Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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

Sandra opposed to terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smear?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

forum shopping

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons to close this discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit-warring during this ANI

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

2) AND AGAIN !, virtually the same edit, on a topic already covered later in the article, … … 3)AND AGAIN !, virtually the same edit, same objections, … … 5) meanwhile we have WP:Canvassing over on an unconnected article and yet another article. Talk page shows there is widespread opposition to these edits, and no rationale for including these edits, nor in 'Ugandan' nor in an edit war over the spelling of 'spelt/spelled', (which I was not part of). Pincrete (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC) … … 6) the same edit … reinserted again since my post (note source says 'claim' the edit states 'fact'). Pincrete (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC) ... 7) and AGAIN, a shorter version of the same text, (based on withdrawn claims in out-of-date sources, yet presented as fact).Pincrete (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC) … 8)AND AGAIN, shortened (scroll down), version of same withdrawn accusation, presented as fact. Accompanied by another 'pet issue', the number of wounded, which is at best Synth, since this number is not supported by any source and is the subject of a seperate slow edit war. Pincrete (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC) … … 9)AGAIN, substantially the same material, later modified so as to be no longer libellous, which all other editors believe is UNDUE, and for which no arguments have been made on talk for retaining. Pincrete (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC) … … 10)AGAIN, substantially the same material + other edits which are opposed on talk, despite the edit reason, there are no arguments on talk apart from 'I want'. Pincrete (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC) … … 11)AGAIN, substantially the same material + other edits which are opposed on talk and removal of material agreed on talk. Pincrete (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC) … … 12)Back to the issue of number of wounded here & here & here, although it has been established beyond doubt that of the 'first day reports', one was mistranslated as 'grazed', 1 has never been corroborated, all of which has been established on 'talk'. Pincrete (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the love of God, exactly in what context is Pincrete's post "egging [you] on to a fight"? And I believe that the forum shopping discussion was that this thread was NOT forum shopping because people declined to participate in your DRN in the first place. (I personally couldn't participate because I was blocked at the time.) Versus001 (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, this ANI is about user behaviour (yours). That you fail to offer any justification for re-inserting approximately the same text 11 times during this ANI, text which clearly does not have support of other editors, which in some of its manifestations is clearly (and libellously) factually inaccurate, will be a matter of record. Far from 'egging you on to a fight', I was reminding you of the purpose of this ANI. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Repeating violations of WP:NEUTRAL (WP:POVPUSH)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just note the "policies" Settleman links to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed WP:BOOMERANG for User:Settleman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This whole procedure is like a reverse of case of

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

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

When you wrote above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's see, over a dozen examples of harassment by Springee against other users, and only one example of an offsite article that's assumed to be connected to a WP user. FYI, whoever posted the article here on WP in an attempt to connect it to VVUSA, violated WP:Outing, yet I didn't see any action taken on that serious violation either. Regardless, they're both defined as harassment by WP policy and you've been clearly biased with your application of WP policy. Regardless, a comparison is irrelevant to the fact that Springee has violated multiple policies, multiple times, and absolutely nothing has been done about it. That demonstrates a clear bias among the admin community. Scoobydunk (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

one year site ban for Springee

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

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

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

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

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

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

topic ban ricky81682

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

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

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

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

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

Time to move on?

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

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

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

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

I think 2 to 3 month site ban works as well. 166.176.57.153 (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps an indefinite site ban for you? Yes that would be worth a new thread. Blackmane (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Was: IBAN. Is now: lame edit war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The way forward

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

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

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

(Where +/− is defined as "Clear advantage for White" at beginning of book. There is bibliography at beginning of book listing nine book and eight journal sources, but Lasker isn't listed as direct author of any of those [so I imagine the Lasker line is secondary source to one of those sources].) Please note it says "Better", not "Best", which mean differently of course. (So, "Best" currently in the article s/b changed to "Better". [My original paraphrased edit was: "Black does better with 15...d2! 16.Nexd2 0-0 according to Lasker, with a clear advantage for White." [97] [98], which was just fine of course.]) IHTS (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MB says the ITHS concern about IBAN violation "looks petty to me" and then attempts to use alleged content improvement as a basis for ignoring their violation. The very nature of IBAN is pettiness; there are 117,036 active users and the overwhelming majority of them manage to edit without requiring the community to supervise their interaction.

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

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

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

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

Prior to this ANI, the editor had undone three of my edits. In all three cases I documented my original text at article Talk, to facilitate the editor to restore them, but this was ignored. So I restored my contents, with editsum indicating why re iBAN. In the first instance there was no conflict, in the second instance the editor opened an ANI on the basis of iBAN violation, admin JzG closed it as "no violation". In the third instance the editor reverted my restore, telling me to "go to ANI or get lost". I went to the closing admin JzG instead, who opened this ANI. (The content of the third edit has not been re-restored yet, even though I've explained twice in this ANI why the undo by the editor was a disimprovement.) Today, a fourth of my edits has been undone by the editor, at a different article. Again, I'm sure the undo wasn't intentional. (The editor has refused to ever check edit histories claiming it is too burdonsome to do so. I can understand that. That is why I have in each case updated article Talk as mentioned.) So I've updated article Talk again [99], expecting the editor to notice and restore my content. So far he has never done so in any of the four undos. What I want (to minimize people-involvement such as asking an admin to restore the edits each time this happens, or opening an ANI on these inadvertent undos), is the freedom to do as I've done in the first three undos - which is to restore the contents myself, with appropriate editsum indicating the iBAN. (So far I have not been able to do that - once it resulted in the editor opening the previous ANI, once it resulted in his revert & the nasty editsum.) OK, so what does consensus want to do as way forward? The third and fourth undos are so far unrestored, and a method for future is also unaddressed. I've no desire to be held accountable for iBAN violations, so can there be some direction given or approved? Thx for consideration. IHTS (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Complaint concerning the conduct of admin Guy/Jzg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry to come late to the party. Guy's behaviour is indefensible. See the complaints at [100]. Guy protected the page so Jimbo couldn't rule on the complaint against him. Ihardlythinkso, if you study the diff you will see that Guy works in collaboration with Future Perfect at Sunset. Why not add him to the complaint and kill two birds with one stone? 78.149.127.86 (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

• The material cited by User:78.149.127.86 above was removed as being from an IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change when User:2.96.189.207 posted it.[101] Both IPs geolocate to London, UK, using the same ISP. For some reason I am suddenly in the mood for some roast duck with a nice CheckUser sauce to smoke out any stealth accounts. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• John Carter asked me to weigh in. There's been some discussion on my talk page and I had good hope that we could get rid of the iBan. I don't know what to do here. As far as I'm concerned, we lift the iBan completely, and then no one will have to worry about whether this or that edit or revert (they're making those anyway) is a violation of the ban or not. Just get rid of the ban and take it from there, dealing with possible disruption in the usual way. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• BTW, I have a long history of disagreeing with IHTS, but I gotta say, he's on his best behavior here. His opponent, not so much--those who called for a block (I think I've seen two or three calls from different people for a block) may have had a point. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You do understand why I'm concerned about lifting the IBAN, right? Have only to examine the original AN thread to understand this, I was genuinely distressed and more than a little creeped out. I guess someone could propose it at a new AN thread but I wouldn't be happy about it. To clarify, are you in favour of a punitive block now, after a week? MaxBrowne (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't really understand. And to clarify, I said, I believe, "may have had". I don't know about this "week": I think there was some displeasure with your comments in this very thread. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please review the original thread. Note that serious consideration was given to making the IBAN one way. The whole thing was very upsetting and is still quite raw for me. It should be patently obvious why I don't want the IBAN lifted. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There very definitely has been some displeasure with MaxBrowne's conduct in this very thread. John Carter (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

And with yours. You have been uncivil throughout. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal (lift iBan)

iban between Ihardlythinkso and MaxBrowne is removed.

• Support as proposer. NE Ent 23:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Anyone who reviews the original thread will understand why I requested the IBAN and why I don't want it lifted. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The editor has repeatedly contradicted themself both re the edit undo proviso of iBAN, and the other aspect including making personal derogatory comments re the other editor (i.e., me). (If I need to go into detail with diffs to prove said points, I'm able to do that. [I've done much of it already here and at admins' user Talks.]) The iBAN s/b enforced, or lifted. (My preference is that it be lifted, so both editors can edit freely. I believe I have more basis for concern than the other editor of being on receiving end of uncivil comments in the absence of iBAN, since that has been what has been happening; however, editing in freedom is more important, and, the uncivil comments at Talks and in ANI threads have never been enforced by admins, the iBAN has been ignored on that level as well, so what good does it represent me?) IHTS (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal (Nash Equilibrium iBan)

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

• If either editor complains about the other anywhere on Wikipedia, both will be blocked for a day, with each subsequent violation to follow a Fibonacci sequence. (The sequence has the nice property that the first values are low, but it grows rapidly in case the pair doesn't get the hint.) As this is a "no fault" ban, it should no require long ANI threads / discussions to enforce. NE Ent 23:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I honestly cannot imagine any situation in which we have said that someone is blocked because of the actions of someone with whom they are or have been in conflict. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'm quite serious (reviewers please see [102] and [103]). NE Ent 01:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Huldra

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

---

Huldra (talk · contribs) is at it again with his pro-Arab/anti-Israel POV. This time his is so far only threatening to make the edit, and when I warned him that such course of action will lead to me reporting him here, he asked I do so forthwith. Well, here I am. Huldra wants to remove a whole part of the Balad al-Sheikh article, even though it is sourced. The discussion is here. User notified.[104] Debresser (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please also notice that Huldra has a novel way of interpreting discussions in his favor, when the fact is that that discussion did not go to his favor at all (which is probably why he waited a few months before trying it again).[105] Debresser (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Btw, besides objecting to WP:ASPERSIONS, I also object to WP:NPA [106] and note WP:STALKING [107], Huldra (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After saying it was an "honest mistake" calling me male above, Debresser then continues to refer to me as a male today....... first on my user-page; link, and then responding on a 1 RR report; link. Can Debresser continue to call me "he" forever, without any consequences? Frankly, to me, his behaviour seems like very deliberate provocative and rude. Ms. Huldra (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Remember to AGF! It's probably because Debresser forgets anything unrelated to their agenda. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If Debresser continues to do this, a block should be levied irrespective of the merits of the other dispute. Continually referring to Huldra as male when they've been corrected by multiple editors is sliding into baiting, if not downright trolling, territory. Blackmane (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Blackmane, a block for a minor WP:CIVIL violation?

