Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Diannaa (talk | contribs) at 05:35, 25 September 2015 (→Persistent hoax articles on Time News India: this one is done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

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

    Start a new discussion

    COI editing and personal attacks on Democracy & Nature and Talk:Democracy & Nature

    Case solved here so closing whole conversation. -- Cebr1979 (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This article is mainly edited by a few editors who only edit this article and two related ones (Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos). Although I have tried to explain clearly what problems I see with the article as it currently stands, I continue to be accused of editing with a political bias by John sargis (as well as an IP editor, 165.120.27.172, but I assume that is the same person who forgot to log in). I consider this a personal attack and have notified the editor of this. This was again answered with a personal attack. The editor's user page and talk page show that this person has a history of such attacks. The editor also has a COI with this article, having published himself in this journal several times (e.g., [1] and [2]). In view of these repeated attacks and persistent failure to AGF, perhaps some editor here can have a look. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • You assume wrong what you think is my IP address. It is not me. You should be sure about your "facts" before making veiled presumptions against me. After I repeatedly showed you the irregularities about the way wiki rules are applied in terms of what you see as "problems" with the article, you blame me for attacking you. I am pointing out the foolish consistencies in the way the rules are applied in that there are many other articles that suffer from the same "rule", but it seems they only apply to D&N, even after it has been pointed out to you those other articles. If there are wiki rules that are “double standards” and an administrator enforces them, then logic dictates that the administrator is biased. This is not a personal attack. Furthermore, I do question your motives since if you think I did attack you personally, you threatened to take me to the WP:ANI board to get me banned. I question your motives, because before you post a grievance against a user with the board, you must FIRST try to resolve the issue on my talk page. Which you did not do. Thus you are harassing me. And I am asking now that an administrator can have a look for proof at my talk page. Thanks. John sargis (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but again as I have repeated, I want the rules to be evenly applied, which you did not do. The rule says that you go to my talk page to iron out the personal issue(s) and not at the article page which is inappropriate. You bypassed and undercut the rule so that you could preemptively get me banned by going immediately to the administrators. This is harassment. So again a foolish consistency underscores how you use or not use wiki rules for your convenience. John sargis (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your insinuation, Randykitty, is I am hypocritical when you say, “apparently there are situations where you do want those darned Wikipedia rules.” implying I am biased is a personal attack. I replied, above, I want the rules applied evenly, but yet you are insisting not to use them evenly as evidenced not only in your discussions here and especially at your post at 19:36 (UTC) above, but also at D&N page where last year you tried the same editorial tactics with no success of deletion—and now you are at it again. It is difficult for it not come to mind that you have a political bias, but I do not know. John sargis (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • User Randykitty, as demonstrated in Talk:Democracy & Nature, has consistently tried to impose his way of editing the article, by adding repeatedly tags and requests for citations, that were effectively shown to him that are at least irrelevant to the article and constituted the -to my mind as well- justifiable assumption that he indeed maintains a bias toward the entry. His recurrent editing "spree" has been accompanied by his unwillingness to answer to documented and logical questions brought to his attention in the Talk Page. So the assumption of his maintaining a bias towards the article does not constitute a Personal Attack, as so easily and conveniently Randykitty accuses me and other editors of, and this is because all criticizing was aimed at his activity in the entry, accompanied by documented and -to a decent degree- laborious argumentation on his recurrent and lately almost totally exorbitant actions showcased in the Talk Page. And this is particularly so, when in the meanwhile and while he accused the other editors, I tried to contribute to the article by particularly addressing his demands for citations, from the moment they seemed somehow sensible. At the same time, the only thing Randykitty did was mainly deleting, and adding tags!..
