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. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Instances of canvassing and campaigning include:

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

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

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

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

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

[numbers added to match comments]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GregKaye 15:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of P-123's Comments section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the second of the references here I replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Digression

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lor is not an admin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by GraniteSand

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

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

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

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

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

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

[next comment added out of chronological sequence]

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

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

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

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

Further discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response by P-123 to AN/I charges

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

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

Further discussion (continued)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Voluntary Resolution

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

1. No posting to each others talk pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban and Iban for both editors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons for a topic ban on GregKaye

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diversion off section topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please close

My review of all this sees:

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

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

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

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

The Rambling Man forgets the IBAN once again

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

---

Extended content

No sooner do I use the word iconic to describe a nomination at ITN does The Rambling Man quote me directly "iconic" but seems to do so tit for tat. Certainly an admin and sysop who's been blocked by Laser brain (talk · contribs) for previous violations of the IBAN can withdraw his comment or deal with a new block. I'd welcome an admin either notifying The Rambling Man of this comment or advising me I can do so myself in contravention of the IBAN. previous evidence for last block of TRM Well, once again, in violation of our iban, User:The Rambling Man has quoted (with quote marks!) and responded to me directly at ITN nominations: "For the fiftieth time". diffs re TRM's disruption Apparently the last ANI was entirely ignored, as were User:Newyorkbrad's warnings today to TRM to stop the personal comments: that you should stop sullying this page with gratuitous personal comments As a sidenote, the personal comments on this page have to cease and these edits and their edit summaries of TRM's: oh dear Jayron oh, what a surprise do what Brad says, he's Arbcom after all you're the pest which show a pattern of unnecessary incivility. Note also this comment by User:SemanticMantis on the Ref Desk talk page: I don't know what you do elsewhere on WP but when you seem only show up on the ref desk to disparage said desk. Let us note that on his user page, TRM first blanked it in response to this complaint, then restored it with the comment he'd be away for two days, during which he himself expects a block: "restore and add note regarding intermittent availability, should i be blocked in absentia" Meanwhile, on his talk page he dismissed (and deleted) notification of the ANI case and his fellow editors and admins with: "more hilarity, more circus games, i'll continue to make decent articles while the parade continues" And on Newyorkbrad's homepage (NYB has expressed his wish to remain impartial) TRM describes himself as "disagreeing" and me as "abusing": "It'd be rewarding to see how such esteemed members of the hierarchy treat content editors who just vocalise their disagreement, while completely ignoring others who directly abuse people." That is, he is just talking civil, while I am attacking him and admins are ignoring me? When NYB merely asks for civil discussion, TRM responds "if you didn't just wade in and act like a schoolmaster" This sounds like a confession and a retreat mixed with, "It's not me, it's Medeis and the admins." See "you're the pest" above. μηδείς (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC) I'm loathe to respond to these kangaroo proceedings, but given the plethora of false assumptions and incorrect assertions I see (yet again), and given the absolute stone cold intensity with which some users wish to see me "punished", I felt compelled, even today, my son's first birthday, to say a couple of things. I (as well as many many others) have become sick and tired of the self-centred approach, the "why always me?" claims, the incorrect assumptions being hurled around so often at ANI. Some users wish to have their cake and eat it, as evidenced in the multiple responses to the last time I was dragged here. I'm certain if Jayron or NYB have a real problem with me, they are more than capable of doing something about it themselves. Jayron and I frequently have robust discussion, no-one dies and everyone survives to the next time. NYB on the other hand appears from time to time to believe he can sweep into ITN and do exactly as he pleases (usually regarding posting poor quality articles on recently deceased Americans from the movie industry). Indeed, NYB's insistence on threatening to make illegitimate posts has been rejected by four, maybe five different admins in the past. When it comes to ITN, he's just an editor, nothing more. Regarding the policy issue, some users need to be continually reminded that claiming specific policies at ITN is actually factually incorrect. We have policies, guidelines, essays etc. There is a clear difference in the significance of each of these, it's worthwhile understanding that. Finally, I added the holiday notice to my page because, yes, I'm taking my son out for his first birthday and wanted people to know that I'd be unlikely to respond to the current pack of misrepresentations, leave alone any more incorrect claims which may be dug up throughout the day. I restored some of the content with something of an ironic edit summary. Sorry if some users didn't understand that, I must try harder to ensure our "global" audience gets it. Finally, unlike one of the bogus claims above, I have never named any user as being "abusing". If some users wish to assume it to be in reference to them, that is entirely their problem, and they should try hard to address their insecurities. It was, in fact, with reference to those editors who swear at others, who edit war with them etc. If a user believes they meet that profile, bingo. Have a good day all, I'm going to the big smoke for lunch with the little 'un. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Looking at the first accusation re the interaction ban violation (that this edit was a direct response to Medeis), it doesn't look to be the case. I read the response as being directed at Masem, and actually supporting what Medeis said. Number 57 13:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Of all the diffs above, two are allegedly violations of the IBAN. The rest are alleged incivility, to other editors than μηδείς, and pretty tame by the standards we see here. Am I right? Of the diffs regarding the IBAN, I'm struggling to see the violation in the first one - TRM and μηδείς are making similar points about the lack of policy, but I'm struggling to see it as TRM interacting with μηδείς. The second one might be construed as a violation, I guess - responding to NewYorkBrad who was responding to μηδείς. It's not exactly smoking gun material, though. I've a great deal of respect for both these editors, and a TBAN for both from ITN would be a great loss to ITN. But it seems that the IBAN hasn't helped cool things down between them. Any suggestions for other ways of cooling things down? GoldenRing (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC) There is no justification for a TBAN. First, there's no complaint against me, no diffs, and no reason to ban me, since I have not commented once on TRM, while he has on me, as well as reversions, etc. Second, TRM is perfectly capable of doing good work on ITN, all he needs to do is stop addressing me. Third, any such TBAN would be pointless, as we still both edit many overlapping pages. The solution is clear and simple: enforce the IBAN that's already in place. μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I'm not seriously suggesting a TBAN, just thinking out loud about how to cool the situation down. It needs cooling down, on both sides. This is the second time this has ended up at ANI in recent times, both times because you've perceived a violation of the IBAN where other editors have said either the violation is not clear or that you have to work very hard to read it as a violation. And this report has a long list of diffs completely unrelated to you or the IBAN tacked on. It reads a lot like you're on the lookout, just waiting for the slip up that you can bring to ANI and get him blocked/banned. On the other hand, TRM'S response is not exactly conciliatory. Both of you remain unprepared to work in a collaborative, collegial way, then. Ideally, tips both take a long, hard look at yourselves (not each other), let the past go and get on with building an encyclopedia which, so long as you don't cross paths, you both do well. Since that seems unlikely to happen, sadly, I'm trying to think about other ways of making the situation less explosive and, largely, coming up empty-handed. GoldenRing (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Since I was summoned, I might as well make some brief comments. It would be nice if TRM tried to influence discussions by the strength of his arguments, and could also quietly let other people have opinions which differ from him. It's only the ad hominem diversions that create a problem, that and his deliberate attempts to poison the well against people who don't hold the identical opinion he does. Otherwise, I don't really care what happens. TRM makes himself more and more irrelevant the more he behaves in uncooperative ways. It would be nice if he could become a more effective person who was able to actually create the important changes he wants to; but his treatment of others prevents him from being successful in ways that would benefit the encyclopedia. --Jayron32 14:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC) ^I'll support this. I only know TRM from the ref desks, and it seems he could be a big help there, but he doesn't choose to. That's fine, we spend time where we want. Whatever his abilities and skills are, it seems that TRM has managed to step on a few toes. Then again so has Medeis. If I could hand out sentencing I would give TRM and Medeis both a trouting, remind them both to respect the IBAN, and hope that they learn that a more cooperative attitude would make both of their efforts more productive. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC) You people created your own monster. The Rambling Man, a productive editor and an admin, is perfectly justified in expecting the Rule of Corbett (i.e. productivity means you can be as rude as you like) to apply to him as well, and I can't say I blame him. The only difference is he doesn't appear to have the squads of acolytes and fawning admins ready to fall on their swords in his defense. What a joke! --Drmargi (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC) No, the rule defines a "valuable contributor" as one with acolytes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC) I won't be able to comment at length or research the diffs for about 12 hrs from now, but the issue here really is violations of the iban by TRM. The incivility is just part of the pattern. There have been previous iban violations by TRM, and a previous ANI that documented them in October. I'll search the archives tonight. The "for the fiftieth time" and quotation of the word policy in the edit above was directed at me. He quoted me, and my occassional use of the word policy has been a bugaboo of his apparently for over a year now, hence his "for the fiftieth time" statement. I'll look for these comments tonight, can someone tell me how to search for the use of the word policy by TRM on the ITN nomination page only? I find searching the history of that page very difficult. Bottom line, TRM has repeatedly been warned not to interact with me and continued to do so, I have made no comments regarding him. He should be treated like any other editor would who violated an IBAN. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC) μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC) He used the same word as you? How about we don't notify him, and we just close this? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Take a look at the second diff. He didn't just coincidentally use the word "iconic", he put scare quotes around "iconic", indicating he was quoting (and disparaging) what someone else wrote. Medeis' use of "iconic" in his own statement is right above TRM's comment. It's hard not to see this as a -- admittedly minor -- violation of the IBAN. Whether it's block-worthy I'll let an admin decide -- that's why they get the big bucks. BMK (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC) I failed to note that Medeis' comment was to oppose TRM's ITN nomination. Like Laser Brain below, I would consider that a violation of the IBAN as well, which makes TRM's violation (which, despite the comments below, it quite clearly is -- the use of "iconic" was a choice and not an accident, and the scare quotes make his POV about the Medeis comment obvious, so I'm not sure why that is not being seen by other commenters) a response to Medeis' violation. So if anyone is considering any kind of sanction here, Medeis would seem to be the party who should be sanctioned. The IBAN requires him to stay away from TRM, including his nominations etc. BMK (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC) I've had multiple disputes with The Rambling Man (some evidenced in the collapse box above, which I hadn't even realized until I entered the editing window), but this complaint strikes me as petty. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC) I half expect Medeis to start pointing and saying, "he's looking at me!" This is beyond petty, and bordering on harassment by Medeis. The word at issue was iconic. It's hardly inappropriate for TRM to put it in quotes, given the context, and his statement was nothing close to disparaging. It's long past time for Medeis (and one or two other folks) to stop seeing IBAN violations in every edit Rambling Man makes, and start assuming a little good faith. I've seen third graders more able to ignore another's behavior. --Drmargi (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Who are these "one or two other folks"? If you mean Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) and the host of other users like Snow Rise and Phoenixia1177 or Drmies, etc., who've chastised him please mention and notify them. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Let's eliminate the IBAN because it's causing more trouble than it could possibly be solving. Jehochman Talk 03:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Does this mean I am free to violate the IBAN as I see fit? Shall I take the "leave the cesspool to the shitheads" comment currently on TRM's talk page as read? When someone directly quotes me with quote marks around a word no one else has used but me, I take that a explicit violation of the IBAN. Given the last time he was blocked he promised to quit the project, threw a fit on his talk page, and I personally asked that he be unblocked I take comments like Drmargis' as uniformed and insulting. Either there is an IBAN or there isn't. PS, has anyone notified TRM? And no, Jehochman, let's enforce the IBAN since only one party keeps breaking it, and you were the last to unblock TRM, so your recusing yourself would be appropriate. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC) This does not seem to be a clear violation. Even if this was a subtle jab at you which I don't think it is, then your reaction would be the exact sort of thing wanted. I recommend you ask this complaint be closed and move on. Chillum 03:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC) If anything, the only violation I've seen of late is Medeis's constant running to this noticeboard to stir up trouble. --Drmargi (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC) responding to a violation of the IBAN is explicitly allowed under the terms of the IBAN. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Just out of curiosity, Medeis, would you consider opposing TRM's ITN nomination a violation of your IBAN? Because I would. And that occurred before the needling you are here to complain about. I agree with Jehochman that the IBAN is pointless. --Laser brain (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC) No, we both comment on the same threads on ITN and at the Ref Desks and that fact was directly addressed in the three ANI's that were initiated to get the IBAN put in place. Had I said something like Nergaal when he opposed TRM's nom a few weeks ago because it was TRM's nom, then yes, that would be a violation, as would directly quoting him or trying to do so surreptitiously. But both TRM and I have agreed and disagreed on various nominations, and TRM has even thanked me several times since the IBAN via the thank function for my comments saying he should have been unblocked, and in support of his nominations. The only question here is the very obvious violation with a direct quote of my comment, using quote marks. Given I am explicitly and happily banned from responding, I have brought it here. I don't expect that to be ignored. I just want TRM to watch what he's doing and stop testing the limits as Drmies expressly forbade him to do. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC) What was reported is not a violation IBAN, this is however. Given the pettiness of the report I'm considering blocking Medeis. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Would it be feasible to keep the iBan, but prohibit Medeis from reporting violations? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Prohibiting an editor from openly reporting an alleged violation of an interaction ban would tend to encourage behind-the-scenes or off-wiki discussion instead. Is that really preferable to openness? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC) * Knock it off Medeis - you're obviously trying to get a Rambling Man blocked. How about we ban you from mentioning his name anywhere on this encyclopedia. I fully support such a ban KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC) struck out, Bugs is correct KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Uh, that's already there. It's called an Interaction Ban. And again, if you try to impose such a ban, you'll encourage behind-the-scenes behavior, which I can't see as an improvement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Question - As a "compromise" between lifting the IBAN and preventing Medeis from reporting violations, how about making it one-way? TRM should no longer be prevented from interacting with Medeis (but warned that the IBAN may be reinstated), but Medeis is prohibited from interacting with TRM? Since TRM would no longer be prohibited from responding to Medeis, any further reports of ban violations would no longer fall under an exception, and the community would no longer have to deal with these petty reports. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Let's just get rid of the IBAN and tell both editors not to needle each other. If there's needling or worse, block shopping like this thread, whoever is causes disruption will get a series of escalating blocks. That should put an end to it. Jehochman Talk 14:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC) An IBAN is usually an imperfect solution, but it actually works a reasonable amount of the time. For it not to work, you need: Two editors of sufficient usefulness that we don't just want to apply the banhammer (or, the topicbanhammer) to one or both and say good riddance; One or both of whom have sufficient dislike of the other that they just can't seem to let go; One or both of whom have sufficient lack of concern for everyone else that they don't care that continuing this feud is a pain in the ass for everyone else; Both editors active in one or two areas (in this case, ITN and Ref Desk), where replying to other editors is an integral part of the process. I agree with Jehochman that the IBAN isn't working here, and is actually leading to an increase in annoyance for everyone. I disagree with many here that it's all Medeis' fault. I think it's partly her fault for being ultra-sensitive to perceived slights, some of them minor but real, others imagined; partly our fault for not making clear whether we want the IBAN to apply to talking about the other editor personally, or making comments that specifically disagree with the other's comments; partly TRM's fault for not being able to resist directly quoting remarks by someone with whom he has an IBAN; and partly the world's fault for being imperfect. I suspect that just repealing the IBAN and telling them both to stop picking at scabs won't work. But we should either: Try that first, see if it works, and do something below if it doesn't; Go the bureaucratic route and try tweaking the wording of the IBAN to make clear that specifically disagreeing with each other is allowed, or disallowed; Go with a more Solomonic cut-the-baby-in-half-to-piss-them-both-off approach, and ban Medeis from ITN and TRM from the Ref Desks; or Go with the blunt force approach, and ban them both from ITN and the Ref Desk. I suggest the first (even if I fear it has a low likelihood of success), but any of the four would work for me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Comment: I'd like to point out that today happens to be the one-year anniversary of when I first engaged this issue and tried to "tell both editors not to needle each other" (Jehochman) and "stop picking at scabs" (Floquenbeam). Anyone who doesn't see how thoroughly that approach hasn't worked out has got their head in the sand. The IBAN hasn't worked either, because here we are a year later. Jehochman tried opening an arena for a Festivus-style airing of grievances but that doesn't seem to have had any effect. Baseball Bugs seems to have been far more successful than Medeis or TRM in putting this in the curbside garbage can, but I fear nothing short of issuing topic bans for Medeis and TRM from ITN and Ref Desk is going to solve this issue. Or, we can continue to let it fester and we'll see everyone at ArbCom a few weeks or months from now. --Laser brain (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Ok. Let's try both editors banned from ITN and the reference desk and if they want to figure out a detente they can ask for the restrictions to be lifted. My arena page is open for them if they want to talk about it. Otherwise they can't interact in any way, broadly construed. It's just tiresome for the rest of us to have to endure this constant sniping. Jehochman Talk 16:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC) So, to be clear, we'll both be banned from ITN and the Ref desks indefinitely? Could someone please send me a note if this is the case as I'm one of the few admins left at ITN posting stories and I guess a ban from there would stop me doing that. Presumably it wouldn't stop me from updating the stories nominated? Thanks all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Comment - I concur with the proposal to temporarily suspend their IBAN and see if that makes things better. (As for my own IBAN, keep it in place. It's not a problem for me.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Comment I'm of similar mind to BMK here. I find it hard to believe TRM wasn't at least partially thinking of μηδείς's comment when replying, particularly given the history here of TRM pushing the boundary of the Iban. I do however agree with some others that considering how indirect it was, even with the history here, it was probably the sort of thing best left be, regardless of whether that's only going to mean more of the same. However it also seems to me that μηδείς opposing TRM's initiated ITN candidate was also problematic, even if it had had other supports so μηδείς may be partially replying to those comments (and the support/oppose is ultimately related to the candidate anyway). I'll admit I've never really understood how the iban was supposed to work on ITNC. My assumption a while ago based on comments they made was they would work it out, but it seems clear this hasn't happened. I therefore agree that going the bureaucratic route is worth considering. I have the nasty feeling we're still going to end up with discussions about boundaries just more complicated ones (or a 10000 word iban notice) but I'm not totally sure if there's any other good alternative. I do agree that it's not simply μηδείς who is at fault. μηδείς does seem oversensitive, but TRM does seem to like to push the boundaries (although μηδείς also has too). (Let's not forget in the early days of the iban TRM seemingly admitted to still watching the talk page of μηδείς over a month after the iban Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260#.5BMoved from ANI.5D Possible interaction ban violation and I think, didn't seem particularly interested in removing it at the time User talk:The Rambling Man/Archive 45#Watchlist. Sadly that seemingly just set the tone, and since I rarely visit ITNC where the problem seems to occur, I'm guessing I haven't even seen half of it, and I'm thinking on both sides.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Yep, you're right, you're not clear on it at all. If by "pushing the boundaries" you mean "providing a cited response to counter an outlandish claim which happened to use a single common word" (I'm guessing I can still use "the" and "and" and "it" etc in responses) then you're right. Otherwise you're way off mark. Let's just ban us both from ITN and other similar locations, like the Ref Desk, or else let's just use some common sense and agree that this, amongst the other seven or eight complaints, is complete bollocks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC) The history suggested 'happened' is highly misleading. It's hard to believe that you were not thinking of μηδείς claims when you were responding, just as with all the other times. BTW, whether or not μηδείς claims were outlandish is a moot point, you're forbidden from responding to them in any way on wikipedia per the iban although you're free to respond to other comments like the person who started that candidate. Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Fuck me, is this still rumbling on? May I suggest that you all just start the new year with a new slate and move the hell on! CassiantoTalk 19:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Indeed. Utter bollocks, but hey, what do you expect here these days? It's odd that around 3pm UTC we have such a barrage of outrage.... I wonder why.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC) I propose that we close this thread with no action other than warning that any sort of frivolous reports about this IBAN in the future can result in a block and will result in a look into the reporters behavior. This is a silly waste of time. Chillum 20:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC) You really think it's better to encourage behind-the-scenes complaints instead of openness? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Did I say it's better to encourage behind-the-scenes complaints instead of openness? I am fairly sure I did not. Chillum 20:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC) I assume by the "behind-the-scenes complaints" you are referring to Medeis and not me? Please make this clear in your response. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC) I wouldn't know what either of you might do off-wiki. I'm merely saying that the proposal of some here, in trying to pre-empt every possible complaint, is not an appropriate solution - either for this case or any case at ANI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC) It's really important you're clear here as both you and Medeis have been in regular email contact, along with various admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC) I can't speak for either you or Medeis. I myself have had very little contact with any wiki users off-wiki, for any reason. To put it another way, I am not in "regular" contact with any Wikipedia user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Not that it matters, but you and Medeis have both had communications with admin(s) in relation to this. To deny it would be wholesale lying. On the other hand, I have never attempted to circumvent the "system" with any kind of off-wiki emailing. Neither of you can say that, and you know it. Medeis has admitted as such. So, please, clarify the point, that you and Medeis have already resorted to such off-wiki tactics. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC) I have asked this at least three times now, and no one has answered yet: Is the off-wiki approach better than being open about it here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC) And I have suggested that, in this complaint, only you and Medeis are guilty of off-wiki attempts to manipulate Wikipedia. She has openly admitted it, you cannot deny it. Stop trying to cover your tracks. Admittedly you are just part of a game, and you have shown on numerous occasions that you wish for the best for Wikipedia, but sadly the double-teaming off-wiki campaign is all too clear and painfully obvious. I'm sorry that you ended up being associated with her, other editors have suggested that she should be banned, not just from the Ref desks or ITN, but from the site as a whole. I'm sure you don't want to end up in that situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC) I have no way to know whether you're telling the truth about your own off-wiki activities, if any. However, I interpret your comments to mean that you would prefer any complaints be made here, in the open, rather than behind the scenes. Yes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC) All communication should be on wiki unlike those between you and Medeis and other admins, yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC) So any and all complaints should be brought here, and the notion of censoring such complaints, as promoted by some here, is non-operative. Sounds good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC) I think you've said more than enough Bugs. Sorry! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Bugs I said frivolous complaints, not every possible complaint. There is a big difference. Chillum 20:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC) How is Medeis supposed to know ahead of time, how you're going to judge a given complaint? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC) She could base it on the other seven (or so) complaints that came to nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Using the mighty power of competence to judge if the complaint has merit before making it. Chillum 21:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Trying to guess how you're going to interpret something would require ESP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Or a level of common sense, competence or understanding of what has gone on before. Clearly that is not applicable here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Or one might question the competence of those who claim the complaints are frivolous. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Or not admitting to your own off wiki collusions? Do us all a favour, do something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC) I am most pleased that you agree that off-wiki discussion should not be necessary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Indeed, so if you and Medeis could stop doing it, that'd be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC) I am happy to have my competence reviewed by the community at any time. Chillum 22:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC) It's already on display here. >:) In any case, since TRM agrees that complaining off-wiki is an undesirable approach, then he has tacitly approved bringing all complaints here. Then you and your equally-competent pals can decide on a case-by-case basis whether the complaint is actionable or not. OR, you could fix this by abolishing or at least suspending their interaction ban. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Baseball Bugs is derailing the discussion in order to deflect from the problem highlighted by Callanecc above at 04:22, 2 January 2015. Callanecc pointed out that Medeis had violated the IBAN by opposing (diff) TRM's nomination, while the issue Medeis complains of in this report is highly trivial. Baseball Bugs knows how to keep out harm's way and is only disruptive when one of these discussions starts. The solution is to topic ban Medeis only as they are the source of the conflict. The situation can be reviewed if that remedy is insufficient. TRM does good work at those venues and should be encouraged to continue. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC) A violation is a violation. Either there's an IBAN or there isn't. To dismiss one item as meaningful and the other as trivial suggests bias on your part. As to your personal attack on me, please note that I have no current problems with either editor, nor do I anticipate any. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Wait, what? We aren't allowed to distinguish between meaningful issues and trivial ones? Please. Also, it seems to me the lengthy "discussions" in this thread between Baseball Bugs and TRM are violating the spirit of the iBan. Finally, a question: if it's (apparently) okay for the iBanned users to talk to each other in this thread, does it make any sense for Medeis to not be allowed to notify TRM when one of these threads is opened? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC) We're allowed to discuss the matter here. And you raise a good question about the awkwardness that's a consequence of an IBAN. That's why their IBAN should be modified or abolished. OR, there needs to be a solid, consistent mechanism for reporting and notification, i.e. a list of exceptions built into the definition of an IBAN, so that the victim can handle it openly instead of having to sneak around back of the house and pass notes to an admin. The apparent need to do that kind of stuff undermines the (presumed) intended purpose of an IBAN, or any ban for that matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Do you think there is any real chance an admin would have blocked Medeis for posting a notification on TRM's talk page? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Yes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC) There's been a death in my extended family which has been a big strain as my sister was visiting from 300 miles away for the holidays and that has been upset with the need to care for her young children and plan for the viewing and funeral tomorrow. Hence my unwillingness to stop by here for what is unpleasant enough in normal circumstances. Editting WP should be a pleasure. To summarize, a year ago, after three ANI's and with a huge consensus among dovens of commenters in favor of an IBAN it was instituted, and all the parties were formally warned not to address or interact with each other directly or indirectly. Over that period one editor has regularly flouted the IBAN, been warned for it and blocked for it. And there's really not even been a good reason like an edit war of religion to violate the IBAN, just a feeling the admin involved is above it. When this happens in regard to me I can remain silent in the face of criticism, I can respond and face a block for violating the IBAN myself, or I can bring the complaint here and hope an admin will at least deliver a talk-page warning. There's no need for any other action if this IBAN is actually enforced. Given coming here is the proper course of action, I come here. I don't expect editors who don't want to be bothered looking into the reasons for the IBAN to tell me my complaints are a nuisance, they needn't comment. The nuisance is one editor who can't seem to go a month without violating the IBAN. There's something extremely wrong when making goodfaith edits in favor of an ITN nomination gets you abuse from both a user who should know better and from people with a duty of care given their position who just don't want to be bothered. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Replace IBAN with very strong warning I propose that the IBAN be lifted, since it is not working except to facilitate gaming, but instead replaced by a very strong warning that any incivility be dealt with by a block of one week, escalating on second offense to two weeks. Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Please stop dropping "let's be nice to everyone" messages into contentious topics. We all know that Medeis is more "civil" than TRM (and is only disruptive by cluelessness, not by language), so the proposal is not addressing the issue. Medeis needs to stop doing the things that TRM feels duty bound to highlight, and Medeis needs to stop bringing minor issues to ANI. As shown above, there is an IBAN violation, namely Medeis opposed (diff) a nomination by TRM. That is what needs to be sanctioned, although no one here really cares about the IBAN—we just want the silliness to stop. The solution is to topic ban Medeis and let them propose a solution to return to that area if they want. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC) It was my understanding, when this general question was raised about a year ago, that the normal course of business at ITN was not to be considered a violation. If Medeis had instead said "Support", would that still have been a "violation"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC) If this is true then the entire premise of this particular ANI is fallacious and should be closed immediately with a warning not to repeat such behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC) That's a major "if", because I may be remembering incorrectly. The question is whether, if users X and Y are in an IBAN, and if user X proposes something, is user Y allowed to comment on the proposal? I thought so, but maybe not. Someone needs to clarify that detail, as there seem to be opinions both ways here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Indeed, but it's certainly something I recall Medeis herself saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Perhaps you're thinking of μηδείς's comment in the discussion I linked above which I'll relink here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260#.5BMoved from ANI.5D Possible interaction ban violation where μηδείς said "Please note the other editor has voted in opposition to my nominations in the past, for example diff without my objection then or now, just as I am accused of here. Please note the other editor has acted directly on the same thread on which I have just commented, with no objection by me or any other user. diff" and "I am not interested in stopping the other editor from acting on or voting on ITN threads with which I have been involved, and I don't see any reason for any restriction on my addressing such matters objectively without regard to the other editor. On occasion we disagree on the issue at hand. Neither of us has to address the other to do so." At the time, I didn't think was going to work, nor did I think this was really in tune with how ibans are supposed to work. However as mentioned above, I decided to trust that you'd all somehow work it out (also I was more concerned about the watchlist issue). Since I don't visit ITNC much at all, I presumed for a long time this was mostly happening. However the recent ANI threads suggests it's not. I don't know if μηδείς has changed their mind, it appears their complaint is not that you commented on a proposal which had been started by them, but that your commented appeared to be addressing a specific comment they had made, which is a somewhat distinct point and seemed to be specifically precluded by their earlier comment. (They also suggested it was addressing their comment in a retaliatory or tit for tat way.) This may be why μηδείς felt their reply to the candidate started by you was acceptable, even if they felt yours wasn't. (Although I find it hard to believe they too weren't thinking at least of your comment, although of course it's difficult comment on a candidate wording if without at least partially replying to the person who proposed it, one of the reasons I felt this wasn't going to work.) Of course since the iban is community imposed, your view, that of μηδείς or BB is ultimately not that important compared to the communities view on what the iban entails as I think you agree. Nil Einne (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC) I agree that it is certainly not the first time that one of them has commented on an ITN proposed by the other. However, I agree that doing so doesn't seem to be in the spirit of IBAN, nor does it seem to be very workable in practice. I would favor a clarification of the IBAN that says that parties can not comment on (or take action on) ITN candidates proposed by the other party. Dragons flight (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC) The clear and obvious difference being I never drag Medeis here every two minutes when she comments on any of my proposals. Yet it seems fine, even commonplace for it to work the other way round. She can't have her cake and eat it. Having said that, if the community wish to block me, please make sure the block is evenly handed out this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC) The interactions in this section indicate to me that the IBAN is still needed to prevent disruption. So I'd much rather see the IBAN enforced with an iron fist (which I'm happy to help with) than a civility parole (which have proved ineffective in the past). What about adding a clause preventing them both from commenting on each other's enforcement requests and from making any comments other than the initial report on their own enforcement requests. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC) That kind of leads up to what I was pondering earlier today. A given party could report a complaint, and then let the admins here decide whether it's a valid complaint or not. No further comments by the complaining party and none by the one being complained about. That might work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC) I seldom respond to these endless requests, so mandating that I shouldn't in the future will make little or no difference to me. This was an exceptional circumstance as the double-teaming (as is clearly evident) has kicked off once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC) You are mistaken about the "double-teaming". I have no quarrel with either of you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC) How are you, Bugs, not violating your IBAN by chiming in here? Jehochman Talk 09:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC) I was under the impression that ANI was a safe haven for reasonable discussion of IBANs and the like. And as you may recall from your "arena" (i.e. "sandbox") page a month or two ago, there are no real issues between TRM and me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC) You two need to officially shake hands and end the IBAN before you join a thread like this one. Please cease commenting here about TRM and Medeis until that happens. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 10:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC) How should I go about doing that? Should I ask here for the IBAN to be revoked? OK, I will. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC) For clarity, are you saying you don't normally respond to the ANI requests by μηδείς calling for some intervention due to alleged violations by you of the iban? Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC) A rough review of the archives seems to indicate that TRM has participated in more than half of the IBAN complaints initiated by Medeis. Dragons flight (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC) I'm mildly surprised by that, but, as most threads deteriorate into hysteria and inaccuracies, I am sometimes obliged to correct them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC) I found the same thing so wanted to make sure I understood what was being stated. While it's possible I've missed some (in particular if they were hatted or otherwise not findable by searching the displayed page, or if they were removed, or if they didn't happen at AN//I or simply if I didn't noticed that μηδείς was complaining about TRM somehow), my finding was in these two Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Further violation of interaction ban and incivility by The Rambling Man at ITN, etc & Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive865#IBAN violations by User:The Rambling Man, further evidence, TRM did reply. In Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#IBAN violations by The Rambling Man, further evidence (although this appeared to be a sort of follow up to the earlier complaint) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#IBAN Violation between User:The Rambling Man against User:Medeis TRM did not reply. TRM also replied to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive865#IBAN Revisited: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, Medeis although that was a general discussion of the iban and not initiated by μηδείς. I didn't look for these and if μηδείς didn't participate I may not have seen them (as people may refer to μηδείς as medeis). There's also the request a long time ago I mentioned above although that was against by μηδείς and not initiated by them or TRM. Finally there was the original discussion to implement the topic ban as well as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive258#Community sanctions and block. Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Support replacement of an IBAN that clearly isn't effectual with warnings backed immediately and in threat of future action of more relevant blocks and topic bans. IBANs resolve nothing. If an editor is being obnoxious and refusing to change then what are they doing in Wikipedia. There is no purpose in just silencing people. Judgement should be made on any clear infraction of CIVIL and PA with sentences that may mean something. GregKaye 20:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Counter argument You know what, in all the bluster and guff above, I had actually failed to read that Medeis had used scare quotes and commented (using exactly the same words as me) on one of my proposals, just here before I'd even added a factually accurate and sourced comment to an item that she didn't nominate. I have no problem at all with Medeis commenting however she likes on any ITN item I nominate, nor have I ever made any claim to the contrary. I firmly believed that we could work together on ITN items, albeit mainly in opposition to one another. But now it's clear that Medeis is taking every possible opportunity to get me blocked, banned, whatever. I am sick and tired of her constant harassment and nitpicking and sad stories. I am out of this discussion, frankly I'm sorry I even commented in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Comment Given the ongoing disruption caused by the frequent unfounded visits to ANI by Medeis, and by this new, spurious thread based on something Medeis has previously done themselves, I think we need to consider the possibility of a topic ban for Medeis from ITN. Several other editors have now complained of the disruption here by Medeis constantly filing reports, all of which have been refuted, and this has to end. - SchroCat (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC) I think it's a mischaracterization to say they have all been refuted. TRM was blocked last month (and Medeis received no sanction) after an admin was sufficiently convinced of her claims of harassment. Having been introduced to TRM by that incident and having no prior experience or opinion of him, I can tell you it seemed pretty cut and dry to me as well. That block was only overturned (bizarrely) after Medeis and Bugs advocated for it to be set aside. And most of the rest of these ANI's have ended with the community here just throwing up their hands in exasperation at what to do about these two (and to a lesser extent the issues between Bugs and TRM); that's a very different thing from refuting that there is an issue with the behaviour of one of the three parties. However, I do agree with you that, as of this filing, things have clearly gone to an unacceptably hyperbolic place. This is why I view IBANs as counter-intuitive and inconsistent with the spirit of our most important behavioural policies -- because they excuse unacceptable behaviour on the part of one or more of the involved parties as a mere matter of context, when clearly if an editor is capable of violating the collegial spirit of the project with regard to one person, they are capable of doing it with another or (as in this case) finding ways to lob broadsides at the original party from a distance anyway. But all of that being said, it seems the community is still not yet ready to invoke longer-lasting and more general blocks -- though I'm increasingly convinced this acrimony will not ultimately stop short of such sanctions. So, until I got diverted into addressing issues of personal attacks between these parties in the section bellow, I was about to suggest something along the lines of what you have above, but on a more voluntary, mutual, and equitable basis. I was wondering -- though I very much doubt both parties will agree to it -- if Medeis would be willing to voluntarily abstain from contributing to ITN if TheRamblingMan agreed to stay out of the Reference Desks, the other area where they sometimes cross paths with explosive consequences. I think TRM might be amenable to that solution, but I'm more dubious about Medeis, since ITN seems more central to her activities than the Ref Desks are to TRM. Still, if neither party can entirely respect the IBAN, I think carving up the areas the two operate on (ridiculous as that is), is the only option short of blocking one or both. Personally my observation has been that one party is much more inclined to instigate these little meltdowns, but the other is rarely far behind in responding to these passive-aggressive overtures. So, if they can't find a way to stay out of eachother's way (and stop wasting all of our time), it may just be the case that both being asked to take a break from the project will be the only solution remaining. Snow talk 01:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC) The repeated complaints by Medeis certainly seem to suggest a vendetta on her part and this does not favorably impress me. I think Medeis needs to do some soul–searching and ask herself why she continues to open these threads. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Proposal to strengthen IBAN Proposing this in a new section for discussion. The discussions between Medeis and The Rambling Man at ANI (as well as the various bits of evidence) have shown that an IBAN is still needed as they don't seem to be able to work collaboratively. So I propose that What about adding a clause preventing them both from commenting on each other's enforcement requests and from making any comments other than the initial report on their own enforcement requests be added to the wording of the IBAN to prevent the disruption evident in this section. In addition that they both be warned that the IBAN will be strictly enforced with blocks (which I'm happy to help with, assuming people don't consider me INVOLVED given my comments here). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Support as proposer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Support it would probably be easier to anaylze these complaints without the involved parties getting off on lengthy arguments that hinder any actual resolution. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Oppose With due respect to Callanecc, my take-away from the past few ANI's (and the events at ITN and elsewhere which have prompted them) has been distinctly different; from what I have observed, the more the IBAN has been stressed as a solution, the more drama has resulted as more editors (in an every increasing number of project spaces) become unwitting proxies for their issues. This results from the fact that the increasing focus upon the IBAN causes one of the parties to react to provocation that is increasingly minute in nature, be it perceived or real. Meanwhile, the other editor seems prone to launching passive-aggressive comments that either attack the disliked qualities of his perceived opponent in broad terms or else target large groups of editors in the spaces they share, such that he can continue to criticize that party without being said to be directly engaging him. I can't escape the conclusion that the IBAN has served no purpose but to greatly exacerbate the existing drama between the two, spread the ill-will to encompass many more parties, and draw more and more editors into the the effort to parse just who is more at fault, to the detriment of several highly-important spaces. I have little faith that adding more specific conditions to the IBAN will do much to reform the approach and attitudes of the involved parties in a long-term manner, which is really the issue that ought to be addressed here. I think the IBAN should be removed or that we should at least stop trying to lean on it as a solution reasonably likely to bring closure to this issue. I think the next time there's a conflict between the two, a single, uninvolved administrator should be asked (by every party present at the time, to make sure it gets due attention) to investigate the issue, make his best determination as to who was the real provocateur and block that user for two months. I daresay nothing short of that message will disentangle this pair. Alternatively the two could come to a mutual understanding between them as to who will operate where on the project, with no overlap, but given just how little they can agree on, I don't see that as terribly likely either. Snow talk 03:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Comment Wouldn't this proposal just encourage more of these time-wasting complaints? And let's be clear, it is time-wasting. Medeis seems to feel completely free to flaunt the IBAN when it suits her (eg this diff pointed out above) but then comes running here when TRM does more-or-less exactly the same thing. If anything, Medeis actions are a considerably worse violation of the blockban - if the IBAN is really phrased so that one can comment on the other's ITN nominations then whoever drafted it deserves a largish trout. I just can't see how that isn't a violation of the ban in and of itself. Given that background, only hours before the edits that spawned this complaint, it's pretty hard to see this complaint in good faith. I think the time has come to stop tinkering with the terms of the ban and hand out some hard porridge - either a block each way for IBAN violations, or a TBAN for Medeis that will stop this nonsense. Or both. GoldenRing (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC) There is no TBAN, GR, and the issue of a TBAN on any editor was argued directly and roundly rejected in the Jan 2014 ending ANI. Both TRM and I are allowed to oppose and support and work on each other's nominations and those of third parties, simply without quoting each other directly, reverting, etc. We've done so repeatedly, and to his credit he has thanked me for my comments, although I don't believe I have thanked him. I have defended him though. Had TRM complained here like I did above I would probably have simply removed the comment out of good will, as it was a side matter. (Has he complained about this? I realize that sometimes noms I oppose are posted anyway, so I do try at least to improve their blurbs) I commented along with others that the blurb was inaccurate (at least in American English, I don't know if stampedes in Britain are called crushes) but opposed it on notability grounds. I did not quote, immediately after he used it, a word which only TRM had used. In other words, I did not quote, immediately after he used it, a word which only TRM had used. You are simply not comparing like to like. He was quoting mine and only my rationale in support of a nomination, I was criticizing the wording of a blurb as a blurb. μηδείς (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC) ...a blurb that TRM had proposed, yes. TBH, I think, given the sorts of proposals being made above, that you should stop commenting here. But that's my non-admin $0.02 and you're free to ignore it. GoldenRing (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Comment The TBAN was not "roundly rejected" - it was initially _accepted_, and overturned on a technicality. Here is the relevant discussion. I would certainly support re-opening that case. Tevildo (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC) There was 2 to 1 support for the IBAN and almost no support whatsovere for a TBAN. The first closingadmin realized his mistake, and asked that his closure be reviewed, at which tim it was shown there was no significant support for a TBAN. Not that that has anything to do with this proposal, which accuses TRM of disrupting the thread with his responses. I think that's absurd. I started the thread with only one complaint, but he should still be free to say whatever is civil and suppported by diffs to support himself. I find it spooky that commenters here think the only option is for TRM and myself to be deathly enemies, and to think we mist want each other indeffed from the project. I simply want the standing IBAN enforced, and feel it's been violated by TRM often enough for admins to take notice. 06:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC) The TBAN was overturned because the closing admin used the word "overwhelming". Roger Casement was hanged on a comma - this is an example of the process going the other way. However, that was last year, it's water under the bridge, the cat has not been belled. I would merely ask those persons in authority to consider the whole history of the case, not merely each individual incident, before making a decision - and to _make_ a decision, not just to put it off eternally. Tevildo (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Support I think that in this case neither user should communicate about or to each other including violations. It should be permissible for them to leave a single message to an admin if they think it has been violated, that admin can act or bring it here if they see it has merit. Chillum 06:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Oppose Like Snow, I think that the IBAN has not helped matters. I don't see making it more stringent as the way to go. This proposal would prevent the user who has been reported from providing relevant information in his or her defence. That seems unfair to me. Neljack (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Oppose as per Snow. If these two editors are regularly interested in the editing of Wikipedia than a relevant sanction for relevant infraction relating to against guidelines practice would be the application of blocks and topic bans. IBANS resolve nothing and would only serve to hamper communication with regard to editing content. We should be able to resolve things without merely telling people shhh. I think that discussion of IBAN here is a cop out of actually trying to deal with a potential problem. GregKaye 20:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Medeis/TRM Discussion Note: This sub-section was refactored from another thread which concerned the IBAN between Baseball Bugs and The Rambling Man and placed here as the section solely concerns Medeis and TRM. My thanks for the patience during my unforseen absence. I don't seek any further sanctions as would be implied by the stronger IBAN proposal above. I won't comment on any disruptiveness, but everyone here needs free speech if its factual and civil. I can also understand that someone only just coming upon this might think that TRM's quoting my "iconic" and directly arguing against in itself it wasn't a big deal. But that's only true on its own, and when it's seen in the context of more than two years of hounding now, it's kind of like saying somebody's violating parole is not a big deal. The disruption is wanton, willful, and one sided. And very simply addressed by nothing more than taking the already hard-fought IBAN seriously. I think this comment of TRM's about secret campaigns and off wiki-emailing is telling in the extreme. First, is this "campaign" the reason why TRM felt it necessary to violate the IBAN this time? Does TRM even deny that he violated the IBAN by directly quoting me? Yes, I have emailed BBB and various admins in the past, and I welcome them to release the entire text of my emails to them, so long as they are complete and unaltered. You'll see I emailed an Admin last spring who had placed a stern warning on TRM's page and asked him to enforce it when TRM ignored it. That admin said he was already in a conflict with TRM and didn't want to be seen as piling on. It's why I have been bringing violations here, Most recently you will see me emailing BBB and suggesting that we ask that TRM's 48 block be removed, and me making Jehochman aware that I had done so and supported BBB's request that TRM be unblocked. But I haven't waged any sort of secret campaign that I haven't stated openly, and I did not contact BBB or any admin re this complaint off-wiki, or even want to, or expect to have to file this complaint. It's clear from the above diff that TRM thinks the entire process, including the ANI concluded last January with his support, has been a conspiracy against him, that he's the victim, that he deserves better, that he shouldn't face the consequences of his actions, that I am 'doing this to him' and that you are 'doing this to him' [my scarequotes-not TRM's actual words]. Note that all I asked for from him was that he withdraw the comment in the first sentence of this complaint. I still ask that. μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Medeis, I'm of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, you are absolutely right about the personal attacks. Putting aside for the moment the question of whether his activities at ITN and elsewhere have or have not violated the IBAN (and whether they constitute him hounding you), there is no question here on whether his behaviours have violated WP:NPA repeatedly in these very ANI threads. Point in fact, for the last couple of months, he has made dozens of vocal and unambiguous accusations against no fewer than seven different editors that I've seen (some of whom had just met him) that they are a part of a conspiracy/club/plot/scheme/bandwagon to get him banned. And he has insinuated that this secret cabal is utilizing all manner of underhanded tactics and that they are violating any number of specific policies, but in all of these accusations, he has yet to once provide a single diff, link, or other piece of evidence to support a single one of these claims. There are no two ways about this; these are absolutely classified as serious personal attacks under WP:NPA. And yet, somehow, despite the fact that he is blatantly and repeatedly launching personal attacks from ANI itself, over an extended period, he has not received so much as a single warning from a single admin. I am nothing short of astonished that the community and admins here have let this fly right in front of their faces, and it raises serious questions about the efficacy of our administrative process at present and the willingness of our admins to engage with a problem editor once he's passed a certain bar of tenaciousness. He seems utterly immune to sanction at this point, no matter what behavioural policy he violates, unambiguously and in our most active forum for behavioural oversight. On the other hand, look at how you've behaved over the same period. Last month, you filed two ANIs against him for IBAN violations and hounding. Then, unless I'm remembering this wrong, after he was blocked for this behaviour, you and Bugs both petitioned to have that block removed (!?), and it was. For a certainty you and Bugs then both bent over backwards insisting that the problem had been blown out of proportion and that all parties had proven that they could work together constructively. Meanwhile, other concerned editors, attracted by your request for assistance in this matter who were trying to establish exactly what had happened and what should be done about it suddenly were getting no help from you in straightening things out; in fact, you were working very much at cross-purposes to that effort. You were asked repeatedly whether you felt that TRM had followed you to the Reference Desks to hound you, a question which directly ignored, all while you and Bugs insisted that there was no problem that you couldn't work out with TRM and that, if anything, the IBAN should be dropped, in the middle of a thread you opened to get it enforced more stringently. More than willing to be done with the matter, the community allowed the discussion to expire on your and Bugs' insistence that it was a non-issue. A day or two later, Bugs had opened a new ANI again TRM, which was quickly shut down in disgust by the community here. Now, here we are, not three weeks later, with yet another ANI lodged by you, this time on an issue that you yourself stipulate was not a significant violation. What we have her is a girl who cried wolf situation, if ever I've seen one. This bipolar behaviour has got to stop. You don't like TRM's behaviour? Well guess what, you're the one who is both encouraging his worst behaviour and enabling him to get away with it. You've created an atmosphere here where everything has been reduced to a discussion of the IBAN and the issues between the two of you, when there are actually much larger issues at work. Without this IBAN smokescreen, discussion here would be concentrated on the fact that there has been an insane number of civility violations that we could have, and should have, been talking about all along. So here we are, at the place you've brought us to. I don't think your behaviour has been nearly as objectionable as TRM's -- but that being said, if you get blocked or topic banned, it's going to be more your fault than his. So I'm asking you, as a last-ditch effort to find a compromise solution to this nightmare of a situation, to be the bigger person and to pull back from one of the areas you two share in common and see if maybe he wouldn't be willing to do the same, removing the contexts in which you two are likely to cross paths and (inevitably) begin to flame one another. It's not a thing any editor should be asked to do, but then, no editor who has the best interests of the project in mind should have let the situation get this far. So I'm asking you this favour. I can't ask TRM; he'll just treat the request as a sign of weakness and go on the offensive, as he did when I tried a similar approach in the last ANI. So, though I have doubts that TRM will agree to it himself, is there any posibility you'd be willing to give up editing on ITN if TRM will agree to stay out of an area important to you, say, for example, the Ref Desks? Because, short of that, I don't see this resolving without a block or topic ban for someone, and at this rate, I'd say it's 50-50 which one of you it will be. Snow talk 08:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC) I have asked for TRM to revert his obvious violation. Look at the first sentence of the above thread. That request still stands, but he won't even admit that he's quoted me, nor comment on the fact that until Jehochman reverted his block at mine and BBB's requests (we wanted the end of misbehavior, not his punishment, blocking, or banishment) that he was crying he was taking his ball and going home during the last sanction against him. This is not the state I have brought anyone to any more than a rape victim is wasting time judges could spend golfing. If this is closed without his comments being reverted and without a block, then simply expect me to bring the next violation tio this board if it happens, and expect me to expect admins to do their job and enforce existing community sanctions. TRM is an adult, a sysop, an admin, a parent and a post grad from what I am aware. let him act like one, and dont't blame me for reporting his misbehavior. See blaming the victim. See TRM's edits promising to quit, saying we got him, and wallowing pity while not amending his behavior: TRM's playing the victim in response to his last block The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. (cur | prev) 14:38, 5 December 2014‎ Fyunck(click) (talk | contribs)‎ . . (475 bytes) (+475)‎ . . (→‎Sat it ain't so: new section) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 13:12, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (empty) (-9,105)‎ . . (←Blanked the page) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 11:52, 5 December 2014‎ Martinevans123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,105 bytes) (+251)‎ . . (→‎Unblocked: also, it takes much longer to get up north, the slow way) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 11:32, 5 December 2014‎ Jehochman (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,854 bytes) (+648)‎ . . (→‎Unblocked: new section) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 10:20, 5 December 2014‎ Cassianto (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,206 bytes) (+610)‎ . . (→‎A favour from any TPS: fuck em!) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 10:06, 5 December 2014‎ Martinevans123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,596 bytes) (+77)‎ . . (→‎what happened. John?: or Jimi?) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 10:03, 5 December 2014‎ Martinevans123 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,519 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (→‎what happened. John?: Hey Jude) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 10:02, 5 December 2014‎ Martinevans123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,514 bytes) (+204)‎ . . (→‎what happened. John?: or even) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 09:36, 5 December 2014‎ Lugnuts (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,310 bytes) (+151)‎ . . (→‎what happened. John?) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 08:33, 5 December 2014‎ Bencherlite (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,159 bytes) (+371)‎ . . (→‎A favour from any TPS: part-done) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 08:20, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,788 bytes) (+443)‎ . . (→‎A favour from any TPS: thanks bencherlite but...) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 08:17, 5 December 2014‎ Bencherlite (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,345 bytes) (+375)‎ . . (→‎A favour from any TPS: Monday?) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 08:04, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,970 bytes) (+464)‎ . . (→‎A favour from any TPS: new section) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 07:52, 5 December 2014‎ Lukeno94 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,506 bytes) (+397)‎ . . (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 06:16, 5 December 2014‎ Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,109 bytes) (+422)‎ . . (→‎Blocked: Play nicely and be creative.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 06:09, 5 December 2014‎ Bencherlite (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,687 bytes) (+272)‎ . . (hang in there) (undo | thank) cur | prev) 04:32, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,415 bytes) (+235)‎ . . (→‎what happened. John?: no, I'm Spartacus, sorry to disappoint you!) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 04:32, 5 December 2014‎ SineBot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (4,180 bytes) (+284)‎ . . (Signing comment by 217.43.221.251 - "") (undo) (cur | prev) 04:30, 5 December 2014‎ 217.43.221.251 (talk)‎ . . (3,896 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (undo) (cur | prev) 03:47, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,869 bytes) (-43,104)‎ . . (remove the work) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 03:46, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (46,973 bytes) (-813)‎ . . (they got me) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 03:39, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (47,786 bytes) (+265)‎ . . (→‎what happened. John?: who are you and what is your purpose?) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 03:37, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (47,521 bytes) (+684)‎ . . (→‎Blocked: thanks luke) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 03:26, 5 December 2014‎ Lukeno94 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (46,837 bytes) (+670)‎ . . (→‎Blocked) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 03:23, 5 December 2014‎ SineBot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (46,167 bytes) (+284)‎ . . (Signing comment by 217.43.221.251 - "") (undo) (cur | prev) 03:22, 5 December 2014‎ 217.43.221.251 (talk)‎ . . (45,883 bytes) (+53)‎ . . (undo) (cur | prev) 03:01, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,830 bytes) (+215)‎ . . (→‎Tense?: no, time's up for me) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 02:59, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,615 bytes) (+337)‎ . . (→‎Blocked: ok) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 02:45, 5 December 2014‎ ChrisGualtieri (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,278 bytes) (+318)‎ . . (→‎Tense?: new section) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 22:12, 4 December 2014‎ Laser brain (talk | contribs)‎ . . (44,960 bytes) (+880)‎ . . (→‎Blocked: new section) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 16:30, 4 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (44,080 bytes) (-305)‎ . . (Undid revision 636663975 by Medeis (talk) nein danke, you can't have it both ways) (undo | thank) Note, Snow, TRM hasn't provided a single diff to prove that everyone who's criticized him is part of some vast wide ring conspiracy to have him banned. Note that not a single person has provided a single email showing I have wanted, initiated, or conspired to attack TRM in any way. I promise never to file an ANI against T if he never violates the IBAN again. I also promise to return if necessary. TRM can end this now by reverting the personal comment or any admin who wants can let him serve out his 48 hr sentence and warn him further violations will win him further sanctions.μηδείς (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Well, to expound upon your (certainly hyperbolic) allusion, do you know what happens when a rape victim changes their story multiple times? The attacker walks free. It doesn't matter that the victim might have had a good reason (intimidation, being manipulated, or any other cause to which one might be sympathetic), it's still going to handicap anyone trying to make sure the right thing gets done. That's not victim blaming, that's just the reality of the situation. Several times you have brought ANIs, drawing large numbers of editors into the drama, many of whom then run afoul of TRM and are subject to many of the same behaviour you are complaining of (especially concerning his conspiracy theory personal attacks). And then suddenly (and invariably) you're saying the whole situation is overblown. And all of those parties who have made (often torturous) efforts to engage him or try to document his misbehaviour for the community and admins (which requires HUGE efforts in diffing, because he will otherwise happily call one a liar, a conspirator, or someone just out to get him banned because they don't like him) are left holding water for you. Then the thread just pewters out, and the issue fades from view...until you bring the next complaint a few days or weeks later. That is maddening after a few cycles. And I can easily provide a list of links (not unlike yours above) that demonstrate you perpetuating this cycle. I want his personal attacks and general incivility to stop too. Like you say of yourself, I don't want him banned per say, I just want him to reform his behaviour in this area. Hell, at this point I'd settle for him admitting that his behaviour has ever been a problem -- that would be a start at least, to be able to make even the slightest critical observation about his behaviour without him resorting to personal attacks, accusations of conspiracy, playing the victim, and just generally engaging in misdirection. The problem is, your behaviour is not getting us there, because you're jumping on trivial IBAN violations now, which focuses the discussion in a way that the community here is just look to stamp out the latest flare-up of what most have come to view as incessant but petty squabble. Then when you change your tune, for whatever reason, most feel like that's been accomplished, and glad to be done with the newest iteration of this toxic issue, someone closes the thread. And reasonably enough, really -- if not for the fact that the issue has come to a "close" in this manner so many times, which not everyone may be aware of. But of course the situation is just going to go Groundhog Day on us again, ad nauseum. Look, if you really want to do this -- if you really just want a just and lasting solution to this mess, you need a change in strategy. What you've done in the last post is a good start. Provide evidence, not your perspective. If you feel hounded, use diffs to hold up a mirror on his behaviour so the community sees him through his own words. Some people, if you engage you in a "he-said/she-said" style of discussion, are more than happy to turn that to their advantage. So don't provide that support. If he hounds, or otherwise hassles in a personal way, show us. From every angle. A diff is a small little link on it's own, so he can't even cry "wall of text" and eventually dedicated users (hopefully an admin amongst them) will look through them. Let his voice speak for himself and then he can't claim everything that is being said about him is a lie. If you want a leg up on this process, go back to this ANI. I posted dozens of diffs and links there of him acting inappropriately aggressively towards other editors (including numerous example of doing so with people he had just met). And as to him constantly crying "conspiracy" any time people try to suggest his behaviour is becoming uncivil, you can find unending examples of that in ANI threads themselves, as well as the Ref Desk talk page discussions about a month back. In short, don't threaten to bring this issue back here yet again; instead commit to handling it the right way now. Just stick to the facts; that's one of the beauties of Wikipedia -- generally speaking, no event is entirely lost to the past. You can let people see what happened, exactly as it happened, rather than engaging in accusation. Don't get into a mudslinging fight with him, I promise you will lose -- either because he outsmarts you or people just get sick of it. Snow talk 13:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC) I am not trying to be contrary, Snow, but I find your statement just to commit to handling it the right way now confusing. Not including this post, I count 6 total statements by me above; the first one giving the diff where TRM quoted me directly at ITN. (I'll bold it and pipe it from the word "ironic" to make it easier to spot. There were no other diffs to provide unless someone wanted a link to prior complaints, all of which have been diffed-- because I wasn't about to wait for continued provocations. I don't come here complaining about TRM when he isn't quoting, addressing or reverting me. Having been accused of conspiring to get TRM banned it seems to me bringing complaint here is the only proper thing to do. Nor do I think sending the message that TRM can get away with "minor" infractions is at all proper, leaving me to document them (where? it would be an IBAN violation) until they reach critical mass. Given the IBAN is in place, any violation is a violation. If you or some other admin is volunteering to deal with any future complaint I'll gladly accept that offer, and they can archive this thread. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Look, even with the dimn view I've taken on much of TRMs behaviour the last month and a half, when I look at that link, I honestly don't see a glaring issue. Yes, technically it did violate the IBAN in a miniscule manner, but he didn't do so in order to attack you or engage in tendentious behaviour, but rather to address a content matter in a factual way -- and you're the one who has repeatedly stated (in the previous two ANI threads and the section above) that you and TRM can share spaces and collaborate in a collegial manner, whether the IBAN is in place, so why are you complaining about a minor violation of the ban when it doesn't seem to be a continuation of the hostility between you that necessitates the ban in the first place, and you're more than willing to argue that this need has been overstated to begin with, when it suits your purposes? Now, the personal attacks, those are very much a different matter altogether. Other than the advice I've given (document it in a clean, transparent, and organized fashion, so that those here can't help but see how it has transpired), I don't know what to tell you. As I've said previously, that is a glaring issue, especially taking place as it has partly on ANI itself, without so much as warning from a single admin, despite his persistence in these behaviours. Laser brain was the last admin to show a willingness to address his behaviour with a formal sanction, and Jehochman, who reversed that block (in consult with LB), can't have been happy to see this issue arise again almost immediately. Both of those admins, to their credit, have stayed moderately involved with this issue, but as the discussion above clearly demonstrates, you're nit-picking back-and-forth over the IBAN has monopolized the time they may have otherwise spent addressing the WP:NPA concerns (which to my mind are a much bigger issue for the community at large). Though I don't know how much either knows about said issues, it's clear that the both of them (like myself and a growing number of other commenters here) see the IBAN for what it is; a waste of everyone's time and energy that is exacerbating the problems it was meant to resolve. You've wasted opportunities when both have engaged here by arguing picayune points about the IBAN, on which your own arguments have hardly been consistent. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- the IBAN needs to go, or at least be disregarded as the central issue here. Then we can see if you and TRM can get on together. If that proves unfeasible (and I rather suspect that could end up being the case), then at least we can address the underlying behavioural issues and we will at least be talking about what is really wrong the user(s) behaviour. And before you take aim with my claim that you've been inconsistent, let me show you exactly what I mean. I could pull up many examples from the previous ANI's but the fact of the matter is you are presently engaged in sending out mixed messages right now. You started this discussion with the header "The Rambling Man forgets the IBAN once again", implying that you are the victim of habitual harassment. Two posts up in this section, you likened your relationship to that of a victim and attacker and suggested that some of the community response here represents "victim blaming"; and yes I know your exact wording was just exaggeration for effect, but at the very least you are presenting him as an aggressor who just will not leave you alone. But then, in posts that run parallel to these claims and are sometimes written within hours or minutes of them, you claim the community here are misinterpreting the situation and are making mountains out molehills! Let's look at two of your claims, made so close together that you barely have to scroll the page to get from one to the other: 04:11, 4 January 2015: "It's clear from the above diff that TRM thinks the entire process, including the ANI concluded last January with his support, has been a conspiracy against him, that he's the victim, that he deserves better, that he shouldn't face the consequences of his actions, that I am 'doing this to him' and that you are 'doing this to him' [my scarequotes-not TRM's actual words]." 07:19, 5 January: "Note, Snow, TRM hasn't provided a single diff to prove that everyone who's criticized him is part of some vast wide ring conspiracy to have him banned. Note that not a single person has provided a single email showing I have wanted, initiated, or conspired to attack TRM in any way." Compare these against... 06:12, 4 January 2015: "Not that that has anything to do with this proposal, which accuses TRM of disrupting the thread with his responses. I think that's absurd. I started the thread with only one complaint, but he should still be free to say whatever is civil and suppported by diffs to support himself. I find it spooky that commenters here think the only option is for TRM and myself to be deathly enemies, and to think we must want each other indeffed from the project." [Note: bolding mine.] So one minute you're citing the fact that TRM has persisted in these personal attacks labeling you to be a major part of a conspiracy to get him sanctioned as major issue and violation of policy (and they certainly are), but then the next minute you're saying it's "spooky" that any editor would draw the conclusion that either of you is that suspicious/critical of the other. And then back again in short order. This is just one example of one area where you seem to be presenting two entirely different stories depending on whether or not the comments are made in the context of discussing the present IBAN or a potential TBAN. I know you feel that you are parsing distinct issues with regard to both, but the fact of the matter is the tone of your comments and the nature of how you present the relationship between the two of you (and the complications it presents to the community) shifts wildly depending on which of these contexts you are commenting in. So is it really any wonder that the community here become increasingly confused and some have begun to view your complaints as petty? Look, if you want action taken to see to it that the accusations that you are heading a conspiracy against him stop, that's one thing. I certainly support you in that, and if you manage to attract the attention of an uninvolved administrator, I will certainly corroborate that this has been a persistent and blatant issue, with him leveling similar accusations against numerous editors. I'll further provide evidence of other violations of WP:Civility and WP:AGF that I've noted during the same period. But this IBAN nonsense has got to stop. It's not getting us anywhere. It's jsut obsfucating the root issues. And I'll be honest; at the point where I started following these ANI's, I really did see you are the more innocent party and the one most willing to let the issue drop if at all possible. That's started to change in a big way though. Your reaction to him has become like an autoimmune disease; it's doing more damage than the issue it was meant to address. And can I ask you again, since you didn't respond before, is there any possibility that we can end this with a compromise solution wherein you agree to withdraw your participation from ITN in exchange for TRM doing the same with regard to the Ref Desks? (A suggestion I now see has been independently suggested by Floquenbeam in a post that neatly summarizes all of these issues and exactly why we've put up with both of you through all of this, so far). Of course, you shouldn't have to do this, but maybe it's time to put the good of the project (and your own peace of mind) above your freedom of action as an editor in this instance. Snow talk 05:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC) I appreciate, Snow, that you told me to handle it the "right way", but you don't say what the right way is. Now you tell me to make sure accusations of conspiracy aren't raised against me. But all I have done here is bring this complaint directly to the one public forum open to me, with an uncontested diff, and not contacted anyone privately. I haven't talked about socks and proxies and off-wiki conversations. I find determining how to stop people from making accusations of conspiracy (without diffs or evidence) impossible. I've asked and still anyone who received an email or other communication from me conspiring to have TRM banned or from me regarding this last complaint to bring it forward in full. I can't prove a negative. I've also asked that some admin step forward and volunteer to handle future complaints if my reporting here is against policy; that would still be appreciated, assuming they'll be willing to act if there's a violation. At this point any such admin can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC) I'll tell you what, if you find it agreeable, I'll make this deal with you. Since I know you are concerned about the issue being twisted against you vis-à-vis the IBAN if you go directly to an administrator concerning the accusation-of-conspiracy personal attacks, I will do that on your behalf -- though specifically only in the event that I see TRM make any further accusations of conspiracy and of conduct violations (against you, Bugs, or anyone) without providing any evidence. Not just in defense of you, but in the interests of the community at large. What I'd like to ask in return is that you take a more reserved approach with regard to the IBAN and not file more complaints here unless TRM's comments in your general direction/vicinity are unambiguously personal and harassing. While that may have been the case in the past, I just don't see it as being the case in this most recent filing. I think you let your past experience with TRM cause you to jump-the-gun by quite a bit on this one. I've had my fair share of qualms with TRM's conduct with regard to you, but I don't begin to see the transgression in this case that you seem to have perceived. I'd also very much like you to consider the proposal that has been made that you and TRM divi-up your areas of interest and try not to inhabit the same places -- or at least that you give us some indication as to your initial feelings on this possibility. I know any editor is loathe to obstruct their freedom of movement on the project, especially with regard to an area they feel useful in, but couldn't the benefits outweigh the losses here? After-all, with all the time you've had to waste in these discussions, you're already losing out on a great deal of useful editing. And if you'll excuse some outside judgement, I think your contributions to the Ref Desk are more valuable than work on ITN. And consider also that this solution has been proposed as a type of sanction above, meaning it would be binding. If you voluntarily leave ITN be at present time and TRM ever goes dormant as an editor or goes a long time without contributing there, you can always choose to go back, knowing you won't be prevented from doing so. On the other hand, if this keeps coming back to ANI, there's a good chance the community may decide to slap both of you with TBANs or blocks, and you could end up facing big community resistance if you ever want to return to that area. So I'm asking again -- any chance you'd consider this trade-off as a reasonable compromise solution? Of course, there's no guarantee TRM will be amenable to this approach, but he didn't dismiss it out of hand when it came up as a possibility as a community sanction, so maybe that's a good sign that he might be willing to agree to it. Your thoughts? Snow talk 07:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC) I have no interest in abandoning ITN, since it was a dispute there between TRM and myself that brought him lurking to the ref desks and attacking me, and various other editors. Again, not a single person has shown diff or email where I have gone after TRM as a chat whore or a muppet character or in need of banning, etc., and so forth.. But I will gladly bring any future complaints to you first, Snow, and request this multi-thread be closed at this point. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC) No, I'm concerned you might have misunderstood me in a very significant way. I don't wish to hear about any IBAN violations. If you really must, bring them to ANI, though I think the comments here should be good evidence to you that doing so again when there is not a significant personal attack involved will probably be straw that broke the camel's back leading to a TBAN separating you two. My offer was only to speak to an admin in the event I observed a personal attack here, and even then I won't need (or consider it good form) to get a message from you about it, since whenever I am active on the project, I check ANI every day or other, and will see if the issue arises again. And as with the last message, any such communication will surely cause TRM to raise his hackles at a perceived "piling on". I'll report a personal attack made between the two of you (same as I would consider doing for a like attack between any two other editors), but I don't wish to become the pivot point between you two over the IBAN accusations. As I've tried to make perfectly clear here, I think the IBAN is a waste of everyone's time and has become a major part of the cause of (rather than a part of the solution to) this recurrent furor. I do wish you'd reconsider the option of voluntarily staying out of eachother's way by dividing up your editing spaces, since that's the form I see a sanction taking next time anyway, but I can see you've made up your mind. Snow talk 22:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Medeis, Snow Rise has said several times, in different ways, that you go back and forth between filing complaints against TRM's behaviour and saying that TRM's behaviour isn't so bad, and that this back and forth is confusing and ineffective. It seems to me (as an uninvolved non-administrator) that you're bringing these complaints to ANI because you want a specific remedy (for TRM to acknowledge violating the IBAN, maybe?), but when discussion turns towards dealing with the problem in a different way, you balk and begin to minimize the issue. Therefore, my interpretation of the "right way" Snow is referring to is to pick one perspective about TRM and stick with it: in other words, to either make the complaint and let the community deal with it or to defend TRM. Ca2james (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks. I guess the best way to describe my position is "good fences make good neighbors". I don't want him provoking me, but I don't want him arrested or his house burnt down either--there's no behind the scenes or even in front of the scenes desire to get him banned, and that needed saying. I've had enough life experience to know that co-workers can have disputes but still be good coworkers when certain boundaries are respected. At this point I suggest this entire thread be archived. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC) I understand your perspective. However, from an outsider's point of view, this whole situation is not unlike that of a victim, who, each time they are beaten by an abuser a particular person violates a restraining order, comes forward and presses charges; but as soon as the abuser person is arrested, says that the abuser isn't they aren't so bad and shouldn't go to jail... meanwhile, the abuser person is getting into fights in the police station. Coming to ANI each time TRM violates the IBAN only to then try to minimize the situation isn't building good boundaries between the two of you and isn't changing TRM's behaviour with respect to those boundaries. All these ANI threads do is show TRM that he can get away with IBAN violations. Ca2james (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Enough of the comparisons of me being some kind of abuser or rapist. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Apologies. I've struck that phrase out and tweaked the example slightly. Ca2james (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Sure. Damage done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Bold proposal to nip the problem in the bud This problem between The Rambling Man and Medeis has gone on far too long, with repeated arguments that continually come up at ANI. It simply seems as if the two are unable to work together. The current interaction ban has been unsuccessful because the two editors are active in the same areas: In The News and the Reference Desk. From past history, it seems as if The Rambling Man is more active at In The News and Medeis more active at the Reference Desk. To nip this problem in the bud, I boldly propose a community ban for Medeis from In The News and a community ban for The Rambling Man from the Reference Desk. This way, the two editors can focus on their own respective pages without all of this trouble. If they decide in the future that they can get along, the bans can be lifted. 86.170.130.156 (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Support as proposer. 86.170.130.156 (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Comment Had this proposal been made sooner (in a "put to vote" fashion, that is; a few editors have suggested it previously), I'd probably have supported it without reservation. However, just at the moment, as per discussion above, I would not mind waiting to see if both parties could be convinced to voluntarily endorse this course of action, or at least to hear their perspectives on this proposal. There will presumably be less ill-will this way, as they will part from the issue without a further community sanction. I have to think that must be worth something to them (and us). Failing some sort of agreement between the two to reduce the drama, though -- and it need not necessarily be the one proposed above -- this would certainly be the least punitive of the the TBAN options. Snow talk 13:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Comment Since it is now clear that Medeis will not agree to this measure voluntarily, but it also seems there is too little community interest left in this thread to get a proper consensus on enforcing it as a sanction, I suggest we pick up exactly here next time, if this issue returns to ANI; I hope it won't, but fear it almost certainly will. If TRM genuinely hounds or Medeis brings a frivolous ANI, discussion next time should center from the start on a TBAN solution of some sort, since it is abundantly clear that the IBAN is generally ineffectual and has only become a means of exacerbating and prolonging this conflict. Snow talk 22:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Oppose Medeis is pretty active at ITN. My view, as an ITN regular, is that on the whole she is a valuable contributer there (as is TRM). I'm not convinced this is the way to go. I'd be more inclined to opt for the alternative course of ending the IBAN (which I tend to think has done more harm than good) and just blocking for any sufficiently problematic actions by either party. Neljack (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC) That might work too. Might even be more appropriate, given neither of them actually has a problem with the topic area (which is what TBANs are usually reserved for). Problem is, last time there was a block (against TRM), Medeis and Bugs actually requested it be lifted (despite hosting concurrent threads to get such an administrative action) and no lasting improvement of the situation resulted. If blocks are utilized, they will need to be escalating blocks that are not reversed without serious cause. Otherwise the issue will persist, clearly. Snow talk 22:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Support any relevant form of topic ban that affects both parties. All editors should contribute productively to Wikipedia and those contributions may be made in various ways. Even if one editor who had made great contribution to WP came into conflict with an editor that had done relatively little, this should not be a reason to favour one editor over another. The issues here are guidelines and right behaviours. The IBAN can be dropped and, if genuinely errant behaviour is exhibited in regard to NPA, CIVIL, wasting editor time, etc. then heavy penalties may be applied. GregKaye 20:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Oppose I don't comment too much at ITN (I nominate stuff way more than I comment/vote) although I do read over a lot of the comments. I believe that although Medeis sometimes makes inane and erroneous remarks, her input at ITN is definitely quite valuable, and her banishment from ITN would be quite a disservice. Having said that, I do believe they need to somehow be separated from associating with each other, as this has gone on far too long. Andise1 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Andise1 the purpose of a WP:IBAN is "to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others." If you want to see disrupting the work of others then look at the above thread. This is all about a set of quotation marks and an innocuous reference to something Mendeis had said. If Mendeis cannot point to any wrong being done to the point where a block/ban is appropriate and if Mendeis is happy to initiated this type of disruption with administration then a logical solution would be for Mendeis to take a temporary step back from topic area. At present there is no possibility of reconciliation because an interaction ban is in place. GregKaye 06:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Oppose per Greg's compelling reasoning. Legacypac (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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

IBAN request (Users Baseball Bugs and The Rambling Man)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Note: A discussion about Medeis and TRM originally followed the above and prompted the following request for closure. The discussion was refactored into the subsection #Medeis/TRM Discussion since it was not dependent on the above discussion. --RAN1 (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Template:Cue There's no headway on the IBAN on TRM/Bugs to be seen here, this should probably be closed. --RAN1 (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. I might ask again in a month or so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BBB and User:RAN1, the entirety of the above should be closed, and BBB should be allowed to ask separately for a removal of the ban between himself and TRM if he wishes. This assumption that BBB and I are joined at the hip (we disagree on almost everything) has been most pernicious, and the above Shining-like maze of text unhelpful to anyone. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"BBB should be allowed to ask separately for a removal of the ban between himself and TRM if he wishes." Uh, that's exactly what this thread is. That's presumably eactly why Bugs opened a new thread instead of making a subsection in the above discussion, which you filed. This thread was meant to be about his request only, but after I asked TRM not to begin to engage in conspiracy theory personal attacks again, you chimed in and the thread quickly became about the issues between you and TRM, same as the one above. But RAN1 saw the need to disentangle the issues and refactored all discussion that followed after your involvement into the thread above, so this thread really has nothing to do with you any more, aside from addressing TRM's accusations of collusion between you and Bugs. Mind you, this thread is good-to-go for archiving at any point, I think, since no one seems to have any interest in commenting further and Bugs has given his blessing to defer the issue of revisiting his IBAN with TRM. But nowhere here is there an implication that you and Bugs are attached at the hip (except in TRM's implication of conspiracy, but he has been advised not to repeat and he's now been disengaged from both this thread and the above one for days now). Snow talk 00:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, this entire series of threads should be closed per the multiple suggestions above. Comments about what this thread 'is' are entirely bollixed after RAN1 redacted the series, and posted mine and other peoples' comments under headings we did not create or post under. The original discussion is moot and no longer exists. The current discussion is falsified, and should immediately be closed. It does not represent what the participants actually posted in their original contexts.