Huldra may ask to be addressed as "she", but it so happens to be that my custom is to refer to all Wikipedia editors as "he". Not only because most Wikipedia editors are male, but also simply as a convention. Most editors are perfectly fine with that. Is there a Wikipedia guideline that says I have to call a person by the gender they prefer, if I have a personal preference in this regards as well which is at odds with their preference? Secondly, without wanting to accuse Huldra that she insists on this in order to discredit me with unrelated arguments, at least her insistence on this is clouding the issue, and I can't escape the impression that she is playing on this point to gain the upper hand in the main issue. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this a perverse joke? I hope that in real life you would not address women as "he" – it would be grossly offensive if you did – and if you cannot extend such courtesy to Wikipedia you are either extremely lazy or deliberately provocative. Has it occurred to you that most editors are fine with being called "he" because most editors are male? How can you think that, because women are a minority on Wikipedia, it is OK to further marginalise them by refusing to acknowledge their identity? Your personal preferences are no excuse whatsoever for such clear disrespect and if you persist in your demeaning behaviour I would fully support a block. BethNaught (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

And while you're at it, you can avoid snarkiness like here. BethNaught (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a whack at the low hanging fruit. Yes, you'll be blocked for this "minor WP:CIVIL violation" if it continues. I'm thinking a week for starters, just because it is so obviously calculated to be insulting. Your new "custom" (described by you just yesterday as an honest mistake) is insulting to others - not just Huldra, but any woman. It is your continued insistence on this which is sidetracking discussion of any other issue, not Huldra's insistence on not being labeled a male. I have no opinion on the underlying dispute, but your behavior regarding this pronoun gives me a gut instinct that you're wrong on the underlying issue. If you don't want to continue giving this impression, then stop being a jerk about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, there is a basic requirement of all editors here which even you, despite your apparent opinions otherwise, are obliged to follow - WP:CIVILITY. Should behavior similar to that displayed here continue, I think that there is a very real chance that you might be subjected to not only the reasonable sanctions Floq proposes above, but also the possibility of some sort of i-ban from those individuals whose reasonable requests to be addressed civilly you, apparently, choose to ignore. For all I know, this conduct may even potentially qualify under the existing I-P sanctions, if anyone saw fit to raise such concerns. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I wish Debresser would stick with one story: yesterday it was "an honest mistake" that he called me male, today he says: "it so happens to be that my custom is to refer to all Wikipedia editors as "he". Both these statements cannot be true. Unless we are talking about a one-day old "custom"? Huldra (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious that Debresser is on a campaign and the details of what opponents say are totally unimportant, as far as Debresser is concerned. The comments about mistake/custom are just a debating exercise to counter opponents. Being unable/unwilling to follow a simple request shows that it is likely Debresser similarly ignores simple statements about article content on the basis that it is their custom to ignore stuff they don't like. Unfortunately, no uninvolved editors have the patience to dip a toe into the P–I world. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

I accept the closing as fair. I do not accept the bad faith attitude regarding the side issue raised by Huldra. It is my custom to simply assume all editors on Wikipedia are fine with being addressed as "he", and if there is one editor who feels otherwise, then I am likely to make the mistake of calling her "he" many times. There are many editors I interact with, and I do not see reason to assume bad faith if I address one of them as "he" even after she repeatedly asked to be called "she" That is aside from the question if that was a diversion tactic or the issue sincerely bothers her. Conclusion: no need to assume bad faith, even in case of repeated mistake in gender. Debresser (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The above comment also pertains to the unfounded accusation of "snarkiness", which was far from my intention. I, rather to the contrary, tried to show that I made an effort to accommodate Huldra's sensitivity. BethNaught, that just shows how far bad faith assumptions can get you from the truth. Debresser (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A bit late with my response but anyway. I refer to all editors with the genderless singular "they" unless I am directly told that an editor is of a particular gender. At which point, out of respect I will refer to that editor accordingly. Your "custom" is basically a deliberate barb and quite frankly I find it to be a calculated one designed to incite anger. I'll re-iterate, to me it's trolling. It's a good thing I'm not an admin (nor would I make a good one) else I'd already have slapped you with the week's block that Floq didn't. Blackmane (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

The recent POV issue began here [108], about 24-48 hrs after the GA review began after 4 months of waiting, if I'm not mistaken (end of Aug beginning of Sept). Godsy is the one that tagged the article after QuilaBird brought the issue to the TP. Mudwater had stated/argued repeatedly that the title needs to be changed to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". The title was temporarily changed to "Gun show loophole controversy", but reverted after later discussion. About the time I obtained photos for the article, and there was a consensus on which image to use, the article was submitted for GA review. Zwerg Nase and Winner 42 responded to our GA request. Here is the current state [109]. There was an impartial consensus to keep the original title (edit - consensus at NPOVN including two impartial comments on the article TP after the placement at NPOVN, then Markbassett commented there today, after it was "resolved" [110]. I mistakenly asked an involved editor to close ([111] Darknipples (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)) and they have changed their mind from (essentially) agreeing with the consensus, to saying the issue is not resolved. The issue has been brought up several time in the past year, especially by editor Mudwater. Each time the result was to keep the title as is. Other involved editors include @Etamni, Faceless Enemy, Godsy, Capitalismojo, and Altenmann:. I'm hoping someone can make sense of this and I'm not sure where else to go. Thanks for the help. Darknipples (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC) I seem to have forgotten a few editors QuilaBird & Scourge of Trumpton...Darknipples (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC) (Recent edit [112]) Darknipples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Ent and NE Ent:..."HighInBC" is seems to be referring to "an image" or something like that... [113]. Not GSL's TP discussions or ARTICLE EDITS... I think the diff you supplied may be unrelated...? Darknipples Darknipples (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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

@NE Ent: January isn't the most recent according to the logs. April of this year just before we requested the GA review [114] as far as "recent" (Darknipples (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)), with EXCEPTION to the current discussion, as far as I understand THE TITLE is concerned. Darknipples (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Current discussion between Mudwater and myself on the GSL article's TP [115]. Darknipples (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC) FYI I'm referring to this (edit) particular "suggestion" from Mudwater " P.S. I'd be okay with "Gun show loophole" being a redirect to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". — Mudwater (Talk) 20:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)"(/edit) . (edit) AND previously to the one in charge of THE GA REVIEW Zwerg Nase [116](recent edit) (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC) , among other times I do not feel need mention at this point. Darknipples (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I suppose this [117] is relevant in a certain regard... Darknipples (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC). So Mudwater and (QuilaBird, the one that hasn't said a "anything new" (see TP) about the matter in almost two weeks), are reason enough to ignore WP:POLICY?. Nevermind...I digress. Mudwater and I simply don't agree. -- Darknipples (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I suppose Notifying (ping) Fuhghettaboutit and Bus stop is in order now...Darknipples (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC) To reiterate, unless GSL's title changes to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" - Mudwater and "future editors" will continue to tag according to "said WP guidelines/rules/???" Darknipples (talk) (recent edit - [118] - Darknipples (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)) I forgot to ping Checkingfax from my TeaHouse edit. Darknipples (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Now that I look at the records, I never actually asked Etamni "to close" the discussion [119], just asked if they had any experience etc... Darknipples (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current GSL TP discussion between Mudwater and myself. [120]. Darknipples (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They have consistently held onto the WP:STICK despite every consensus (impartial or not) thus far, and WP:CRUSHed by telling anyone that might listen "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" should be the title [121] since the article's creation. Darknipples (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Question/Comment I think Mudwater has a pending question. If there were a new RFC, would it be appropriate to do AT THIS TIME, as Mudwater has currently asked/suggested on the article talk page [122]? I'd like to reiterate that while I doubt the issue (NPOV title) can be (forever) resolved with another RFC over the GSL title, & despite WP:NPOV WP:POLICY WP:TITLE WP:NOCONSENSUS WP:COMMONNAME & WP:TITLECHANGES (IMO), I'm not against doing another one if that is what the WP:Administrators feel is necessary. Darknipples (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

BC/AD war all over again

Please give Ogress (talk · contribs) a warning and/or block this one for a period of time for nonstop violating WP:RETAIN and WP:ERA. His so-called "clean-up" is not just a clean-up: [123], [124], [125], [126], [127]. ༆ ((talk) 04:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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

A) Have you discussed this particular matter with Ogress before coming here? Links will be helpful to demonstrate a good faith willingness to discuss the matter first. B) These edits were over a month ago and Ogress has since declared retirement,[128] so a block at this point is out of the question. I personally would like to hear Ogress's rational for changing Anno Domini notations to Common Era, because these seem to be arbitrary on the surface. But if he has retired and he hasn't explained it elsewhere, we may never know. —Farix (t | c) 00:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yaroslav Padokh

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

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

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

User Бучач-Львів try to put his POV into many article. See this [129], especially what he try to do with Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. Kmicic (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

PS [130]. Kmicic (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can anybody stop, because he reverting even my minority technical edition [131]. Kmicic (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Propose boomerang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You do not even want to hear of anything that opponent says. You - and your supporter, fellow Pole Kmiсic. In the articles talk about the Ukrainians you falsely call their the Poles, though they were only official of Polish Kingdom. Using the fact that the English-speaking world knows little difference between the Slavic countries. Similar, Kmiсic's actions [132] demonstrate nothing except my contribution see nothing — why you don't see this? --Бучач-Львів (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible stalking?