    Then, Randykitty didn't take the time to activate the Dispute Resolution procedure, before bringing the matter to the Administrators' board. On the contrary he accuses the other editors involved in the discussion, with a striking nerve, of being a "sect"! But this is to say easily when an editor is short of answers to the points raised by me or anybody else who out of necessity does not spend his life in checking wiki entries and he resorts to the facile ‘accusation’ that "I exclusively edit topics related to the ones mentioned above”. But why specialist knowledge on a topic is something wrong when editing an article in an encyclopedia and in Wikipedia, when of course it's not a field for advocacy? Yes, I do have specialist knowledge on the topic and this is why I take party on discussions related to it rather than on brain cancer surgery. Unless of course, according to Wikipedia rules, people with no obvious knowledge on a topic or on the meaning or the function of a theoretical journal should have more say on any topic, as long as they have memorized some wiki rules. Of course rules are needed but the issue is how (as every rule) are interpreted. Panlis (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we really need to give any more rope to this group maintaining a walled garden, per WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:NPA. --Randykitty (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Randykitty increasingly acts in -to say the very least- bad faith and total unwillingness to follow any gradual protocol required by Wikipedia before dropping in the row and without any documented reply his "allegations" in this board. Now he demonstrates once again his blatant unwillingness to take part in the discussion in the Democracy & Nature Talk Page and to reply to the concrete arguments posed against his theses, when at the same time, he continues adding tags that have been demonstrated to him to be at best irrelevant and at worst, totally biased as [I (and other editors) have tried to prove here, without any at all, further participation to the dialogue by this obviously Disruptive Editor. It's also becoming now more than clear that the same user uses his "credentials" of thousands of edits in articles and of being an administrator, so as not only to impose his unacceptable editing methods to the D&N entry, despite my and other editors' best attempts to concretely and in detail show his inconsistency (and, ultimately), bias in this case, but to also throw mud against all other editors with whom he simply does not agree with: By putting at the venture labels on them of the sort of "WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA" etc..
    And all this when
    (a) positive response to some of his sensible demands was accurately applied to the entry,
    (b) his blatant inconsistencies were meticulously shown with specific examples and passages in the Talk Page, without him caring to give any concrete reply to my and others' argumentation in the Talk Page,
    (c) he jumped without any constraint to blame me and other editors of WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NPA etc., without any effort on his part to follow a normal procedure of the many available in WP:DR and elsewhere before resorting to these accusations and before bringing me and others to the WP:ANI, and finally,
    (d) he continues even at this moment his disruptive editing and undocumented reverses without giving any explanation at all in the talk page for this, while at the same time he has the "nerve" of accusing me (with the non-argument) of "not addressing the underlying problems" (!), something that I tried to do in -I think- a decently laborious and well-documented attempt! Hence Randykitty's action that suits to his case could also be showcased vividly in the following clear passages from WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

    "A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: (...)

    1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." (...)
    2. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable." (...)
    Panlis (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This thread had been archived. I have restored it in hope of solliciting some input about this case of SPA editors owning some articles. --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having completely lost the argument, Randykitty now returns (as was fully expected of him!) with yet another wp rule: owning. However, once again, he simply distorts another wp rule. He has no evidence whatsoever to support his new allegation apart from the fact that the editors who tried to make sense of his multiple tagging (like John Sargis and Panlis) were involved before in exchanges related to D&N and related entries. However, the owning rule itself stresses that “It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert” and Panlis himself admitted his special knowledge on the topic. Randykitty has to show convincingly that “this watchfulness has become possessiveness” and he NEVER MANAGED TO DO SO, particularly as the editors involved (as well as myself) tried repeatedly to improve the entry following those of Randykitty’s suggestions which were specific enough and looked reasonable,e.g. providing the citations and the links to references he asked for. I also supposed that as long as he does not just put tags all around, without usually giving concrete advice on what has to be done, the editors already involved –and hopefully others as well—would continue helping to improve the entry. Unless of course his real aim is not to improve the entry but simply to have it deleted, after his failed attempt for deletion last year.165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still no comments from uninvolved editors. --Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Randykitty’s “interpretation” of wp rules, all comments from ‘involved’ editors can easily be dismissed or ignored, irrespective of the quality of the arguments concerned, just because these editors are interested in a particular topic on which they happen to have some knowledge. On the other hand, his own heavy involvement in this particular entry in the past when he tried (and failed) to have it deleted, does not matter simply because he has managed to make 62,000 edits in the short period of 2 years and 10 months - obviously working on a full-time basis - i.e. over 60 edits per day, apart from starting over 60 new entries!165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the personal attacks, we now progress to taunting. Directly ON Ani... --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not personally attacking or taunting anybody and that was obviously not my intention. I simply stated some OBVIOUS FACTS and Randykitty, instead of trying to dispute them, resorts to his familiar tactics of playing the victim.165.120.27.172 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really need not to "dispute" anything you and the other editors above have been writing. It is there for everybody to see and what is true of it is equally simple to see. Eventually, some uninvolved editors will get around to this and wade through the wall of accusations that has been thrown up above and, if they'll find that you are correct, I'll be swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here. --Randykitty (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Randykitty, please avoid this "self-defeating" rhetoric. The way you set the demand, i.e. for some non-involved users to intervene in order to clarify if it's that "we" ("the sect" according to your -at least, humiliating-, accusation about me and other editors of the Democracy & Nature entry) "are correct", something meaning that you will have to be "swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here" (!) is at least disorienting for any user that happens to see this debate. No one asked or suggested such a "response", which shows that you probably have personalized the whole debate. In fact no one asked anything from you, apart from the logical need to show where you believe the editors are mistaken in the first place as regards the editing of the aforementioned entries, particularly when they explicitly claimed that their intention was not Personal Attacking and that they tried to a more or less degree to address your sensible "demands" for citations etc.. On the other hand, you brought two editors before this Board, with a (at least slanderous against me) row of accusations, when, as I tried to show above and in the Democracy & Nature entry's Talk Page, it' s your mistake that you haven't tried to reply to any of the significant arguments raised against your activity, (by abstaining from any dialogue in the entry's Talk Page despite my and others' effort for precise argumentation) and secondly you continued to bypass the fact that significant effort has been in the making to collectively improve the article, even by newer editors like Niceguyedc and Fusedmilk. You didn't even TRY to follow a Dispute Resolution procedure but you jumped directly into here when you saw that not all your demands would be "fulfilled"...Panlis (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are wrong. This is from the WP:NPA.