Please close this immediately, per myself, RAN1, BBB and others. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

RAN1 didn't redact anything -- all he did was move a section of comments concerning your conflict with TRM from this thread (which concerns Bugs and TRM). He left the section itself unaltered and intact; all of those comments occur in the same order they were originally posted in, without any change to attribution or formatting. All that has changed is what thread they can be found under. Refactoring in this manner was completely appropriate to the circumstances, so that, in the event this thread was archived, valuable discussion relevant to the above thread would not be moved as well, an effect that was entirely beneficial. I'm sorry Medeis, but even if I felt empowered to, I wouldn't close these discussions at this time. I'm sure they probably will be closed in short order, but it's not going to be done at your request. You don't get to post endless ANIs about these issues and then hastily have them closed whenever they seem to be taking a turn that makes you nervous; its very transparent when you spend days demanding that action be taken and then suddenly when there's a proposal to establish a TBAN against you, you want all discussion shut down immediately. And given that you've stated more than once in recent posts that you will continue to bring this issue to ANI if you continue to feel harassed (when the consensus seems to be that you overreacted in the case of posting the above thread, though maybe only in that case), we don't have much motivation to close this discussion, do we? Why shut it down just so we can wait for the next complaint in a few days/weeks, starting over from scratch, rather than trying to find a lasting solution now, finally?

Look, I wouldn't panic, it seems these discussions are destined to pewter out soon same as the last...what...SEVEN on this issue? But I don't think anyone's going to close it at your request, under these circumstances. Snow talk 05:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I am also curious to know how your comments here are not a violation of the IBAN. GoldenRing (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

TRM accused her and Bugs of conspiring in an off-wiki effort to get him banned, something he's done quite a bit of lately. Medeis was partially responding to that. Medeis also was away for a couple of days and may not originally have realized that this was a an altogether separate thread (originally the thread was just titled "IBAN request", and the clarifier was only added after Medies had returned and responded). Her comments picked up exactly where he left off, so I suspect she thought at the time she was just replying at the end of current discussion, without realizing Bugs was trying to make a request separate from the original discussion. I don't think she was meaning to get in the middle of the Bugs/TRM issue, but separating those issues was exactly why her comments (and the responses which followed it) were refactored into the above thread, under the section "Medeis/TRM Discussion". Snow talk 07:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've also been away and missed the stage in the discussion where these two threads were mingled. GoldenRing (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

In order to avoid confusion, it would have been better to put the text in a separate sub-section of the previous section, labeled "moved from following separate section" or something like that. As regards Medeis and him/her, I don't know what Medeis' "gender" is, so I just say "Medeis" instead of a pronoun. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither do I, with a certainty, but a great number of editors use "she" without correction from Medeis herself, so I've tended to assume it was accurate -- though to be fair, I don't know if it ultimately originates from any confirmation from Medeis. How I wrote an entire post without realizing I was using masculine pronouns, I don't know; it could be because the Greek phonology and orthography of her username/sig always remind me of King Midas. Anyway, your suggestion on noting where the refactoring starts in the above thread makes sense; I've added such a notation, complete with a diff for the unlikely event anyone cares to see where the section once resided. Snow talk 11:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Not that it's relevant here, but medeis means "no one" in Greek. Technically it's masculine in gender, but it was intentionally chosen because I had a rather disturbing stalker when I previously posted under my real name. Given I am quite queer and a former typesetter for Christopher Street Magazine I can hardly object the other way or one. That being said, I did not post under the heading this "TRM v Medeis" section now has, and I suggest the whole multithread be closed since it is serving no purpose other than to invite further useless comment. My sole desire has been an end to pestering, and this entire multithread seems to have been an invitation to pestering. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually did recall getting the impression somewhere that you identify as transgendered (though without indication as to which was your biological sex, nor what your preferred gender identity, if any, is), but without being able to remember for sure that it was from the horses mouth, I didn't think it was my place to repeat that impression here. As I said, I've just tended to go with a feminine pronoun set as it's what most everyone uses for you and I've never seen you object. Glad to know for certain that I'm not giving offense in any event. As to the thread, commentary seems to have stopped, so I expect archiving may come at any time, though I am disappointing to see discussion come to a close yet again without any form of stable resolution. In the meantime, is there something in particular about the title of that subsection which you do not like? I believe I've explained to the best of my ability why that section was refactored, from necessity, and that the discussion itself was not in any way altered, but if there's some reason you object to your comments being in a section with that title, we can perhaps alter it (since it was added after the fact and no significant comments have been made to it by new commenters since). Snow talk 06:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Sanction appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah I don't think Nelson Mandela was topic banned though. If we're going after "personal attacks" on your personal site you've admitted to owning you've called people defending to Keep the Cultural Marxism article "an infection" [4]. So that's calling ME an infection, as well on your linked twitter account that this was part of a "lobbying campaign" to Jimmy Wales [5]. You were previously topic banned for exactly this, stop accusing people out of nowhere, if you keep saying that criticism of Ryulong is part of an antisemitic and homophobe conspiracy you will probably get site wide banned sooner or later Loganmac (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Johnuniq: The trouble is uninvolved admins who are reviewing this discussion are not doing that either, which is disappointing. I also note that an arb said the PD may not be posted for yet another fortnight (and it seems no interim measures are being imposed), so clearly this isn't going to be resolved anytime soon. So great; over the many years we have all been here, there has been universal agreement by editors, administrators, arbitrator-elects, arbitrators, and so forth, that tendentious editing is not acceptable and better steps will be taken against it. Yet, I question what has changed in all of that time really. Even accepting the suggestion made by HJ Mitchell that desysopping would not be out of the question for imposing the indef block proposed by Protonk, it makes no sense to believe that a desysop threat exists by imposing a caution or restriction under general sanctions (as you, Gamaliel and I have proposed/endorsed here). Is it beneficial to leave this appeal so that the involved problem editors remain where they are, or was some form of action (however great or slight) warranted against them too? If it was warranted, is there a reason that action should not be implemented before closing this appeal? I don't think there is and think someone should act...but I pass the question back to HJM and others. (I can't reasonably expect Gamaliel to act in dual circumstances where this appeal concerns HJM's decision to only sanction Ryulong, and HJM had proposed in the case workshop against Gamaliel being an admin - even though I consider the latter was fundamentally flawed). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, given the scrutiny and hassle, at this time I won't consider anything stronger for Loganmac than the same restriction placed on Ryulong unless a case is presented at the sanctions enforcement page first or matters escalate significantly. Gamaliel (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

This is a silly argument about an even sillier dispute (between two people who should know better) within a sillier still "controversy" that has already sucked in far too much admin time. Ryulong/Auerbachkeller please for everyone's sake (including your own), give each other a wide berth—I don't care who started it. Everyone else, please move on and find a nice, no-controversial article to work on. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I brought this idea up a week or so ago at Arbcom, after which both editors were given warnings about their interactions. [6] [7]. I would like to repropose the IBAN because it is still the case that nothing good ever happens when these two editors interact. However, I think an IBAN should only be put in place if the two editors can make a gentleman's agreement to stop talking about eachother off-site as well, mostly because so much of their dispute is in relation to offsite behavior. Bosstopher (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC) An excellent suggestion. I hope that User:Ryulong and User:Auerbachkeller respond to it, but if they do not and still continue to argue about matters that have nothing to do with productive article editing, then we should impose this IBAN upon them. Gamaliel (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC) @Bosstopher: and @Gamaliel: personally, I'm not convinced that this is going to change the state of disruption caused by these two interacting on any page in Wikipedia. Even prior to the edits by them at this noticeboard for this appeal, their interactions have been problematic. That said, the inability to enforce sanctions for breaches of any gentleman's agreement will bring all of us back here again in due course though under this proposal. So the only part of this proposal that could realistically go anywhere is an on-site mutual interaction ban; given the pending PD, a formal request for enforcement probably won't help, but I note as a reminder that any admin can impose this sanction under general sanctions - at least until the final decision is made. For clarity, I confirm I would endorse such an action. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Yes, a gentlemen's agreement is unenforceable, but we can't force the mto stop being rude about each other elsewhere on the Internet. If they would both agree to declare a truce in this rather ridiculous spat, it would benefit everyone (except the manufacturers of headache pills!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC) It would probably benefit the project more if we topic banned Ryulong from GG-related articles/discussions and made it a one-way interaction ban on-wiki for Auerbach. He's going to write his articles anyway, so why give him the ability to dig for fodder by goading Ryulong? Meanwhile, nothing Ryulong does in this topic benefits us whatsoever, and every interaction he has with the topic is a net negative. While I'm hoping Arbcom does it for us, how much more disruption are we willing to take? Hasn't his rope run out yet? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Since the matter is at ArbCom, it's up to ArbCom to evaluate wider misconduct. Perhaps you should post on the proposed decision talk page to courage them to get their finger out? At this point, the delay means the case is causing more problems than it has thus far solved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Proposed decision is due on Wednesday, so the delay isn't really terrible. We don't have to wait on them to act, though. After all, if we can steamroll in community sanctions in less than a day, we can act after 2+ months to topic ban one of the most disruptive actors in the space, no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement is open to anyone who wants to post evidence to make a case for such a topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC) I haven't even edited the article in two months. How am I disrupting the topic space in that manner?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC) For the record, I talked to Auerbach a day or two ago and he said he was gonna avoid talking further about Ryulong.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Not needed. Auerbachkeller only responds when Ryulong writes something. If Ryulong simply stops mentioning Auerbach, there is no problem. --DHeyward (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC) I did not mention him at all in this thread but he came anyway. I did not mention him in the arbitration case page sections and he came anyway. He instigates each time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC) That does not appear to be consistent with what happened in the section above. Gamaliel (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC) It appears Auerbachkeller is reacting to what Ryulong wrote off-wiki. He noted the same thing happened to him off-wiki as Ryulong. Ryulong then made it a WP issue and personal. The sanction is enough and Ryulong should stop complaining on-wiki about his off-wiki problems. It's not helping. A two-way IBAN that allows one party to bring complaints that the other can't respond is unworkable especially when the IBAN would need to include off-wiki statements. --DHeyward (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Excuse me? I did not make it a Wikipedia issue. Auerbach came to Wikipedia because he did not like a sentence I had wrote about someone criticizing something he wrote and has been here since to insert himself into any and all discussions that happen to involve me. I do not go out of my way to find shit he's done. It comes to me regardless because he's famous and I'm nobody.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Given that you view this to be the case, would you welcome the solution proposed above? It would stop all the grievances you've listed. Bosstopher (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC) And Ryulong is reacting to what Loganmac and others have written off-wiki. What you have written applies in the opposite way as well. But since no one on either side seems willing to "simply stop", here we are. Gamaliel (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive talkpage behaviour

Walls of text

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

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

I've explained my changes extensively at the the talkpages, and they were supported by others [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] I've also offered to Robert to go through those edits again diff diff diff. Nevertheless, Robert doesn't want to discuss these changes as listed at the talkpages, he doesn't want to edit those articles diff diff diff, and he also doesn't want to pursue a DRN diff. He's now started to do the same for Talk:Dzogchen. Enough is enough; see also here and here. Some adminstartor-intervention would be highly welcome here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Administrative Intervention?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He has received comments, advice and warnings from several editors (examples: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], :[20], [21], [22]), however he continues to add walls of text to talk pages. These rants exhaust the other editors' patience.

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

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

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

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

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

Montanabw Okay just to clear up a point, I haven't done any editing of any of the articles under discussion, except to fix one broken link in the Karma in Buddhism article. I got involved as a reader rather than as an editor. In this debate am arguing for the case to roll back to the previous mature articles before the recent edits by Joshua Jonathan and his friends. If you look at the edit history of the articles, nearly all the recent edits are by Joshua Jonathan, assisted by VictoriaGrayson and Jim Renge. And there has never been any suggestion by anyone of meat or sock puppetry in any of the debates to date. Robert Walker (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert, I never attempted to canvas you. I was just asking for advice about procedures to deal with issues for user conduct, as of all the editors I have had contact with on wikipedia, you were the one who seems to know most about how to deal with user conduct issues, and because we were at a loss about what to do next. Was not asking for any kind of opinion on the debate - we were already doing that as a RfC on the Buddhism project talk page. That was just clumsiness on my part, that I didn't make it clear enough in my first post on your talk page, why I was asking for your help. You can check my motivation for the post on your talk page here: User_talk:Dorje108#User_Conduct_for_Joshua_Jonathan where I say

"Dorje, on reflection I've been wondering if we have a case for a rollback based on user conduct for Joshua Jonathan. I don't know if we do but thought I might ask Robert McClennon. He has given me good advice in the past on user policy in Wikipedia."

"Hi Dorje, okay I'll think it over. I might just mention it to Robert McClenon, ask if we have a case for a rollback and what wikipedia user guidelines etc are for such sudden large scale changes in an article. Purely as a matter of user conduct, seemed to me we might possibly be some kind of case for action of some sort. If so I wouldn't just go ahead, but would refer back here with the findings, and see if you want to take it any further, whatever he says"

"Dorje, not done anything yet, am going to give it another day or two, but then I think I will ask him. Because - seems to me this must be something comes up a fair bit. The most popular articles in wikipedia - they must get enthusiastic editors who try to rewrite the entire article and remove most of the content, quite often. So must be a fair bit of experience in how to handle this sort of situation to draw on. So - well I'll follow this up soon."

As you see there is no discussion at all of any thought of canvassing you or asking you for a third opinion. And we had already started the RfC which was dealing with that side of things. Robert Walker (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Sock-puppetry would be the last thing I'd suspect from Robert W. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even come up in his mind.
Nevertheless, I also think that a restriction is necessary. See also Talk:Water on Mars, and this diff, with the following edit-summary: "SPAMING his ideas and blog again".
The best thing Robert can do is simply stop editing at Wikipedia. Sorry for you, Robert, to say so, but that is, honestly, what I think. I'm pretty sure your intentions are good, and I guess we would get along quite well if we were neighbors (I saw your picture at your blog, and I love the long hair and the beard). But as for Wikipedia, it might be better for you, and your peace of mind, if you simply don't use it anymore - no editing, and even no reading, so you won't get tempted to step in again. I don't think there's life at Mars, but there sure is life outside of the Wiki-bubble. All the best (sincerely!), Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Glad to have your support in that sock puppetry thing, hopefully it will be the last we hear of the idea :).

As I say in that discussion - there has never been any disciplinary action taken against me. That editor is hiding my posts on the Life on Mars and Water on Mars talk pages out of a private decision to do so.

I have objected to that as I don't think he has the right to hide my posts to the talk pages in this way.

And as I say there, all I suggest in my post, and in all the posts that he hid, is that Wikipedia should say the same thing that Encyclopedia Britannica says on the topic. Whether you agree with that point or not, it surely is not spam, and a reason to hide my post from the talk page, that I suggest that Wikipedia says the same thing as Encyclopedia Britannica. I haven't tried to edit the articles. Just want to bring it up as a point for consideration for other editors of the pages to look at and debate.

I am going to take especial care to be more concise in my posts in future.

Also just to be clear, I'm not advocating any disciplinary action against you for your behaviour at this point. Just preparing a notice for the DRN to ask for advice. Then we can see what happens after that. Robert Walker (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I regret to say that based on my own limited involvement with Robert Walker I can say I have little reason to believe he has much of a grasp of wikipedia policies and guidelines. His wall-of-words editing style makes it an effort to go through everything he decides to posts. And, as per part of my previous involvement with him, in which he advocated for multiple basically redundant quotations, even though they actually added little of value to the understanding of the concept involved and greatly increased the length of the page, that I would have to agree his understanding of content guidelines and possibly conduct guidelines is poor at best. I am, admittedly slowly, trying to get together some encyclopedic reference sources and lists of their content, and that might help a lot. It also might help a great deatl if Robert were to review the content of existing encyclopedic articles on topics, which so far as I have seen rarely if ever have content of the type he prefers. I am not sure that anything other than a warning can be given to him here, but do think it would be not unreasonable to perhaps raise concerns regarding his editing habits if they continue in like fashion in the future. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

John Carter The only edit I have ever done on any of the articles under discussion is to fix one broken link in Karma in Buddhism. You can check this by searching the article edit histories for my user name. Robert Walker (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I Support a ban or at least severe restrictions to Robert Walker on his endless ranting on talk pages. My painful experience with him is that he focuses on the fringe (such as killer martian bugs) and ignore and deny the scientific references cited that contradict his assays and his blog. Calling him 'disruptive' is a generous term. He is a liability. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to point out, BatteryIncluded continually hides my posts to Life on Mars and Water on Mars as spam. My suggestion there is that these articles say the same things that Encyclopedia Britannica says on the topic. How can that, just as a suggestion on a talk page, be spam? Robert Walker (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

His only basis for this is a threat made over a year ago by another editor (not an admin) in a talk page post, to remove all my content on planetary protection and concerns about colonization of Mars from the Mars section. There was no disciplinary action taken, he never took it to arbitration or to ANI but just made this threat and then acted on it out of his own initiative. As for his claim that I am a fringe editor, it is just not true. He says this because I contributed some sections previously on backward contamination issues for a sample returned to Earth (similar to the quarantine measures taken for the first samples returned from the Moon). For an example of a high quality citation on the subject of backward contamination, see Mars Sample Return backward contamination – Strategic advice and requirements - Report from the ESF-ESSC Study Group on MSR Planetary Protection Requirements. There are two similar studies by the US National Research Council as well as numerous papers. It is also written into the Outer Space Treaty, that we have to act to prevent "adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter" The topic is not fringe. Robert Walker (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: max 1,500 bytes a day for Robert Walker

Given this thread User talk:Robertinventor#DRN at his talkpage, I'm afraid that Robert M. is right, and Robert does not understand Wiki-policies, nor the concept of WP:CON, nor the (ir)relevance of his comments. Nevertheless, here's a concrete propsal: Robert is restricted to max 1,500 bytes a day at any given talk page on any given day, including his own. That's ca. 300 words; see diff. Subpages in userspace to "rehears" his comments are included; he can use Word to practice. If this doesn't work to at least stop the flood of comments, then the proposal of a topic-ban for Buddhism-, India- and Mars-related articles is the next step. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Appendix: with max three edits a day (room for corrections) at any given talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Support

• Support. This has been going long enough now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Including the max of three edits a day at any given talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. FWIW - Yes, I *entirely* agree with the comments made above by User:Joshua Jonathan - this has been going on long enough - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am far from sure that this proposal is workable in its current form. Maybe a different proposal, like one comment per day on a topic, might be more workable? John Carter (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That would still give him an unrestricted amount of space. The 1,500 might be supplemented with three edits a day (room for corrections) at any given talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree - I respectfully and strongly disagree with one comment per day. It isn't the number of his posts but their length. A daily number limit, without a length limit, would result in even longer daily rants. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That might make sense. I also would suggest that the total number of characters not be necessarily seen as an absolute rule, as I can imagine, in some cases, a reasonable comment extending one or two characters beyond 1500, and I don't think it necessarily in our best interests to count every character of every edit to ensure it doesn't cross an absolute line.John Carter (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Violation should be dealt with blocks, after 1-2 blocks and more, I will seek for more restrictions and if he still fails, then you know what to do next. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This was too much. JimRenge (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Suppport - I had originally suggested a slightly less restrictive limit, but he doesn't recognize that this is a user-specific issue, and doesn't recognize that some sort of limit is (unfortunately) needed and does not have to be symmetric. I can read lengthy posts by Joshua Jonathan, and have difficulty reading lengthy posts by Robert Walker, and there are more of them by Robert Walker. He is a tedious poster, and something needs to be done. I will support a more draconian measure than I originally proposed in order to get consensus that his posts need to be controlled. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Robert McClenon have you considered the possibility that my posts are harder to read than Joshua's because I propose that the articles continue to include details of certain topics in Buddhism that are hard for any Westerners unfamiliar with Buddhism, such as some details of karma, non self, nirvana etc, which are not part of our culture? (It would be the same the other way around for some of the topics in Christianity, e.g. Resurrection, or transubstantiation, or the ideas of the Trinity, for someone who has never encountered the religion in detail before.) His versions of the articles are easier for many to read, because they remove these details, but easier to read doesn't necessarily mean better. If that is not it, please explain so I can improve my style of writing. Most people say I write well. Robert Walker (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Karma and predestination" - now we're getting somewhere. See User talk:Robertinventor#DRN#2 and User talk:Robertinventor#Karma and predestination. Karma and predestination etc may be relevant for Protestant Christians (though less relevant for Catholics, and irrelevant for atheists and non-Christians), and that may make it relevant for the "Karma in Buddhism" article. There must be reliable sources on that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking strictly for myself, I find the nature of Robert Walker's comment above both obviously condescending and offensive. He seems to be indicating in it that, somehow, he and apparently possibly only he among all Westerners can understand concepts, and that there are no Westerners who have any knowledge of the topics. I am a Catholic of the west, although, honestly, I probably know a lot less about that than I do about Zoroastrianism and early Indo-European religions, because I studied those. I think the time may have come and gone for Robert Walker to realize (1) that there are a huge number of reference works related to religion, including Buddhism, and that most of that content is written by "experts" in that field, and (2) despite his rather obvious inherent suppositions to the contrary, they probably know and communicate the relevant information better than Robert himself, because they are published in their field, where he is not. John Carter (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

John Carter - I have no knowledge of the details of this situation, but I know that it is against Wikipedia's "Assume Good Faith" requirement to go ahead with your conclusion about the post being condescending and offensive. Text-based communication is complex. You are required by Wikipedia policy to assume that the post was made with respectful intentions unless it is absolutely clearly a violation of that. It is not ok to act upon your own feeling of offense at some of the details and then assert that the post is condescending. You need to instead say "I could interpret this as condescending, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't intended that way." That is a requirement of the Assume Good Faith policy. Backfromquadrangle (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

John Carter - the background to this is that Robert told me in talk page comments, "I have not edited in Buddhist-related discussion and have very little knowledge of Buddhism, other than that it is one of the world's major religions and has good ethical teachings". See [23]. And, the subject is full of many technical terms such as dharmakaya, nirmanakaya, dharma, dukkha, anatta. Even terms many people know like karma and nirvana are in reality technical terms in Buddhism. Of course you will know, but how many people who know the word nirvana can explain in detail what it is about? If you don't know what these terms mean, then you won't know what the discussion is about. Just like any technical subject. Or e.g. maths, e.g. if I talk about the Reimann hypothesis to you, if you aren't a mathematician you won't have a clue what I'm talking about. Of course many Westerners are familiar with the terms including the other editors I was talking to. Robert Walker (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have edited it to read instead "any Westerners unfamiliar with Buddhism". Sorry for any offence caused and it was not intended. Robert Walker (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Suppport - Per all the reasons discussed.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support very creative solution. Legacypac (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I was actually going to "oppose" with a more fair solution, but then I remembered vaguely recalling an on-wiki conversation that either I had with the editor in question, or I read, and noticed this problem as well; this conversation happened over a year ago, so the fact that it is still happening is somewhat troubling to me. If it was me interacting with this editor, I think I gave up and moved on to other articles. So, since I personally know the problems these comments cause, I have to throw my vote for this "stricter-than-my-counter-proposal" version. Steel1943 (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support I've been following this from the beginning and it appears to me that this is the only way to prevent these long talk page posts. I might be less supportive of this remedy if Robert Walker was editing the articles as well as providing opinions on the talk pages, but he's only providing lengthy opinions which are disruptive. Ca2james (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support: This is a creative and potentially useful idea. Because I disfavor topic bans and discourage blocks other than short-term ones to limit disruption or calm tempers, I like to see other ways that disruptive and tendentious editors can be whacked with a cluebat. If it works here, it could be used in other cases where editors use tl;dr walls of text to intimidate and discourage other editors. I've seen restrictions of "one comment per article" used before, so why not this? Montanabw^(talk) 22:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support to these or even tighter restrictions to Robert Walker, as his chronic walls of text in Mars-related articles are pure WP:CHEESE. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - Hmmm. Why is this even being posted here and how are other editors of articles on Buddhism supposed to know that this discussion is taking place? This is not about the length of Robert's comments (Jonathan is pretty good at posting walls of text himself, and Robert's comments have been getting shorter and more to the point), it is about trying to silence someone with a different point of view. If Robert had been praising Jonathan's edits rather than criticizing them, would we be having this discussion? Somehow I don't think so. Such a pity. Dorje108 (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

For your information: in that case I'd also have done my best (as I did for the past weeks) to explain to Robert why he should shorten his responses, and why he should discuss issues, instead of repeating his point of view. Also for your information: I'm also critical of the faults of editors with whom I am befriended, as some around here can testify. And I've been helping editors with points of view which I don't share, such as an editor with RSS-sympathies who I've been mentoring. So, be carefull when you start raising suspicions; you dont even have to assume good faith; you can actually take notice of good faith. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose It may be a good idea but how the heck is this going to be enforced? Do we string the editor up by his beach balls if he posts 1,600 bytes? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes this is going to work well. Everyone knows how to identify 1500-1600 bytes, they will see his message as they frequently check article talk(pages) and if they have any doubt, they can use this website http://www.wordcounter.net/ for clearing the doubts. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just going to write the same. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose My posts recently, here and elsewhere, have been short since I started the ANC, and I have said I will do my best to be concise, so this new proposal is not a result of continuing to do long posts. The main issue here surely is that I was in process of preparing a notice for DRN about his edits. Joshua Jonathan did major rewrites of mature articles in Buddhism starting on 10th October with Four Noble Truths [24] . I first became aware of his activity when he rewrote Karma in Buddhism, in November [25]. He warned me against taking any action against his edits long ago, saying if I did that, my actions would be likely to boomerang, see [26]. Then he started this ANC soon after I started serious work on the notice. Then, he put forward this new proposal less than two hours after I told him I planned to mention a clear case of BRDR in the DRN notice [27] (diff for his BRDR rewrite: [28]). There is a clear "take home" message here for me, that I should stop criticising this editor, or who knows what next might happen. Yes, you can say all of this is just coincidences, that he had no intention of stopping the DRN. Still, they are coincidences he created, after all, and whether that was his aim or not, it is natural that it would stop me. I see no future in attempting a DRN notice now, especially if this goes ahead, and most likely also even if it doesn't. Robert Walker (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Don't be desperate because you are the one who caused this trouble, and now you are voting for yourself, how come? JJ never contributed on Karma, it was you who has made its talk(page) look unnecessarily lengthy. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert Walker, you are not victim of a conspiracy to silence you. Feel free to voice your critique at DRN! JimRenge (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about protocol, how it is done, but surely I should be given a chance to put my own case? Robert Walker (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just edited my "oppose". Of course I have no way of knowing if it is intentional or a coincidence. It could easily all be coincidence - stranger things have happened. But - in the circumstances hopefully it is understandable that I see it as a clear stop message. This whole process is intimidating and scary, and even if the resolution doesn't go against me, who knows what would happen if I tried to take this to a DRN notice? As for doing a DRN notice with these restrictions, well, forget about it. I'm not going to attempt that. Robert Walker (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Bladesmulti - in the case of the Karma article, again I agree my posts on the talk page there were lengthy and I've learnt that lesson. That is the only article I have tried to edit a bit. I did a few edits that I thought would be minor and uncontroversial back in early November I think it was. But they were immediately reverted. I did not attempt any more edits after that. Just discussed on the talk page. Those edits were not about Buddhist ideas particularly though the discussion on the talk page was. Robert Walker (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

What have you learned? You are still making huge posts. I had to hat them today here and you removed it.[29] Bladesmulti (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was Joshua who did that. Okay. I will edit it and make it shorter. Robert Walker (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I have read the talk page of Karma in Buddhism and do not consider the posts of User:Robertinventor to be excessive or disruptive. The nature of the topic seems likely to provide extensive discussion. I note that User:Joshua Jonathan is not a native English speaker. If he is not comfortable participating in such discussion because he finds reading English to be wearying then that's just too bad. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Whats the relevance? We have got a lot better things to do on talk page(s) than just reading the unnecessarily spammed nonsense of Robertinventor. JJ can understand what you have written and just like everyone of us, he is opposing Robertinventor's messages for appropriate reasons. How about you give up your busybody attitude? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Davidson, your comment "If he is not comfortable participating in such discussion because he finds reading English to be wearying" is misplaced. Please participate in a constructive way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: I'm sorry, but if you're going to allow an editor to edit, you need to also afford that editor unlimited talk space contributions. This may be a problem, but it's not really harming anyone, and a byte limit is absolutely the wrong solution. pbp 15:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

So, what would your solution be? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing enough of a problem to warrant much of a solution. Just ignore him. pbp 15:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: the standard solution for disruptive soap boxing is to block or ban the editor. Use that solution, as appropriate, rather than inventing a complex, new solution. Jehochman ^Talk 15:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  Comment - I am supporting this sanction in order to avoid the need to site-ban the editor. A topic-ban is not sufficient, because his disruptive soapbox posts have been an annoyance in both Buddhism and interplanetary exploration. If this sanction fails, he will wind up facing periodic blocks without knowing exactly how to avoid them, since he clearly does not have the mindset to figure out what is an appropriate talk page post, since he honestly seems to believe that longer is better. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal

Joshua Jonathan - if you wish to support this suggestion, you should agree to a similar restriction on yourself. You also often write voluminous amounts to talk pages. Which I don't complain about, I'm fine with it.

It is obviously unfair in a talk page discussion if I am restricted to 1500 bytes and in the same discussion, you can post for thousands of words. See for instance Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism. Many pages of text there by Joshua Jonathan. I'm not the only verbose editor here. And in the conversation you just linked to, you wrote as many words as I did. Robert Walker (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to say that the above comment, in which someone seems to demand that another party propose sanctions on themselves because the person against whom sanctions are proposed, presumably, does not like being considered for sanctions, is yet another instance in which I have to say Robert Walker shows little if any understanding of the procedures here. Robert Walker is of course free to propose such restrictions himself, which would be the standard way to make such a proposal, and I guess Robert Walker is free to propose them, although under the circumstances I would definitely oppose such sanctions based on the lack of evidence to date and the rather obviously vindictive nature of the proposal. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not proposing this. I have no issues at all with long posts. It was a rhetorical question. Just saying that if I am restricted in this way and Joshua Jonathan is not it is an obviously biased decision, especially as he is verbose on the talk pages also, and does contentious edits rewriting mature articles with many large scale changes, sections removed, others rewritten, all done rapidly, which raise multiple issues to discuss. Robert Walker (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Robertinventor, Joshua Jonathan has made long posts because he was answering your very long posts, including yours. Otherwise he wouldn't had, see Talk:Buddhism/Archive 14 and find me some long posts if you can. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm doing short posts also now. See for instance my recent talk posts to Talk:Nirvana_(Buddhism). They are all similarly short. I've already said I am going to do my best to be concise in the future. And when I can't present everything in a short post, in future, I'll put it into my user space and link to it as material to back up the post, as I just did with Talk:Water on Mars. Robert Walker (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh no ... JimRenge (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@RobertWalker:, linking to long comments elsewhere simply because they are too long to meet the proposed restrictions would be seen by most everybody as a rather clear attempt to game the system as per WP:GAME and would probably just succeed in getting you in more trouble, not less. Please try to understand that the problem is the length and degree of detail, as well as sometimes the dubious relevancy, of some of the things you think need to be discussed. Trying to game the system would in no way be a productive response to that perceived problem. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This was not a suggestion for a way around the proposal. It is just to show that I am already working on shortening the comments, this is one thing I ma doing. At any case the proposal is clear - if this goes ahead, I would not be permitted to put long posts into my user space and even in my own user space in draft edits of posts I'd be limited in the same way, he says I would have to do any drafts outside of wikipedia. Robert Walker (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously - if the decision goes ahead - then with this limit of 1500 characters a day, per talk page, including to my own talk page, and 3 edits a day per page, it will be impossible to submit a DRN notice about Joshua Jonathan's mature article rewrites, and will be impossible to communicate effectively with other editors here for collaboration with such a thing.

The notice itself would be likely to take me over the daily threshold for that talk page, leaving no more words for that day to engage in discussion of it.