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:BOOMERANG for this ANI?

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

User also undid my edits twice notifying closing admin of AFD that page creator had WP:CANVASSed. [133], [134]. One edit summary by user is "don't irritate me" Is this editor WP:COMPETENT? AldezD (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

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

User undid my edit a third time notifying closing admin of canvassing: [135]. AldezD (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would suggest both editors give some consideration to WP:AGF in the meantime. WaggersTALK 12:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Waggers: I'm under tremendous strain and stress because of my mother's ill health and this may have clouded my judgement and broken me. Like i said, If i was wrong about LMN and she isn't as notable as, say, Sheree Beasley or Karmein Chan, I'm willing to say goodbye to the article. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Paul Benjamin Austin: This isn't about whether or not the article should be kept, that's a matter for the AfD to decide, and so far it looks like it is going to stay. The matter you raised is an allegation of harassment. If nominating an article for deletion was harassment we wouldn't let it happen! Sorry to hear about your mother, I know how difficult it can be. Wikipedia can wait, if you need to take a break then do so; we'll still be here when you come back. WaggersTALK 07:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Repeated failure to assume good faith

For several weeks now, Twirlypen has been accusing me of having some ulterior motive in my editing practices. He appears to be basing this on nothing more than my disagreeing with him, and his inability to convince me of the merits of his position when we do disagree. Rather than assuming good faith in my edits, he has come to the conclusion that I am being deliberately disruptive because I am not getting my way, and he assumes that because of my block history, he is free to disregard any contribution that I make. This has come to a head in the past hour when I made a series of edits to 2016 Formula One season. In this edit, I clearly explained the reasoning behind my edits: that the sport's highest authority recognised certain competitors in a particular way. Within minutes, Twirlypen had reverted it with this edit, and his edit summary makes it clear that he thinks that I am up to something. His subsequent edits then restored that content on the grounds that he had checked the entry list and came to the conclusion that those original edits were correct after all. His edit summary made it pretty clear that he reverted those edits on the grounds that I had some ulterior motive, rather than based on the interests of the page, and he further assumed that I did not check the source (of which many are provided), despite my raising the issue in a related merger discussion.

This has been going on for weeks—since my last block expired. Twirlypen has clearly failed to assume good faith on multiple occasions, and he has let that assumption dictate his editing practices. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the edit I reverted contained the edit summary which amounted to "I saw it on TV", without citing the actual entry list. I only restored it once I did the fact-checking for myself. PM then reverted another, unrelated edit I made based on COMMONNAME, seemingly erroneously, as it had nothing to do with what the user saw on TV. Let it also be known that this user has also had other AGF issues with other editors. I never seem to have this problem continually with anyone else on Wikipedia. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I have since provided solid reasoning for my edits—a standard that Twirlypen has not expected or demanded of anyone else; had anyone else made them, he would have accepted them at face value. If other editors have AGF issues, it is because Twirlypen has vehemently campaigned against me simply because I disagree with him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Well those are baseless accusations if I ever heard of one and you're on the verge of violating AGF yourself with them. Campaigned against you? And that discussion you just linked proved enough that we can get along just fine from one discussion to the next - once you do explain your edits beyond "I saw it on TV". If I had a campaign against you, I'd have opposed it simply because it was your idea. Believe it or not, I do agree with you sometimes. I have revised plenty of other editors' contributions if their UNSOURCED changes have an edit summary of "I saw it on TV" or whatever else that doesn't substatiate anything. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Like I said to you, ignoring AGF is a slippery slope: you assume that I have an agenda; I assume that you're looking to discredit my edits at every opportunity. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Which my contribution history clearly proves I don't do. This pretty much makes this whole case a mulligan as you've just openly admitted to not AGF with me while simultaneously accusing me. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much every discussion we have sees you accusing me of having an ulterior motive at some point—usually around the time you feel that you have made your case, but have failed to convince me. And, as evidenced by the example I gave above, you openly reverted edits on the grounds that I made them, insinuating said ulterior motive in the process, rather than judging the merits of the edits themselves. If I have failed to assume good faith, it is only because you have repeatedly accused me of deliberately trying to disrupt articles because I am not getting my way. And given your tendency to drag up previous, unrelated discussions and present them as evidence of my supposed wrongdoing in this "ulterior motive", I would say that this is far from moot. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

My edit summaries clearly state that the reverts were made because they were based off what you claimed to see on TV, not because you made them. These accusations are baseless and are premeditated that I don't follow AGF, which in itself violates AGF. Dragging up previous, unrelated discussions... huh... sounds a heck of a lot like what you are doing right now. If this gets me a time-out, it will almost certainly earn you one as well. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of not turning this section alone into another 100kb+ thread (which tends to happen between this user and I) where nothing gets solved, I'll abstain from any non-constructive edits here with Prisonermonkeys and will only respond if addressed by someone else. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Next time (if there is a next time), I recommend not responding at all until reviewers have commented on the original posting. NE Ent 11:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing reasonable discussions at both Talk:2016_Formula_One_season#Consistency_in_wlink_titles and corresponding project page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Red_Bull.2FRed_Bull_Racing and encouraged both editors to focus on the topic and not each other Comment on content, not on the contributor. Recommend close with no action. NE Ent 11:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I"ll suggest a trout for both. Tvx1 12:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent, I hate to be a pain, but with this edit, Twirlypen has failed to assume good faith yet again. In particular, this comment:

"the discussion gets dragged out to the point of ridiculousness and the article/project grinds to a halt [...] the only breaks or periods of calmness we have around here are when they're blocked."

In the context of the discussion, this edit was intended to discredit me in the eyes of another editor who agreed with Twirlypen after Twirlypen became frustrated that I had not accepted his argument—something that he clearly denied yesterday in this very discussion:

"those are baseless accusations if I ever heard of one and you're on the verge of violating AGF yourself with them. Campaigned against you?"

And such is the kind of experience that I have with Twirlypen: if I do not accept his arguments when he feels that I should have, he immediately attacks me by accusing me of trying to be disruptive for the sake of a vendetta because I am not getting my own way, and using my block history as a means of undermining me in the eyes of other editors. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I must say that the disputes these two get themselves embroiled in every other day over the past few weeks are highly disruptive and seriously harming the reputation of the F1 WikiProject. I fear that If they cannot manage to discuss with each other in a constructive manner, the only option remaining would be a topic ban for both or at the very least an interaction ban. Tvx1 12:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Impersonation of a real world person

This anon user 2601:448:C201:6FA:11D7:51F3:810E:1715 is attempting to impersonate as "Matt Overmyer" and going as far as to give out a phone number to the restaurant from the saved edit. I have a feeling that he's impersonating as another person with no viable proof whatsoever. Can you help deal with the issue? If he has no proof, then he's clearly impersonating as someone else. 70.45.58.178 (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@70.45.58.178: You must notify anyone reported that there's a report regarding them either via a mention or on their talk page with the ANI notice template.

2601:448:c201:6fa:11d7:51f3:810e:1715. Amaury (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin please rev-del the edit summary of this edit per WP:PROMO? BMK (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Deforestation in India

Deforestation in India was a redirect to Forestry in India and as per request made at WikiProject India, Requested articles on 20th August, 2015 I started the fresh article but unfortunately I forget to nominated the existing redirect under CSD G6 (or alternatives) and saved the article.

Recently, I noticed that the article was not listed under my contributed articles and I nominated it under CSD G6 after moving the article to Draft:Deforestation in India so that it can be moved back to the mainspace article once the existing one get deleted. The CSD was reviewed by Spinningspark and he declined it as per Declining speedy. Sorry, you don't get to delete articles just so you can get your name as author. Besides which the draft page you intend to move here has other, irrelevant drafts embedded in its history.

His decline reason was unclear including the views on the draft about its embedded history which has various alternative option to remove those "embedded history". For the same I left a message on his talk page but he have not yet answered even after his recent contributions shows that he is/was online.

We all on Wikipedia spend a lot of time in thinking the topic, deciding the contents, writing it and finding the reliable sources. But, such responses and that's from experienced editors is really discouraging. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sanskari: Just an idea, and I don't want to poke in my nose unnecessarily, but why don't you move the article to a temporary title like India deforestation and then request a histmerge with the new redirect, Deforestation in India? It looks like the current article "Deforestation in India" was only a redirect before you expanded it.

(Also, now you have two articles: the draft and the mainspace article. You may want to ask for a histmerge for these, too.) Epic Genius (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Spinningspark, Sanskari, and Epicgenius: At 04:05, 29 September 2015 Sanskari tagged Draft:Deforestation in India to be speedy-deleted.

  At 04:10, 29 September 2015‎ Sanskari using {{histmerge}} asked for Deforestation in India to be history-merged to India deforestation.

  At 05:35, 29 September 2015‎, Anthony Appleyard obeyed this, but history-merged India deforestation to Deforestation in India, as "Deforestation in India" seemed to be a better title.