    "Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease can be resolved through dispute resolution and third opinions. In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and focus on content, and immediate administrator action is not required." (my emphasis). And the bold is what you don't try to do but you bring editors in this board - avoiding an attempt to reply to specific arguments as regards the entry's content in the entry's Talk Page and above.Panlis (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from uninvolved editor I see an assumption of bad faith towards Randykitty by John sargis, Panlis and the IP (with sock/meatpuppetry always a possibility) which is unusual even by WP standards. Miniapolis 22:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Could I read a reasoning for the conclusion that you see "an assumption of bad faith towards Randykitty by John sargis, Panlis and the IP (with sock/meatpuppetry always a possibility) which is unusual even by WP standards." ?Panlis (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is very easy (and convenient too!) for somebody to declare himself ‘uninvolved editor’ and then to go on slandering other editors like me as sockpuppets etc mainly because I am an IP address editor. However, I thought that according to WP rules “the treatment of IP address editors as second-class editors is unacceptable”. If this rule is not valid anymore please let me know and I will stop immediately taking part in the discussion. I think that good or bad faith should be assessed on the basis of the arguments offered not on the basis of suspicions and offering no arguments at all does not help anybody in drawing conclusions about the good faith of other editors. Quite the opposite.165.120.27.172 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Randykitty accused me and an editor using an IP address (read first two posts of this thread), of claiming political bias against him in which which he assumes the IP editor is me and thus he reported me to “the editor”. I told him he is assuming wrong. It is not my IP address. Thus by notifying the editor he harassed me for no real reason, because he does not show evidence that it is my IP address and he never first tried to resolve the issue on my talk page, but bypassed that wiki rule to file a grievance against me. I do not see how you can claim bad faith on my part, when it was Randykitty who harassed and threatened me. He replies that there is “no need to start yet another discussion on your talk page” (where personal issues are resolved). And “apparently there are situations where you do want to use those darned Wikipedia rules.” Thus there is proof that he uses the wiki rules when it is convenient for him, and yet he accuses me that I want wiki rules to be used only for some situations. But if you look at my replies, I said that I want the wiki rules “evenly applied”, which is obvious by reading the thread above. Thank you. John sargis (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the editing/behavior pattern of this group of editors is quite clear. They are not here to create a neutral encyclopedia, but to push an agenda. Anybody interfering with that gets hit with a barrage of accusations and wikilawyering. Trying to improve one of "their" articles is hit by demands that other articles that have similar deficits get cleaned up first because if you don't do that, you have a political bias. This all started with an effort by me to make the article on the (borderline notable) journal Democracy & Nature compliant with our journal article writing guide. Sargis, as a former contributor to this journal, obviously has a conflict of interest here, but that doesn't hold them back spouting a stream of accusations in my direction. And as demonstrated above, anybody who dares say that this is not the way things are done here, clearly must be biased against them, too. I think that, at the least, some topic bans are in order here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is somewhat peculiar that a first time, 7 Sept., editor IP 78.149.243.116 to comment on 7 Sept. in the middle of a discussion of which he or she knows nothing about, but it is unusual for an editor who on his/her first editing day finds his/her way to this page not only demonstrating wiki research and expertise in wiki protocols and navigating wiki to be able to provide all the references he/she provides. Furthermore, this IP user had to navigate through reams of discussion threads in a few days and have the ability to “determine” whom he thinks KosMal is. This is very unusual and I am asking an administrator to look into this, because IP possibly be a sock-puppet or other violation. John sargis (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Everybody and everything you don't like has to be banned. This is direct democracy in action. Particularly so if some people are 'more equal' than others in imposing their own view of what a neutral encyclopedia should all be about and are able to dictate who is allowed to speak and who is not. Personally I refuse to take part anymore in any further 'discussions' of this kind.165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say
    "I think the editing/behavior pattern of this group of editors is quite clear. They are not here to create a neutral encyclopedia, but to push an agenda. Anybody interfering with that gets hit with a barrage of accusations and wikilawyering. Trying to improve one of "their" articles is hit by demands that other articles that have similar deficits get cleaned up first because if you don't do that, you have a political bias."