User_talk:Robertinventor#DRN_Notice_cancelled Robert Walker (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I can submit a DNR in just a few characters: "I don't like this [link] [link] [link]." Learn conciseness. Legacypac (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

First, I think it would be very valuable if Robert learned that discussions can, and actually around here generally do, run for a week or more if there are serious issues regarding content or sources. Daily commentary, or responding at length to every question raised by anyone, can and sometimes does get perceived as overkill. Also, there are a number of other ways to include information available elsewhere than quoting it at length. Like Legacypac says above, links to elsewhere works as well. Also, honestly, it does seem to me that you still seem to think that others really want to see the very detailed comments you are in the habit of making. At this point, it should be clear to you that isn't the case. Learning to shorten your comments and concentrate on central points would very definitely be a step in the right direction. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Context: Joshua Jonathan has been warning me against taking any action against him for a long time. [30],[31]. This particular proposal was put forward immediately after I pointed out a clear case of BRDR in his edit history which I told him I planned to put in the notice [32]. I hope you can understand that it doesn't seem to me like an attempt to make me more effective at expressing my case in the DRN Notice against his edits. Robert Walker (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

He told you to drop the stick[33] because none of us are perfect, if POV is the final agreement then go along with it or knock the doors of other article dispute boards, but they will probably ignore because people usually avoid reading your messages. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Please be faithfull and present the fuller context of this "clear case of BRD" diff. This is exactly what shows the problem with you: Dorje has been ignoring (or simply doesn't understand) the concerns of other editors for three years, using the argument of WP:IGNORE as his last argument. I've explained this so many times now, that we're far over the limit of what is reasonable. Nevertheless, you think that he still has every right to simply reverse to his preferred version, further ignoring those concerns, meanwhile removing additional info, and requesting the discussion of the addition of this sourced info before adding it. No way! That's WP:OWN, and you WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

For God's sake, here we go again! Look at how long this thread is becoming. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the content dispute. But the diff shows clearly, that you did a major rewrite, not just adding new material, that Dorje reverted it to ask for discussion and that you reverted his revert and continued with your rewrites. And there was no prior talk page consensus to do this rewrite. For the extent of the changes, check the diff here: [34] . This is what I said I would mention in the DRN notice, and immediately after, you then put forward this proposal. My posts here are short. Robert Walker (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert, stop it! Three years of discussion. Three years!!! And you say "no prior decision"?!? Please S-T-O-P right now! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your major rewrites of mature articles in Buddhism started on 10th October with Four Noble Truths [35] . I first became aware of your activity when you rewrote Karma in Buddhism, in November [36]. Robert Walker (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

How it is relevant? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan said three years of discussion. But it wasn't like that. The major rewrites started in October. I became aware of them for Karma in Buddhism in November. And incidentally for his edits of Karma in Buddhism there was absolutely no prior talk page discussion. He had not done any prior edits of either. You can check that easily by searching the edit history for both the article [37] (earliest edit by Joshua Jonathan 16th November 2014) and the talk page [38] (earliest edit 25th November 2014) for his user name. Robert Walker (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:DRN

Robert Walker argues, among other things, that the imposition of this restriction would prevent him from discussing content issues at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It would not. The discussion of issues at DRN has two phases. The first is the request to initiate moderated dispute resolution. There is no reason that a request for dispute resolution or a response to such a request should exceed 1500 bytes. You can say what articles you want discussed and what issues you want discussed in 250 words. The second is the actual discussion, led by a volunteer moderator. That discussion is under control of the volunteer moderator, who can and often does hat irrelevant posts. The moderator can specify whether lengthy posts are permitted, or whether they will be hatted, or whether they will (after a warning) result in closing the dispute resolution as failed. (Anyway, technically, DRN is not a talk page, because it is in WP project space, not in WT space.) The argument that talk page restrictions would prevent him from participating in dispute resolution is mistaken. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Just look at the first dispute on that board: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Battle_of_Nanking. The first summary in that dispute is 12,963 characters. And how can one talk to other wikipedia editors with a limit of 1500 characters a day on their talk pages and your own talk page and 3 edits a day?

• If this proposal doesn't go through, I will stop and regroup and decide what to do next, but it will be some time before I do anything more if I do do anything, because this whole process is so scary. What might happen next if I keep going, especially since Joshua Jonathan warned me long ago that the process of taking action against his edits is likely to boomerang? [39]. Presumably this is an example of what he warned me about.
• If it does go through, I won't attempt a DRN Notice. Don't see how that is possible. I will probably just log out of wikipedia at least for a fair while. Robert Walker (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert Walker (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Just because someone used over 12K characters in describing a dispute doesn't mean that it is impossible to use fewer characters. If you stick to an outline and diffs of the problems, without adding editorial content, you should have no problem writing something short and accurate. Not that it matters, really, since as was pointed out above, DRN isn't part of the Talk space. Please also note that it appears to me that you were warned about WP:BOOMERANG because of your previous history of disruption, not because he is untouchable or because he would retaliate against you. Ca2james (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Just want to make totally clear. All my wikipedia edits have been good faith. I've always acted in accordance with BRD, have followed the wikipedia guidelines to the very best of my ability, and always discuss anything that seems to be significant edits on the talk pages first. And in this particular dispute, then I was involved as a reader not an editor.

The only thing anyone can say about me is that I write too much in my talk page posts. Which I am doing my very best to deal with. I have always done good faith edits and respected BRD etc.

With the boomerang - I was only back for a few days, mostly working on my DRN Notice. Then I did this one article talk page post, then WHAM ANC. Why didn't he bring it up earlier when I was writing more if that was the issue? Then, he brought this new resolution within two hours after I said to him that the notice will include a clear case of BRDR from his edit history. What is going to happen next if I continue with the notice? Do you not see how this is dead scary and intimidating?

Also, within this limit, how can I collaborate with other editors here, and respond to comments? Or even respond effectively on my own talk page? He wrote 7246 characters on my talk page today for instance, with 6,000 characters in the first 22 minutes. And when I talk to other editors, he often interrupts. I'd be totally helpless. Robert Walker (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm even willing to help Robert with posting a DRN; see DRN#2. And you bet I posted 7246 characters: I thought I started to realize what's so important to Robert about "karma and predestination"; see Karma and predestination. I even started to search for scholarly literature, to try to link this topic to reliable sources, instead of the WP:SYNTHESIS approach of a list of "characteristics" and quotes.
Regarding a DRN: there are two RfC's (Rewrite & Secondary sources), and this ANI-thread, open. They first have to be closed. The one who opened the RfC's (and hardly hasn't participated in the discussion, Robert is taking all the heat), could be so kind to close them? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The old article had a section "Karma does not imply predestination" which you removed: [40]. I didn't write anything in the article and am not trying to shape its contents and have said many times I don't want to help with structuring it or editing it. I'm just asking for a rollback and that you do the edits more slowly and discuss each edit first with other editors. This is one of numerous issues in your rewrites Attempt at filling out the dispute notice, but this is not the place to discuss the content issues. You know that Dorje is an editor with less time for editing wikipedia than most - that is why I took on this DRN Notice in the first place as you can check from the conversation I had with him about it.

Of course you felt you had good reason to post all those characters. As you will in the future when you post 6000 character responses to my 1500 character posts if this goes ahead. Robert Walker (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not a permanent restriction, it can be removed through the community agreement. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Battlefield behavior in Canadian article; interaction ban?

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

I am not involved directly in this dispute. I found it in October 2014 following up on Skookum1's concerns of copyright violation in the article Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver (my first note on the topic). I found no evidence of copyright problems but was shocked by the hostile tone I found Skookum1 taking with WhisperToMe.

explanation of concerns

From that thread on that date alone: "your complete ignorance of the subject matter"; "half-informed comments"; "your presumptiveness"; "arrogant rubbish"; "your speciousness, and your arrogance, in these matters, is breathtaking." (All still visible at Talk:Indo-Canadians_in_Greater_Vancouver#Focus_of_this_article.) WhisperToMe subsequently requested my assistance with ongoing incivility (see recent talk page note, including some examples of edits that concerned him; also older note)). Particularly concerned to find he had left this hidden note in article space, I wrote on Skookum1's talk page on 30 December urging him to calm the discussion down and work towards dispute resolution, or I would be seeking an interaction ban. (See the conversation in context as of this writing here.) The situation is not improved: "Here I am trying to educate the woefully uninformed." (1/4); "Maybe "someone" will take the time to read actual sources other than his own personal preference for ethno-focussed history and LEARN SOMETHING instead of treating me like I was a liar. I am not; and he's just ill-informed and prejudiced" (1/6; emphasis in original) Skookum1 claims the incivility is mutual, but the only example I've found cited of incivility from WhisperToMe is in his requiring verification of Skookum's perspective. To quote Skookum1, from January 4th: "I want verifiability and proof what you're saying' is AGF and NPA at the same time, as you're implying I'm lying (which is what your ethno-drivel sources do all the time, when not saying things out of pure ignorance of the reality); you have a responsibility to believe a senior editor who's been around here half your short life and who has read more on his province's history, and written more Wikipedia content on "Chinese in BC" than you apparently like to be blissfully ignorant of - or are too caught up in their own incestuous ivory tower to actually explore the province and read the local histories (not all of them written by "white" people and dismissable as such, as they are wont to do,even though those local histories are generally very flattering towards Chinese in their respective areas). This is the same concern I noticed and addressed in my first note on the subject - in response to Skookum1's 10/23 note that said, in part: I am at least three times your age, an experienced Wikipedian of long-standing, and very knowledgeable about my home province which you are NOT.... Who are you to say? You're a "Young Adult" (codeword for "late teenager") who just discovered this subject and now make pronouncements on it as if you were an expert to the point you can "assure" me of anything. WhisperToMe has recently filed a request for intervention at WP:NORN (thread) which may or may not be derailed by this battlefield behavior, although I note that Skookum1 has produced some sources, perhaps in response to that thread. I considered waiting in case that was revolved, but I think that the battlefield behavior (even in that post, he attacked WhisperToMe) is once again escalating and in any case has gone on long enough.

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

This is out of my usual area (copyright), but I really can't stand by and not try to do something when I see a situation like this. I believe that fights of this sort can and do wreak havoc on Wikipedia. I think it needs to stop. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If I might register a non-administrative opinion. First, I appreciate Moonriddengirl attempting to assist an editor who feels accosted. Many editors of all stripes lately seem unwilling to do that because of the pain and suffering it usually entails with no reward. That said, I think Skookum1 is simply expressing natural frustration at a proposal that seems to be pushed at a more rapid rate than is perhaps advisable. WTM and Skookum appear to be the only two editors active on this topic which seems to be the genesis of conflict. Instead of an IBAN, I would personally volunteer to involve myself in this article to increase the range of voices, if the discussion could be restarted in the form of a new and fresh proposal and the previous 3 sections archived. That might be unconventional but an IBAN should really be avoided in this case if at all possible IMO as it would leave the article derelict of editors. DOCUMENT★ERROR 13:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a new proposal. Perhaps the reason why I have been pushing strongly first for a rename, and then a split, is because I created the article to focus on Vancouver in particular. The user unilaterally moved it and changed the focus, and my move proposal (my way of opposing the unilateral move) failed. - My guess on why this behavior is this way has to do with Talk:Indo-Canadians#Merge_discussion. I first started Indo-Canadians_in_Greater_Vancouver. After he suggested making a Indo-Canadians in British Columbia I started it, and the interaction went south. I had the impression he thought the content from other parts of the province was neglected, so I would make one to collect the rest of the info, but he saw it as preventing a merge/page move he felt should take place. I was seeing as "I started the article on the subject I want to write about, and you can write about the subject you want to write about here, so we both can be happy". In retrospect I should have made a userspace draft as such a thing is easily reversible and not on the mainspace. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My interactions with the user began here:

WhisperToMe's note

Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#If_you_make_articles_on_ethnic_Indian_populations_in_Canada.2C_be_sure_to_include_info_on_Air_India_182.27s_impact_on_the_community. For full disclosure: There was one edit in October I made where I was criticized by User:Antidiskriminator, in Talk:Indo-Canadians#Merge_discussion (background is in the first post about Air India) - He argued that I had made an error in conduct See: "Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)" It concerns this text that I made at (WhisperToMe (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC) ): "Oops. I didn't mean to imply that I'm of Indian heritage. I'm not of Indian heritage. Nonetheless, I have a revelation that you may be interested in. Let's discuss a lovely thing called WP:GNG. Let's review what it says. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." So what do we have? [...]" Talk page discussions about the reply: User_talk:WhisperToMe#Indo-Canadians User_talk:Antidiskriminator#Conduct issues I don't recall receiving any messages like that since October. Antidiskriminator also talked to the user here: User_talk:Skookum1#.22that_merge_discussion.22 On 2 November User:Blueboar asked both of us (myself and Skookum) to let other people talk: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_31#Should_titles.2Ffocuses_of_articles_be_determined_through_reliable_sources_or_personal_experiences_and_opinions.3F and Talk:Indo-Canadians_in_Greater_Vancouver#Seek_a_third_opinion_please In November a user reported that there were no issues on my end in that discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Third opinion "Comment 4: Skookum1's behaviour here has been pretty awful. Skookum1 should review WP:CIVIL and take it seriously. I commend WhisperToMe for keeping remarkably calm in the face of Skookum1's provocations, and for not being drawn into the cesspool of personal attacks and obscenities. We really don't need that in Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)"

I haven't received any other feedback about my conduct. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My past interactions with Skookum1 were not so positive and in line with the behavior quoted above. He went to the wall saying nasty things to defend an erroneous news report about a birth name at Talk:2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa, a position overturned by other editors in a RfC. A one way interaction ban may be justified. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've only had positive experiences with Skookum1 and I don't see anything here that's really terrible. But as I said, I'm happy to become active in this thread as a third voice if both parties think that would be helpful and a fresh start to whatever the major edit question going on here could be proffered via a new section and the closing/archiving of all previous discussions. DOCUMENT★ERROR 23:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's okay, Document, would it be alright if you commented on the following views from me? These are my observations on the matter.

WhisperToMe's observations

Everyone comes in with a set of knowledge, and some people do know more about a subject than others. Wikipedia is very clear that verifiability is an important cornerstone, and so even if you know something, you have to present evidence (as per WP:V). The requirement for exact page cites/chapter cites is not instruction creep, and it's not a trivial/unimportant detail. It's meant to protect the encyclopedia from mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, and I don't want to be caught in a "you think you know but it just ain't so" situation. It's also why possession of the works you are citing from is very important, so you can go back and double-check what they say. Especially after the Essjay incident there is a reason to strongly emphasize "these are the sources I have, here are the page numbers, this is what the text says" versus "this is who I am" and trying to use that as leverage in a discussion Somebody else brought that up here: Talk:Chipewyan#Requested_move_2 "Per Kwami, also I want to see reliable sources that establish that one usage is now more common or preferred over another - we can't simply take Skookum1s word for that, that is not how wikipedia works." (from User:Maunus) - I think this point needs to be strongly reinforced. @Maunus: Many replies are way too long. The personal tone and length makes them unpleasant to read, and I think this discourages other people from participating in the discussions. I think people said nothing to try to make it go away, but I think the best thing to do now is to address it. I think I have my own problem with making "lists of sources" too long, so a trick I have decided to do from now on is hatting the lists of sources/concerned edits so people aren't scared by the length of the reply. When you edit a super-local topic, many readers/fellow editors won't be from the area. Things that seem obvious to you are in fact not obvious. It means having patience with people not from the area, and taking extra effort to cite your sources to verify what you know. It is necessary to see all editors as equals, even those who are new and not from your area, even those of a different age.

What do you think of these comments? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I've had plenty of patience with you, despite your ongoing impatience and imperious judgment-mongering and very often rephrasing/distorting what I said; as has the even more uninformed person on your latest RfC on that page. When I mention other wikipedia articles, or events I know from my own readings on talkpages demanding page-cites rather than simple book cites is NOT called for by WP:V; I've given plenty of talkpage "here, go read this" recommendations and instead seeking help combating me.....he doesn't see me as an equal, but as an enemy. I think your comments are just more of teh same; you rejected me as a local informant right off the bat and there's another OR/ANI in the archives about that....and this is not a "super-local topic", this is a general history of a major Canadian province, with much more depth and breadth than he understands... or is even willing to give some t hought to, instead treating all I say with AGF and an implicit NPA. And Maunus, Maunus is a fierce Skookum1 hater see Talk:Chaouacha; his comments there should have seen him banned for life, instead here you are resarching what others ahve said about me instead of researching the topic as I have been doing while you have been ranting about me...to try and rfield the very sources you're too preoccupied with opposing me to deign to look for.Skookum1 (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not a "fierceSkookum1 hater" I am a colleague who has found it very hard to collaborate with you for the same reasons WhispertoME is mentioning. 1. Your idea that your personal knowledge and identity has any relevance or validity as leverage in discussions or as a source of information for articles. 2. Your egocentered, abrasive and agressive argumentation style, and your extreme longwinded rambling answers. Yes I have had my temper flare up in our discussions with you and said rude things, but not an ounce ruder than you have treated myselkf and others, and not an ounce ruder than you have deserved. You are an angry mastodon to be sure, but one with extremely thin skin - you like to give out thrashings left and right, but act like an offended 4 year old when someone gives you back. Whenever you have decided to stick to the point, argue based on sources and rational argumentation, and follow basic policy I have had no problem with you. That has not been as often as I would have wished, but it has happened on several occasions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 08:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

given the amount of time this hornswoggle ANI has already taken, I'm not going to bother to do dig up your various explicit hostilities abut me, or the ANI you launched which was full of lies I did not bother responding to but did comment later when it was archived, and saw that reversed; that ANI, groundless and NPA as it was, was closed "no result". That "angry mastodon" comment is far worse than my "linguistics cabal" caution which earned me a block warning; you say rude things all the time, and distort things I and others have said; and in the case of BC history and geography, the idea that my knowledge has "[no] relevance or validity" is poppycock; I've been trying to help and educate him and pointing him at things he should be reading and providing examples of things that put the lie to gaffes and simplistic distortions/generalizations in his selection of academia and political writings. He's been the one rejecting me, not wanting to listen to me, instead seeking support to silence or negate me, or as with recruiting you here, to denounce me. INSTEAD of researching content/sources as I have been doing while all his ranting, and this ANI, has been going on.

I know the material, know what sources have what in them, even if I can't provide page-cites (which aren't needed on talkpage discussions though he's behaving as if they were), and have a concern that "fair" coverage of "white" British Columbians is not being provided by those sources, or his selections from them. He's the one more concerned with opposing the very person he could learn much from; the article is a pastiche of TRIVIA and UNDUE and sometimes even what amounts to SPAM; but he doesn't know the province or its milieu, only what he reads in academia and what he's looking for to bolster his line of thinking. But these are wasted words on you, you don't see that he's doing the same "walls of text" and BLUDGEONing behaviour I so regularly get accused of and that nearly anything he comments about me or to me is AGF/NPA as if, to quote you, "we can't simply take Skookum1s word for that" in our own uncalled for AGF/NPA campaign to block all those the RMs on all those speedies hat Kwami pulled without discussion and proceeded to tooth-and-nail any attempt to revert them to their stable and wiki-consistent forms they had had for so long..... on BC history and geogrpahy, I'm the "go-to guy" for resources and clarifications; here I'm being treated as a liar and "not to be believed".Skookum1 (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing weird in not wanting to take your word for anything, or in not accepting your personal knowledge. As I have tried to explain to you about a million times it is basic policy. We cite sources. What your karate teacher told you over lunch is not a source. Regardless of how knowledgeable he or she is. (I am not making this up, Skookum used something his karate teacher has told them regarding the preferred endonym of the Mi'kmaq people as an argument in a move discussion). I very rarely see you providing any written or online sources for your statements, much less pagenumbers which - yes can be a requirement if others are not otherwise able to find the source and verify it. I do assume good faith from you. What I dont assume from you anymore is competence. Especially social competence. By the way if people end up handing out interaction bans I wouldnt mind a mutual one with Skookum1 as well. Very rarely does anything good come from us crossing paths. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus: What page discussion are you referring to? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I cant find the exact page right now, but it was somewhere in the loooong discussion that lead up to this which took page at different talkpages, wikiproject pages and article discussions. It was a minor part of the great Indigenous Naming War between Skookum1 and Kwamikagami. I am pretty sure that he mentioned earlier that one of the "acquaintances" he mentioned that he had consulted and wished to use as support for his argument was a martial arts teacher. Meanwhile he never linked to any of the very good Mikmaq dictionaries and discussions about the nomenclature that are reliable published and available online. It is not the only time that I have argued with him and he has insisted that his knowledge from acquaintances and personal experience trumps reliably published sources. That has been the main source of frustration in interacting with Skookum1, that and his belligerence. Actually I share most of his political and cultural views, but nonetheless he tends to paint me as "cultural imperialist exploiting/insulting native people" in these discussions. He even does this with some of our Native American editors when they disagree with him.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus: Talk:Indo-Canadians#Definitions_of_Indo-Canadian: "Point is about Duncan is one of my good friends in BC was raised there; he's Sikh, but lives now in Richmond; his life cannot be separated by arbitrary titling judgements made by someone in Texas who only knows about the place through books he's found so far. You sourced Kelowna but did you know to include West Kelowna, Peachland, Lake Country which are part of "Greater Kelowna". Of course not, because you have no idea where you're talking about. BTW the mayor of Lillooet I spoke about, his extended family is in Kelowna, I worked under his nephew (a film producer, now deceased) who lived in Burnaby; as with many IC families, they are not limited by the boundaries of Greater Vancouver, nor should your neophyte article be so limited; your opposition to the marge and the way you are doing it is obstructionist and your behaviour very questionable." - Do you mean something like this? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Personal anecdotes offered as supporting evidence for arguments about how to write articles. And hostility and aspersions to those who point out that it is not a valid form of evidence or argumentation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus: WP:V says: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." - What I want out of this discussion is not an interaction ban, but the Wikimedia community making it clear that published sources are the be-all-end-all on Wikipedia and that this is not a trivial point and it needs to be understood by everyone. I had attempted to make this clear at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_31#Should_titles.2Ffocuses_of_articles_be_determined_through_reliable_sources_or_personal_experiences_and_opinions.3F.

• @0x0077BE: had said: "Is anyone disagreeing with you (other than Skookum1) on the question of whether it would be OR to determine article titles or content based on personal experience? That's pretty much the definition of OR. I'm guessing it's not hard to find a consensus on that."
• On that OR noticeboard page I referred to this statement by Skookum Talk:Indo-Canadians_in_Greater_Vancouver#This_is_all_the_more_reason_for_there_to_NOT_be_two_articles: "The Indo-Canadian experience and community you only know second-hand through your precious books; I'm personally interconnected to it and, as a long-standing BC editor who's contributed reams to Wikipedia about my home province, know what I'm talking about. YOU don't, no matter how many books or quotes your throw at me....or how many demands you make that *I* go find something to prove *my* case."

The OR page does say "(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)" - But I feel when someone is trying to determine article content, it should apply.

I don't want this issue to slip away. I want it clarified. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, in response to your request for a comment from me let me say that I understand and empathize with your frustration. However, I think that when you have two editors with diametrically opposed editorial viewpoints editing in a single niche article in which no other editors are active, this is a situation that often develops after a protracted period (and it seems this has been a slow devolution that's occurred over a period of time). I don't know anything about you, but you seem like a fine editor. I have edited on a couple of occasions with Skookum1 and have had nothing but a pleasant experience at those times, even though (IIRC) we were on the opposite ends of a content debate.

I don't believe either you or Skookum1 has done anything that can't be chalked up to the natural evolution of human emotions and interaction in this circumstance. Taking a holistic view with all that under consideration I just don't believe there's anything here that can't be addressed through a fresh start supported by the introduction of one or two additional GF editors into this article to provide a greater diversity of viewpoints. The only thing I can say at this point is that, again, I am happy to provide myself as one of those viewpoints if the two of you think that is an advisable path forward (if so, someone please leave a message on my Talk page as I'm unlikely to check this thread again). The topic of this article is not one in which I have any interest at all so I probably could be effectively neutral. Again, these are just my drive-by observations and they might be wrong (maybe massively so). DOCUMENT★ERROR 10:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• User:DocumentError, I appreciate your feedback here, particularly as I'm concerned that this may turn into yet another filibuster, but I would ask you: do you think that hidden, personal comments about other editors are appropriate in article space, such as this one? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, Maggie Dennis (WMF), I didn't see that comment until you posted it just now. That said, I don't find it that egregious. It was certainly a pointed remark, but within a holistic view of the evolution of the Talk page, I didn't think it was really outrageous. Skookum1 seems frustrated by repeated calls for the presentation of RS in Talk, while WTP is frustrated by Skookum1's expression of his frustration. IMO, neither editor is really at fault, this is just one of the daily conflicts of life. That said, you seem better informed generally of the situation than I am so if there was a more sinister subtext which I did not pick-up on I, of course, trust your judgment. As I noted below, my original comment was really just a drive-by observation and should not be taken with any more gravity or import than that. If it was not helpful, I apologize. DOCUMENT★ERROR 12:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:DocumentError, I believe feedback is always helpful, especially in cases where people may be reluctant to wade in. Although I disagree with you about the egregiousness of bringing personal disputes into article space, I appreciate your opinion. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Moonriddengirl, I was multi-tasking and didn't notice the edit in question was in article space as opposed to talk space. I strike my comment (without prejudice to either editor). DOCUMENT★ERROR 12:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite right, DocumentError; I name RS all the time, including many accepted as valid on various other pages about "content WMT doesn't know or care about [yet]" or just doesn't want to admit could be real. His interpretation of RS and V is that page-cites are "required", which as per my other comment about that below, is NOT what WP:V or WP:RS say; he's extrapolating and projecting instruction creepage with his personal "synth" of what he claims the guideline says but doesn't, and then being all wiki-cop about it saying he'll delete anything that doesn't have a page cite. WTF? Who's he to be so high-handed about things he doesn't know about when he's only just begun to be even aware of BC history, never mind its social geography and the political complexities he's wading into (and I don't mean ethno-history, I mean the presence of Chinese and Indo-Canadians prominent in BC politics...and crime/gangs). Good judgment and "knowledge of the field" are "required" and all that stuff has to be "handled with care"; I added certain "notables" to the page yesterday that are in need of doing for a long time, but as witnessed by the ongoing "weird" activity at Bindy Johal and Indo-Canadian organized crime it's an area I'm averse to getting much involved with; and re the Chinese, it's rather strange that given the role of the tongs and the history of the opium/heroin trade in Vancouver that's not in the article, but then it's not in any of he sources he uses which avoid so much while conflating and distorting much else (actually I recall one "new history" article which discussed white women being found in opium dens in China, deconstructing it to denounce Victorian values of course).

I've read dozens of those things, and the "tone" is always the same; and egregious historical and geographic gaffes are regularly made in the same breath as very judgement and negative generalizations about evil ol' whiteman. Want to build a POV article? Use only POV sources/passages and fight like hell to get anyone in your way off your back, and despite "his frustration at my frustration" it's HIM that's been conducting an ongoing campaign to discredit me and/or rally others to his cause; especially my "enemies" it seems, with out-of-context nastiness being trumped up here from the distant past to "build his case"; his agenda being to get me out of his way, perpetrate the POV fork he wants so it conforms to his parameters of "ethnicity-by-city", a cause which he went at when I pointed out no otehrs existed in Canada other than the Jews-in-Montreal one and certain very specific others; he created maybe 10 articles all in one day, throwing up quotes and formatting them so they were more than stubs, but they're just placeholders; Chinese in Toronto was an obvious POV fork of Chinatown, Toronto but I changed it to Ontario, because of Markham and other places; same as I changed his "Vancouver-limited" Indo-Canadians title to "in teh Lower Mainland" because of the very prominent Indo-Canadian community in Abbotsford-Mission, just outside the GVRD boundaries, which he thinks somehow is in isolation from Surrey, only 10-15 miles away.....he argued and argued and, to prevent me from changing taht tittle to "in British Columbia" as I'd done with this one, as Indo-Canadian society and history in BC are not limited by region boundaries, and his notions of what "urban" and "rural" mean in BC is taht of a distant person with a greasy spyglass.

The merge discussion on that he stonewalled to the point where even the RfC person he called in couldn't make sense of it, so we have a pair of POV forks caused by him there, and here, and he went at them without even looking at what else in teh way of Canadian content there is; he's on an agenda, and says plainly on his talkpkage, and he doesn't want anyone in his way. He's shown no sign of being respectful or admitting I might know what I'm talking about, instead launches tirades and loud demands about page-cites where they're not even required and claims I'm not providing RS because I don't have the books handy to give page-cites; which you, DocumentError, were perhaps misled by something he said about what I said but did not, as he has so often done in talkpage after talkpage and discussion board after discussion board. Again, I point to RS all the time, he gets anal and demanding and impatient about page-cites, when he knows I'm even farther from British Columbia at present and can't "comply" with his Borg-like demands.

Despite his supposedly soft speech, his actions are aggressive and negative and not productive; he wants a big stick to drive me away....from watching out for my own province's/country's history from misportrayals by well-meaning but uninformed people who've never been there and only just started writing articles about it...apparently scanning for sound-bite type content, and any old bit of trivia or community-bulletin board content..while being completely hostile to the idea that others might know of content that should be on there... and point him to places he could learn about that; instead he comes here, calls in RfC, and alleges indirectly and otherwise that I'm dishonest and 'not to be trusted'. I'm no fool, I see the campaign and know it for what it is, and have seen this kind of thing before, whether from ethno-agendists like him or from political interlopers like on Talk:Adrian Dix, and Talk:Mount Polley mine disaster...and oh yes, Talk:Chinaman and Talk:Chinaman (term) where he'll find others like him ready to come here and denounce me but where they lost their attempts to POVize and censor content; which is his agenda here, plain and simple. Other than that obvious fact, as a review of what he has added and waht he has fought off or denounced or challenged clearly demonstrates, he's exhibiting very obvious WP:OWN behaviour and seems determined to have "sole authorship" and does not want to cooperate with an experienced Wikipedian who's already contributed LOTS in thie particular topic-area....and is tired of being harassed and insulted, and needs his pills and some dinner...sorr this was so long it was only meant to be about RS, but this is not a simplistic matter despite the simplistic arguments and misrepresenations being made about me, adn about the content. Has he gone and read any of t he cites I added to the CCinBC talkpage yet? No, I'll be he's writing up another 100-word essay, with footnotes, just like Bo Yang's juicy quote about such behaviour when you tell someone of thtat background he's wrong; he can't admit he's wrong he'd lose face; he'd rather shame and denounce the person telling him he's wrong, and demand that they be punished for making him feel bad. I need my dinner...and to remember to say away from this hell-hole tomorrow, this procedural war has been going on for weeks, and doesn't look like it's giong to stop. Instead of reading, and ordering books if he's so damned interested in the topic (instead of only reviews of them...maybe he can find some Coles Notes too, to help him out so he doesn't actually have t o buy a book), and LEARNING he's here battling somebody into the ground who is the very person who could teach him a lot....but hey he has a degree and I'm just some angry old white guy with no degree (though I do have eight years of post-sec, just no walking papers), and he's learned to speak softly and ask others to use their big stick. I know a lot about my province's history and care about how it's portrayed a whole lot. To me he's a an "ethno-cultural imperialist" fond of revisionist and revanchist sources. Skookum1 (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Skookum1. I stand duly corrected. That was poor wording on my part. I meant only to reference your note below that page cites for talk page discussions on material unlikely to be challenged are not customary or necessary. DOCUMENT★ERROR 13:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

WhisperToMe's statements on sourcing

@DocumentError: @Skookum1: When I said page cites are needed, I didn't mean that every single thing you say on a talk page has to have cite. What I meant was: If you want to challenge what a source says, if you argue that a source is incorrect, you need to provide a better source to challenge it (with page numbers and text, as access to the source is important), and/or a source that directly contradicts the claims made by the first source. The principle reason why I asked for sources is that I was told the existing sources I was using (such as Paul Yee) were wrong. Example: "which gold rush? Yee's sloppy history shoudl not be put here uncritically, he's wrong; see inine comments; and removing more POV-source-driven use of capital-W "Whites"" and "removing more racist language carried over from POV source (Yee); and more fixes of bad English style/writing" I wanted verification that this is indeed the case. If there is no verification that the sources are flawed and the sources qualify as "reliable sources" on Wikipedia, then I feel they cannot be challenged. I feel that if I cite from a source, the source should not be second-guessed unless evidence comes out from another source showing that it did make a mistake. For example, the historical mistakes in Hmong: History of a People (and the ones carried over to The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down) are documented in later books and this how the community knows it's a flawed source. AFAIK is different from a source occasionally making a minor error in fact (this happens in RSes and I knew this from reviews of Talk:Deng_Xiaoping_and_the_Making_of_Modern_China): Example: Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#Victoria_CBA_and_the_Sino-Japanese_War. I was able to check the Wikipedia page to see that the war indeed started years later, so I figured Shibao Guo may have made an error in fact there I had been told that all of the sources I am using are wrong and I should use other ones without being given the exact page/article citations proving the sources I'm using are wrong (Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#POV b.s. reinserted, I see). That is putting an inappropriate burden on me. WP:V is clear on who has the burden of proving content. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comments I don't have time today for all this gabble; re "I haven't received any other feedback about my conduct", he seems to have forgotten @Themightquill:'s advice that while my "tone" is questionable, 9 times out of 10 (or more) I'm right about the materials and information I bring forward; over and over and over again.

