with a crime. Either way this edit does not seem to be here to build up wikipedia. Thanks, VViking_TalkEdits 07:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a combination of attempting to intimidate, combined with poor editing. Probably just trolling. But if it continues, ask for an indef block. However, be sure any facts in question are validly sourced and do not violate BLP rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The facts that she was charge are well sourced, however the lawsuits Jqadri has brought up, I cannot find any information on them. As you know often times after the initial news cycle about the charge there is never any follow-up as to what has happened with the case. I will revert and warn editor about edit warring. Thanks, VViking_TalkEdits 07:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I am asking for an indef block on Jqadrij. This editor has been warned multiple times about edit warring, and saying people should be tried criminally for reverting them. There latest after I warned them about edit warring was this [[278]] Thanks, VViking_TalkEdits 08:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There was a lawsuit: [279]. Jqadri is trying to make it appear that this lawsuit has exonerated the Hasnains. However it was dismissed before it even went to trial. There was no judgement in Hasnain's favour, and it certainly does not show that the charges against him and his wife are "false". Harry the Dog WOOF 08:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:LatterDaySaint1830

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

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

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

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

BTW, I think User:Spongebob1944 & User:2601:A:6400:775:78B9:B1AB:F7FC:4BFF may have been the same mobile-editor. Though, these haven't been used for a few hours. GoodDay (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)