  At 08:40, 29 September 2015 CambridgeBayWeather deleted page Draft:Deforestation in India. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• It seems that Draft:Deforestation in India (edit 14:45, 20 August 2015 (apparent cut-and-paste point) and all edits before) should be history-merged to Deforestation in India. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • That seems like a good idea. Thanks, Anthony. Epic Genius (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Obstinate user repeatedly edit warring his own Original Research dates for mythical antediluvian kings into Sumerian King List

I believe the actions of this user User:SamEV over 2 months have become problematic enough to note here, since he is basically thumbing his nose at the Original Research and Verifiability policies, and repeatedly inserting his own concocted dates, found in no available source, for the mythological kings. In fact there is no known reliable source asserting these ten kings from Alulim to Ziusudra were historical at all, let alone estimating a date when they lived. If such a source were provided, it would put a completely different complexion on the matter. However, User SamEV is instead pointing to some kind of imaginary "consensus" or "agreement" he claims the article wikipedian authors came to on the discussion page, as justification for edit warring his OR dating scheme. There are two serious problems with this for your attention, one, such "consensus discussion" to assign these arbitrary dates on the discussion page seems to be invisible, and second, even if there were such a consensus discussion, such a consensus could not possibly trump the OR policy and allow new dating theories of individual editors to be promulgated by wikipedia, which to date has been his only response, despite repeated warnings not to edit war his original research. Thank you, Philip Mexico (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I refer anyone interested to Talk:Sumerian King List for my rationale for the edits in question.
I also request a sanction against user Philip Mexico for his repeated distortions of my position and uncivil attacks against me, not to mention his edit warring to revert what was essentially a stable version of the page that was indeed based on a compromise. I note that even after opening this thread he reverted immediately. SamEV (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I have commented on the article talk page regarding this matter. The additions of information without RS to substantiate it is unacceptable, particularly when it can be reasonably challenged. On that basis, I suggest that SamEV either find the requisite sourcing, or cease his actions. I am less than sure that further administrative action is necessary at this time, although, if that editor reported continues to edit in a problematic way here, that might easily change. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute about a list that is partly mythological. If the presence of mythological kings is attested by scholars on the mythology, they can be included. I suggest moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard as the next step in resolving a content dispute about what is partly fact and partly mythology. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

John Carter, I do not have to prove the existence of the antediluvians, as I do not claim that they existed. Maybe they did or didn't, but I'm agnostic on the question. What I did, to which user Philip Mexico objects, is state what scholars do: that the antediluvian era would have a terminus in c. 2900 BCE. That's already reliably sourced in the article. Because I am agnostic on the existence of the alleged antediluvian kings, I even add the word "purported" to the dates. A parallel would be to state that Abraham is not attested outside the Bible, but that the latter's internal chronology gives him a purported birthdate in c. 2200 BCE. What's wrong with that? SamEV (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC), 22:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Point of order: "purported", being in the passive voice, avoids the question of who has done the purporting so is somewhat of a "weasel word"... it should be no problem to state that specific antediluvian kings were "purported" to have reigned at a certain time, or that Abraham's "purported" birthdate was around 2200 BC, provided you could find someone actually purporting that (not a wikipedian or a blog etc). I haven't seen any sources making those claims in either case, so I'm not sure how Abraham's birthdate is a useful analogy. Philip Mexico (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Re-recreation of deleted material/probable sock (Cannes/Indian cinema)

From April this year I raised a request for deletion of a page that had been deleted several times before, and recreated by a blocked user. I've just stumbled upon this article, which is a duplication of the deleted page. Created by User:Luxpapa within a couple of weeks of them registering an account (July). I suspect this is a sock account too. Appreicate if this page can be deleted too. I'm happy to log a sock investigation, if needed at WP:SPI. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to JzG for sorting. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Tubers: Conflict of Interest

Hi - I need a second opinion on this article please. I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia and one of the editors seems to think I am somewhat conflicted. I find this pretty discouraging as I was planning to update a few more pages as I felt the information held on there was somewhat limited, given the amount of information available online

The page I edited can be found here What is particularly disturbing is that I referenced pages such as as Kareena Kapoor; KikI Omeili; Chiwetel Ejiofor and I am extremely confused as to why they do not carry the same badges. Despite re-editing my updates, these badges have been re added to the page and finally been advised by the editor in question that it is not my place to edit the article or correct it. I thought there were no limits to how many times one could edit a page on Wikipedia and also I was of the opinion that we were all trying to get wikipedia up to a decent standard. Is someone able to adequately give a second opinion on this page and also advise on how to ensure I do not get into this mess anymore. I also read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and I am mortified that someone will even accuse me of this.

Thanks --- added by Adeadeyemi21 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Adeadeyemi21, you are making a high number of edits in this article over today and Jamie Tubers comment was primarily criticizing you for removing tags regarding notability and conflict of interest. You have escalated this situation dramatically in a short period of time.

Every editor receives talk page notices and disputes ("messes") are common on Wikipedia. There is no reason to be mortified. You need to slow down, consider the criticism offered by other editors (especially regarding using reliable sources and promotional language) and keep it in mind while making future edits. The goal of Wikipedia is to have strong, well-referenced articles and you should assume that other editors are working toward the same goal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Adeadeyemi21: I never said it wasn't in your place to edit the article. Of course everyone is welcomed to make useful contributions to Wikipedia. I said it was not in your place to remove the maintenance tags, but other editors. I am pretty busy, and I advised you to make use of the beginners' links that have been provided at top of your talkpage; atleast visit the teahouse. Don't catch feelings or be discouraged, instead try to get accustomed to Wikipedia and its guidelines by following my advice. Regards.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

can someone please delete my account

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

---

I made mistake in spelling my name. please delete my account. My username is now someone else's name that I don't want it to be. Thanks Jeffreyscottgrimm (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Go to WP:CHU and request a name change. BMK (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART is also another avenue. Blackmane (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

will I get in any legal trouble if I used someone else's name here? Jeffreyscottgrimm (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jeffreyscottgrimm: As long you didn't do it with any malicious intents, which it looks like you didn't, then I think you're fine. Even if you did, though, the odds of something happening are extremely low. Amaury (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't give out legal advice. BMK (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: It wasn't advice, it was an opinion. Amaury (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are like anuses, everyone has one, but if you offer an opinion about a legal matter, it is indistinguishable from advice to someone who doesn't know who you are and what your qualifications are. That's why it's not a good idea to offer opinions or advice about legal (or med ical)matters on Wikipedia, all it can do it get you (and potentially the WMF) into trouble. BMK (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We are not lawyers and we cannot know what the consequences may be in your jurisdiction of registering with someone else's name. But as mentioned, simply follow the instructions at WP:CHU and your username will be changed. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, accounts cannot be deleted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Woland2k

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

---

There is an unblock request at User talk:Woland2k. The administrator Karl Dickman suggests unblocking, and I agree. Karl Dickman has consulted the blocking administrator, JzG, who says "Ask at WP:ANI, I don't object if others agree but I'd want other admins' input." Well, Karl and I make two other admins who agree that an unblock should be considered, but in line with JzG's request, I am posting it here. Obviously, any other opinions will be welcome. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I invited review because the user's only contributions to date are promotional, and I think he will need to be monitored. I myself would not unblock but if people are prepared to "trust but verify" and think that the advertising will not recur then be my guest. I have no reason to suppose that JamesBWatson and Karl Dickman are wrong, or to distrust their judgement. This just strikes me as one that needs a bit of discussion and if the above think the discussion to date is sufficient then I have no special reason to disagree. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

From the editor's undertaking on their Talk to contribute positively I'd support unblocking. A reblock won't cost anything if we've misjudged the situation.  Philg88 ^♦talk 14:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• JamesBWatson, JzG, Philg88, Karl Dickman I went ahead and unblocked. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Derevation

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

---

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

User Derevation has been tagged as a suspected sock of TekkenJinKazama for a while now, and is continuing the same trait of activities, mostly the uploading of non-free files (see here and here for examples). Is there a significant reason why this user has not been blocked for being a sock of a banned editor? samtar ^(msg) 15:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. Editors should not add such a tag without taking the matter further, typically to WP:SPI, or at a minimum to an administrator requesting assistance. The tag's been there too long. Why the user didn't remove it is beyond me, expect perhaps they felt they were not permitted to do so, which is not true.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed Bbb23, that was a significant influence in why I've asked here. Perhaps Ravensfire may wish to chip in? samtar ^(msg) 15:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Samtar, the main reason is probably because I didn't report him to SPI. TJK created a rather large number of socks, discarding each of them as they were spotted and on to the next. You can go through their talk page and see the discussions between Derevation and I where they've admitted they are TJK (Jin, as I often call them). The tag was so they'd know that others knew who they were and they needed to work within Wikipedia expectations to remain an editor.

As Derevation, he seemed to reform, generally following policy. When I would notice behavior that went too far, I'd comment on his talk page about it, trying to nudge him towards a better goal. I think that when he's interested in work with others, he's a net positive for the project. TJK's biggest issue is when he disagrees with something, they ignore it, do their own thing and will edit-war and sock to get their way. At times, he's left some exceedingly unpleasant comments/insults for me.