Skookum1's reply

Legacypac is a "hostile" who edit-warred and used false and/or misleading edit comments on his POV and censoring manipulations of the Ottawa page, which I delisted because of the stress and because others had come forward who recognized the issues I raised so that Legacypac and others like him in the "terrorism claque" do not have free rein to use such events to advance the "terror agenda". DocumentError echoes what you will hear from editors aplenty, that I work well with others who work well with others. @Floydian:, @Skeezix:, @Carrite:, @CLippert:, @Mindmatrix:, @CambridgeBayWeather:, @VolcanoGuy:, and various others can attest to the scale of my contributions; even @GroundZero: and @Resolute:, who have been at times at odds with me, will attest to my knowledge and dedication and that I don't make things up as WMT is constantly impugning about me. Moonriddengirl, you say you were shocked by my tone, but you were a late-comer to the ongoing 'MASS of talkpage and discussion board wall-papering of forumshopping to try to stop me from everything from correcting the name of Asian Indians in Vancouver, including his "war" over that term alleging it was right because some non-Canadian source is so out of touch that they use that instead of "Indo-Canadians". Then he went to war over that, and wanted to merge it to South Asians in Canada, and his "walls of cites" and original research analysis of things he's selectively looked have kiboshed merge discussions and RMs alike. He's right, it started with him being confrontational about the Air India bombing supposedly not being covered, and ordering "us" to do it, just as he demanded "I want an answer immediately" in his latest talkboard attack on me at the OR board, which I consider a rank NPA/AGF alleging that I'm lying. So that, Moonridden girl, is UNCIVIL, as is constantly warring with me on nearly anything I say, including pointing him to resources that, rather than go look for them, or read the other related Wikipedia articles (he POV-forked big-time on the creation of CCinBC, but he has a stated agenda of building a global "ethnicity-by-city" series of titles, and titles that don't fit that model he just doesn't want in his way; despite the existence of Chinatown, Vancouver and other articles already covering "Chinese in Vancouver"; also a term he went to war about, even bringing it to the CANTALK page disputing that it's a global term so "Greater Vancouver" isn't needed; a long-dead issue. It seems that I can't tell him about something I know without him demanding a page-cite because he doesn't believe me; and wants others to take action that he can continue to WP:OWN his stable of articles; he wants me out of his way. But of all Wikipedians, I'd venture, I'm the one most "up" on BC history and geography and as many know, I built a lot of the content and category structure for those areas in BC, and I also made sure that Chinese content was on town/region/gold rush et al. articles; so it's not like I'm trying to oppose Chinese Canadian history, as is the other thing his ongoing attacks on my subtextually assert, but rather trying to see that it gets dealt with fairly; and not written as an ethno-politics bulletin board or tract. His sources are biased and have huge numbers of bad geographic and historical gaffes and "false statements", which is a problem of that particular school of "thought" (soapboxing); he rejects the idea that there are things that are out there that he doesn't know of yet, nor did his oh-so-hoity-toity academic sources. The idea that a bulldozering OWNership artist's battleground behaviour on nearly anything would lead to me having an interaction ban re BC history or geography articles is absurd; he knows little about BC, has never been there, knows none of the rest of the province's historical and social context other than his snippets of cites (he can't possibly have read them ALL, given he posts dozens at a time), and rather than researching and learning, he's waging war. Here's what I say: interaction ban, fine, but to me that means a topic ban for him and he can go to some other country and continue his "ethnicity by city" agenda there; the article is a mess, full of TRIVIA and UNDUE and bad writing and POVism....and because of his warring and procedural games, now including this one though Moonriddengirl started it, I haven't had time to add to the non-WMT content on that article re gold rush history and smalltowns in the Interior and more; it's all the stuff he, and his sources, don't know about and given his behaviour don't want to know about, as it's in the way of the ethno-bias they advance; his instruction creep demand that page-cites be provided - which is an extenuation of the citation guidelines and rule-mongering; that simple book-cites aren't enough for him because I can't be believed is plain and simple AGF and a vulgar NPA not just insinuating that I am a liar, which is a gross insult given my years here and teh begrudging respect I've earned, even from those who don't like my straight-talking style, about my scope of knowledge and of the resources out there. Being treated as he has been doing since day one is what is UNCIVIL, Moonriddengirl, and his behaviour on all titles he's started is plainly OWN and nothing but. That I might see a topic ban on an area of my own province's history I know very well because of the battleground and OWN and POV behaviour of someone in another country working from biased and/or faulty sources is ludicrous; he needs to cool his jets, stop being so frigging demanding and impatient and re things like demanding page-cites, cool it with the anal OCD behaviour. He's creating articles and dart-boarding them with ethno-trivia so rapidly they're pastiches and too many to watch all at once; how he finds the time to write his discussion page diatribes against me I don't know; the impatience of the young, plus their incredulity and hostility towards thsoe who know more than them, or who tell them things they don't want to hear, is an ongoing problem in Wikipedia, and older, well-informed editors like myself should not have to deal with "I don't believe you" and cite-demands and discussion-board warring. Wiki-copping by someone who doesn't even know the material and clearly has no respect or good faith in another, long-established Wikipedian, from the topic-turf he's only so recently invaded, is what is disruptive; not me. Is throwing up his anti-Skookum1 tirades helping improve the article or the encyclopedia? No. why is he warring with me when he hasn't even begun to look at the vast array of sources out there I pointed him to? I looked up his user contributions and it seems he has opted out of the edit summary tools; so I can't see what percentage of his contributions are talkpage contributions vs actual work on articles. I'm betting 60-40 or 70-30, from what I've seen. Here I am, another hour of my day taken up with yet more procedure and yet more walls-of-cite distortions/whining by the very person who's been so difficult and confrontational to deal with, and condescending too; so much wrong with his behaviour I'm AGHAST that he's an admin. his combativeness and ongoing disruptive and hostile and OWN behaviour should go to RFA as I think he should not continue to have admin powers, as he clearly has little good judgement and as one of the authors I cited, who I know personally, re the content commented when I showed him the CCinBC talkpage, "Hmmm. Well, I think I have a copy of Dan's dissertation. What is this guy's beef exactly? He's not exactly coherent..." (he's referring to Dan Marshall's Claiming the Land PhD dissertation which broke new ground in BC historiography (he's a protege of Cole Harris of The Resettlement of British Columbia) which I brought up to oppose some bad content form WMT's "academic but inaccurate" sources about there being only 300 Chinese gold miners at t he start; the first boatload, yes, but hundreds of boats made the trip in the next months; within a month Victoria had gone from 300 people to 30,000, about a thid of them Chinese - according to Marshall; but not according to the badly-written sources that WMT seems as infallible. I'll actually be able to page-cite Marshall, as it sounds like Don (Hauka) is going to email me a digital form of it; I'll consult Dan and see if it's copyrighted or if it's citable online; and what reviews there are about it. Last night I went through the first three pages of BC books on nosracines.ca and linked on Talk:CCinBC books found that a search for "Chinese" will get results; he'll complain I didn't format the links properly, no doubt, even though it's talkpage and not article. the Living Landcapes page of the RBCM has lots more. But he's not reading them or even trying to look, he's writing lengthy talkpage attacks/complaints instead and being .... as frustratingly stubborn as always. "Doesn't work well with others" and has no WP:RESPECT for a person who could be very helpful in his studies, including I've suggested book-translation projects for him, since he's suddenly so very now interested in BC, but instead he attacks me again....and others like you, Moonriddengirl, see only the surface and the result of ongoing and both arrogant and misinformed/biased warring on content and on talkpages. So here's "what", as far as I'm concerned: he should be told to cooperate with others knowledgeable about the topic area he's coopted for his empire-building and treat them with good faith; and not demand page-cites and other OCD crap which is utterly AGF, just as his forum-shopping and discussion board diatribes are implicitly NPA, and NOT CIVIL in the slightest; obstinate and disruptive in "soft speech" is often far more UNCIVIL than plain old "you're a jackass" rudeness; it is uncooperative in the extreme and not the way to write a balanced, informed article; rather the opposite. He should spend time reading more BC history, outside of his narrow-field ethno-history sources, before adding much more to the article, which needs massive revision, as do his other opuses on Indo-Canadians and other ethnicity-articles he's started, "staking out turf" on peoples and places he doesn't have any direct experience of. If he doesn't want to change his aggressive and obstructionary and actually defamatory attitude and actions towards me, and doesn't broaden his view of BC history outside the narrow ethno-bias he's been cultivating, and his particular geo-bias t hat he'd like to have (to fulfill his OWN agenda), then if there's an interaction ban, the very simple way to accomplish that without cutting me off from BC history and society articles is for him to find somewhere else on the planet to go appropriate and pontificate and edit-war about How much otherwise productive time has been taken up by ongoing procedural board-talk since he first showed up on CANTALK making demands and insinuations a few months ago? Way too many. If I could see his edit summary, it would be I'm sure very telling as to where he spends his time when on Wikipedia. his articles need "eyes on", they're random assemblages of found trivia, and credulous rendering of quoted material out of context, and without any effort to represent or understand "the other side of the story" and he makes no effort to listen to advice. NONE AT ALL including Themightyquill's comments about me generally being right despite my tone. If this ANI is going to take up days of people arriving to denounce me for making poor little WMT feel bad (and how do you think I feel, hm?), then despite my efforts and goodwill, if this results in a "bad call" that trashes me while shoring up a (to me) very irresponsible, rude and juvenile-in-attitude/behaviour edit, it may be time for me to leave Wikipedia for the seventh or eighth time; I always get asked back, or find myself "coming back in" because of POV manipulations, often, of native content/vandalism problems. Have a look at the star/badge section of my Userpage re that, just because WMT doesn't want to RESPECT me (as in WP:RESPECT which needs to be rewritten) doesn't mean that others don't respect me so much that they ask me to come back and/or not go away. he wants to drive me away, even get me blocked perhaps; I was pondering pointing to the OR board underway as an ANI myself, on NPA/AGF and other grounds, but internet service here in Cambodia is spotty so I was offline yesterday; and that I am regularly painted as the bad guy, just as MRG has started out with here, makes me shy away from using procedure to deal with problematic behaviour of this kind; and no wonder, given how much of my life, time and blood pressure aggressive attack ANIs have cost me this last few years; how much I could have contributed in the way of content and ongoing edits/maintenance instead of having to deal with obstructionism and ignorance is incalculable.

• I know my stuff, and have been trying to educate him; he's been rude in response, and procedurally and talkpage combative and NPA towards me; and yet it's me that's the attack-point in this ANI. MRG, you don't know the material (all of why I say what I say about him), just as he doesn't know BC history/geography or the full range of sources and reality/facts out there that he doesn't have a clue about; and apparently wants to remain as clueless as his "academic" sources are, even though there's sources aplenty that put the lie to the silly and biassed claims/statements that they so often make/allege.

• I have no more time for this today; how many hours of my life is his nonsense towards me going to take? the young have time to waste, it seems, but the old (I turned 59 two months ago) find time is precious and want to put it to good use; and we all (old folks) find it disturbing that the young are so disespectful...and so ignorant about the past, or what others who are older than them have to say. WP:EXP has various passages but none, as yet, about "wiki-elders" such as myself (another editor I'm working with is 84); just as there is an oingonig discussion about female editors in Wikipedia, there needs to be one about older Wikipediasn and the barriers to them, male or female, which include having to deal with "walls of b.s." procedure/talkpage/guideline warring like WMT is so clearly full-time at doing.Skookum1 (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Skookum, I will attest to your knowledge and dedication, and that I have never believed you would "make something up". However, I would argue that you often do not handle conflict well and are generally better off when left to your own devices. That, alas, is not always possible here. Where you say you work well with others who work well with others, that is really just a fancy way of saying you rarely are opposed by those editors. And, other than the sentence I was mentioned in, I won't even pretend that I read that giant wall of text. Summary style man, not blog style. That said, nothing I say here should be viewed as commentary on this dispute, or on WMT, as I have not paid attention to this dispute at all. In that regard, I must trust Moonriddengirl's assessments. In any case, I wish DocumentError good luck with their offer of attempting to resolve this dispute. Resolute 04:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The intense irony of "Summary style man, not blog style" is what you shoudl be telling WMT; would you like a list of all the places where his ongoing blather and "walls of cites" have sought to WP:BLUDGEON merge discussions, RMs, and other ANI/OR board "discussions" with yet more "walls of text" even longer than I have been blocked and threatened with bans over. yet here again, pot-kettle-black. And at issue is the history of my own province being overrun by an agenda-ist who doesn't know the history-at-large, is on a POV bias-campaign and looks for POV material in POV sources, and carpet-bombs any discussion, and regularly makes overt implications that I am a liar; he's committing NPA/AGF with each and every one of his "walls of text"; all the while not following the leads I provide for him, instead demanding page cites RIGHT NOW (even though I'd told him my last few days were in life-crisis; others here know I have high blood pressure and that other withdrawals form Wikipedia were because of similar stressful combativeness by POV/OR artists on the Ottawa shootings article, Talk:Mount Polley mine disaster, and the "Kwami War" which I'm sure you remember, as others here must. And if you can't be bothered to read "walls of text" and so don't even read his walls of text either......then whatever I have said you have blithely passed over once again. But yes, while you say nobody disputes me that's not true; and many collaborate with me on various topics and respect my knowledge of hsitory/geography/sources and don't throw up board discussion after talkpage discussion after board discussion after talkpage discussion time and over again, instead of acknowledging that he doesn't know twaddle about what he's posting up POV content and TRIVIA and UNDUE about and might actually learn something from a real live British Columbian. But nope, Skookum1 is the bad guy, once again, for getting frustrated by somebody else's disruptive and obstructionist behaviour.....Skookum1 (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said, my comment here does not reflect on the dispute that brought everyone to ANI because I have not paid attention to it. But you pinged me here in the expectation that I would act entirely in your defence. Instead, I gave my truthful view of both the defence you were asking for (which I agree with and support) and your argument that you work well with others (which I don't necessarily agree with). But in terms of your "intense irony", you know I have suggested in the past that your wall of text debate style is often counterproductive. If you have finally found an opponent as verbose as you, then I hope you at least begin to understand how difficult it is to parse. And if your opponent is that verbose, then I would suggest they need to keep the very same thing in mind - people don't read walls of text. They just become background noise that drowns out salient points. Resolute 20:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

When I ask for page cites, it's not an accusation that the other party is making something up. It's simply to satisfy a demand to verify content.

An example of me asking for page cites: Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#annoyingly_POV_edit_comment is a reference to (this edit which added a pagecite to Berton) and a reversal of this edit which argued that to highlight whites was racist - In diff#639658193 I am using page cites to support my position and I think it's fair to ask the other party to do the same.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I can't the particular latest invocation by him of WP:V and he claims that it's not instruction creep to demand page-cites as per that guideline; in fact is is instruction creep, as his position does not appear in that guideline and appears to be an extraplation/combination of its first two paragraphs:

• All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.[2]

• Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. See Citing sources for details of how to do this.

• "The burden to demonstrate verifiability...is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." is plain and simple and can refer to a book cite without page-cites as we often see around Wikipedia. The next paragraph is in reference only to "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" - yet I have field no quotations, and the only person challenging what I know to on other wikipedia pages, and in cites and sources I point to, is him. Demanding page-cites so demandingly for talkpage discussions is NOT IN THE GUIDELINE.Skookum1 (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

By "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." it is demanding division citations. For a large book, that means page or, at minimum, chapter citations. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment because of an edit conflict with Maunus, I lost the place this bit was meant to go into:
  • Since you're researching anything negative about me that you can find - rather like your habit of looking for anything in your ethno-history sources that's negative about European/British-ancestry and only adding that - and are trying to recruit people who might have something to say about me in the hopes you can get me blocked and out of your bulldozing way, why not ask for comments from those that have given me barnstars and other awards. Of cousre, you don't want positive input about me....anything but huh? I've pinged some of them, but can't go around asking for comment myself directly; seems to me I deserve a barnstar for "speaking truth to ignorance" something like the "speaking truth to power" which @Viriditas: gave me in relation to keeping Legacypac and his ilk from the POVism/censoring of the Ottawa shootings article;

• • My position about this ANI is what it has been since my first reply; that it is misplaced and the wrong person being accused of being at fault for the "battlefield" conduct he's been waging against me. His researching others' negative comments about me, some very old, is very clearly a personal attack, and "not fair" - but then neither are his preferences in sources and content, either.Skookum1 (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• 'comment to MRG in your exposition you say "his requiring verification of Skookum's perspective" but give your head a shake; verification with page-cites is NOT called for by ANY guideline, and it's not "perspective" I've been providing, but examples of events and articles and resources he needs to read to broaden HIS perspective. The only "perspective" I have is that NPOV is not served by his articles, and that they are effectively POV forks, and badly-written ones, albeit with massive cite-farms and link-farms that he cannot possibly have read; among so much else that he doesn't know about. He's also pushing above for a POV fork split again after that was already shot down by RM/consensus over a month ago; his agenda is "ethnicity-by-city" but frankly he doesn't even understand the boundaries and geography of the city ("Vancouver" meaening in his world the Lower Mainland/Greater Vancouver (either or both apply internationally; even Whistler is written of as though it were part of Greater Vancouver which it is expressly not) and dosn't 'get" that Chinese history and society in BC is not defined by the city's boundaries, or that of its formal "metropolitan" area the GVRD/Metro Vancouver; the informal "metropolitan" are includes the Lower Mainland; My "perspective" is frm someone who knows his province's history and geography, and also what else is out there on Wikipedia already, which he ignored when he started hias POV forking and OR thesis-writing.Skookum1 (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Skookum1, in response to your note above that I am a latecomer, this is true. I do not say that WhisperToMe hasn't been a problem; I say if he is that you need to resolve this problem differently, if you are to be involved in resolving it. My efforts to get you to moderate your tone and use proper dispute resolution have unfortunately not succeeded. You indicate that some of the people who have issues with your behavior above are combative or have disagreed with you in the past - so far as I know, you and I have never disagreed, and I am not in the habit of attacking people. Even if he is doing something wrong, it doesn't give you license to attack him, with fresh comments (not stale) like "he's just ill-informed and prejudiced" (from the 6th; diff in my opening note above; emphasis in original). Moreover, it's ineffective. Demonstrably in this case, your tone has become the focal point, and it will impede your efforts to demonstrate why you feel he is a problem.

A topic ban is not reasonable unless there is consensus that what he's doing is inappropriate and, after being advised of this consensus, he refuses to stop. At this point, such consensus doesn't seem possible because of the battlefield behavior.

As a side note, you are perhaps incorrectly remembering what he said at WP:NOR. He didn't say "I want an answer immediately." In full, he said, "Disclaimer: I have been in several disputes with the other editor. I was trying to use WP:Third opinion but based on the last post I feel that I want feedback immediately." It was not directed at you, but disclosing that he had tried and switched methods of WP:DR. He is not demanding an immediate answer of you, but requesting quick feedback on your dispute. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

ah, yes, that discussion where he says things about me but didn't notify me, and very wrong things I must add, also; behind my back, and pointedly so, and all of a kind with his many attempts to find others to confront me so he can have a free hand to OWN the article. IMO your interpretation of that line is just enablement, approving of his discussion-board warring ad nauseam. Dispute resolution? - I've been too busy responding to his many attacks and sundry absurdities -and also amassing online resources for him and others to use (hopefully others, because someone with more sophistication and open-mindedness to come along would be just great right about now) which, of course, he's not going to look at because he migth have to admit his biases and POV/biased sources aren't infallible. And re that comment, yes, he's impatient in the extreme, apparently has lots of time; I'm trying to survive in a foreign country and am in ill-health and dire circumstnaces yet here I am, because I care about my province's history and I care very much about people using Wikipedia for soapboxes and POVism of any kind. He wants me t o spend my time to fulfill his to-me-anal demands for page-cites, claiming guidelines say what they do not...and acting like both a propagandist and info-warrior intent not on reality, but with his own assumed authority over what's right adn wrong in Wikipedia and his imperious and very impatient demands that things be found right now. Pages have sat for years with unref and refimprove tags; he wants them two hours later. Rude and impatient and demanding; and mis-stating things I've said, even back to my face on certain talkpage posts which I'm not going to spend yet another hour finding and diffing.

Please shut this down, it can go nowhere constructively and is taking up valuable time (and some of my health and remaining precious time); his demands for page-cites on talkpages and articles alike are "too much" given his deletionist/hostile nature to what his own choice of sources/quotes build as "their case". An interaction ban can only mean one thing: a topic ban for him that thanks him for his contributions to BC and Canadian ethno-content, but suggests he take his "ethnicity-by-city" self-authored series of articles to some other country where he might actually know about the place a little bit before launching into a war with one of its reisdents, denouncing him and impunging he's a liar and waging procedural war against. Enough already; he should learn to work with me, learn to not challenge every damned thing I say and give credit wherre credit is due; 50 years of readings, and now 9 years on Wikipedia,and over 85,000 edits, and respected as a resource "go-to guy" for where sources are for BC, and about BC history in general. I'm not talking from an "original research" personal-testimony angle, but from someone extremely well-read in the field he's only just got his toes wet; he's not respectful and this ongoing war is what is UNCIVIL....IMO he needs a week off to discipline him and bring him to heel, because without that he will feel vindicated as to this kidn of conduct; he's happy to take up other peoples' time with his demands, his impatience is also an expression of that lack of respect for others. The AGF/NPA from him has been ongoing since our first interaction; he escalates it, takes it to forum after forum, and continues to "wall of text" in response to neaerly anything. I'd rather be working on that artidle and others; not having to keep him from succeeding in getting me gone, which by now is his very evident true agenda. If you don't like what a messenger is saying...shoot him...or rather, get someone else to so you can pretend innocence. And never admit you're wrong, that would be tantamount to shame, no? I've seen it all before, here and in Wikipedia and in the news/propaganda forums and blogs out there, including the pretentiously righteous and those who demand rules be followed. "You must comply", quoth Seven of Nine. If he's not putting thsoe sourcers I amassed while all this is going on into the article, but preparing another diatribe against me, actions speak louder than words; he doesn't want to learn, he doesn't want anyone else to edit "his" article....Skookum1 (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Skookum1, he did notify you - he told you at WP:NORN that he did, and he gave you the link: [41]. It was observing that notice on your talkpage through my watchlist that drew me to look in on how the situation was going. I understand that you may have overlooked it, but it's there and it was posted immediately after the NORN discussion was opened. I'm very sorry to hear about your poor health, but I cannot in good conscience withdraw this request. Even the tone of your comment here concerns me, as it seems to view his behavior entirely in a negative (and in one point demonstrably untrue) light. :( It remains WP:BATTLEGROUND. If I felt that you would put aside your obviously strong personal feelings about this user and work out the problem in a collegial manner ("civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation"), I'd be happy to. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Skookum1, I’ve defended you in the past, for the same reasons you articulate above - that you are dedicated, and knowledgable about B.C. history and geography. I identify with your pride in the place, and your love for its history. But what I’ve seen over the last two years or so very much seems to be a downward spiral towards anger and battleground mentality. It's a cycle - you work constructively on topics for a while, then find a contentious area, then find an opponent (or they find you), then all hell breaks loose. You have a tendency to fire point blank with both barrels when a shotgun isn’t even necessary. Then you are blocked, or quit. A few months later, the whole cycle repeats. Its bad for the content, its bad for editors caught in the melee, and, as you’ve said above, its bad for your health. And, sadly, it discourages people from working with you on the topics that could benefit from your knowledge. I’ve personally been on the edge several times of suggesting a big cleanup project to work on together, only to discover that you are so deeply embroiled in a talk-page war that I don’t even bother. Take this dispute, for instance. It may well be that I would agree with your position, if I was able to wade through all the interpersonal battling going on and get a handle on it. But I simply can’t. That would take up any bandwidth I have for editing, and then some. So I just don’t bother looking in to the disputes you find yourself in, even if they relate to topics that I have knowledge of, or access to knowledge of.

The collaborative part of this project isn’t just a matter of working well with people you work well with; it’s also about finding common ground with people you don’t. (And if that common ground is really not attainable, seeking consensus for your position from your peers.) No one “wins” with these highly charged and adjective-laden talkpage and noticeboard spats. Except maybe the internet service providers. The Interior (Talk) 15:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't get it, TE: I'm not the one starting or maintaining these discussions; all arise from his refusal to accept good faith about sources and facts and events that put the lie to, or dispute, the POV sources he's obsessing on; rather than address the sources I come up with, he disputes their validity, misquotes guidelines ("policies" he calls them) and has repeatedly sought to impugn my honesty and discredit what I have to say; I'm not the problem. If more BCers took care for their own province's history pages it would help a lot; I find myself the lone soldier against a tide of POV b.s. and, frankly, bad writing full of TRIVIA and UNDUE on a topic very important, and also highly-charged, in BC history, past and present. As usual, I'm being made a pariah even when I'm not the perp. he has behaved in an AGF and anti-consensus way since his first appearance in Canadian articles-space re the Air India bombing on CANTALK; I'm not dishonest, as you know, and I do know my BC history; trying to inform him of other aspects of Chinese history in BC and sources where he can read up has gotten me only insults and rejections and overweening "do it now or I'll delete it" ultimatums and discussion board after discussion board attacks on me and the sources I'm trying to get him to read and learn from. I really should pay attention to that meme around FB about "never argue with someone committed to misunderstanding you"...though that needs amending to "someone intent on misrepresenting anything you say". How much has he accomplished with his dozenz of incredibly long talkpage/board discussions othdr than to defray any energy I might have to work on the article itself?Skookum1 (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I just lost at least a half hour of my life reading that massive wall of text, 90% by Skookum1. First of all, WP:V is policy and is not negotiable. No editor can say that they read the book six or eight years ago and later sold it, and cite it that way without page numbers. And then demand others buy the book. That is unacceptable. Every accusation that Skookum1 makes against other editors can be applied against Skookum1, ten times over. This editor has a lot to offer, but their combative attitude is way out of line. As is their longstanding habit of saying in 5000 words what can be better said in 100 words. It is wearying and disrespectful to other editors. Somehow, it must stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you haven't seen all the other discussion board and talkpage rants by WMT huh? Too many to link, and he writes more than I do. The combative attitude has been HIS from the very start, when he started demanding coverage of the Air India disaster on WP:CANTALK and persisted throughout his many talkpage attacks on me and ongoing AGF towards anything I say; the OR board discussion is entirely AGF and rankly NPA, and full of instruction creep extrapolations on e.g. WP:V where the passage about page cites is ONLY about quotes from sources; it does not apply to talkpages; he even hunted out negative comments from others about me from the distant past; it's not ME who needs the cooling-of period; he hasn't done a thing with the mass of cites I came up with while he was expanding his attacks on me on the OR board and elsewhere; actions speak louder than words; and he's not working collaboratively and not treating me with respect. As for your put-down of my account of what I know to be in Morton, that's just more AGF and you should know better; I brought Morton up on the talkpage and when I put a tidbit from it on the article it was not a quote and so that bit from WP:V does not apply. I also don't have a few dozen other books I used to have which are used on various pages; that I didn't page-cite them because they weren't quotes I was using them for is a further point. As for "ill-informed" being supposedly an NPA, that's just more instruction creep, and he clearly is NOT well-informed about BC history; his hostility to non pro-Chinese sources underscores the "prejudiced" views he has about non-Chinese in BC's history, as evinced by his ongoing hostility towards anythign that disputes the rank POV and 'bad facts' in the sources he prefers; he doesn't want to admit to the existence of anything in the way of his agenda and has posted dozens of long talkpage and discussion board "walls of text" which you are apparently unfamiliar with; I'm way too familiar with them.. That's not an NPA, that's a statement of fact.Skookum1 (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the wall of text response that helps prove that what I said is true. Are you incapable of being concise? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Time for a wrap-up User:The Interior provided a very insightful summary of the problem. No IBAN is going to solve the underlying problem, only an enforced time out for Skookum1's own health and sanity. Can an Admin rule on this? Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And who are you again? the guy who made false edit comments on the Ottawa shootings articles and conducted a POV censorship campaign there? that guy? Right.......but you are not involved with this article, only have a grudge against me for thwarting your attempts to POVize/censor the Ottawa article and pointing out the details of your suspicious-behaviour false edit comments.Skookum1 (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Completely false accusations (check here) no supporting diffs. Thanks for so quickly confirming the point. Legacypac (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Heavy long term abuse by sock army.

For several months already, articles related to Uzbeks and to Tajiks have been under attack by a never-ending list of socks of a nationalist Uzbek. This time he calls himself KanishkaKagan and is again performing exactly the same kind of nationalist vandalism in infoboxes (inflating Uzbeks and deleting Tajiks) [42], [43] that he has already been doing under the names of Turan22, AlexUzb, YulbarsTiger, George$653, and Izzy.neon. As per WP:DUCK, I dare say thatO.Turani is also the same user. This has been going on for several months, and temporary protections and blocks do not really help as the user just continues to create new socks to repeat the same nationalist POV.Jeppiz (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong at all I'm O.Turani an Uzbek from Afghanistan and all my edits are based on sources. I don't have any relation or contact with above mentioned users. It's better to say there is anti-Uzbek army probably origins from Iran vandalizing Uzbek Identity. User:O.Turani (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Absurdity, it you misbehave. I always on sources refer. You in my opinion HistoryOfIran? Tell me what relation has to Tajiks of Al-Biruni, Al-Khwarezmi and other great scientists? Yours faithfully KanishkaKagan KanishkaKagan (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Jeppiz, are you aware of WP:SPI? I recommend you go and file a case there, as that will help establish who is a sock and who isn't. Feel free to ask for help on my talk page if you need it :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Lukeno94, that's what I usually do (asking for as SPI]] but I took it here as it gets very tiresome to file requests and when the socks are banned, the user already has a few new socks ready to continue. It's an example of how a dedicated puppetmaster can impose his POV by creating enough socks. Creating an account takes much shorter time than filing an SPI, so those trying to keep tracks of the socks have to spend more than the puppetmaster does. I think it's a bit of a flaw in Wikipedia, actually. As I said, this has been going on for months on several uzbek-related articles. And it's not just keeping track of this user there, he also has "delightful" surprises like this one for people disagreeing [44].Jeppiz (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Correct; however, do they usually target the same articles over and over, or are they different each time? If it's the former, then you can file a RFPP request citing the sockpuppetry. Also, if CUs are able to confirm the accounts, then rangeblocks of the underlying IPs might be able to be applied. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I filed an RFPP last time and it helped for a short time. However, the puppetmaster has around ten articles they target long term. PP is helpful against occasional vandals but does not do much against a dedicated puppet-master who carry on for months.Jeppiz (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• If the master keeps coming back to the same articles over and over, particularly if BLP comes into play, then I think you have a good case for very long term protection, maybe even indefinite, if you present the evidence of how long the abuse has gone on for, and how quickly it started again after the previous protection(s) ended. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Update As a case in point, here is yet another account that obviously is the same user (performing exactly the same actions again, and accusing all others of "vandalism"). [45], [46]. It's clear that the user has a large number of low-activity socks. Honestly, what can we do? RFPP is no good as the user has a very large number of socks (here is just a small list of some of those blocked, but note that several socks of the same user is not include). The sockmaster can quite happily revert four times, as he's currently doing, with some of the socks, and normal users undoing it would risk being blocked for 3RR. Even if some of the socks are banned, it's obvious there are a large number out there.Jeppiz (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you really pay attention to my references? For example I believe [Temur] is Uzbek I have reason for this claim and provided reference about him to prove that he was Uzbek. 1rst his tribe is called Barlas, and Barlas is one of 92 tribes of Uzbeks. 2nd eveyone knows that his birth place is located in current Uzbekistan kish city, currently all the population of this city is native Uzbeks. Besides according to his own notes we can understand that his language was Uzbek dialect of Turkic language. So please do vandalize Uzbek historical figures. O.Turani (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

O.Turani, I said I wasn't sure about you. As for the others, I have absolutely no doubt that KanishkaKagan and Amir.Temur are just the current socks of Turan22 as they are performing exactly the same actions with the same words and the same summaries as the already blocked socks AlexUzb, YulbarsTiger, George$653, and Izzy.neon.Jeppiz (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}} Jehochman ^Talk 16:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's best to create an SPI case if there are additional concerns. Mike V • Talk 17:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Best thing to do is to get the complete list up on an SPI so that we have a record that we can refer to next time. Then we can evaluate the pattern and decide if any further action (like protection) is needed, and a CU can determine whether rangelocks are plausible and so on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

O.Turani has been blocked before for sockpuppeting. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/O.Turani/Archive) They have also repeatedly added unsourced claims that certain historical figures are Uzbeks to the Uzbek article. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turan22/Archive) O.Turani did post saying that a source supported their claim that several Timurids were Uzbeks,[47], but the source directly contradicts that claim, say the Timurids were "rivals and opponents of the Uzbeks.[48] In spite of this,O.Turani has repeatedly added claims that the Timurids were Uzbeks.[49][50][51] [52] [53] [54] just like the blocked sockpuppets listed above. Edward321 (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It is quite clear that O.Turani is not here to build an encyclopedia, since any statements regarding sockpuppetry, edit-warring, and the like garner a repetitious response consisting of, "... all my edits are based on sources". And yet O.Turani has never posted anything on the Uzbek talk page! Best to block/ban and protect the article(s) in question from disruption. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I have full respect to your idea but in case you want to write about others identity and history you should reall be careful. You should rely on sources that these people provide to you. I claim that Temurid are Uzbek because their origin is barlas tribe and Barlas is one of 92 tribes of Uzbeks. Edward321 states that Temurid and Uzbeks were rival, well it doesn't prove that they were not Uzbeks. Uzbek nation has big diversity by it's 92 tribe, in the past there was contests with each others. I give you a different example, the achaemenid and Median Empire was rival to each other do you consider the Medians non Iranian? The important issue here is the name of tribe which is Barlas if you ask from any Uzbek he/she states that Barlas and is Uzbek tribe. Besides we all know Mirza Abdul Qadir Bidel he is considered as Uzbek why? Because he is belong to Barlas tribe too. So I suggest you to be logical and do not try to conserve the facts. Also I'd like to say, whatever you try, generate violence, vandalize Uzbeks identity and history you will not achieve anything because Temurirds are Uzbeks and Vandalism cannot damage this fact. if you are considering sock users, then I'd like say that real sock is Edward321. Because he directly reverts my edits without discussing my references on talk page. You can check his edits on Uzbeks and Tajiks page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O.Turani (talk • contribs) 05:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

O.Turani ^Talk 4:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The large number of reverts to the article on Uzbeks by O.Turani show that he/she is edit-warring, with a variety of editors reverting him/her. The talk page history shows that O.Turani has not been discussing his/her edits on the talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner

This post is a request for a simple warning to the title editor on the subject of edit warring, civility, and adherence to WP:CONSENSUS, and that he be required to remove material added to his user Talk page stating his intent to disregard WP:CONSENSUS and expressing a negative view of other editors in apparent violation of the user Talk page guidelines.

On the article Organic food, The Banner repeatedly restored material to the lede that had been removed by other editors, who had offered the explanations that it was poorly sourced and covered material not addressed in the body of the article as required by WP:LEAD. The material was repeatedly restored with the explanations:

• That the removal of the material in question was "annoying"
• In response to a request that he discuss his concerns on the Talk page, he reverts again stating that the editor (myself) making this request was engaging in "whitewash"
• Reaching his third reversion and unable to continue, he finally comes to the Talk page and again accuses me of "whitewashing inconvenient information".

This event seen in isolation is certainly not the largest behavior issue of the month at Wikipedia, and I probably did not help the situation by failing to recognize that an edit described by The Banner in his edit summary as a reversion actually contained new citations. But it is troubling in the context provided by his user page, which

• States that he intends to pursue his individual ideas about what is best for the encyclopedia irrespective of consensus. As I understand it, this is a violation of user page guidelines
• Features a picture of an individual being run over by a truck, with the caption "Unconventional but effective support for Wikipedians involved in the War against Vandalism, POV-pushing, Spamming and bad faith edits". Overall the page expresses a lack of confidence in other editors with respect to their good faith and / or competence and reinforces the previous comment about ignoring WP:CONSENSUS.

I respectfully request a simple warning regarding adherence to WP:GF, [[WP:CIVIL}, WP:CONSENSUS and that he be required to remove material stating his intent to disregard WP:CONSENSUS from his user page. With respect to my own behavior in this incident, I'll stipulate that it was not by any means perfect, and that I undertook 3 reversions in 24 hours for what I believe to be the first time in my career as an editor here. I'll do better in the future. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be far better when a large bunch of editors start looking at what is really happing at the article Organic food. To my opinion the article is hopelessly POV and unnecessary vague and negative due to the constant removal of anything positive. The article is victim of misusing of WP:MEDRS, that is used to remove everything what can remotely seen as a health claim, like the chemical contents of an item. Even when you publish a statement sourced by an item published by an university or agricultural college, it can be removed as being in conflict with WP:MEDRS (while organic food is about agriculture, not about health or healthcare).

The article is completely ring fenced and there are always a few people at hand to step in and help out. The consensus Formely 98 is not a real one, just one of a good organised and very loud group. The many discussions on the talkpage are proof of that.

In fact, in this case it is Formerly 98 who is POV-pushing and removing a sentence that is backed up by three sources. And he removed it without an explanation but with a warning that I could be blocked. That warning is what is very friendly described as "unfriendly behaviour", I have saved him the word starting with a "b" and containing a "y". This AN/I discussion seems the reflection of an editor not winning the discussion on arguments... The Banner talk 17:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Banner became frustrated a long while ago in the organics articles, that other editors (Like me) insist that health claims about food need sources that comply with WP:MEDRS, and he has taken to personal attacks about "whitewashing" etc for quite a while. He has been asked many times to stop. Difs of his disruptive comments:

• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif

It just goes on and on (there are many more of these). I've just been letting it go as I have had enough of drama boards. But Formerly just asked Banner to strike Banner's last personal attack of "whitewashing" which Banner blew off, writing "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". Since he seems unable to contribute constructively to the topic anymore, I suggest a topic ban for him. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

And this fits perfectly in the way the people operate there. This is not trying to discuss things, this is plain bullying. The Banner talk 01:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact, just give me that topic ban. I accept it. The only thing it proves is the moral bankruptcy of the CABAL operating at Organic food, who do not care about the encyclopaedia. Too bad they sacrifice a potential good article to their own ideas and refuse to start meaningful discussions, bu know how to waive with policies, guidelines and essays to bully everybody away. Is six months enough for your vindication? The Banner talk 02:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Banner on the chance that your opening words were not meant in irony: if you will agree to voluntarily stay away from the organics topic I will withdraw my recommendation and we can avoid more drama. Do tell. Jytdog (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not frustrated about MEDRS, I am frustrated about the misuse of MEDRS to remove everything that is positive, making this article overly negative and vague. The Banner talk 04:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Banner (and to explain the background a bit more for the closer) I understand that you really believe that eating organically produced food makes you healthier. But the science doesn't support that belief. Most of that is just due to the messiness of reality -- the variability of the food produced by any method, and the difficulty and expense of studying the effect of eating foods so barely different, in such a way that produces really definitive results. Based on WP's PAG, we just cannot make the kind of definitive statements you want to make, based on your belief. I am sorry you are so frustrated with that, and I am sorry that you have allowed your frustration to make you a disruptive presence in the organics articles. You really threw down the gauntlet when you refused to strike your personal attack and wrote "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". In my view that leaves the community little choice but to pick the gauntlet up and topic ban you. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a very interesting statement that you make here. In fact you say that the scientific research is unreliable due to many factors that can not be taken into account when testing food due to the messiness of reality. Still, you use it as a reason to remove sourced content. Why?

I have many times asked for a proper reasoning about why WP:MEDRS is used on an article that is clear in the remit of agriculture. The answer was always health-claims. But unfortunately, the definition of "Health-claim" commonly used is rather fuzzy. And it is interesting to see that many so called "health-claims" are rejected due to the scientific research that you just called unreliable due to the messiness of reality.

It is also interesting that you now go into personal remarks about what you think I believe. Unfortunately, you are wrong in your line of thinking. Combined with the "gauntlet", I just see a failure of AGF. It would be rather spectacular when I get a topic ban due to the sourcing of unsourced text. The Banner talk 17:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The Banner has been edit warring on this page in the past (though never quite crossing 3RR ) and warned about it [55]. The main issue appears to be that the editor is very reluctant to go to the talk page as multiple reverts seem to occur first when a dispute arises rather than going to the talk page once a dispute is apparent. These edit summaries demonstrate the main incident I've been involved in:

1. Myself asking for discussion on newly added content without a source: "removing per WP:STATUSQUO. If it's going to be included, continue to discuss and reach consensus on the talk page on an appropriate source and proposed content relevant to the source."[56]
2. Reverted. My response: "Multiple users have pointed out issues with the sourcing of the content on the talk page. Please join the conversation rather than edit war."[57]
3. "Reverted. My response: Again, please join the discussion on the talk page if you feel strongly per WP:BRD. We need a source, not reverts here." [58]

So, that was three times I had to ask for talk page discussion where everyone else was at least while The Banner kept reverting. This was awhile ago, but it looks like this pointy behavior is continuing. Looking at the user's block logs for things like edit warring, disruptive editing, and battleground mentality, they should know better, but it doesn't seem like past history or more current warnings have helped in this article either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban The Banner has already blown off all requests to revert or remove personal attacks, and seems unable to operate per WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS. I no longer think a warning will suffice. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as well as a block. Editors should be given a second chance but not when they are not going to change and keep doing the same thing after being blocked. 23.27.252.213 (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks] that you got yourself blocked, mr. IP. The Banner talk 15:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban As constant violation of WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CONSENSUS is unacceptable.Weegeerunner (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support banning this user completely This editor has an overall detrimental effect on Wikipedia. I have had a lengthy series of interactions with this user. In general he has been the least WP:CIVIL, the least collegial individual I have met in my 7 years on Wikipedia. He is a mass editor, primarily interested in inserting his WP:POV, his censorship, executed by his deletion of content. His constant tactic is to attack his accusers. I have collected a legacy of his hostile interactions with other users, which when I had it as part of my sandbox he successfully had deleted. So I have a lengthy page off line documenting at least 38 hostile interactions with other editors. Just let me know how to post that for your reading enjoyment. His favorite targets are relative novice editors. He is an excellent wikilawyer. He knows his tools, his intimidation tactics have scared most of them away--many have gone away permanently as in, they have stopped editing for wikipedia. I wasn't intimidated and spent weeks trying to protect content he was trying to delete (what he below calls following him around). I was successful 100% of the time in AfD debates-which shows the standards of work I deal with and shows how misguided he is. He still succeeded in speedy deletions, changing tactics before I could jump in. And ultimately he succeeded in attacking me. He found a friendly admin to tell me to back off, which I courteously did.

The Banner has been blocked already 10 times that I can find. The user below has shown a link to each of those blocks. What were the reasons? Disruptive editing, 3RR, Personal attacks or harassment.

The main message is: He has been given multiple second chances. Lightweight punishments keep getting suggested. He does not learn from them. Below he is literally sticking his tongue out at me; at all of the disciplinary actions that have taken place previously. Childish but true. They have had no effect. Look at the overall product of his work, you will find single minded obnoxiousness. His path of destruction will continue until we do something serious. He is the worst form of cyber bully and wikipedia does not need this as a representative. Reporting of the facts of his actions should not be regarded as a personal attack. Trackinfo (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything from "Support banning this user completely" to the signature was added by Trackinfo; it's not that the siteban advocate failed to sign. Trackinfo, go to Special:Contributions/The Banner and underneath "User contributions" you'll see a section For The Banner (talk | block log | uploads | logs | filter log), or something like that; that's the easiest way to reach https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AThe+Banner. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, how many times are you going to ask for my complete removal, Trackinfo? You did it already several times and they all failed. Could you please be a bit more realistic and stop following me around? You have been warned before by an admin: [59] and here [60]. The Banner talk 03:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Support indefinite topic ban. This editor has been persistently disrupted the organic food article with their disruptive WP:IDHT behavior. Yobol (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The diffs demonstrated do not strike me as particularly astounding. The editor seems to be arguing against consensus in certain discussions, and the conduct represented do not strike me as particularly horrible or aggressive. One editor against five is in the minority and as long as they accept that consensus is against them, then that's fine. They are not disruptive. That's what has happened so far with what I garner. Additionally, people citing WP:CIVIL really need to point out -which- diff that's about. The ones presented do not make me remark that 'The Banner' is uncivil. Also, people citing 3RR edit warring violations need to cite reports where they actually reported them. Tutelary (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Tutelary thanks for your comments. Based on what is presented here I see how you could say that, as I neglected to bring evidence of disruptive behavior to the articles themselves. Here is some (by far not all) evidence on that front:
  • reverts removal of OR with no edit note
  • adding biased sourced (http://www.organicitsworthit.org)
  • edit warring to keep biased source
  • jumping in in order to edit war with edit note "no need for censorship of positive things"
  • again jumping in to edit war and again on same content
  • again jumping in to edit war with edit note "Sorry, this relevant as the MEDRS-guys often claim that a difference is not significant when they remove sources not to their liking"
  • there are many many more of these. Basically as the editing community (what he calls "the MEDRS guys") works to keep the article neutral and accurate and well-sourced, Banner operates disruptively to try to keep non-neutral or badly sourced content in the article. His behavior has just devolved to disruption. I haven't even pulled in things from the other organics articles yet. Thanks for raising the question of editing behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • No, Jytdog, my complaint is that you are NOT keeping the article neutral but overly negative by refusing information and sources. You are trying to win a content conflict not by addressing the stated concerns but by chasing away critical editors or in my case trying to topic ban me. The Banner talk 23:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually I have been tolerating your disruptive editing and uncivil behavior. Again, you really threw down the gauntlet when you refused to strike your personal attack on Formerly and when he asked you to strike, wrote to him, "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". You have lost your self control and are revelling in it. In my view that leaves the community little choice but to pick the gauntlet up and topic ban you. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And again you are showing plain bad faith by assuming something that is not even close to the truth. The Banner talk 12:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not true? Difs.

1) you again make personal attacks about whitewashing in edit notes and on Talk

2) you are directly asked to strike the accusation/personal attack by Formerly a first time and again a second time

3) you write "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up"

very true and backed by difs. and i have provided diffs above of disruptive Talk editing and disruptive article editing. its all there. I am not assuming anything. And with RfC/U gone, this forum is the only we can deal with your pattern of bad behavior. Again, you basically dared WP to take action against you instead of simply striking your personal attack and changing your behavior. I think it is time the community took action, since you cannot control yourself. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Andcarr

User:Andcarr has restarted babysitting the David Ross (businessman) article again and is deleting any content that he has not added himself. He apears only to edit this article, yet he has accused me of adding PR to the article. Please can he be stopped, at least from editing this article? Bleaney (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually User:Saskia2309 also appears to be babysitting this article, it may be better to look at protection for the article - Bleaney (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say there a definite case of ownership going on. I just tried to remove a self-published blog from the BLP, and I got reverted. Annoyingly, there's also an accusation of COI in the edit summary when I was merely trying to follow policy, as I linked in my own summary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And Saska2309 made a similar accusation against Bleaney in this personal attack. It seems we've got a pair of POV-pushers owning an article on a person they don't like. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

He is also using the Daily Mail as a blp source now [61] Avono (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Andcarr has reverted the article at least four times today. I gave him a warning for edit warring. If he keeps this up, we'll have to take it to WP:ANEW. I'm guessing that he's not going to let anyone else edit this article but Saskia2309. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Andcarr (talk · contribs) blocked for 24h by Nyttend. Going off the history and user talk comments, expect resumption of disruption in 24h + 1m. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

He has a confirmed block evasion (with this IP) extending his block to 48 hours. Also, with this edit User:Saskia2309 just inadvertently admitted to block evasion. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 20:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Since both Andcarr and Saskia2309 (talk · contribs) have been linked to the same IP, they're either socking or one of the alleged links is incorrect, possibly due to meatpuppetry or possibly because I & Nyttend have actually got it wrong. That said, the behaviour of Saskia2309 over the last 24 hours, and of the 101.* IP, increasingly give me the feeling that these SPAs may be pushing the limits of what is acceptable behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought it best to take no more action in the situation, both because I've found it confusing, and because further activity might be construable as WP:INVOLVED. Given Saskia's admission to socking (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=641471602, linked by Orduin), I think a block definitely appropriate, but I don't know how long (either for account or for IP address), and I'm not sure what other actions would be helpful. Any solid action from an uninvolved admin would be appreciated. I have, however, unblocked Andcarr, since his original 24-hour block would have expired by now if I hadn't lengthened it. Sitush, please note that I haven't "confirmed" it in a technical sense; the IP and Andcarr were making edits so similar that I linked them on behavioral grounds. Treating Andcarr and Saskia as socks of each other, based solely on my actions and statements, would be inappropriate; please decide on behavioral grounds or request checkuser. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you had confirmed it, Nyttend. That was Orduin, whom I was trying to correct. - Sitush (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I was attempting to respond to "have been linked to the same IP"; I misunderstood you, thinking that you took it as some sort of technical confirmation that you could trust. Glad to see that you already understood correctly. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is getting silly now. See the warring over this stuff and also this section. I'm trying hard to sort out the content and am responding to queries/raising a few questions, but the Andcarr account is simply a SPA POV-pushing thing. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

And now this massive attack from Saskia2309. Andcarr has already acknowledged on their talk page that these two account users know each other. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That was so nonsensical, Saskia2309 should be blocked for that. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Raheja Developers

I'm writing here because there are still ongoing disputes with the page for Raheja Developers. This was previously brought to ANI because of edits made to the article for Navin Raheja as well as the company page, but didn't really get any attention from anyone that wasn't already involved with the whole scenario.

Long story short, back in November User:Bhaskargupta269 came on to BLP/N to say that someone was adding defamatory content to the article for Navin Raheja. ([62]) I went to the article and saw where the user (User:Leoaugust) had been adding things that came across as having a specific viewpoint, but I also saw where the article was incredibly promotional. ([63]) After doing some cleaning and some small discussion on the article's talk page with User:Sitush I figured that Raheja didn't have any true coverage outside of the company itself. The controversies are about the company but once you took that away you have some appointments that aren't really notable per Wikipedia's guidelines and some minor coverage of him- nothing that would really show he merits his own article. ([64])

I posted on ANI about my concerns with COI in either direction (positive and negative) and nobody responded in general other than Leoaugust, who stated that any negative bias on his part was unintentional and that he'd wanted to include the stuff about the legal issues because it was in the media and he wanted the page to encompass everything about the company. During this time I was also talking to Bhaskargupta269 on my talk page where I flat out asked him if he was a paid editor, which he said he wasn't. User:Yunshui had been trying to talk to Bhaskargupta269 on his talk page and explain why the edits were seen as promotional, which at first Bhaskargupta269 seemed to understand.

However there have still been promotional edits and edit warring on the article. Recently there have been repeated attempts to remove anything negative about the company from the article under various claims like a writer for Forbes India being specifically against the company, the page being used to advertise against the company, and so on. This has been done by a series of editors that have made a large amount of edits to Raheja related articles and various promotional type articles and after one of the editors (User:Sanjeev.08) scrubbed the article of any negative coverage, Bhaskargupta269 came back on and re-added various promotional content that had been in the article earlier on. ([65]) I also note that there have been similar articles made for another of the Rahejas, Nayan Raheja.

I've opened up a SPI to see if this is a case of meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry, but at the very least this looks like it's a case of someone hiring paid editors to make articles for them and scrub articles of any negative coverage. This post on Gilliam's talk page by User:Amrishtyagi makes me even more concerned that this is a case of organized paid editing and if this is so, then I'm concerned that it's a case of paid editors possibly trying to hide that they are paid editors or at least hide their conflict of interest.

I know that this may not necessarily be the right place for this since there is an SPI open, but this is getting slightly too large to be done just at SPI (and isn't really a BLP/N issue alone) and that there seem to be more people coming out of the woodwork just makes me want to have some other admins and editors keep their eye on the page. One of the major complaints from the people trying to remove the negative content seems to be that the information is defamatory, negative, or is spam. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• I want to say something... leoaugust is accusing me in SPI discussion for writing advertising content for this article. But now I also found one thing. leoaugust have posted all the content/facts/incidents/controversies that have been posted in Qubrex.com website. Everyone can check the website. It seems like that it has been created to post negative against this company. So is leoaugust being paid by qubrex to write only negative? If so then i request here to take action against this page because according to the discussion till now, everyone is posting intentionally here.(as you all are thinking that i am posting positive for the company)Sanjeev.08 (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I fail to understand the logic of (User:Sanjeev.08) charges against my editing. Qubrex.com has on its website mentioned about the Black Money sting operation on Raheja Developers (RDL), and the filing of legal cases against RDL by 43 of buyers in Raheja Atharva project, amongst many other things. So? Qubrex reported lots of news, and I reported some news, and just because some of the news we reported is same, I am supposed to be getting paid by Qubrex? The allegation makes no sense. And by the way, Qubrex is a well respected name, and they were deeply involved in Indian Real Estate's landmark case in which DLF (the biggest builder in India) was penalized 6.3 billion Indian rupees by the Competition Commission of India. And for the record, I have never removed anything positive or laudatory that you or anyone has put into the Raheja Developers page; I have just added what I think is very very important news about the company which should be part of a fair profile of it anywhere. I had disclosed earlier, when a particular slant in my writing was pointed out, that in the real world I am an real estate expert with over 9 years of experience in India, and my aim is to improve wikipages from being stubs to something substantive. I want the wikipages to reflect the Indian real market and its players more accurately, rather being one side and mis-leading to the readers. Please (User:Sanjeev.08) stop worrying about the positive/negative and report the important news about Raheja Developers as it comes. Leoaugust (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The Raheja Developers article is clearly beset by, possibly opposing, set of SPAs and COI/paid-editors, eg see related SPI, and the prod-reason here. Can some admins/CUs:
  • semi-protect the page,
  • block the confirmed socks, and also the latest SPAs Tunish123 (talk · contribs), Jojaf2002 (talk · contribs) etc as ducks (or run a CU if thought necessary)

Pinging @Yunshui:, who ran the last CU and may be familiar with the issue. Abecedare (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added some further results to the SPI; there are several distinct groups active here, though my suspicion - based on their editing, not on the CU results - is that there is some degree of collusion between them. I think there is a good case for semi-protecting the page and will do so now; I'll also block the confirmed socks. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Yunshui.

Also noting for future reference that some other editors on the page, such as Sandeepvishnoi (talk · contribs), have likely COI with the article subject. No immediate action needed, but if they resume editing, they should be made aware of wikipedia's policies in the area. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• If I could give you guys a big sloppy kiss right now, I would. Thanks for all of this! I took a small break to catch up on sleep and come back to find this- (hugs) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Harassment continues from Beyond My Ken

I have had a series of really bad interactions with the above named user, and was even banned for answering a question, from a 3rd user as he had claimed he request that I not post to his talk page, something I did not do, but he did not like my reply so he went running to a admin and had me blocked for 24 hours, and was told by 2 admins to leave me alone. So his reply was to review every file I have contributed, mostly in commons but many that are here, and he has renamed them and recat'ed then all on the basis that, as the user put it "we have a positive duty to rename files which are inaccurately named", it would appear that is his idea of a "Wide Birth" and he is clearly doing everything he can to annoy and antagonize me. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE place a LIFETIME INTERACTION BAN upon him as I want nothing to do with him, have tried in the past, he was told to leave me alone and he renames every file I have based upon this "we have a positive duty to rename files which are inaccurately named". Please get his to stop or I am done here. --talk→ WPPilot  13:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have an example or two of a renamed file? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Manhattan_Island_Ferry_Terminals_photo_D_Ramey_Logan.jpg&action=history https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?

--talk→ WPPilot  13:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

In the first link, I see that he pluralized the word "terminal". I don't understand what alteration the second link refers to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

After being TOLD to just leave it alone by User:Bishonen (I don't see the convo in the archives but I have posted to her page a request as well) ‎he went about, modifying a whole series of my files changing names modifying cats and sent the last 2 days doing it to any file he could find, that I had contributed and is modifying them. My concern is the users willingness to create conflict, intentionally, in spite of being told not to, then adding to this buy editing my contributions, during the ban he obtained upon with is claim that I was not being nice in a reply to a third party. talk→ WPPilot  13:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a commons issue to me, based on the provided link. Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The file rename is permitted by policy; see Commons:COM:RENAME point 5. The categorisation is likewise appropriate; Commons would be mostly useless if users couldn't add categories to others' uploads. Please note that we have no jurisdiction over Commons; complaints about Commons edits go to Commons:COM:AN/U, although your links here are nowhere near sufficient for any sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've warned both editors on Commons, and I warned both here the other day. If this continues, I'm liable to block the person responsible on either or both wikis. Clearly they need to leave each other alone on both projects and find something else to do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• WPPilot, you won't see conversations on your page in any archives unless you archive the page yourself. (Frankly, leaving stuff on your page would be simpler; you're only creating difficulties for yourself by blanking everything.) But blanked posts can be found in the page history, which functions as a kind of archive. Here's the post from me that I think you meant; it was more about not posting on BMK's page, and about expressing my regret that you felt your uploaded aerial photos weren't appreciated; I'm sure they are, and I've seen BMK say so too. But the claim that you weren't being nice was true. I can't find where BMK edited anything of yours during your block, which would have been tactless; I think you may be mistaken about that. BMK's contributions list for the period is very long, though — he edits a lot — so it's possible I may have missed it. Please give diffs for the edits you complain of, or if you have trouble with diffs, at least give the time or the article or file name or something. (But see Simple diff and link guide.) He didn't edit anything you had started on Commons during those 24 hours, either. (Apart from the fact that you were never blocked on Commons.) In that instance, you complain of something that didn't happen.

I do understand that you're generally angry, and feel generally unappreciated, and then mistakes like that can happen. I hope you'll be able to realize that your contributions are valued, and will feel better about contributing to Wikipedia (and to Commons, which is a separate project). It often happens that users are initially uncomfortable with the very collaborative nature of Wikipedia, and protest about their edits and uploads being changed by others. It's human, and I actually don't think it helps to throw WP:OWN at them when they feel bad. But I hope you get used to it, WP. BMK is trying to improve matters in good faith. User:Beyond My Ken, I have no complaint of you, but please try to be as tactful as possible, as new users are sensitive. Bishonen | talk 15:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen's comments are on the mark. They echo, in some measure, comments I have made elsewhere to WPP. WPP however has been an editor for 5 years, with more than 7,500 edits to his credit, and he has had a good deal of time to accommodate himself to the collaborative nature of the encyclopedia. Here's hoping that recent events, and Bishonen's comments, will help that process along. JohnInDC (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

WPPilot, I am concerned about your references. You quote a change in name within: Revision history of "File:Manhattan Island Ferry Terminals photo D Ramey Logan.jpg" in which Beyond My Ken made the not very significant title change from:

• File:Manhattan Island Ferry Terminal photo D Ramey Logan.jpg to
• File:Manhattan Island Ferry Terminals photo D Ramey Logan.jpg

Looking at the image in Google maps it seems that there are two terminals to me. I am wondering to what extent this may be an issue of WP:OWN.

On the face of it I have sympathy for the view that you quote Beyond My Ken as having: "we have a positive duty to rename files which are inaccurately named". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. You say: "Please get his to stop or I am done here". There is hopefully no reason for you to be done here. If Beyond My Ken inaccurately renames a file then you have the right to revert the renaming. Looking at your User page you seem to be a great asset to Wikipedia but, if another editor becomes involved to increase the encyclopaedic value of material, this is no reason to leave.

If Beyond My Ken has done genuine wrong then I would prefer block or ban on the belief that genuinely offending behaviours should be curbed rather than suppressed. GregKaye 16:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Yes, there are two terminals: the Staten Island Ferry terminal and the Governors Island terminal. Perhaps WPPilot thought it was one complex, South Ferry. Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That is possible but take a look File:Manhattan Island Ferry Terminals photo D Ramey Logan.jpg. In a case like this civil communication might be encouraged rather than an IBAN imposed. With that information a title such as File:Staten Island and Governors Island ferry terminals, Manhatten photo, D Ramey Logan.jpg might even be used. GregKaye 17:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio reverts being called edit warring

A normally gf editor has inserted text from this source at Uterine cancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I reverted, the editor took exception with the way I did it, reintroducing close paraphrasing of the copyrighted text and now accuses me of edit warring. Can an admin please intervene before this gets any uglier? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Not sure why the editor "LeadSongDog" is having a problem with a good-faith and arguably good and needed addition and elaboration as to the "causes or risks" of Uterine cancer, since the article was lacking it completely. And why, frankly, he's violating WP policy of "modify, not remove", as I conceded that at first the addition was too "word-for-word", but then I CHANGED IT CONSIDERABLY, trimmed it big time, and re-worded it. He is of the (wrong) opinion that the addition is "not useful" but never explained just how. The article totally lacked a "causes or risks" information, so it's arguably warranted and useful and needed. Here below is what I wrote to the editor on his Talk page:

Hello. I received and read your comment on my page, and I appreciate your concern, but I was a bit surprised, as the content was not 100% word-for-word. Too much of it was admittedly though. Sorry about that. But some of it was "in my own words". But I think it was not really necessary for you to totally remove the addition, instead of (per WP recommendation) MODIFYING it maybe, or re-wording it somewhat. The content was good and arguably necessary, as the article was totally lacking as to "causes" or "risk factors". I restored the section, but considerably modified and trimmed it correclty now. Which, to be frank, is what you should have done. Instead of just whole-sale deleting. WP recommendation is to modify instead of completely removing, if there is a problem somewhere. Which I do admit there was. But anyway, I fixed it. It's NOT verbatim stuff anymore, but very shortened, re-worded, and paraphrased, and very brief now. Regards...Gabby Merger (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

then after he did a wholesale removal again, even after my big trimming and modifying to conform more so to WP policy, and avoid "copy vio", he I wrote to him again this:

Sorry, but you're reverted. I disagree with your assessment (and frankly with your disrespect). It's more than acceptable, and you're being uptight now. You had a point before, but if you find the modification still bad, then you're being a bit over-scrupulous and unreasonable, and I don't have time or patience to wrangle and debate the matter. You don't own the article, so stop acting like you do. Saying nonsense like "not very useful content". How is that? You didn't specifically explain just how it's "not useful. Causes and risks, which were TOTALLY lacking in that article, is "not useful"? Don't continue edit-warring, because I'll revert you again. You're going totally against WP policy now. The conversation is ended. Regards.

The re-worded and trimmed addition I put in the article is:

Causes

Causes for uterine cancer are not clearly known as yet, but it's been concluded that there are certain risk factors, such as hormone imbalance, and interaction with estrogen. Increased growth can result in cancer.[1]

That simply is NOT verbatim or "copy vio"...unless I'm missing something somewhere.

He's making a big fuss and deal over something that is not applicable. I admitted that he had a (bit of a) point initially, even though he still should not have totally removed the section addition, but per WP recommendation modify it. But he's going way overboard now, and violating WP policy of "No Own", and modify not remove. The thing is NOT "copy vio" anymore, yet for some reason he's insisting weirdly that it is (when it's not necessary or really applicable). And also saying "not useful content", when that's simply not true. The article (as I said) said NOTHING aobut "causes or risks". It (arguably) kinda needed it. He never explained how such points and conent and addition was "not useful". So yeah, at this point it has become an "edit-warring" situation (by him). He had (barely) a point before, I conceded, but not afterwards. When you carefully check things out. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea where the wp:OWN accusation comes from. My only issue or interest with that article is the copyvio. When the copyrighted text is reintroduced and then edited, it becomes a derivative work, violating the original copyright. We can't permit that, which is why it's right in the [66]. If there's a policy statement somewhere to "modify not remove" that erroneous wording needs to be fixed. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• For 2 sentences, it still seemed a little closely paraphrased, and in trimming it for copyright it lost a fair amount of its context. I've re-written it in a manner that will hopefully satisfy all parties. Crow^Caw 20:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, user:Crow. :) It isn't edit warring to address in good faith concerns about copyright, and in this case those concerns were justifiable. I appreciate your effort to rewrite this content, Gabby Merger, and have left a note at your talk page that I hope you will find helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that rewrite seems to address the problem of sufficient difference, but is it not still a derivative work by dint of leaving the intervening version in the edit history? We need clarity on this principle.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal Threat at Seph Lawless

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

---

In cleaning the Seph Lawless article of publications that do not exist (ISBN numbers and publisher were non-existent) and of sources that did not match up to the sentence/paragraph, I ran into an unfortunate incident - that escalated after the article was placed up for deletion.

Seph Lawless contacted me via Facebook with what I perceive as a legal threat. I emailed OTRS about this; shortly after, one of the edits under Talk:Seph_Lawless by user:briancahal (a fake account created by I presume Seph Lawless) involved some sensitive and personal information. It was scrubbed by user:FreeRangeFrog.

On Facebook, Seth Lawless wrote:

• Seph Lawless 1/16 11:50am ;Sherman...we know what you have been doing for awhile. I was nice to you even knowing all along what you were doing. Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. Undo everything you did to the page. Your revisions will just be removed. The writer of the page is a journalist form the daily news and they tracked your ip address. You will remove your revisions and move on with your life and face the consequences of your actions. I'm giving you one last chance.

• Sherman Cahal 1/6, 11:50am ; (thumbs up)

• Seph Lawless 1/6, 11:53am ; I don't want to cooperate with the detectives in North Randall like I'm supposed too by turning people in to the police as part of my plea bargain.

• Sherman Cahal 1/6, 11:54am ; You are more than welcome to contest the deletion of your page.

• Seph Lawless 1/6, 11:58am ; It's not that the writer is taking care of that but you clearly removed stories not in accordance with wiki. The guy is a wiki administer that added that last story from Vice. We let you take out the Nikon comment months ago and you were quite until a day after meeting me. You will change it all back now or you will be arrested. i promise you.

• Sherman Cahal 1/6, 11:59am ; Oh good. Thanks for telling me that. I'm an administrator and it's nice to know there was a conflict of interest.

• Seph Lawless 1/6, 12:03pm ; Then you should know that we did that add that story. Sherman I don't think you realize the consequences. You have one hour. You are blocked. We know everything about your family. I recognized you as soon as you walked in that mall. We will be watching. I'm so sorry.

At this point, I looked at the revision history of the article and came across user:Bernie44, a paid editor for the New York Daily News. He identified himself as such here. These issues have continued with blocked calls from his cellular phone, traced to Joseph Merendez, that threaten action if I do not revert the page. He also wrote some other vague threats, which I'm not sure indicates physical harm or not.

I can provide screencaps and links to relevant information via email or other secure channels. A FYI - my name is Sherman Cahal, represented on Wikipedia as seicer. It's been years since I was heavily involved in the backend of WP and much has changed - so I'm not sure what the proper channel is anymore. Any assistance would be much appreciated. Thanks. seicer | talk | contribs 17:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest contacting wiki legal. @Philippe (WMF): may be able to help with that. Given that this also involves threats on Facebook, you may be able to seek help from Facebook itself. As they're beginning to harass you off-wiki, you might consider involving the FBI. Blackmane (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder if I should email Philippe_(WMF) directly. As for Facebook, it's been reported but there has been no action taken so far, which is not too surprising. As for the calls, they have been reported to the carrier, Sprint, and to the Cleveland PD. (There are some laws against spoofing and harassing.) seicer | talk | contribs 03:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You can email me directly. :-) [email protected]. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Winkelvi and polemics, again

Winkelvi (talk · contribs) is using his User page to criticize, without naming him, User:Coretheapple, with whom he is an edit-war over on Bess Myerson, currently discussed on WP:AN3. Winkelvi has used his user page to criticize other (unnamed) editors, in violation of WP:POLEMIC, one month ago over an incident reported here, and was told, here, this was a violation, and an admin reverted his User page. Seeing the new attack, I reverted it twice, making sure the edit history was clear as to the reason. Winkelvi insists on keeping the attack. At this point, I leave it to admins. Choor monster (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Untrue. My comments in my user space are not now and never have been directed toward any one editor. Choor monster is, in my opinion, using the AN3 report to attack me there and here as well as harass me at my User Page by editing it not once, but twice (the second time after I told him to stop). This report and his edit warring at my User Page is about retaliation and trying to create drama in my direction, nothing more. Choor Monster wants to see me blocked and punished, plain and simple. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

POLEMIC applies regardless if it is directed at one editor or a group. -- Calidum 18:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't matter whether the criticism was introduced with specific others in mind or not. Quoting from WP:POLEMIC as to what's not allowed: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." Choor monster (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Diff added: [67], note that the problematic language is more than just the words currently at-issue (ie, bolded by the diff). The words which were added during the WP:AN3 dispute are the one's I can confidently identify with the dispute. I presume the other attack language was added over some other incident, but I have no interest in tracking this nonsense down. Choor monster (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just saw the "ping" of my user name. As I understand it, the language in question is [68]. Yes this is obviously a guarded reference to my report at AN3, but given his past record at that board, and his being blocked based on a "list of diffs" at that board in the past, I'm not sure how anyone other than Winkelvi is harmed by drawing attention to it. Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not a question of harm, whether to others being attacked or to Winkelvi embarrassing himself: it's simply not allowed. His restoring the polemics is explicitly considered a form of disruptive editing. See link above to last month, when similar "anonymous" childish polemics on his user page were noticed and deleted by an admin. Also note Winkelvi's edit summaries: massive hypocrisy as he claims WP:OWNership. Choor monster (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • OK. Putting aside this matter, I'd appreciate it if administrators could monitor Talk:Bess Myerson. The article has been protected but there are still issues. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No doubt administrators have been monitoring it and the article for a couple of days now, Coretheapple. Yes, there are "issues". Not the least of which is your refusal to work cooperatively with and cease being uncivil toward me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, then it is a good thing they are there. Peace. Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, to clarify: when I said there are "issues," I was referring to the copyright violations that you have said are present in the article. You said in a talk page post a few hours ago: Oh, and one more thing: interestingly, the Miss America webpage for Bess Myerson has content that identically matches and almost identically matches what's in the Myerson article here. I don't know when it was put in or who did it, but obviously, it will have reworded here considerably when the article is unlocked. Can't have any more copyvios and verbatim lifts of content from online sources than we already do, eh? You have not substantiated this very serious claim, by providing the name of the webpage and the text that was you say was duplicated, so that it can be fixed. Also you imply that there are other copyright issues that would also need to be addressed if they exist. I raised the issue a few hours ago and you have yet to address this issue. But yes, there are editor behavior issues, that is correct. Coretheapple (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Harassment of editors by Earl King Jr.