Up to others what happens now - they are the most recent account that TJK uses. As I said, when on good behavior they are a net positive that generally uses sources in an area where far too many editors don't bother (Indian films). I remain hopeful that with advice and guidance they can become and even more productive editor. Ravensfire (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure he can - the purpose of creating this was not to get him blocked - only to bring this to the attention of the administrators, as I believe he has been off their radar for a while (which I can only suggest means he's been behaving :) ). samtar ^(msg) 15:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say after the little interest this has generated, and the statement by Ravensfire, that the user is reformed. I am personally happy to have this closed. samtar ^(msg) 14:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

merge of page "Secular movement" into "irreligion in america"

consensus on talk page appears to be pro-merge, I also support merging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 15:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mahfuzur rahman shourov: This is the wrong venue. If you support the merge that is being discussed at Talk:Secular movement, then make your comment there. This isn't a matter admins need to handle. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

posted here because from what I noticed, only admins can delete pages after merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 15:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

An FYI for Mahfuzur rahman shourov. Pages are generally not deleted after merging. The original title remains as a redirect to the article merged to. Also at any talk page or forum like this, you need to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Corus Entertainment

"User:Spshu, you have repeatedly been edit warring against the IP edits, which are clearly in line with my edits – and more importantly, the actual sourcing, since your own sources do not support almost any of your changes (with the singular exception of the Nelvana change, which does not make sense for this template anyways). You are now fighting against two levels of consensus. Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)"

What he said. But he won't stop. Ban him. MarcoPolo250 (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)MarcoPolo250

One MarcoPolo, you have not even joined the discussion. Two, you indicate that you don't care one whit about sources with this edit summary: "...'Sources' be damned.)" Mdrnpndr was block indefinitely for lying that his source were automatically valid no matter what they are. Consensus is developed on the talk page, not like your quote of Mdrnpndr does above by inflating IP edits to the level of discussion consensus. So basic, you do not want me to use reliable sources. Spshu (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

David Miscavige

The above article is I believe under discretionary sanctions. I would welcome any uninvolved admin reviewing the recent flurry of edits from more than one IPs to it. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

At least one of the IPs has been blocked already, but I've gone ahead and semi'd the page as well; something seems to have drawn attention to the article this week, and I'd rather not leave a BLP unprotected in the face of that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Eyes needed for BLPN thread

Admins please see Please see WP:BLPN threads: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Boxingmojo_at_Ahmed_Mohamed_clock_incident, and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Weasel_Zippers_source_and_others.2C_at_page_with_controversial_claims_about_14-year-old-boy. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. TheRedPenOfDoom, Aquillion and MarkBernstein have edited a number of articles together making similar arguments, supporting/opposing the same edits, etc. The fundamental issue here appears to be WP:TAGTEAM not WP:BLP. 168.1.99.198 (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:EVADE much? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. It's not unusual to find people with similar outlooks and interests editing the same articles on high-profile incidents; as far as I know, I've never communicated with any of those people off-wiki, and even on-wiki my contact with them has mostly been limited to being on the same talk pages. The fact that there are WP:BLP issues on this particular article, meanwhile, seems pretty clear-cut to me -- a lot of the controversial stuff in the article deals with fairly WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories about a living subject who's currently in the news, many of which are sourced to blogs, tabloids, and similar low-quality sources, or which involve giving heavy weight to individual editorials. I mean, we can argue about individual sources, claims, theories, and so on, and which ones it's WP:DUE to cover in the article, but I think it's silly to suggest that there's no BLP issues at all. --Aquillion (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It's confusing because there are requests for comment on this situation on the article talk page, on AN, on ANI, BLPN and FTN. Could this debate over sources and possible sanctions be centralized in one forum? It makes it difficult to follow the threads of discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• The article is only 46k--surely we can do better than that. At least the "Reactions" section is twice as long as the section describing the events. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked them earlier. Before I saw this. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

i.p. editor needs to be blocked

I.P. editor is adding nonsense / vandalizing in Connecticut town articles, as here. I reverted some, but cannot stop the editor and need to run, can't revert the rest. --doncram 00:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted what I've seen and blocked the IP. Thanks for the report. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Need Talk:Sakha language to be moved to Talk:Yakut language per consensus on RM

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

---

While moving Sakha language to Yakut language was easily accomplished per the consensus on Talk:Sakha language, moving the Talk page is impossible without the help of an administrator due to an ANCIENT edit. Please help. --Taivo (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Are you familiar with {{db-move}}? In the future, you can put this tag on the page that needs to be deleted; just please specify the page that needs to be moved to the existing page's title. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite welcome. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Suspicion of multiple IPs operating on behalf of blocked IP

• 86.5.176.46 (talk · contribs)
• 82.25.11.240 (talk · contribs)

I admit to not knowing whether an SPI has already run regarding this user, nor if they're even opened for disruptive IPs. I came across the 82 IP some weeks ago, and see that they've continued unabated with hundreds of unsourced edits since being warned in August. That's often a tell for a user who's been through this before, and chooses to sidestep blocks and just keep going. Looking at the edit patterns, I think this is the same user who was blocked for a year, and suspect they've used several or many other IPs in these ranges. More eyes would be appreciated. Thanks, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't done anything why did I get a message saying I have — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.11.240 (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Merging this question into the related thread. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ponyo, you're being pinged here. (By me.) Drmies (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, Drmies. My handiwork--shrewd on finding these users, not always sharp on noticeboard procedures. Cheers from 99, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• • No, you're fine--I just saw that Ponyo had blocked and smelled previous history. Thanks again for helping to keep the place clean; Jimbo should put you on payroll. Or pay you for a portrait--one not painted with your John Hancock, of course.

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

The 86.5 IP has popped up repeatedly at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harry (singer)/Archive.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

'Rowspan' vandal

• 2601:82:100:5ABF:20D:93FF:FE8B:B253 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'm reporting the above IP for disruptive editing. After repeated warnings (see: Talk page), and repeated reversions by myself and others, this IP has continued to add 'rowspan' elements to WP:FILMOGRAPHY tables at various BLP's. (There's a whole background on this that no one at ANI probably wants to hear the details about – suffice it to say that use of 'rowspan' in Filmography tables is controversial...)

Now, why am I bringing this to ANI, rather than WP:AIV? Because I also suspect that this IP is the same as IP 73.29.184.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that recently got blocked by Spencer for exactly the same offense. And same MO – multiple warnings about 'rowspan' use, with no communication from IP about it. (So why am I here rather than WP:SPI – because I know SPI can't do much about IP's...)

Anyway, so ANI is where I brought this – I'm requesting a block of this (new) IP for disruptive editing. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously this kind of edit isn't a blockable situation if it doesn't go against consensus; it's not blatant vandalism or otherwise fundamentally problematic. Looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, I get the impression that there's an exception for first-column years, i.e. this edit is fine, and I don't see edits that add rowspan elsewhere in the tables. Can you show me edits by this address that do involve adding it elsewhere, or otherwise demonstrate some sort of policy violation or demonstrate intentional going against consensus? I don't think any sanctions are appropriate unless you can show some of those. Nyttend (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, there this one: diff – it's subtle, and you have to go down a ways, but they 'rowspanned' "Television movie" in the fourth column. There are some other ones like that in the most recent batch of edits (e.g. this diff – same thing: 'rowspaning' "Television movie"; and they did the very same thing in the Lauren Holly diff you provided above)... Anyway, you're right, Nyttend that there's probably sort of a "truce" on 'rowspanning' the 'Year' column (provided it's the first column in the 'Filmography' table). But my wider concern in this instance is that, 1) the IP has continued to use 'rowspan' in the 'Year' column and elsewhere after being both warned and reverted doing that, and 2) that it looks to me to be very likely Block evasion by IP 73.29.184.78 after their very long block for the very same infractions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs; I'll block momentarily. Unless there are other, clearer, problems, I'm just not willing to block for what's at best ambiguous. And thanks for the pointer on the diff I linked; I completely missed the Television movie part. Nyttend (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Bates College

• Bates College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm requesting help here for several reasons. Perhaps the most obvious is that a user who appears to have conflict of interest persists in adding promotional content and removing maintenance templates. The second is that I've reverted some of their edits and attempted to copy edit using two IPs--that's not an attempt to be sly, but a frustrating by-product of my internet connection. I don't want to be targeted for doing this to avoid an edit warring charge. The overarching concern is with general promotional tone, and a history section that was largely copied from the college's website and publications; most of that section has to go, though parsing just what remains will take some patience. My estimate is that 75% is a copyvio. For all these reasons, any and all help will be appreciated. Thanks, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• I really do not approve of "any and all", but that's just me I suppose. I see that ElKevbo is on the case too. Tell me, please, what the URL is that you think content was copied from. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Never mind, I saw it in the history. Last question, and I hope you can answer it before I do, what is the first edit in the history that contains copied/copyvioed material? Drmies (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  Okay, so not 'any and all.' But you're awfully picky. By my reckoning the first copyvio sentence is "Cheney assembled a six-person faculty...." and much, though not all, that follows is downhill from there, and was taken from [136], which dates from 2002-2003. Sorry again for the jumping IP. And I won't turn down payment from Jimbo. Believe it or not, simultaneous with playing here I've finished a gripping essay on 20th century art for publication. Well, at least my immediate loved ones will find it gripping. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  • • Apart from the blatant copyvio identified by the OP/IP, I found copy-pasting from three other web-pages of the school. The whole article needs to be checked; I've blanked it and listed it at WP:CP for processing. 73.159.24.89, for another time: if you find hard evidence of copyright violation as you did here, please either remove the copyvio material or blank it and list the article. Good catch here! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers. I didn't comprehend the full extent of the copyvio. Much appreciated, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• If either (or any) of you can give me a diff for the first edit where this happens I can take some action. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

vandalism with bias

found a user named BengaliHindu whose contribs appear as vandalism which is biased towards hinduist propaganda (in the OP POV). found out while nominating "banglastan" and "mughalistan" for csd-or-cleanup (check corresponding page history for details). requesting admin oversight, fluency in bengali will better help understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 03:56, 29 September 2015

• You must notify BengaliHindu about the ANI discussion - I've done this for you, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • using mobile. unable to type-navigate much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 04:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Accusing an editor propaganda-biased vandalism is going to require excellent evidence. I see none of that in BengaliHindu's contributions. If this is some subtle thing related to local controversies, you're going to have to explain it. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Someguy1221: check the contrib log, specifically the ones on banglastan, mugholistan and malaun, also check the "citations" which the person added. bengali language fluency required to understand the flavor of the contribs as in whether they are vandalism or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs)

I did! And I see nothing strange, though as I said, that may be because I'm not familiar with this area. Could you point to specific portions of these articles that are problematic, specific passages that you could consider vandalism? Can you point out specific sources that should not be used and explain why? If you'd rather wait for an administrator fluent in Bengali, that's fine, but you may be waiting a long time. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• • mugholistan was originally a redirect to mughalistan until this guy turned it into something akin to hinduist propaganda, which, after I tagged and notified on the talk page, was reverted. he did the same kind of propaganda vandalism on the now deleted page "banglastan" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 04:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive administrator abusing editing power and disregarding community guidelines.