User Earl King Jr. continues to harass editors at Zeitgeist (film series). His new m.o. is to revert IP's[69] and make the very uncivil claim that they are some kind of "puppet" instead of actually following WP protocol (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations) --- Just as problematic is that when a user recently called him out on his behavior[70] -- he simply deleted the message with no response.[71] --- User:AndyTheGrump brought 2 separate ANI's against him awhile back and eventually left the article all-together out of what I perceived as frustration (the ANI diffs are available). He continues to harass both myself and User:The Devil's Advocate[72] and with over 80% of his edit history somehow related to Zeitgeist [73] it is very clear to me that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. As far as I can tell, the main reason he's gotten away with his behavior for so long is because most editors couldn't care less about this content. I ask that you please take the time and look into this. Thx. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Since I ceased my involvement with Zeitgeist-related articles, Earl's ownership behaviour seems to have got even worse - he now appears to be using Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) as his own personal blog, where he endlessly promotes his conspiracy theory - that TZM is nothing more than a money-earning scheme concocted by Peter Joseph for profit (e.g. "He [Joseph] collects the donation to his pocket" [74] - an entirely unsourced assertion of financial impropriety at minimum) . Anyone disagreeing (or even asking for evidence) is immediately labelled a sockpuppet or a TZM supporter. If only for the self-evident violations of WP:BLP policy that ensue from his characterisations of Joseph, he should probably be topic-banned. That will of course leave the problem of actual TZM supporters trying to spin the articles their way, but we've dealt with similar problems before, and I'm sure we can again - by adhering to Wikipedia policy, and following sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Just notified the user with the subst:ANI-notice template Weegeerunner (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a thorny problem, because Earl King Jr. has done a lot of hard work cleaning up the promotional content that has been systematically added to these articles. Removing EKJ from the equation would mean that these articles swiftly return to their original state as hagiographies and WP:INUNIVERSE puff-pieces. There has been plenty of off-wiki canvassing like this and this, so let's not be too hasty to assume that EKJ is the bad guy, if reverting yet another IP making similar changes... bobrayner (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you consider it appropriate for Earl to continue to violate WP:BLP policy on the talk page? It was this behaviour (and the fact that nobody seems prepared to do anything about it) that led me to cease editing the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly speaking AndyTheGrump, things improved after you left the article in my opinion and I think its fair to say that your participation and consequent leaving the article was your choice and if you are saying it was because of one editor disagreeing with you and what ever arguments you had, that was also your opinion but why equate that here with the current subject? The last time at ANI you also called me a 'little shit' and I asked for you to be blocked. I have noticed that you will exaggerate to the point of outright twisting things in these situations. I am not a part of your fan base. I am not using the article talk page as my personal blog Andy. Anyone curious about the article might go to the talk page and read my comments and look at the article page itself for my edits. My goal is neutral editing without pov on the article and trying be a critical thinking editor without defaming anyone on the talk page. The case that someone, SomeDifferentStuff is making here is that I am insulting to some I.P.'s somehow. Because of the call to arms/editing of the Zeitgeist Movement [75] droves of people involved in Zeitgeist come to Wikipedia to try and make the article part of their information presentation. I have pointed that out on the talk page. SomeDifferentStuff has a long time editing relationship that is very akin to supporting the Zeitgeist Movements information as does TheDevilsAdvocate who he mentions and I think that is what is irking him most about my editing. I am not for or against it. If I have insulted anyone I am sorry. The article is now page protected for Admins editing only and that will slow down the single purpose editors and i.p.'s for a while. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your goal is clearly not 'neutral editing' - instead you seem to have an irrational hatred of what is an organisation of next to no real significance, around which you have built a half-baked conspiracy theory. Yes, we all know that TZM members have tried to spin the article their way - but the same thing happens regarding all sorts of Wikipedia content, and we don't fill other talk pages with the sort of nonsense you routinely trot out. It achieves precisely nothing beyond antagonising everyone who doesn't buy into your obsessions, and violates multiple Wikipedia policies in the process. And as for SomeDifferentStuff and TheDevilsAdvocate, I have no great admiration for either, but as long as they comply with Wikipedia policy they have as much right to contribute to the article as anyone else. You do not have the right to decide who is or isn't allowed to take part, and you are not some sort of article gatekeeper, as much as you'd clearly like to be. And yes, I'd recommend that people take a look at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series), where you regularly pile abuse on anyone who doesn't buy into your warped viewpoint on this trivial little 'movement'. Frankly, I have to question the rationality of anyone who can build such an obsession around a failed technocratic millennialist cult. Were you perhaps once a member? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the following two diffs are all I need to offer in the way of a response: [76] [77].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

...and the only appropriate response after reading those difs is a Template:Headshake combined with a Template:Palm-to-forehead-smack. Damn, seems like those templates should exist... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy with your presentation above of intense labeling and name calling which is provocative and bullying and not reflective of my editing, I don't think your above edit merits a response beyond mentioning that. TheDevilsAdvocate, there was a debate on the talk page about Caps. It turned out that we capped Zeitgeist and left the rest uncapped for the reason that it is not a formal group as being a non profit, NGO, incorporated etc. Mostly it is an internet organization that is adhoc/informal. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, as anyone reading the talk page can plainly see, you decided all by yourself to ignore sources and apply your own personal standard here - motivated, as usual, by your enmity towards TZM. And who is the 'we' you refer to? There was no consensus for your edits - just you and a SPA trolling account using the page as a soapbox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy with your presentation above of intense labeling and name calling which is provocative and bullying and not reflective of my editing, I don't think your above edit merits a response beyond mentioning that.Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidently Earl would rather that people didn't look into his behaviour. The evidence is however available at Zeitgeist (film series), and in Earl's edit summaries for the article and talk page. He routinely abuses anyone he considers to be a TZM supporter (which in his mind is anyone who doesn't buy into his conspiracy theory), he uses the talk page as a soapbox, he ignores sources and instead spins the article to suit his own agenda. And when this is pointed out, he calls it 'bullying'. Evidently though few people care. Possibly they think that TZM supporter's own past behaviour justifies this - I however think that Wikipedia should have consistent standards, and that the best response to POV-pushing is not to hand over control of an article to a POV-pusher from the other side. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

IP addresses removing content (possible sock)

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

---

Three IP addresses, 108.31.156.228, 173.199.65.23 and 173.79.205.152, have been removing content on The Fosters (2013 TV series) in the Controversy section without previous discussion. They have been consistently removing content about One Million Moms dishonoring the show, saying it affects neutrality of the section or it has nothing to do with the show. The info there has been placed for many reasons, and it shows the point of view and goal of the organization. Neither IP address has the will to reach a consensus on the talk page. Warnings and requests have been placed on their talk pages, in hopes to stop it, only to no avail. One has even added content without citation, twice already, especially emphasizing the word fair, to prove their point. I have added a new section in the talk page, but neither have reached other editors through it before the current revision. I also believe it's a possible sock. They have been editing the section, the same edits, since the first IP started all of this. I would call this edit warring, but it's gone all over the place. And I do not know where else to put this in. Callmemirela (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Callmemirela: You'd probably be better off first trying WP:RFPP to request temporary semi-protection of the page since these edits are being done by IP editors. If that doesn't resolve in an amicable resolution, the next place I'd take it would be WP:SPI to investigate the sockpuppetry. The temporary semi-protection will most likely resolve the issue, unless the problem had been happening longer than recently, which could justify a longer period of semi-protection. Steel1943 (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: By the way, I see that you use Twinkle. The quickest way to make the page protection request would be to go to The Fosters (2013 TV series), clicking the "TW" (Twinkle) tab, and clicking "RPP" (Request Page Protection). There, you can request "Temporary Semi-Protection" with the drop-down lists. After that, the request should be automatically posted on WP:RFPP. Steel1943 (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Block-proposal for User:Enigmafay

User:Enigmafay is a single purpose editor whose main motive appears to be to eliminate any negative views from the article Satyananda Saraswati. The disputed content concerns the allegation of sexual abuse against Satyananda Saraswati and his successor. see Satyananda_Saraswati#Allegations_of_sexual_abuse. This account was registered on 5 December 2014 and the user edit warred very first day to remove the disputed content 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Then they did not edit for about 2 weeks and in the mean time, article was attacked by an army of new accounts resulting in article getting fully protected. Some of those new accounts are blocked now. I wouldn't be surprised if they are sock puppets of this user. I will also point out that another new user User:Totocol edit-warred to keep this content included. Before the full protection, disputed content was removed and an RfC was started on the talk page. RfC was also marred by the sock-farm. While it appeared form the RfC that most of the non-SPA users agreed to include the disputed content, a straw poll was done to quickly asses the consensus. Unfortunately for Enigmafay, the straw poll was closed before most of their friends could come and vote, following off-wiki canvassing at a facebook page. After the disputed material was finally included, this user restarted edit warring 1, 2, leading to one more full protection. Article protected, the user went with personal attacks. Now this user or someone from their group has started an online petition to re-open the straw poll and let all of them vote (here the informed about the petition).

I think it has gone far enough and this user has been given enough rope. I propose therefore, that this user should be blocked or banned from editing WP, as they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.

• Note 1: This report is about user and not about the content, so please avoid discussing content.
• Note 2: In this report, I have solely focused on edits from the account User:Enigmafay, there are plethora of other SPA's who took part in this dispute and some of them could be sock accounts of this user. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is becoming disturbing. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Having read through the article history, talk page and seen the online petition, recent activity smacks of WP:COI. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, just an avid fan, and it is not same as COI. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

True, I may have overreacted. Nevertheless, sometimes there isn't a bright line between the two when the fan takes on the guise of something closer to fanatical and deeply protective of their 'brand' (something which created a lot headaches in trying to further define COI policy relatively recently). I was thinking of COI in terms of applying to anyone in a relationship with the subject, and a reward system that isn't necessarily that of financial gain. (Okay, that's it. I've gone completely tangential, so it's time to stop editing for the day!) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Overreaction? I don't think so. It's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support block This is more disturbing than what I was thinking, rapidly accusing Joshua to be the Joshua of Facebook group is ridiculous. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support block per WP:NOTHERE. In fact, this has escalated to WP:ADVOCACY and WP:ASPERSIONS on a truly offensive scale. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support block per WP:NOTHERE and evidence presented by Vigyani. JimRenge (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Section created by Kautilya3

• Above discussion is very sad and not good for Wikipedia. I think clearly there are two strong opinions and they should listen to each other.Since both sides are passionately arguing it would be very very unfair to ban anyone. User-Enigmafay has presented a POV and other two Editors theirs. Its not fair to just Ban any one. I think both sides just need to listen to each other and come to common ground.Protocol108 (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You are urging no discussion on content and yet you are discussing content. My purpose is keep the neutrality in that article, right now the article is being abused. Yes my friends don't know how to edit wikipedia, while the friends of other users, like Joshua, who have built their own facebook groups and are urging people in there to come here and take part in this attack against me, they know how to edit. We have watched their discussions on facebook, but I did not consider it wrong to urge your friends or anyone who is affected by a subject to come and "help". It so happens that this user has more friends in Wikipedia than I do, and some of them are admins. You are accusing me of personal attacks, while I am the one being constantly attacked, and my arguments are never discussed upon. The petition that was created is just to show you that this is not a "one user" issue. Everyone who puts their signature in that petition is well aware of the situation and responsible for their opinion. Banning me will not solve your problems because others will come in my place and the petition will go to the head of wikipedia. For more, read my edits in the discussion page of Swami Satyananda, where it appears that I am the only one who has written the greatest amounts of text, while the other editors only attack and do not argue. Enigmafay (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I do not see where I have discussed content in my OP. There is no proof that Joshua has a Facebook group which they are using for canvassing, so either you produce any proof or take back your statement. Accusing other users without proof is a personal attack. In your case, there is sufficient proof of off-wiki canvassing. The petition and the face books group posts at this page. Relevant policy is WP:MEAT. WP content is decided by policy arguments, not by show of hands which your petition to WP Head (don't know to whom petition refers as Head) is trying to achieve. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 13:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Enigmafay, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. The project is not up for grabs by deploying strong-arm tactics because you, or an entire army of friends/followers, WP:DONTLIKEIT. We are bound to follow WP:NPOV regardless of our own POV or personal religious or political beliefs. You don't even seem to comprehend your own hypocrisy. If your guru was so predisposed to enlightenment and seeking knowledge, you and your petitioning friends are besmirching his memory by advocating the antithesis. Your entire M.O. revolves around suppression of thought and oppression of others. I sincerely hope you can find forgiveness for yourself for leading a WP:WITCHHUNT.

Tell me, have you actually thought this through? Let's say a large religious group decided to follow your methodology: what do you think would happen to the article? Not only would it be eradicated as promoting heathen ideology, every other religious group other than those who have embarked on stifling dissent would be eliminated from Wikipedia. The same applies to political philosophies, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reading through talk page comments, it seems like what is happening is a replay of what is an all-to-common experience on Wikipedia. Newer editors, who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia rules, are outraged by what they view as salacious and unfair commentary, they try to make edits and are quickly reverted. They, reasonably, become very frustrated and migrate to article and user talk pages to try and make their case. Veteran editors dismiss their complaints because the editors are not familiar with Wikipedia jargon, policies and standards. The new editors get more and more frustrated because they feel ignored and dismissed, like their views are unimportant. One of the regular WP editors, tired of the complaints, comes to AN/I and asks for the new editor/s to receive blocks because they find them annoying and disruptive.

While the new editors, like Enigmafay, have been persistent, it also seems like their comments are ignored on the article talk page. A "straw poll" on whether to include a controversial section is run, the regular editors vote "for" and when a few editors start to raise objections, the poll is then closed and the verdict is rendered based on a handful of editor opinions. This gives the regular editors the guise that the subject was open for debate and a consensus reached when that is not what has happened.

Personally, I think there are good reasons to include the controversial section about allegations of sexual abuse. But with subjects like this, where there are strong opinions, I frequently see new editors dismissed as advocates, adherents, fans, believers, etc. and once they are tagged with this label, it negates any opinion that might offer and the substance of their comments goes unaddressed. Enigmafay has raised some questions about the wording of a sensitive section which, in my opinion, have been ignored because she didn't use standard Wikipedia language and policy abbreviations. I don't believe editors should be blocked merely for holding a minority point of view and raising questions that go against the opinions of editors who have been here longer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Article dispute is not the only cause. Claiming Joshua Jonathan to be the Joshua of some Facebook page is another thing to watch. It is harassment. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Block proposal is not for holding a minority point of view and raising questions. Proposal is for personal attacks, canvassing. You don't need knowledge of Wikipedia language and policies to know that you should not be making personal attacks while especially you are arguing about exclusion of unproved allegations in an article. Coming to straw poll. Enigmafay was notified of it as soon as it was opened. Per Philg88, he closed the poll because seven days had passed, not because few editors start to raise objections. Enigmafay anyway got to participate in the poll, so there is no reason to make a fuss about it. This editor have made it clear that they represent an off-wiki group, which is anyway not allowed on WP. Each editor presents their own individual opinion. Regarding Enigmafay's opinion, I don't think those are ignored. I myself didn't participate in talk page so much, but their arguments have been given due weight. What I see is that consensus is against them, and they are unable to come in terms with that. There object is not with specific wording of the content, but with the entire section which they want to be removed from the article. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

IP Editor evading ban

User: 46.208.228.150 has been blocked for 72 hrs for vandalism at the article Stop the Bus (see [78]). This person is a single purpose editor, and only seems to edit the above mentioned article ([79]) and the article Creature of Havoc ([[80]]). Further to this, the editor has a habit of automatically reverting edits by other users and is bltatantly rude about any perceived interference ([81]].

These blind reversions without discussion resulted in the block, however a simple check of the WHOIS feature reveals that the editor has simply resumed editing Creature of Havoc with another IP from the same address. The point of origin for User 46.208.228.150:[[82]] is exactly the same as it is for this user's new alias: User 83.216.142.251 - ([83]). The language is also a dead giveaway as this person is simply not interested in entertaining other contributions (the case at both articles). Given this blatent disregard for the block - which was minimal - I would respectfully request that the IP source be totally blocked. Otherwise, this behaviour will continue. Regards Asgardian (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

83.216.142.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just removed this section, I've re-added it. — Strongjam (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:Worldchampion2014

See User talk:Wtmitchell#Please Delete the Page. This concerns the Samira Samii article. I have blocked Worldchampion2014 indefinitely pending resolution here. I am an admin but, as I have no background in handling legal threats, I am reporting this here for handling by others more experienced with this than I. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The warning I put on their talk page appears to have made them understand about legal threats on Wikipedia because they removed their message from Wtmitchell's talk page (The legal threat can be seen here.) MadGuy7023 (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there anything in the article which could violate BLP rules? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Not in the now-current version as far as I can see. I'm no expert on anything related to the article or the topic; my involvement here grows out of this action from WP:Huggle. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I pruned it back further and added another reference from Deutsche Welle. There is definitely a viable claim to notability in the article and the information is quite innocuous. However, it looks as if the subject (or her representative) does not wish to have an article for whatever reason. Hence the page blanking, and this attempt at nominating for speedy deletion. I left a note on User talk:Worldchampion2014 pointing them to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. In my view, such messages should always be left in situations like this. Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. No good deed goes unpunished. The editor appears to be evading their block by editing as an IP to add piles of puffery in broken English. I've cleaned it up and left a note re these various no-no's on their talk page. Don't know how much effect it will have... Voceditenore (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried asking for semi-protection? That should fend off the gnats. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. The IP (91.39.92.182) has now repeated their shenanigans after being reverted by a second editor. I've requested temporary semi-protection. We'll see what happens. Voceditenore (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Offensive unblock request by User:Phillip J Henderson

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

---

I was patrolling recent changes and came across this offensive unblock request, which I have reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phillip_J_Henderson&diff=prev&oldid=641568858

Should we remove his talk page privleges? pcfan500 (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't do that. There's no need to revert something someone says on their own talk page just because it contains the word "fuck". Let an admin decline the request. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a silly unblock request from a person that is simply here to waste time. I revoked the talk page access before he reverted the unblock request. WP:DENY and move on. Kuru (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

got no help from admins last time i posted here, can someone please help now?

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

---

original version

messed up version

there seems to be a problem with the aligment of text and result bars furthermore the bars are seperated too far apart vertically, last time i posted i did not recieve help that changed thay, can someone please help now Dannis243 (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dannis243: try WP:VPT. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

TBAN Violation by P-123

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.

Block evasion by IP. Disregard complaint. If there's a problem, somebody who isn't so obviously a troublemaker will notice and report it. Jehochman ^Talk 16:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

---

P-123 (talk) reported by 199.255.211.33 (talk)

P-123 (talk) is topic banned for three months (expiry 12:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)) from all pages broadly related to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. He is not allowed to talk about Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or link to it.

P-123 (talk) is pushing the envelope. After he was banned just a few days ago, he started again poking holes through his TBAN by talking about Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant on his user page and then linking to it in defiance. [84]. This was his user page just before his edit today [85]. 199.255.211.33 (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Later, he talked about and then linked to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, also in defiance. [[86]]. 199.255.211.33 (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comment: P-123 posted a revised version of his note at 11:18, 28 December 2014 during the ANi The TBAN was enacted on 00:29, 2 January 2015. He then started cleaning up his talk page while playing with a new autoarchiver script. He managed to archve and restore the post from his archives on 11:49, 8 January 2015. Let's not kick the guy for reorging his talk and archives. Legacypac (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I am very sorry about this. There was no defiance intended. I was restoring what had previously been on my userpage (and included the other reference mentioned above) and just didn't think of the implications of what I was doing. It was a stupid and terrible mistake. I am trying hard to keep to the terms of the TBAN/IBAN and it was a genuine slip-up through oversight. I was cleaning up my userpage and not meaning to communicate anything in those edits beyond general information. I will remove those edits now. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

When under a topic ban, your best bet is to take any pages related to that topic off your watch list. That way you won't be tempted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: No opinion on the merit of this TBAN evasion but I noticed a sneaky WP:Forumshop at [87] that was neatly hidden at [88] 23.27.252.124 (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• There was nothing sneaky about what I did. The two admins have answered some queries I had post-ANI on how to communicate with ex-colleagues without violating the TBAN. I pinged them here and then thought better of it. I would really appreciate it if others did not automatically assume bad faith. ~ P-123 (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I was pinged here, presumably because I have dealt somewhat with these bans before, but my name has apparently now been removed. In any case, I think it's best left to User:Callanecc to review the matter. I'll mention that I rather suspect the 199.xx IP, editing from an open proxy, represents the same individual who has made it something of a sacred mission to bait/troll P-124 with regard to their TBAN/IBAN, and to always assume the maximum of bad faith. It can't be much fun to have them constantly treading on one's heels, and I don't think it should be encouraged. That said, no doubt the actual issue needs to be considered separately. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

I was severally threatened with a block for interacting with P-123 when I was trying to help the editor in very good faith - told not to poke the bear. Hard to believe that the IP started a thread on this when there are much bigger bad behavior out there to deal with. Legacypac (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Bishonen is right to say the actual issues need to be considered separately but we must assume that 199.255.211.33 is bringing this matter in good faith rather than protect an evader and an apparent admin shopper by demonizing all IPs. We also cannot speculate as to who is who without evidence as this discourages editors from reporting to AN/I. 23.27.252.124 (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Please, I did not try to evade the TBAN - as I explained, I made a stupid mistake, for which I am sorry. ~ P-123 (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Where do you see anyone "demonizing all IP's"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not safe to assume good faith regarding IP's like the OP here and like yourself, who show up from nowhere and make complaints. Even so, though, no one can be "baited" without being a willing participant. If an editor is topic-banned, he needs to stay away from that topic. End of story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: I have studiously kept away from the topic, and have nothing on my watchlist, but still somehow managed to make this stupid mistake. I am not sure whether you meant I was a willing participant in some baiting. The way I saw it was that I had make a mistake and felt I needed to explain it here, and not excuse myself. A TBAN violation, of whatever kind, is a serious matter. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Forgetting is different from being baited. I have made the same kind of slip myself from time to time. You just have to be careful. I, like you, have various "friends" watching, all too eager to pounce when a mistake is made. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

P-123 is right. A TBAN violation, of whatever kind, is a serious matter, and so is admin shopping especially when done the way he did it. This should be also considered when imposing sanctions on him. One question: Who baited P-123 and where? 23.27.252.124 (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Please see my response above to your interpretation of my action and the manner in which it was done. ~ P-123 (talk)

First tell me what your actual user ID is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have one. So, do you see any baiting here? 23.27.252.124 (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Only by you and the OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please be civil not rude with me. 23.27.252.124 (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You're being dishonest. Start being honest, and you'll get better treatment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

There are two previous attempts by one of these IPs to attack P-123 a little higher up the page. A good comment to consider - Quoted: (My closure of the prior complaint as "No action" is self-explanatory. No action was required because the complaint didn't substantiate the need for a block. This IP is pushing the boundaries of WP:POINT and should now stop. Jehochman Talk 14:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC) end Quote. Referring to 23.27.252.124 Legacypac (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Referring to 23.27.252.124? Where? 23.27.252.124 (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• 23.27.252.124, as for your question about who baited P-123, I for one am not willing to do the diff-digging for you; you'll have to see their talkpage history. (Hint: look for IPs.) Of course you're quite new to Wikipedia, aren't you, and just prefer not to get an account? And you're righteously indignant at the way we treat IPs as second-class citizens? (Which we don't, at least I don't, as long as they don't show any other signs of being in bad faith.) And you're by no means the same as 199.xx? Am I right? @Legacypac: that's an interesting quote from higher up the page. Pinging Jehochman. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

• No, I am not any other IP. 23.27.252.124 (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• No one starts editing Wikipedia by going to the ANI page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Noted, 23.27.252.124. I asked three questions, please consider addressing the other two as well. Bishonen | talk 15:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

• Bishonen, please would you be civil in asking questions? Yes, I prefer not to get an account for now. Yes, I prefer that IPs are not treated by anyone as second-class citizens. I also prefer assumption of good faith rather than speculation. 23.27.252.124 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• The vast majority of IP's edit in good faith and are treated well. You act suspicious, so it's reasonable to treat you with suspicion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• No comment. There is an AN/I below. 23.27.252.124 (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the trolling report here by an out-of-the-blue IP, and its continual support by another trolling, out-of-the-blue IP [who's evading a block], both of them should be blocked and this section should be boxed up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I asked you to stop speculation. I have already started an AN/I of my own below. 23.27.252.124 (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

And it is now finished, as you are blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and you've already been blocked. See that thread. Bishonen | talk 16:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

• Thank you, Jehochman. I don't suppose my range block will inconvenience them much. I ask all admins to please block all static IPs with a similar hostile agenda re P-123 on sight, per WP:DUCK. They can't get at the user's talkpage now, as it's been semi'd, so please keep a lookout in other arenas. Bishonen | talk 16:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

Agreed. I've seen similar problems with other ranges and a number were blocked earlier today after a CU. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Spurious claim from Urban Dictionary makes its through Wikipedia into The Guardian

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

---

I am not sure where to put this, but I thought some here might find it interesting. A definition for London School of Economics on the Urban Dictionary website claims that LSE has 'produced a quarter of all nobel prize winners in Economics' [89]. Whilst a significant number of such winners have been associated with LSE, far fewer have been produced by LSE: from [90], I can count no more than five out of seventy-five. Nonetheless, this claim was forced into the lead of the article by single-purpose accounts [91], [92], [93], where it has stayed for around six months. Amazingly, The Guardian fell for this and repeated the claim on its website [94]. I am not sure who should feel most embarrassed: Wikipedia or The Guardian! 86.170.130.156 (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

So your quarrel isn't with the numbers (16 out of 45), it's with the description (produced vs. associated with), right? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There is not really a quarrel as such: it is just a typical bit of school/college/university vandalism that this time went undetected and was picked up by others. Would you mind closing this here, sorry? I was not sure where to let people know so posted here, but I remembered WP:RSN afterwards.86.170.130.156 (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have managed it myself. :) 86.170.130.156 (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit warring User:Binksternet

Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) is edit warring at several articles concerning the substitution, or not, of the word "redistricted" in succession boxes, instead of showing the predecessor or successor listed at the pertaining congressional district lists. Binksternet claims that a consensus was established at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting. Subsequently a different RfC was opened at Template talk:Succession box#RfC which is still open, but at which it was proposed to confirm that consensus for infoboxes does not apply to succession boxes, since they serve different purposes. The latter RfC is still open and, as has been pointed out to Binksternet here and here, under WP:Revert: "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." Nevertheless, Binksternet keeps reverting to his preferred version at Barbara Lee, Jerry McNerney and George Miller (California politician), and sent me an edit war notice after I made a single edit there. How should we proceed now? Kraxler (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the above, he has continuously reverted my edits on this particular matter claiming that a consensus was established at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting when it most certainly was not. I do not believe he knows how to edit pages that involve politicians as he has not grasped that his edits are incorrect. SleepCovo (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang. This issue already has a working consensus which is found at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_18#RfC_on_successor.2Fpredecessor_where_a_district_is_not_reasonably_viewed_as_the_same_after_redistricting. Kraxler is well aware of this fact, having it repeatedly pointed out to him at his own Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC which you can see has failed to arrive at a new consensus. Kraxler has taken the bit in his teeth and assumed a consensus at the new RfC, going around and changing succession boxes to suit his viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Once again the user shows his total disregard for wikipedia by claiming a template shows consensus when it most certainly does not. The way the articles and pages have been laid out for countless years is fine, yet one editor called Binksternet wants to change it all. SleepCovo (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, I didn't change any succession boxes, you did, in the middle of an on-going discussion concerning the subject. As far as I can gather from Template talk:Succession box#RfC, all editors (except you), even those who disagree with my vote, agree on the fact that it is necessary to establish consensus for succession boxes, separately. The RfC has not been closed yet, so, under WP:Revert, everything is supposed to remain as it has been for a long time prior to the discussion. Kraxler (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You are correct that that RfC has not yet closed with a new consensus, and that we should stick with the status quo until it changes, which is why your actions against the status quo are unsupported. With this edit of yours, you have apparently decided on a schizophrenic solution. You have determined that the reader should be told in the infobox succession box that Barbara Lee has not been succeeded by another politician, that her district was subject to radical redistricting (all of which is correct), but in the identical succession boxes at the bottom of the page you wish to tell the reader that Ms. Lee has been supplanted by another politician, as if she has been voted out of office or resigned (which is not true). I cannot support any solution which pretends that succession boxes may be treated differently if depending on their page placement. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The status quo is that a silly consensus has been established for infoboxes. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. The status quo is that all users agree that succession boxes are not infoboxes. FYI Infoboxes are supposed to tell you the history of the subject of the article, in this case the life of the politician. The politician is still sitting, having changed district numbers any number of times, so any reference to the district numbers is out of scope in the infobox. There should be only listed "US Representative from State X" and the total time of the tenure. In the case of currently sitting congressman there could be added "currently representing the Xth District". To split it up in the infobox is silly, and bloats the box unnecessarily. The succession box is supposed to tell you about the history of the office, and refers in its title to the pertaining list which shows clearly that the politician was preceded and succeeded in any district, as legally numbered, by somebody else. I suggest that you cease now to mix up apples and oranges. I have opened a new RfC to change Infobox usage according to what I outlined above. In the meanwhile I urge you to refrain from further edit-warring. Kraxler (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet still continues to edit war [95] even after being told many times that the succession boxes at the bottom are different than the ones in the infobox. TL565 (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

TL565, you are looking at a boomerang as well, since you reverted at the Barbara Lee article to restart the edit warring, your revert going against Ohnoitsjamie. You and Kraxler are focusing your efforts on dividing the succession box into two kinds: one that is in the infobox and one that is a footer navbox at the bottom of the article. You and Kraxler have settled on the outlandish idea that one succession box can say one thing, while the other succession box can say another thing. The point you are not getting is that nonsensical succession by district after radical redistricting is still nonsense if it is high up in the article or low down in the article. The altitude of the nonsense does not make it more palatable. Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, you can keep saying it is nonsense all you want, but it does not change the fact that whatever was implemented to the infoboxes does not apply to the navbox in the bottom. By the way, it isn't any less nonsensical to have the box say "redistricted" over and over again. It defeats the purpose of the succession box in the first place. TL565 (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The edit war continues, now also at Pete Stark, although consensus remains that succession boxes are not infoboxes, and although a new RfC was opened, as linked aboved. Since Binksternet does not follow the guideline at WP:STATUSQUO "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns.", I propose a 0RR restriction for Binksternet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraxler (talk • contribs) 14:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of 0RR restriction for Binksternet

As an editor with an extensive block log for edit warring and currently engaged in an edit war, the following is proposed: "User:Binksternet is prohibited to revert any edit on Wikipedia."

• Support as proposer, per the above discussion. Kraxler (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on IP

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

---

Baseball_  Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

Baseball Bugs personally attacked me here [96] even after I asked him to be civil here [97]

I ask for a block or an official warning. 23.27.252.124 (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You're an experienced user pretending to be a newbie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the IP editor knows to post the comment here currently suggests that BB is right. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The actual issue needs to be considered separately not speculating. 23.27.252.124 (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The actual issue is that you're acting suspiciously. Straighten up and fly right, and you'll be more likely to be treated in kind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The actual issue here is that you personally attacked me. I prefer assumption of good faith not speculation.23.27.252.124 (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I said you're not a newbie, which is obvious. That's not a personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

See the warning here: [98] Legacypac (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What brought you here is this "You're being dishonest. Start being honest, and you'll get better treatment". This is a personal attack. Also, please be civil and stop speculation.23.27.252.124 (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I see, we have 23.27.252.213 (talk · contribs) who is currently blocked until the 14th, and we have 23.27.252.124 (talk · contribs) who is obviously the same guy, evading his block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac, what does that warning have to do with me? That was not me. Please would you stop the speculations? 23.27.252.124 (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• No, I am not obviously the same guy. 23.27.252.124 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You talk the same way and you have the same complaints about the same user. Maybe a range block would be a good idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Please stop the speculation and be civil. 23.27.252.124 (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncivil comments from the San Jose IP here [99] Legacypac (talk)

• • Oh fer crying out loud, this is ridiculous. I've blocked the range this roaming individual has been using via those particular two IPs, 23.27.252.0/23. They're static — fancy that — so I gave it a month. Feel free to close this thread. (I was going to say to remove it, but please don't just yet, as it throws some light on the thread above.) Bishonen | talk 16:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

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

Massive POV/vandalism issues on Ali Curtis

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

---

A various number of IPs are vandalizing The Ali Curtis page by inserting insults

Just one of the many vandal edits Weegeerunner (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Aknaqvi repeatedly removing speedy deletion templates from pages it created

• [100] User:Aknaqvi created Ali Kamal Naqvi
• [101] User:Aknaqvi removed Speedy Deletion Template from Ali Kamal Naqvi

• [102] User:Aknaqvi removed Speedy Deletion Template from Ali Kamal Naqvi
• [103] User:Aknaqvi was warned about removing speedy deletion templates
• [104] User:Aknaqvi was warned about removing speedy deletion templates
• [105] User:Aknaqvi removed Speedy Deletion Template from Ali Kamal Naqvi
• [106] User:Aknaqvi was warned about removing speedy deletion templates
• [107] User:Aknaqvi removed Speedy Deletion Template from Ali Kamal Naqvi
• [108] User:Aknaqvi created Bollywood chugly
• [109] User:Aknaqvi removed Speedy Deletion Template from Bollywood chugly

• [110] User:Aknaqvi was warned about removing speedy deletion templates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becky Sayles (talk • contribs) 15:32, 8 January 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Just a reminder, a Wikipedia editor is not an "it". BMK (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Unless it's a bot. Neuman, Alfred E (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC) (Sorry, but I just couldn't resist commenting)
      • Would a bot really create pages? Epicgenius (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
        • There's special software available for it, and bots have created literally millions of articles (in some cases based on the content of public-domain encyclopaedias, in other cases based on on-line data bases) on several Wikipedias, so yes, bots can, and do, create articles. I don't know the extent of it on en-WP, though. Neuman, Alfred E (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
          • On en.wp, I don't think bots can create articles, though on other wikis, I'm sure the bot creates articles by translating them from other languages. Sv.wp's 2.7 million bot-created articles are, in fact, actually created by Sverker Johansson, a real person who operates a bot, so it's not totally automated, either. Epicgenius (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Extensive edit-warring, severe COI-violations and refusal to hear

For a long time now, the article Christ Myth Theory has been the subject of intense arguments. That people have different opinions is not a problem, but the user Renejs is violating a number of policies, and openly declaring he will continue to violate policies because he stand for the WP:TRUTH. The most immediate concern is his extensive edit warring at the article [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118]. Even though several users have pointed this out on the talk page, Renejs declared he will continue to edit war because he is right. [119]. Another problem related to the same user concerns WP:COI. The user has self-identified as Rene Salm, one of the laymen who has published about this fringe theory (fringe is a non-derogatory sense, just indicating it is rejected by most scholars) and his Wikipedia account is an WP:SPA to try to make his theory seem more mainstream. At the talk page of the article, several users have tried to reason with Renejs and explain the policies of conflict of interest, gaining consensus, and abstaining from edit warring [120], [121] are just two of several examples. Having tried to reason with Renejs for weeks (even though several others have done it much more and much better than me), I told him yesterday as a final warning that unless he starts to abide by Wikipedia rules, ANI would be the only option [122], Bill the Cat 7 agreed [123] while Martijn Meijering proposed Renejs should self-revert and promise to start following the rules [124]. That would have been preferable, so I waited an extra day, but as Renejs just continues as before, convinced that his is the WP:TRUTH, there seem to be few remaining options. Last but not least, as CMT proponents always claim there is "conspiracy of Christians", I should point out that none of this is a comment on who actually is right or wrong, but on the never-ending policy violations by the SPA, especially coupled with his "promise" to continue to violate said policies.Jeppiz (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think we've got a really good basis for a topic ban here. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Unfortunately, this is a case that was deeply botched by the outgoing Arbitration Committee in order to close in 2014, and they failed to impose the requested discretionary sanctions, which would permit the topic-ban by arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is very much troubling. The most troubling diff is the January 2nd one where he says he will deliberately game the system by reverting to 3 times a day, opting that he has 'no other choice' to do such. This editor has been told repeatedly to stop, think, and listen and he seems to not think that they're actually saying that to him, or that it doesn't apply because he's right. A topic ban would be suitable, but I think that a 0RR restriction would be better; forcing him to not revert but discuss on talk page his changes, and try to get consensus for them would be better. That would negate all the reverting, and force him to present his changes on the talk page in an attempt to get consensus. Tutelary (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is more troubling than the COI he rather clearly has on this topic. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but technically, you aren't disallowed from editing the page, only strongly discouraged. The diff represented means that he's willing to game the system, violate the spirit of the edit warring policy, and ignore all objections. Tutelary (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I would never bring up a situation at ANI where a serious user had a COI, so what triggered the report was the extensive edit warring, the "promise" to continue and the refusal to hear. But I think the COI is a an additional problem in this context, as it adds another dimension to the problem with the SPA.Jeppiz (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reviewing this user's talk page history, it doesn't look good. The user seems to regularly use a claim to expertise as a justification for OR and discarding other editors' opinions (eg [125]). I'm not sure a TBAN is the right approach here - the problems seem more fundamental than related to a particular topic. GoldenRing (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the editor's entire history here, I don't know that he has ever really edited outside of the history of Jesus topic. His only apparent substantial editing in history was in regards to the Nazareth/Nazarene articles, which was apparently the topic of his published work. A topic ban from early Christianity would deal with all those problems, or, alternately, I suppose if we think of him as being basically an SPA on the topic of Jesus, a site ban might not be unreasonable. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Declaring their commitment to edit war to push their version of the WP:TRUTH is grounds for a 0RR restriction or a topic ban in my book. Blackmane (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In my defense, I'd like to say that (1) I wasn't the first to revert (that honor goes to Mmeijeri) and so don't think I started the "edit war"; (2) I was by no means the only one to revert. The list is as follows (with descending number of reverts): Renejs -- 8, Bill the Cat 7 -- 5, Mmeijeri -- 2, Jeppiz -- 2, Gekritzl -- 2, T. M. Drew -- 1; (3) I've been a very active explainer of my reasons on the Talk page, very solicitous to listen to others and follow logic in this discussion, not emotion. I started the RfC section to get input as to why we should keep the Grant statement at the root of this whole bruhaha--I've simply acted according to logic: there IS no reason to keep the Grant quote because nobody's offered a reason, while very good reasons have been offered to the contrary! (4) I've been a big provider of new information, gathering, compiling, and uploading the reference section "Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Citations_Demonstrating_Scholarly_Support_for_the_CMT); (5) I've tried to be cordial despite in-my-face insults like "Peddle your fantasies somewhere else", and Bill the Cat 7's claim of "consensus" without Gektrizl or myself included; (6) if you read the short explanations in the revert history, you'll see that I'm not focused on gaming the system but on the facts, using the words "provably false", "obviously false", etc. In fact, I think Gekritzl and myself are the only editors who have been 'content' oriented in this whole edit war, while all the other editors seem 'behavior' oriented and have forgotten that it should be about the facts. Here's the revert history with the explanations on the history page:

- Mmeijeri 12:14, 30 December 2014‎ (Undid revision 640174799 by Renejs (That's arguing with the source, we'd need a reliable source who says it's no longer tenable)

- Renejs 21:00, 30 December 2014 (This is fact, not argument (as the preceding section of this article makes clear). Harpur & Brodie have appeared as Jesus mythicists since Grant wrote!)