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

---

• Acroterion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Permanently deleted from the revision history a suggestion to rewrite an article made on the article's talk page at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, citing his undid revision edit summary as a nonsensical conspiracy theorist accusation despite fully sourced information provided from the reputable Associated Press news media outlet. Later discussion with Acroterion on his user talk page regarding the deletion of the information lead to him removing the discussion from his user talk page. Negligently deleting and removing content without accurate reasoning. 24.205.110.111 (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Incorrect labeling of articles

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

---

User NewMutants has labeled articles of deceased individuals as biographies of living people.

This is valid for recently deceased people. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP defines "recently deceased" as six months, one year, two years at the outside. Those articles that I've checked are for people who died in 2010, which would put them outside the BLP requirements. That said, unsourced articles can (and usually should) still be nomiated for deletion via other processes; e.g. WP:AFD. @Zee money:, just because the articles you are creating do not fall under the BLP policy does not mean that you are exempt from adding sources; indeed, the mass addition of unsourced stubs is actually disruptive and should be curtailed. Please make the effort to add sources to your articles, or do not create them in the first place - it is not the task of other editors to shore up your stub creations with appropriate sourcing. In addition, you are required to notify any user that you bring to ANI, per the large red message at the top of this page and the large alert at the top of the edit window when you edit here. I see no evidence that you have done so. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I made mistakes while prodding. At that moment those articles were unsourced. I asked Zee money to add references and change my BLP prod.BLP is about Living People not every Biography. I think this ANI is about those Chinese politicians? No issue from me.NewMutants (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

New Mutants is a sock and is now blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Similar articles created by different users

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thakur_Abha_Singh_Makwana#Thakur_Abha_Singh_Makwana

I have listed some articles which have similar content but created by different users today. And the list is increasing after every hour. The name of the users are different, but I am sure they have some connection.--NewMutants (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong venue, please consult WP:COIN for that. --TL22 (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPI might be better - I've just checked and blocked the creators of those articles; see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of KingMandhata74. No SPI filed as yet, but I don't think there are any more socks out there so there's probably no need for one at this time. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Although it's true that something strange is going on there (all of those short-even-for-stub-standards articles are probably hoaxes), the OP has since been indeffed as a sock. Should this thread be closed then? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Shieldgreen

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

---

Another blocked user spamming on their user talk page. Worth bumping up the block a bit?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Spam removed, TPA revoked. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

MisterMorton continues removing infobox parameters after coming off block

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

---

MisterMorton (talk · contribs) recently came off a 72 hour block for a long-standing pattern of removing legitimate infobox parameters, especially those related to education. In thousands of edits he never leaves an edit summary, or attempts to discuss on article or user talk pages, or responds to warnings. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive900#User MisterMorton for the previous report. He recently started the same behavior again: [137], [138]. Thanks for any help. Sundayclose (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely and given the standard "If you start communicating with others and agree to discuss with others when they object to your edits, you can be unblocked" type message. --Jayron32 15:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Rms125a@hotmail.com

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

---

I made a comment about language within an article (Ray Combs) on the talk page there and this guy decided to make it personal. Would Wikipedia like to inform him of the rules, or can I go off on him personally? I'm happy either way. UnsanctionedStyle (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: Username is actually User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (just incase anyone else jumps on this). samtar ^(msg) 16:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• UnsanctionedStyle, I don't think Rms125a@hotmail.com meant "Your own extremely modest economic pricepoints are impressive -- do you live in a monastery?" in an overly offensive manner. Yes, it was personal, and not needed, but I think mentioning how this made you feel to him directly would straighten things out. samtar ^(msg) 16:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Assuming you mean This comment, I find it in poor taste, and mildly incivil, but not of the level that merits involvement of an admin. In other words, yes it is wrong, and no we don't need to block him for it. --Jayron32 16:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• My sincerest apologies for rocking the apple cart... Thanks. UnsanctionedStyle (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• No need for you to apologize. He should not have said what he said. --Jayron32 16:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Peace, harmony, and happiness come when editors treat each other slightly better than they wish they were treated. I would characterize this as a personal comment, but only a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10. Rather than "going off on him personally", making a comment that might rate a 5 on the scale (to which he might respond with a 7, and you a 9...), which causes instability and disharmony for both of you and for people that have to step in later, just let it slide. That would be my advice. If it helps, I agree with you on the underlying issue; "paltry" and "meager" don't seem encyclopedic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • We can preempt these escalating comments by just blocking them both, immediately. And then we block almost every other editor too, and by that time my check from the WMF ($5 per civility block) won't be so paltry anymore. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If anyone feels like "going off on him [me] personally", then go for it. I can take it. I stand by my comments about Carson and his paltry $25,000 to a widow with six children whose home was foreclosed. Quis separabit? 00:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• • • I've just been civil to an IP editor. Where's my money WMF? Cough up a buck, you cheap bastards! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

User:87.6.191.219 disruptive editing (Italian names)

• 87.6.191.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.1.112.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.1.25.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User 87.6.191.219 (dynamic IP, previously he was 87.1.112.159 and 87.1.25.216) is keeping vandalizing pages with Italian names: he is an Italian (he wrote "torna a fare i compiti..." which means "return to do your homework..." in Italian) and he changes the correct IPA pronounciation of Italian names making it uncorrect.
A few examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cesare_Prandelli&diff=prev&oldid=683030468 (the symbol "ː" was added according to Help:IPA for Italian); https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gigliola_Cinquetti&diff=prev&oldid=683321479 (the symbol "ˑ" is wrong, and yet he says to the Registered User who corrected it "return to do your homework..."); https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Giosu%C3%A8_Carducci&diff=prev&oldid=683321843 (here he reverted an edit I had done without changing any IPA or Italian name, but just because "I" did that edit, the same "I" who had made another edit he did not like about Cesare Beccaria).
His IP is from Southern Italy, and he is behaving exactly like a virtual "Boss" who says: "These pages are MY STUFF ("Cosa Nostra") and nobody can touch them!"; this is going on since months, because each time someone edits one of "his" pages, pages he edited for example in MAY, he reverts the edit just after a few hours, according to his own and uncorrect way to pronunce Italian.
I am asking you Administrators to make him stop, blocking his IP (or IP range) or sending him a message to his current IP, even if I do not think that he would listen to anyone and eventually he will have to be blocked.
Now I am going to rollback all of his disruptive edits once again, please act as soon as possible, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.6.76 (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

the real vandal is the guy above (who ignore, among other things, what is syntactic gemination): I had to correct all his crape. He's also a racist, as you can see, and changes IP at every edit because of his bad faith! Please contact an user acquainted with italian language so that he will judge the whole thing. --87.6.191.219 (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Everyone, just watch these 2 last edits of mine (the vandal's rollbacking) and tell me that I am the one who is doing wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Agostino_Masucci&type=revision&diff=683334327&oldid=683328655 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Claudio&type=revision&diff=683334338&oldid=683326733
I did not revert correct (rare) edits like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Matteo_Salvini&diff=prev&oldid=683322523
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.41.17 (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

He changed IP address again! However, in standard italian it's [matˈtɛo] and not [maˈteo] (a dialectal and incorrect form). As for "Agostino", it's [aɡoˈstiːno] in isolation but [aɡoˈstiˑno] in a compound. --87.6.191.219 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I notified User:87.6.191.219 that they were mentioned here. If you want to correct the situation, it would be a good idea for you to create an account. One IP-hopper ( User:151.20.6.76 ) doing mass rollbacks of another IP-hopper is unlikely to win sympathy for either side. You could post at some relevant WikiProject to get advice on which pronunciation is more likely to be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The above IP's are presenting personal opinions, not sources. Generally speaking, what reliable sources are used to validate the IPA's used in Wikipedia articles? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources are this and this. Also you are free to contact italian users who used to edit subjets like that. --87.6.191.219 (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Mr. 87.6.191.219
1st: I did not contest the edit about Matteo Salvini, I said it was correct (however, speaks about dialect the one who speaks it as mother language).
2nd: Agostino a compound? Of what? Ago and Stino? And even if it was, THIS ˌ is the seconday accent used for the first element of a compound, NOT THIS ˑ which has nothing to do with stress.
Return to do your homework, AKA "study". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.48.15 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

What sources can you link to which define the correct IPA pronunciation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope! Compound is clearly Agostino+Masucci! But this is a minor concern, while the most important thing is, again syntactic gemination and also open and closed vowels. Check a dictionary. --87.6.191.219 (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "Nope! Compound is clearly Agostino+Masucci!" FACEPALM
Baseball_Bugs: Are we talking about symbols such as ː ˈ ˑ ˌ ect? See: Help:IPA for Italian will you!
Have to go. See us tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.62.87 (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

We are especially talking about open and closed vowels and syntactic gemination, as I said. And relax. --87.6.191.219 (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about sourcing for IPA stuff. "See a dictionary" is not a source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Repeat: Help:IPA for Italian >>> Suprasegmentals (ˈ ˌ ː and NO ˑ) I hope it is a source for you.
Well, I suppose we can close here. I was interested in writing correct information, so all wrong edits made by "Don 87" just have to stay reverted and I shall come back here only if he continues restoring them (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Claudio&diff=prev&oldid=683357188), while if I have done any uncorrect edit I will not insist in making them, obviously. We must understand that IP is from one of the most backward regions in Italy, it is not his fault, both for his lack of knowledge and for his bossy behaviour, he was grown up like that amid people grown up like that, we can just hope he has learnt something from this, both new notions and a little humbleness. I suggest someone of you keeps an eye on him for a while, you never know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.121.170 (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Reign it in a little, mate. Doing the patronizing routine in this kind of venue is rarely a good move even if the issue is much more clear-cut. Humbleness, eh?-- Elmidae (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Mmm... I have also tried with Google Translate, but... That was not useful at all, either... :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.81.1 (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Cyber Bullying

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

---

Following up on [Ticket#2015082610011754] to report cyber bullying, cyber stalking, revert(s) by random reasons and removal of contents on Hindi page by following users: Kwamikagami https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Kwamikagami&page=Hindi&max=500&server=enwiki JorisvS https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=JorisvS&page=Hindi&server=enwiki&max=

In there own words from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hindi: "It is possible that the area of the map and the cited population do not match. But we can only go by our sources." "It's impossible to map Hindi because it's not a language. It's Hindustani spoken by Hindus, and India has a mixed Hindu/Muslim population. It's also a standard register of Hindustani designed for Hindus, but that can't be mapped because it's no-one's native language." "What makes something Hindi and not Urdu? I don't know" "Hindi language", what does that mean for you precisely? Hindi Belt Hindi, Hindi languages, Modern Standard Hindi, or Khariboli Hindustani under the name Hindi?" Why these volunteers are allowed to edit Hindi pages? They have repeatedly misused their super user rights and done more destructive edits than any constructive edits.