- Jeppiz 22:51, 30 December 2014‎ (No need to repeat what has already been said. The text makes it clear Grant said this in 1977, and those two authors have already been mentioned.)

- Renejs 00:07, 31 December 2014 (The problem is precisely that what Grant said is now incorrect. The whole paragraph on Grant should probably be deleted.)

- T. M. Drew 03:22, 31 December 2014‎ (Grant's assessment is correct, and this sentence is not needed.)

- Renejs 20:12, 31 December 2014‎ (The facts prove otherwise.)

- Bill the Cat 7 18:42, 1 January 2015‎ (This is getting tiresome. CMT is FRINGE.)

- Renejs 17:31, 2 January 2015 (Deletion of provably false statement.)

- Bill the Cat 7 17:48, 2 January 2015 (It is provable. Take it to the talk page. If you want references, let me know.‎)

- Renejs 18:31, 2 January 2015‎ (I'm got references supporting the CMT, too, and they'll be on the Talk page soon.)

- Bill the Cat 7 19:18, 2 January 2015‎ (Yes, it's fringe. Take it to the talk page and see a whole host of quotes stating that it's fringe.)

- Renejs 21:20, 2 January 2015 (Mmerjeri already asked you to please obtain a consensus first as per WP:BRD.)

- Bill the Cat 7 21:55, 2 January 2015‎ (I did. We do.)

- Gekritzl 22:08, 2 January 2015 (Not a fringe theory.)

- Jeppiz 22:21, 2 January 2015 (A large number of sources have been given for the cat, stop the POV-pushing.)

- Gekritzl 22:49, 2 January 2015 (A large number of sources are given supporting Jesus Myth theory, stop POV.)

- Mmeijeri 19:46, 5 January 2015‎ (This is edit-warring, you do not have a consensus for this change.)

- Renejs 20:10, 5 January 2015‎ (Obviously false statement is deleted (see Talk). Stop being obstructive and edit warring.)

- Bill the Cat 7 02:18, 6 January 2015‎ (Peddle your fantasies somewhere else.)

- Renejs 05:03, 6 January 2015‎ (Grant's "no serious scholar" statement is obviously obsolete, as everyone knows.)Renejs (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Grant's statement is actually true, if you read the entire quote...

To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200

Therefore, it is not obsolete. And it is certainly fringe, as practically all scholars say (click on the Show link to see the list). Rather than fixing the quote as it appears in the current article, he instead is trying to promote the CMT while misrepresenting what virtually all scholars have concluded. So, I think a topic ban is appropriate. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

One more note, because I don't wish to tire administrator's with this issue. . . You're moving the goalposts, Bill, and are now engaging in a bit of slight-of-hand. You know very well that those important additional words ("or at any rate very few") is not in the CMT article. So, all the reverts never go there. That's not what this is about. This is about the wiki article and what IT says (which is wrong today), not what Grant may or may not have said (misquoted or otherwise). The "status quo" wiki version everybody wants to reinstate (except me and Gekritzl) is:

According to Grant, "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory". He adds that 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' and says that the idea has been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the mythicists "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".[126]

Not even the date 1977 is given in the above (that's found in the reference tag), so it reads as if the above were still current today, almost 40 years later. The nuts and bolts of this revealing issue are straightforward. According to the wiki version, Robert M. Grant (one of the most prominent historians and theologians of his generation) asserted that "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (In fact, the quote ultimately wasn't by Grant himself--he was actually citing somebody else, as his footnote reveals.) Such an assertion has long been obsolete. Not one, not two, but at least three (and arguably more) "serious scholars" have now come forward and denied the historicity of Jesus. I duly brought up their names--Robert M. Price, Thomas Brodie, and Richard Carrier--all "Jesus mythicists" with Ph.D's in a relevant field. At this information, it appears that certain editors simply went ballistic. I provided a lengthy reference section of "Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Citations_Demonstrating_Scholarly_Support_for_the_CMT) in order to show that, indeed, there are numerous scholars who support this view today. I also started an RfC section (on the CMT talk page) inviting editors to give any reason at all why Grant's assertion--as stated on the wiki page!--might still be true. Nobody did. That RfC section is still there, by the way.

The whole point, for me, is the admission that today we have multiple "serious scholars" who deny the historicity of Jesus. That is indisputable, and the CMT page needs to reflect that, and not continue saying "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." In short, we can not revert to status quo! That's why I insist on deleting that assertion--it's false! We're not talking here about a carefully worded retrospective sense, e.g., "Though in 1977 Robert Grant stated. . . today a number of scholars endorse the CMT." That's something else, which no one has yet proposed. Everybody, instead, is insisted on retaining Grant's false wording (without any additional words). That's the problem.

This is (or should be) a simple issue. I'm maintaining that a single critical assertion in the CMT article is no longer true, and I can easily prove my point--and have done so repeatedly on the Talk page. Astonishingly, however, other editors have ignored verifiability and made this an issue of revert warring and COI.

I'm certainly not the most important element here, and have other things to do than edit Wikipedia. But I think Wikipedia is on the line in a small way, and in a sense so is its legacy. I can imagine--maybe a century from now--people saying, "Oh yeah. . . Wikipedia. . . Wasn't that the early digital encylopedia which couldn't handle controversy? Instead of keeping to its stated philosophy of verification, it caved to internal pressures--mostly of a conservative nature. The Jesus issue is a case in point. As late as 2015 Wikipedia still insisted there wasn't a single serious scholar who disputed the historicity of Jesus. Of course, there were quite a few such scholars by then--and had been since the turn of the millennium, if not before. . ." Renejs (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Quite a few" doesn't really mean anything. What's the percentage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether Grant's claim is true (or even properly cited) doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter whether the quote should stay or go, that can be decided by the normal consensus process, including things like adding the "dubious - discuss" tag that cannot be removed without a consensus, and of course the various conflict resolution procedures. The point is that edit-warring is against the rules. Renejs has no special privileges that allow him to operate outside the rules that apply to everybody else. He cannot be allowed to impose his will unilaterally. He should self-revert, add a dubious tag and appeal to some conflict resolution board. If he refuses to abide by the rules, I think he should be blocked for 30 days to show him you cannot get away with blatant violations of the rules. That also gives the rest of the editors an opportunity to work out a solution. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of a "dubious-discuss" tag. You know, I'm pretty inexperienced at Wikipedia. . . And I don't wish to claim "special privileges." The fact that these accusations are being leveled against me indicates that I'm not getting a fair shake. . . After all, don't you remember that it was I who started the RfC precisely to get 'input' on the Grant statement? That doesn't sound like someone who wants to "impose [his] will unilaterally." But you don't like the facts I'm bringing, so you want to ban me. I understand this perfectly.Renejs (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not only do I not want to ban you, I'm bending over backwards to prevent that from happening. If you agree you aren't very familiar with Wikipedia policy, you shouldn't go around lecturing people about it and ignoring the many complaints about your policy violations by others who are familiar with it. You should now self-revert, declare your intention to abide by the rules, and be very hesitant to assume others are wrong if they say you are violating the rules. That may not be enough to prevent a block or even a ban, but it's your best shot. You are free to add a "dubious - discuss tag", or one of several NPOV tags. None of these can be removed without a consensus. If you don't know how to use them, you should spend some time googling and using the Wikipedia search function. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Just like Martijn Meijering, this report has absolutely nothing to do with which version is right or wrong. The report is based on Renejs's behavior: repeated edit-warring, explicit "promise" to continue to edit war, and violations of COI. Content-related issues are irrelevant and belong at the talk page of the article.Jeppiz (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Itemizing the various proposals made of late to deal with this situation below. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of Renejs

• Proposed and supported by me and Blackmane above. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support The user has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that he is on Wikipedia with the sole purpose to push his own POV, he has shown time and time again that he will edit war to do this, and he has vowed to continue the edit warring. I think that's enough, even without the rather blatant COI.Jeppiz (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Propoed 30 day block of Renejs

• Which Martin Meijering proposed above. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

My actual proposal is to give him one final chance to do the right thing. This probably involves having an administrator issue a final warning. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed site ban of Renejs

• Suggested by me above, based on his edit history showing him to be basically an SPA on the broad topic of the existence of Jesus.John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User making non sense edits on my talk page after I nominated non sense page for deletion

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

---

Resolved

 – via indefblock. Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

USER:Lolgirlxoxo123 initially began making non-sense articles. After I nominated her article for speedy-delete, she makes further non-sense edits on my talk page such as this [127].

Kind Regards

NetworkOP (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Need indef ban for NOTHERE by Beforyouwere and and IP

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

---

Editor created acct 4 days ago and made a series of mostly minor edits to get autoconfirmed. As soon as they were autoconfirmed they [reverted] a large number of changes made to Momin Khawaja 4 days back to clean up a long term POV vandalism problem. 4 days ago the article was page protected by User:HJ_Mitchell and one IP was banned. Khawaja is the first convicted terrorist in Canada. He is serving life in a supermax in Canada, a sentence confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. The reverted content includes such gems " Legally and from the perspective of conventional wisdom and justice, it is questionable how could he be sentenced to a Life and 24 years under terrorism? ", he is a "hostage" in jail, and that his conviction was based on race and religion.

1. Increase the protection to WP:WHITELOCK since on Jan 4, 2015 I had to revert everything back to June 7, 2014 to cleanup all the POV junk.
2. the IP version User:69.196.129.102 edit warred, asked to have a different revert date - a point when the article was REALLY POV, and changed a large template from "People associated with terrorism who have lived in Canada" to read "Victims of torture by the Government of Canada".
3. A related short term blocked IP 108.161.126.189 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please Indef both these accts under WP:NOTHERE or whatever other reason: Beforyouwere (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) and 69.196.129.102 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) Thanks Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor is continuing to edit war and has engaged on my talk page. I'm proud to be part of the "internet media Intelligence community." as at least they recognize my intelligence :) [128] Legacypac (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Abusive user

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

---

Can someone review Funkatastic (talk · contribs) contributions, I think at least this user needs a "Hey, that's not how we do things here" block. Attacks on users, edit warring. I didn't know where else to bring this up. The user's talk page is kept clean of most warnings given. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The user is free to clear his talk page. The talk page history will retain it all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I know that, I just mentioned it so it doesn't get overlooked :) Mlpearc (open channel) 00:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Roger. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I messed this page up by accident!

Hi.

I was just on the Wikipedia page for the bodybuilder Flex Lewis. I noticed that under the competitions section there some missing completions. So I went to add them in and after I clicked save page something went wrong. The page is now displayed as dispersed lines of text pertaining only to a certain section of the article, all the information is there but it just doesn't get displayed. Please understand I did not mean this as a form of vandalism I was simply trying to update the page! Please help!

The link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flex_Lewis

"32.210.191.72 (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)"

You could have just reverted. Which is what I did. You could try again, only hit "preview" first, rather than "save", to be sure it works (or not). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I went to Flex Lewis. I don't know what "en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki" is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the formatting problem was the result of an unclosed (and unnecessary) <gallery> tag added at the very top of the article. I'm not sure how or why that got there, but that's what caused the page to be reformatted into a series of small squares. Meanwhile, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki is the mobile version of the project. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That happened with this edit, presumably a screwup of some kind. That's actually pretty funny, turning the entire page into a "gallery". But is it possible that there's something whacko with the mobile version of the software? Like maybe it generated that "gallery" automatically somehow? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Technical question: The IP here is the older style, while the edits to the article are by IP's in the expanded style. Are those expanded IP's standard for mobile phones, or is it certain carriers? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

With regards to the first question, there doesn't seem to be anything in the mobile version of WP that should allow this. I just checked it on my phone. Perhaps the IP had copied the <gallery> tag from somewhere else. On Android at least, if you hold a spot down in a field that you can type, it brings up a paste pop up option. Blackmane (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I just did some poking about. With regards to your second question, it looks like that IPv6 address is in a range registered to SNET-FCC - Southern New England Telephone Company and SNET America, Inc. Blackmane (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And that's consistent with the location of the OP's IP. Makes sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

[Digression: confusion with IP addresses and mobile devices is one reason why I think Wikipedia should only be edited by registered users have a traceable track of contributions and who have a fixed point of reference for conversation. GregKaye 07:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)]

Good luck with that. They'll allow that around the time pigs start flying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

How are editors supposed to have a track of contributions if only editors with a track of contributions are allowed to edit? It precludes any new editor from being able to edit and Wikipedia is not sustainable without a continual influx of new editors who share their knowledge and experience to enhance Wikipedia articles. Every new editor has a learning curve, sometimes lasting months, other times years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think what GregKaye means is that registered editors build up a track of contributions whereas unregistered editors using changing IP addresses don't. Squinge (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that the IP didn't say they used the mobile site to make the edit. They copied the mobile site link here, which may have lead some people to believe this was the case but I suspect this is incorrect. Firstly AFAIK, any edits from the mobile site should always be tagged by the wikimedia engine, similar to [129]. Secondly, AFAIK it's still not possible to edit from the mobile site without using an account. Definitely whenever I try to edit an I'm not logged it, it forces me to including when I tried just now. As was established, the edit [130] came from an IP and was not tagged. It's possible the edit was from the wikipedia app, but I'm fairly sure these are tagged as well. If the edit was from the bog standard edit interface, it's relatively easier to accidentally add the gallery tag. For example, if you have the advanced menu option, click on the picture between "insert" and the redirect arrow. This will add a bit more including a closure tag, but it's possible the OP realised these are something wrong and deleted the rest without deleting the opening tag. It's also possible you can add a gallery tag in some other way. Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of two edit summaries

I'm sorry to trouble you with something so silly, but an editor left two uncivil edit summaries here and here. I have no interest in asking this editor to provide evidence of "Wikihounding", I just don't like seeing my good name smeared. Would it be possible to remove these ridiculous edit summaries? Thanks a lot. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What's silly is the edit-warring you two are engaged in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. No, those edit summaries are not disruptive enough to warrant removal. Also, even though Alansohn owns New Jersey, they are not allowed to make spurious charges of wikihounding (ie., harassment): Alansohn, put up or shut up please. If you're being hounded, make the case--and doing it in edit summaries for mainspace article edits is in poor taste. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WHY was my previous account DELETED

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

---

Why was my previous account "Chilli lover" deleted? I did not get any information or warning or guidance! Just gone! Why? Please explain to me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NEW Chilli lover (talk • contribs) 05:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@NEW Chilli lover: Accounts cannot be deleted, could i get a link to your old account please? Lor^Talk 06:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Could your old account be:

• User:ChileLOVER (no edits) or
• User:Chililover (no edits) or
• User:Chililover15 (no edits) or
• User:Chililoverboy (no edits) or
• User:Chillielover (no edits) or
• User:Chilli92lover (one edit in 2008) or
• User:Chili lover 435 (blocked yesterday by @Materialscientist: for block evasion by Vgleer)?

BMK (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

YES YES YES! SORRY! I forgot, my account was "Chili lover 435" not just "Chili lover". BUT still. Deleted is DELETED. Why this "Materialscientist" barges in like that?! Please educate me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NEW Chilli lover (talk • contribs) 06:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see Special:Contributions/Chili_lover_435. This says that Materialscientist blocked Chili lover 435 "with an expiry time of indefinite (Block evasion: Vgleer)". I infer that you too are Vgleer and I've therefore blocked you as well. If you believe that this is unjust, log in as Vgleer and carefully follow the instructions at User talk:Vgleer. -- Hoary (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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

User:TheCampaign

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

This user created Allen L. Ellison, a highly promotional "article" that was copied and pasted from the candidate's campaign biography. In contesting my deletion, the user has shown quite convincingly he is not here to build the encyclopedia, username notwithstanding.

As I am now being accused of admin abuse, I would like someone else to wield the banhammer. MER-C 08:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything about this guy in Google except for campaign-like materials. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328 has given them some good advice and they've agreed not to post the article again for now so I'm not sure a NOTHERE block would achieve much. Sam Walton (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I too have left TheCampaign a message. -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Evaluative diversity

Could admins familiar with copyvio and COI please have a look at Evaluative diversity? History:

1. Text was added to neurodiversity (an article in the autism suite) about evaluative diversity by Langchri that was based on a number of primary sources and some that did not even mention the term neurodiversity,[131] so I removed it. See talk page discussion.
2. Upon examining evaluative diversity, I found the same issue with primary sources and sources that didn't mention that topic. I do not have time to clean up that article, and tagged it.[132] See talk page discussion.
3. Langchri removed the tags, saying "moved to talk", but with no followup on talk.
4. Subsequently, in reading the talk page, I encountered a post from December 2013 from Langchri, stating that another article had been published first, which was the source for most of the Wikipedia article. So, I went searching for that article on the internet.
5. I found a personal website hosting what appears to be that article,[133]Christopher Santos-Lang. It is written by a Christopher Santos-Lang (Langchri??), and our article copies the structure. So I tagged the article copyvio and raised the issue of WP:COI on talk.[134]
6. IP 165, active at that article, removed the copyvio tag, saying it was published first on Wikipedia, but the talk page of our article indicates otherwise. That IP resolves to Madison: see website above on Christopher Santos-Lang.

So, this is above my payscale. If Christopher Santos-Lang is Langchri, and if the article was first published elsewhere by him, what is done here about copyvio or coi?? I'm thinking it might be an OTRS issue, and if permission is released for the content, the copyvio tag can be removed, leaving the COI and sourcing concerns, but I really don't know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Help! The evidence that copyright was not infringed seems pretty clear, but we need an administrator to actually remove the copyright tag. It would also be really nice if editors who believe they have encountered an original thesis would specify that thesis on the Talk page and ask the community to shape it or identify the particular passage in the cited sources which support it (rather than just leave page-level tags claiming to have discovered that sources are generally bad). I believe I can help improve this article, but it already cites sources throughout, many of which include both primary and secondary research (e.g., scientific papers which include literature review sections), so the path forward at this point requires shaping specific theses to match the cited sources. I would appreciate any advice on how to keep the editing actionable. Langchri (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Moonriddengirl: as copyright is her specialty. Blackmane (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope MRG examines the whole mess, because there has been more info on article talk, and now Langchri says the material was published first on Wikipedia, then on Springer, so I don't know who owns the rights or how to fix this mess, which now includes the possible issues to be sorted of WP:COI, WP:USERNAME, WP:MEAT, and WP:COPYVIO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Springer puts the issue to bed at [135] when they date the publication to September 2014. Copyright is not a problem, as it looks like the content was here first. I'm not sure I understand the COI issue. Is he citing himself? We do permit that, in moderation of course, as per WP:SELFCITE. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with Moonriddengirl's analysis. There is ambiguity as to when Langchri assigned copyright to Springer, as there is a lag between manuscript submission and copyright assignment, and publication. If he posted here first (meaning he licensed the content to Wikimedia) then Springer has to include reference to WP's license in the book (which would mean withdrawing it and republishing it with the amendment); if he assigned the copyright to Springer before he posted here, then he didn't have the right to grant the license to Wikimedia, and our content infringes Springer. We have no way of knowing what happened. The most elegant solution would be for us to assume he assigned to Springer first, and to treat the content here as COPYVIO. Otherwise we have to tangle with Springer. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring IP

An ip is adding non notable content to the Sharon Lee page. This IP has already violated 3RR

Proof of the edit warring Weegeerunner (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a static school IP that has previously several times been blocked for a year at a time for persistent vandalism, once for two years. The current individual is editing poorly but not quite vandalizing, so I've only given them a 60-hour block for edit warring. Favonian had fortunately warned them. Thank you for reporting, Weegeerunner. For another time, note that there's a dedicated noticeboard for 3RR violations: WP:AN3. Bishonen | talk 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

Wp:personal attacks, wp:harassment and WP:TPNO violations by User:E-960 continue

See also, earlier report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Personal abuse and anti-Australian slurs by User:E-960

High visibility article Poland has been marred by disruption for months by fringe nationalists. Some of the accounts were confirmed as sockpuppets recently, therefore, caution is in order. The last on the scene is User:E-960, an account created 2014-08-19 specifically for edit-warring in Eastern Europe. (Ping @ User:Sandstein who keeps track of it.)

Only a few weeks earlier, on 20 December 2014 User:E-960 was reported to ANI by User:Nick-D for abuse of editing privileges (see above) and on the same day warned by User:Calidum for violations of 3RR. User:Diannaa warned him again on 21 December 2014 about possible sanctions for his WP:OR/3RR. His notorious abuse of editing privileges therefore, prompted me to file a new SPI report as soon as his bullying extended to Talk:Poland where a slew of socks operated earlier. User:E-960 went berserk as a result of my report,[136] which makes me think that he might be a sock of someone other than the ones mentioned, and therefore feels immune to the outcome of the report. Also, because he wasn't sanctioned earlier, his bullying got really extreme this time: with repeat attacks on my talk page,[137] [138] massive, abusive WP:SHOUTING in Talk:Poland,[139] [140] [141] lying through one's teeth,[142][143] belittling editors who warn him of possible consequences,[144] (ping @ User:Iryna Harpy), misrepresenting facts,[145] outright vulgarity,[146] and defacing talkpage posts whenever possible.[147] Please do something, because this is simply unbearable. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Er, I'm not keeping track of anything here. After a brief look at the diffs, there may well be grounds for admin action here, although the tone of your request is also concerning. You may request discretionary sanctions per WP:AC/DS and WP:ARBEE, if you make a request at WP:AE and the other editor has previously been alerted as described at WP:AC/DS. If not, you can alert them now and request sanctions if any problems reoccur.  Sandstein  19:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sandstein. Please explain. Should I file a request for discretionary sanctions even before this report is addressed? I'm still waiting for the results of my CheckUser request. E-960 is new account with only a handful of edits, all of them in the area of WP:ARBEE. It might be a sleeper account for edit warring elsewhere, i.e. with User:Lute88 and others. I'm not sure whether to wait for feedback. Much obliged, Poeticbent talk 21:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That's up to you.  Sandstein  22:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to say something in my defense. All I did was update a couple of images on the Poland page in the Military and Transportation sections (just better pics of same subject matter, no major changes) and fixed one of the "stats" in the Infobox. Right away, user Poeticbent reverted all my edits. These were not major alterations that caused POV or Undue Weight. When a strong debate ensued, user Poeticbent started to link me to past sockpuppet cases and filed a Checkuser request where I was openly accused of homophobia, vandalism, promoting my hometown (not sure how I did that, when I only added a picture of a train, an airplane and a military vehicle) and sockpuppetry linked to 3 past cases. I'd like to say that false accusations are also a form of personal attacks. I'm sick of "senior" edits who protect their their past edits, or bully new editors even when the material like the "stats" I fixed were previously incorrect! --E-960 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• This is one of the problems in WP; new users are not joining the Wikipedia project or dropping out; one cause of that are "senior" editors who squat on articles and challenge even the most basic updates made by new users! The changes I made, were in no way controversial in nature! This is Wikipedia, right? Change is part of the process. --E-960 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And here's a selection of quotes from the most recent posts by User:E-960 (re: Poland): "WHAT PART OF THAT IMAGE CAPTION DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND", "What the heck?????", "Stop embarrassing yourself!!", "Stop screwing up the article!" So much for a "debate". Poeticbent talk 22:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop being a bully, why did you just now insert your comment before mine at 21:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)??? How about following Wiki etiquette, if i wrote a statement don't write yours in front of it, but add it in the order in which it was written? Form the start your behavior has been directed at instigating other users, and then trying to get them blocked. What you just did now is a perfect example you belittling and instigating new users. --E-960 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to endorse this report - E-960's standard conduct seems to be to abuse editors who disagree with him or her in fairly extreme terms and accuse them of forming some kind of conspiracy of which he or she is the victim, and there's a clear Polish nationalist element to this (the issue I reported here a couple of weeks ago included E-960 edit warring to preserve the supposed "native name" for the Allies of World War II in the article on the topic). This is classic WP:ARBEE type conduct, and is entirely unhelpful. There are more examples of this at Talk:World War II#Discussion and Talk:World War II#Infobox Debate: "Collapsible List of all the Nations" option (also Poland-related in that the change to the infobox under discussion included the removal of Poland from it). E-960 has been repeatedly asked to moderate their language, but seemingly with no effect. Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

(That said, I see no reason why this has to be address through the cumbersome AE process: I think that its entirely within the scope of responses from an uninvolved admin given it boils down to gross and sustained incivility and POV pushing) Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am also a little annoyed at the tone of this request, the diffs given are much tamer than the accusations you have levelled. Also I would caution you against labelling E-960's edits as "homophobic" unless the checkuser results turn up positive, as it is an extremely unnecessary and serious accusation. That being said, I also hold serious reservations about E-960's behaviour since the last ANI thread; he has shown little to no behavioural improvements and seems to have a combative attitude that is not compatible with this project's aims. —Dark 11:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

What is happening here is a deliberate attack agains my profile. This is down right malicious to accuse me of being a Polish nationalist, because I changed a couple of images on the Poland page (same subject matter only better quality pics) How is that at all controversial? (see the talk page of what I actually debated) These "senior" editors are simply protecting their past edits and trying to use underhand methods of trying to get a new user blocked by throwing labels at me… user Poeticbent and Nick-D already called me a "nationalist", "homophobe", "sockpuppet" and "liar". When is this going to stop? I will remind everyone that user Nick-D is the editor who objected the use of the word "Genecide" in the WWII World War II/Archive 49, opting for a more ambiguous term "mass killings" (and my past disagreement with him last month was also due to his efforts to remove/sanitize another WWII related article)! If not for new users like myself, Wikipedia would be a collection of "established" editors who push their views on the entire WP, and with the Wikipedia scandal which included paid editors, government agencies, and special interest groups/individual pushing POV, you should not simply take the word or accusations of these "established" editor, but look at the actual facts on the Talk:Poland page of what was debated in this case. If I started to lose my temper I can apologize, but this should in no way suggest that I accept the bullying tactics of these "senior" editors. --E-960 (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

IP making legal threats in Rafael Pérez (police officer), possible COI

2605:E000:4EC9:6500:98C3:EA3:820F:1715 (talk · contribs) was removing information from Rafael Pérez (police officer) under the summary 'lies' [148][149][150][151]. I reverted the removal, and warned him. Then the IP proceeded to remove further information under the edit summary of My valid reason for deleting this is that you have posted lies about my father and I did not consent to having my name up on wikipedia. Take this down or I will take legal action.[152]

I would like an admin to take a look at this situation. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 21:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is probably worth pointing out that significant parts the article appear to be entirely unsourced, and that regardless of the actions of the anon IP, they need to be removed per WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed unsourced material from the 'private life' section, per WP:BLP - I've not looked at the remainder of the content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point, however, most of the content that was removed was cited. (I will add the BLP citations needed tag.) -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 21:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Snappy removing cited content

At Statues in Dublin, User:Snappy has been repeatedly deleting cited content. Their rationale is that the content is "silly." I have tried discussing the issue with them on the talk page, to no avail. Even though I've added an additional ten references to the page, they continue to unilaterally remove significant amounts of content from the page. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe this article is under 1RR (per Ireland related topic), so I hope you both are respecting WP:BRD. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Repeated attacks on the article Buxton Community School

Resolved

The article Buxton Community School has been under attack by vandals all day.[153] As soon as one username gets blocked, another one surfaces. The first was User:TopQualityBanter, now blocked, together with User:TopQualityNotch, also now blocked. Then along came User:TheGmiester who not only vandalized that article but created two fake new mirror articles, Buxton Community SchooI (with a capital "eye" in school instead of a lowercase "ell"), now deleted, and Banter Community School, still here but tagged for G3. TheGmiester has also been blocked. Now comes User:George 4457856, repeatedly vandalising the article[154] [155], warned but not yet blocked. Each user block was by a different administrator, so no one has looked at the big picture. Considering the persistence of this vandal or vandals, I think semi-protection of the article might be warranted, in addition to blocking the vandals. (I haven't bothered notifying the various vandals about this ANI report; hope that's OK.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected by HJ Mitchell and blocks handed out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and I salted the two fake articles. I think we're done here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User Zaczac178 and images

Hi,

I came across a user uploading several images (under licences date years ago with images from this season). Images seem to be copyright. Dont know were to turn so went here.

The images are:

• File:Falcao MU15.jpeg most likely from mirror.co.uk and added in this diff
• File:Di María MU.jpg most likely from football.co.uk and added in this diff
• File:Luke Shaw england.jpg most likely from [156] and added in this diff
• File:Steve Smith 2015.jpg most likely from [157] and added in this diff

And those are the only ones I looked at, I am sure they are all the same. Could someone take a look at it? QED237 (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've nuked all their uploads as blatant copyvios. MER-C 01:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@MER-C: Great. Thanks! Lets hope the editor dont continue and update more. In that case a strong warning and/or block may be only way to stop him/her. QED237 (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Boko Haram Proposed Topic Ban

Related 3RR reports: [158], [159] and others.

A single editor is guarding the Boko Haram article like a junkyard dog, making it impossible for any other editor to make meaningful contributions. Since all efforts to reason are met with insults, WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and more edit warring, the only solution I can see it a community imposed topic ban for Boko Haram and all related topics.

Examples:

1. [160] wholesale revert of changes by User:Koyos
2. [161] remove POV and Factual tags added by User:Lipsquid and adjusted by User:Charles Essie
3. [162] remove POV and Factual tags added by User:Legacypac
4. [163] wholesale revert on changes to Names section by User:Legacypac
5. [164] makes large edit with summary "(many unexplained changes to text)"
6. [165] editwarring over Background section with same revert about 9 times. Results in 4 trips to 3RR board and a comment by User:EdJohnston that he believes Signedzzz will never stop.
7. [166] removed word "men" from types of people (men, women and children) kidnapped in the lead and good source added by User:105.184.160.62
8. [167] [168] [[169]]] reverted additions of ISIL under allies by User:Jurryaany, an IP, and User:Jackninja5. first time it is ref'd, second time he says it needs a ref, third time in breach of his ISIL topic ban, .
9. [170] even undoes minor spelling variation by User:LightandDark2000
10. [171] good addition by User:MelvinToast
11. [172] took out timeline section, left article with only a link under see also
12. [173] reverted the addition of "nearly" by User:Shii in front of an approximation of refugees.

And if you go back further there are more examples.

User contribution tool found an astonishing 2443 edits by User:Signedzzz on Boko Haram (54.75% of the total edits made to the page).

Just as I am finishing this report I see the post below on 3RR, which may solve the problem. However, since I did all the work to put the report together I'm putting this up anyway to call editors attention to the problem with the Boko Haram article and as a back-up of information to support a topic ban imposed by the community or an Admin.Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

(Quoted here) Blocked – Signedzzz is blocked four days for long-term edit warring at Boko Haram, as well as a 3RR violation on 8 January. The closure of this complaint was delayed due to discussions which took place both here and in a report above. It appeared for a while that Signedzzz was agreeing to take a break from the article, but he made this controversial edit on 10 January which removes article tags, showing that he has not stopped editing at Boko Haram. This block can be lifted if Signedzzz will accept a topic ban from Islamic extremism and Boko Haram, which will apply everywhere on Wikipedia on articles, talk pages and noticeboards. Signedzzz is already banned from editing on WP:GS/SCW per an earlier complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Tanishqsh Removing deletion templates (AfD and Speedy), interfereing with an AfD, interfereing with an SPI

• [174] 2015-01-08T13:23:35 User:Tanishqsh removed Speedy Deletion Template from Captive Of Thoughts
• [175] 2015-01-10T04:59:33 User:Tanishqsh removed Afd Template from Reet Sharma
• [176] 2015-01-10T04:59:02 User:Tanishqsh blanked Afd for Reet Sharma
• [177] 2015-01-10T04:47:25 User:Tanishqsh removed text from SPI
• [178] 2015-01-10T04:49:03 User:Tanishqsh removed text from SPI

Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tanishqsh  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've given him a 31-hour break from editing WP, even before considering the puppetry allegation. I'm a bit tired and otherwise preoccupied, so I invite somebody else to consider the latter. Any admin proposing to extend the block (e.g. to indefinite) needn't consult me about this. -- Hoary (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• His file uploads look like copyright violations too, so I've nominated them for deletion at Commons. Squinge (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  Actually, no, I'm wrong about that - I've been discussing them with him at Commons and he's a professional photographer and they really are his pictures. Squinge (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Ashburnian

Ashburnian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been doing some long-term edit-warring on Dick Black (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for quite some time - in fact, he's been an SPA.for most of last year, removing well-sourced controversies about Black. Negotiating at BLPN isn't going anywhere, and he's already violated 3RR today ([179] [180] [181] [182] [183]). A preventative block would be much appreciated. Thanks, RAN1 (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I originally removed large portions of information before learning the rules for editing a page. Since then I have only removed poorly sourced, contentious materials that violate BPL Guidelines. Also, 3RR rules do not appear to apply in this case. In any event, the issue now is mainly resolved as someone has found another reliable source for the quotation. Ashburnian (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashburnian seems to be correct here. When is Mother Jones a proper source... Let me check some sources and see what comes up... Mother Jones is known for these pieces. I think context is being lost and WP:BLP violations are exempt. Ashburnian may have a reason to act in such a fashion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As noted in BLPN, some sources about the spousal rape claim [184] [185] [186]. This hardly constitutes a BLP issue, and doesn't justify edit warring. --RAN1 (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem corrected with this edit. The problem was the out of context quote which made it seem like Black was endorsing rape - he was not. Mother Jones was the source, but it took me all of a minute to find the source at High Beam - in full. I posted the relevant section on the talk page for readers to examine my faithfulness of the edits. WP:BLP means being neutral and this often means ignoring what Huffington Post, Mother Jones and other poor sources pull to further an agenda. In this case, the use of the quote has very different implications and meaning than what the original context and comment said. Ashburnian was right that the source was a problem and having 2 poor sources and 1 source which was not the origin was an issue. Now its verified and corrected. Other issues may exist, but one is down. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm retracting this for now. --RAN1 (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I know you meant well, but so did Ashburnian. Disruption is disruption, but in cases like this, I just decided to make sure it was resolved without blocks. I gave Ashburnian some advice about finding the original quote and checking context - it will go a long ways to resolving issues of this nature in the future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris, Ashburnian never mentioned context, and instead made wild accusations and implied I had made up a citation. While I don't think blocking Ashburnian is worthwhile, it is unfair to say they had a reason to act in such a fashion. It turns out the context was lost by the Scotland on Sunday writer (which is the reference MJ used), and I can't imagine anyone would have considered it to be a unreliable source beforehand. I've learnt I need to get a high beam account. Haminoon (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Haminoon, I did not mean to imply you had made up a citation. I was arguing that you were citing a source that did not provide any proof that the quote they were giving was accurate and was, in fact, given. The Mother Jones article did not provide any source information or context, and when I spoke to Senator Black he did not recall giving that quote. That is why I was so determined to have it removed. I believed that Mother Jones made up the citation. I apologize for any offense I may have given you.Ashburnian (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I am the coordinator for WP:QUESTIA, but you can sign up at WP:HIGHBEAM! This sort of thing happens all the time on political articles. I liken it to Telephone tag, where bias and context get lost in the process. All editors can be involved with good faith, but sources, all which can seem reliable and accurate, muddy our relationships. A grain of salt with every story and care about sources with a discernible agenda or bias is always a good thing. Also - Mother Jones is not really reliable, like Breitbart - the (mis)use of quotes being the chief reason for the conflict here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Major kudos to ChrisGualtieri for finding the original source of the quote In full context, which is very different from how an extract from that source was spun. Whenever a BLP relies on a controversial two or three sentence quote extract posted on an advocacy website, it is always advisable to look for a more lengthy extract placing the "juicy" quote in context. Mother Jones is sometimes reliable, but not in this particular case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisGualtieri and Ashburnian. Haminoon (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)