Why can not be this article be like http://www.britannica.com/topic/Hindi-language or Spanish language or Bengali language ? Not unless above 2 users are active in forcing their POV on each edits. PradeepBoston (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No "super user" rights have been misused and disagreeing with you is not cyberbullying. The accusation of cyberstalking probably deserves a WP:BOOMERANG. This is a content dispute and there are no "shortcuts" to getting your preferred version accepted. Also, you have not notified the users named above of this discussion as you are required to do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Do people not realize that every time they label "edits and opinions contrary to mine" as cyberbullying they actually trivialize the pain and angst experienced by those who have actually been cyber-bullied? When the word is thrown around so non-nonchalantly I automatically discount everything you have to say as hyperbole. It's the new Godwin's law.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Excuse me, Black Kite, to update this after your closure. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pradeep276.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

User:95.114.225.100

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

---

This IP user has been trying to unsourced material to the list of fallacies page, which was removed by User: Richard-of-Earth. The IP user then re-added the information, which I again removed. I posted a few warnings to the talk page of this IP user regarding adding unsourced material, and disruptive editing [139]. The IP user then deleted the templates I added to his/her talk page a couple of times, stating it was spam. [140]. They then proceeded to add a section to my talk page [141] accusing me of adding spam to their talk page. Can I please get some assistance with this unruly editor? Thanks. New User Person (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've converted your refs into inline ELs, which are easier to deal with on a discussion page. BMK (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Not to be contrarian or anything, but:

• Users are allowed to blank warnings on their talk pages. You shouldn't be edit warring and templating them about it.
• You reverted the IP for adding unsourced material, but... it was sourced. It was unsourced when Richard-of-Earth reverted, but the IP editor added a source before you reverted. And said so in their edit summary. I've no opinion on the quality or content of the source.

So maybe back up, apologize to them, and (if you disagree with the material, rather than just being mistaken about it being unsourced) discuss on the article talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh crap. You are totally right, and I just realized it. Sorry about posting this ANI. That was my fault. New User Person (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Zurich00swiss and WP:NOTWEBHOST

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

Zurich00swiss is an enthusiastic and apparently very young editor. He is now using his user page to host a "Aircraft of the week world competition" where " at the end of each month all the users that want to partecipate[sic] will choose their own favourite airplane and will write it on his talk". He has publicised this widely (e.g. [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152]) and now their talk page is stuff related to this too. In the section Aircraft of the week they were advised to remove it all as it was in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST which they briefly did ([153]), but evidently had a change of mind about an hour later ([154]).

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

I remember this somewhat tortured discussion back when. For the moment, all I've done is delete the userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, if he's not going to take the hint, you eventually have no choice but to use the stick... HalfShadow 01:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:OUT? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not think I'm on Wikipedia just to the AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK ... just wanted to know if I could keep eliminating voting and putting Only I every week a AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK.
because you have eliminated my user page?
The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

What did you say? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

<step aside please, TEFL emergency response team coming through>

"I don't think I'm on Wikipedia just to do AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK... I just want to know if I could keep my userpage if I eliminated voting and only put up one AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK.

Is this why you have deleted my userpage?"

(Native speakers of English - especially native speakers of English - should learn another language.) --Shirt58 (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I echo RichardOSmith's comment above, "This pains me to report as I was partially responsible for this user's return after an indefinite block". In July I unblocked Zurich00swiss to give him a second chance, on the condition that he avoid all the problems that led to the block. Since then I have from time to time looked back at his editing to see how it is going. I have frequently felt uncomfortable about his editing, but until now I had not seen any clear violation of any guidelines or policies, and certainly nothing that has led me to consider reblocking, but enough to make me wonder if that would come sooner or later. For example, I have seen a sufficient number of examples of reverting other editors' edits without obvious reason to give a general impression that there may be a touch of ownership, though I have not seen enough of that on any one article to constitute edit-warring. Some talk page posts also look rather as though there may be some use of Wikipedia as a sort of social network site, and a few warnings to IP editors look questionable.

Against that background of continually seeing editing which I feel mildly unhappy about, I now see the more serious incident discussed here. The use of a user page as what effectively amounts to a blog was probably just a matter of an editor not realising what is and what isn't acceptable on a user page, and it should have been possible for it to be dealt with by a friendly message explaining that it wasn't acceptable, followed by Zurich00swiss abandoning the event. However, that was not to be so. After several editors had politely and patiently explained to him that such use of a user page was unacceptable, he persisted. However, what disturbs me most is his announcing that he was removing the unacceptable content, and then after a while quietly restoring it. What was that about? If he had had second thoughts about accepting the other editors' views on what the user page guidelines allow, then surely the natural and honest thing to do, on restoring content after having told them he was removing it, would have been to have told them he had changed his mind. Could it be that the removal and then restoration of the content was a deliberate attempt to mislead? I hope not, and I would like to be able to extend assumption of good faith, but with an editor who is known to have in the past made deliberate attempts to mislead other editors, one has to have one's doubts. If it wasn't deliberate deception, then it was extremely thoughtless; in either case it was stupid, as it was bound to be noticed. What is more, this restoration of the removed content came after he had been warned "intentionally violating this policy even after it has been pointed out to you may just result in a permanent block for you".

For the moment, the offending user page has been deleted, and I see no need to do anything else. However, I have deliberately taken the time to place on record here my general uncomfortableness with Zurich00swiss's editing, because it all adds up, and if more incidents add up then there may come a day when either I or some other administrator will decide that, even if no one incident warrants a block, the accumulation of incidents does. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, ok, I've made a mistake...
But I stayed a month to write and think about the "AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK" and now I've see that an aministrator delates all things in my user page.
many users sayd that they block me because I'm on wikipedia just for the "AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK" I've done this section only to involve users in aviation sector and for write interesting thing in the same sector.
could be my user page restored?
And could be the section of the "AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK" re-written definitely without the opinions of others users and not in form of blogs?
The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Zurich00swiss: No. Aircraft of the Week has no place on Wikipedia (regardless if others contribute or not) since it's considered to be a blog and as explained by others, blog material is not suitable for Wikipedia. There is no wiggle room around this and I'll openly say that part of the requirements of you remaining unblocked will be that you never add Aircraft of the Week to Wikipedia again in any format. That this is unsuitable for Wikipedia has already been explained to you quite thoroughly and I'll be very honest: at this point I have to wonder if you're really here to positively contribute to Wikipedia or if you're just here to use it as a social media or blog website. You trying to argue for the inclusion of content that has already been deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia does not give off a positive impression, considering that the option of re-blocking you is on the table here if you continue to try to re-add this information and the person who unblocked you is essentially saying that he believes that a re-blocking may be inevitable. The worst thing you can do is continue to lobby for the re-addition of this page, so my advice to you is to drop it and agree to not re-add the page. You're just shooting yourself in the foot by doing this and re-adding it after it has repeatedly been stated to you that it is unacceptable (hence why I bolded and italicized it above) may convince one of the other admins that it might save more trouble if they block you then and there. I want to make sure that you are very aware of this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

But who could it be? I can't think of a relevant aviation troll. No, beats me... Begoon ^talk 11:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a troll. I think it's just a kid who is enthusiastic about writing about a subject in which he has a keen interest, and doesn't always clearly see what kinds of writing about it are suitable for an encyclopaedia project. Unfortunately, he is also not always ready to accept anything which restricts his freedom to use Wikipedia in the way he would like to, and that is what turns minor problems into bigger ones. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

James, in my experience, you are usually right. Perhaps I'm too sensitive to aviation trolls. I should probably be more receptive to the "innocent newbie" thing.Begoon ^talk 12:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we are dealing with an enthusiast here, but his long history of personal attacks, using fake refs and now lots of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT over using his user page as a private blog are all evidence of ongoing difficulties. I suggested that he move all his personal stuff to a real blog, but he didn't act on that suggestion and just keeps reinstating inappropriate content on his user page, even after being repeatedly told it is inappropriate. Very few of this person's edits have been useful or constructive and he seems determined to argue over the user page issue and not accept policy. If he were blocked he wouldn't be missed on the project as his useful contributions have been minimal and disruption large. - Ahunt (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

mop to the edit summary , please

Could someone with a mop take care of this [155]. Sometimes bots are a little thick. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• and the one before it too, please. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Why? It's just repetitive swearing followed by garden-variety nonsense. There's no reason to hide it from non-admins. Graham87 06:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Bryce Carmony (talk · contribs)

Bryce Carmony (talk · contribs) is systematically going through articles and incorrectly changing "were" to "was." He's done this at The Beatles, Washington Redskins and Genesis (band). I've tried to reason with him, and this was his response [156]. Calidum 04:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually I changed the washington redskins from "are" to "is" not "were" to "was". Using were for a current team would make zero sense. "Genesis" was a band. If they called themselves "the Genesi" (plural for Genesis) you could make MAYBE a more compelling argument. I wouldn't say "the miami heat are" since they are one team and heat itself is singular. If there is a disagreement we can work it out in the article talk pages. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

So in the case of British bands we use British english which treats singular bands as plural. however the Washington Redskins is not an article in British English so we would use is. This is why we use talk pages not user pages to discuss. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You are starting to edit war on various articles. You have been reverted at least twice by two different editors on Washington Redskins alone. Editing on claims of "NPOV" and "fringe theories" is not exempt from edit warring.[157] Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

No edit warring has occurred, I encourage you to participate in the talk pages and discuss if you disagree over an edit. we actually resolved it all. Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Thanks. Indeed I had noticed a bit of possible pointyness following on this last disagreement. JohnInDC (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Bryce strikes me as here to do what Bryce wants, rather than anything else. And willing, or eager, to play games to get there. (a timesink). I'd just block him, indef, right now, but, hey, what do I know? Begoon ^talk 12:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As someone who was involved in his previous kerfuffle I can see that this particular row has all the same characteristics - dogged insistence on his own particular idea of grammatical purity, aggression when challenged. Luckily, not my quarrel this time round, but it's worth noting that what finally persuaded him to start behaving reasonably, at least for a while, was the threat of an indefinite block. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Repeated legal threats by IP

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

---

The IP address 63.138.96.6 has made repeated legal threats [158] [159] [160]. The IP claims that they are the owner of the WSVI and has removed information they claim to be false. While that is fine, the legal threats are not. They have been given the opportunity to retract the threats and they have not. Instead, they are demanding the real names of individuals who had undid a blanking the IP did to another page [161]. This has gone on far enough. The IP has removed the information they claim was false and now they refuse to drop it or retract the legal threats. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

They just posted another legal threat here. --I dream of horses (C) @ 05:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This guy seems to be very very confused. I'm going to try to talk to him. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: You might also want to try at the talk page of 107.107.56.151 since they have seem to have jumped IPs. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Abuse of administrator tools

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

---

Oh, just the usual, you know: an anonymous editor sees an article which is horrifically badly written, and improves it, leaving a clear edit summary describing what they did: [162]. Do they get thanked for their effort? Good heavens no! They get relentlessly attacked of course! And then administrators start blocking and protecting pages to get the upper hand in a truly bizarre content dispute in which they fight to keep articles in an embarrassing state. Then they start stalking and pointlessly reverting other edits.[163][164]

I don't think that administrative tools are handed out so that you can keep horrifically bad writing in article, are they? Anyone prepared to go to such lengths to make sure that an article starts with "as defined by Merriam-Webster..." is plainly not here to build an encyclopaedia. 186.9.132.110 (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. I did not know about that case, so you had you chances on improving the articles you wanted via discussion. Not anymore, at least not until you assume a civil attitude to editing. Materialscientist (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring and personal attacks at Turkey by a user who was recently blocked for it

Heimdallr of Æsir has been blocked by admin Nyttend for edit-warring and personal attacks just last week (see ANI report here). Nevertheless, Heimdallr of Æsir hasn't stopped the disruption since. Even when told to participate in the ongoing talk page discussion, the user continues to repeatedly edit-war ([165][166][167][168][169]). The user then proceeds attacking those he engages with:

I used to consider myself a Hellenophile (listening to Dalaras, etc.) but thanks to Greeks like Dr.K and Athenean, I can't help but wish for the complete economic collapse and starvation of Greece.

Even with a block, the user just does not seem to stop. Étienne Dolet (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

He did the right thing: the source image, a US Government work, clearly describes this as being merely Kurdish-inhabited. I fully protected the article and then reverted the hoaxing, but instead I came quite close to blocking all involved except for Heimdallr of Æsir. [This was written before an edit-conflict. I'm going to ask Black Kite for an unblock.] Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm about to unblock - the above is fair enough - but I've also noticed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lord of Rivendell now. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend and Black Kite Are were really going to tolerate a user who just said "I can't help but wish for the complete economic collapse and starvation of Greece." towards his fellow Wikipedia users? Let alone the fact that he was blocked for similar threats at the very same article just a week ago. I'd also argue that the article doesn't need protection since the problems at Turkey was a result of a single user. Also, the caption to the photograph of which you just changed wasn't ever discussed. Kurds not only inhabit that part of the world, but they also inhabit Istanbul, Izmir, Ankara, and virtually every other city in Turkey. But of course this was never discussed because of continuing edit-warring. Besides, the map is known at "Kurdish lands" and not Kurdish inhabited areas by its very source [170]. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me turn your question around: are we really going to tolerate several users actively hoaxing in an article? Please look at the source image, which specifically says "Kurdish-inhabited area". Personal attacks are unhelpful because they hurt the community atmosphere, but they don't directly affect what readers see. Hoaxing, however, directly affects what readers see; it will not be tolerated. Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not just "unhelpful", they're prohibited within this project. Especially when the mentioned user has been blocked for doing just that a week ago. What makes this time around so different? Kurds inhabit not only that part of Turkey, but all over the country. It's very vague to simply point out that Kurds inhabited areas. And it's unfortunate to discuss this at an ANI board due to constant edit-warring by this user. This has resulted in a much bigger mess than it should have been. A simple continuation of the ongoing discussion at the talk page would have been suffice. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me be very clear and simple, then. You and several other editors added a statement to this article claiming that the map represented Kurdish-majority areas of the country. This idea was not represented by the source image. You and others claimed that the source said something that it didn't: this is hoaxing, a much more fundamental problem than personal attacks. Another editor reverted the hoaxing and returned the article to a correct representation of the source. You then attempted to get an administrator to block the editor who reverted the hoaxing, and when the article was protected instead of you and the other hoaxers getting blocked, you objected. People who revert hoaxes, like people who revert vandalism, are helping and warrant thanks, not sanctions, while people who add hoaxes, like people who add vandalism, are harming and warrant sanctions, not thanks; we show them the door. If you want to avoid that happening, let me suggest that you stop asking for sanctions to be handed out. Nyttend (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, I can't force you to have sanctions carried out. At this point, I just want to clarify my position. The talk page is used to discuss matters you mention here. And since it wasn't properly utilized by a user who would much rather edit-war, the problems became much worse. Calling this a hoax, without proper discussion at the talk page shouldn't be recommended either. Especially when there's a consensus by Greek, Turkish, and Armenian interested users alike. Kurds inhabit areas outside of the shaded area of the map too. But why aren't those parts shaded? Does inhabited mean plurality? Kurdish 'inhabited', for example, can also mean majority and there's secondary sources to prove that. Who's to say it isn't and why? Questions like this need to be discussed. All of these terminologies and their significations could and should be easily misleading unless clarified. I think that should be done at a more appropriate forum than this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

No. The source distinctly did not say "Kurdish majority", but you made it look like it. If you continue attempting to introduce hoaxes, or you continue arguing for their inclusion, you will be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait a moment. Sorry Nyttend, I've undone your closure here. First, please don't keep using the term "hoaxing", that's not what we're dealing with here. The person who first added the map, Athenean, [171] had just previously also added a sourced textual description [172] that said that "Kurds make up a majority in the provinces of Dersim, Bingol, Mus, Agri, Igdir, Elazig, Diyarbakir, Batman, Sirnak, Bitlis, Van, Mardin, Siirt and Hakkari, a near majority in Sanliurfa province (47%), and a large minority in Kars province (20%)." I haven't seen anybody challenging the correctness of the sourcing for this sentence. I assume that Athenean believed in good faith that the textual description enumerating those provinces matched the area described in the map, in which case his use of the map with the "majority" caption would have been legitimate. If he was mistaken in this assumption, overlooking that there might have been some factual differences between the two areas, that would make it a case of inadvertent source misuse, but not "hoaxing", which by definition would have to be deliberate. Certainly this should have been hacked out on the talkpage. In any case, I find the SPI on the "Heimdallr of Æsir" account convincing, having been familiar with the "Shuppiluliuma" sock drawer for years, so I intend to close that with an indef block on the sock, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of this particular edit war. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The best way forward on the Battle of Britain page

There is a dispute on the Talk:Battle of Britain page in which I want to add a section on 'Consequences', based very closely on what a number of reliable sources say on the subject. I have taken relevant quotes from the sources and put them on the talk page for discussion. Unfortunately, a couple of other editors, who seem to have very strongly held personal opinions on the subject, have deleted the section in the article. Typical of their attitude is this quote, 'As far as "reliable sources for opinion" goes, I don't need any. I'm not the one wanting this junk in. You are'.

This seem to me to strike at the heart of what Wikipedia is. Is it a bulletin board where people can promote their personal opinions or is it an encyclopedia based on what is said in verifiable and reliable sources? What to do next? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing such a quote. Diffs, please? Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I see people with strong opinions alright, but they appear to be with your use of sources to support a paragraph that would be considered fringe by any real historian with knowledge of the battle of Britain. I hesitate to use the words 'synth', but you need a lot stronger sourcing and references to firstly back up the content you want to add, but secondly to demonstrate that it is a significant viewpoint. The Battle of Britain is an extensively covered subject so you should be able to do better than in the discussion on the talkpage. But ultimately even if it is reliably sourced enough, if consensus is to not include the material, thats consensus on article content and not a matter for administrative action. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Martin Hogbin has been flogging this particular dead horse for at least 4 years. How many times does it take to hold the same discussion, only to have different sets of editors tell him the same darn thing? Surely this is entering into WP:TE territory. BMK (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ooops, just looked at the archive, and it seems Hogbin has been doing it since 2010, so about five years, not four. BMK (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)