    a)You still throw accusations and mud against me and others without even getting into trouble to support your case the way you should do according to WP:AOBF,-as I tried to do-, but you assumed bad faith from the beginning, and this was not accidental as you had attempted to delete the entry as non-notable in the recent past, something that was unanimously rejected with the active participation of other editors as well. And pardon me but..who talks about wikilawyering when you drop rows over rows of Wiki rules which some of them contain significant passages as I tried to show above in my replies that serve the opposite case to what you want to demonstrate! (see the passages from the WP:ANI above, WP:AOBF etc.)
    b)As usually you bypass the argument. What you did and this is why you were criticized in the first place was mostly that you added citation demands repeatedly and in a row despite the clear no-need for them in a significant dialogue to which you decided not to take part and reply, while at the same time I and others tried consistently to address your own demands so as to improve the entry, something that demonstrates a reasonably bona fide approach and clearly undermines your accusations for WP:NPA and doesn't explain at all the initiative for beginning this debate in here!.
    "This all started with an effort by me to make the article on the (borderline notable) journal Democracy & Nature compliant with our journal article writing guide."
    c)Yes, and the editors replied with documented argumentation, passages, examples etc. to your edits in the page's Talk Page; To their answers you did not get into trouble to answer but you brought me and the rest in here when you saw that not all your demands would be fulfilled.
    d)Calling a journal borderline notable needs proof which should be given in the entry's Talk Page and not through aphorisms here. A clear decision that the journal is notable was formed just a year ago after extensive discussion and documentation with the participation of other editors too, when you first raised the non-notability factor. Your insistence to show how not notable the journal is, is just another indication of your obvious bias against it and that you just like to pull at straws in this case.
    "And as demonstrated above, anybody who dares say that this is not the way things are done here, clearly must be biased against them, too. I think that, at the least, some topic bans are in order here. "
    e)This is simply not to say when clear effort to improve the entry was made as a reply to your own dictations. On the other hand your bias is a pattern shown repeatedly, beginning from your attempt to delete the entry a year ago (based on the supposed non-notability of it), which was rejected, by your call still for non-notability of the journal despite the decision last year, by the fact that you proceeded in a spree of cite-tagging that you didn't like to address in the major medium to do it: In the entry's Talk Page.
    g)From the above, the case to my mind is simply pulling at straws and should be archived. Moreover no reasoning at all was given by the non-involved editor who appeared yesterday. Panlis (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I think you misread things. The previous AfD was not unanimous at all (despite a host of SPA editors creeping out of the woodwork), which is probably why you didn't link to it directly. (The fact that it was taken to AfD no less than 4 times shows that its notability is not as clear as you try to make it seem). And from the moment that I dared voice some critical remarks of the article on this journal, my motivations have been put into doubt, so it's a bit rich that you now call upon AGF, something you have never done yourself. The references "for which there is no clear need" that I requested are clearly needed. The journal article writing guide, based on a wide consensus in the WikiProject Academic Journals, explicitly states that lists of authors should not be included in an article unless "there are independent reliable sources discussing their involvement with the journal in more than an in-passing way." The appropriate sources should be provided or the list should be removed. Now lest somebody thinks that this is a simple content dispute that does not belong at ANI, please have a look at the talk page of the article and the blatant personal attacks there (continued for all to see in the postings above). --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, it was not unanimous, you were the only one who didn't agree as far as I recall among a variety of editors. But the documents and dialogue back then demonstrated for good the notability of the article, with dozens of 3rd party references that I digged out, if you remember, which further showed its significance. Secondly, this is not a forum for solving the possible issues of an article but this should be done in its Talk Page to which you decided not to answer. Particularly when the issues raised above were replied in that Talk Page by using relevant examples from many important Journal entries to which for peculiar reasons this rule for Journals you mention doesn't abide, and for which entries you did not make any further fuss e.g. raising respective complaints for their having a simple and direct listing of contributors. And this is mainly because of your bias against the Democracy and Nature entry that has been more than evident from all dialogue in that Talk Page and here, that you disguise as WP:NPA. This is then to my mind clearly a pulling at straws case you continue raising in this Board as it is not intended of course for Dispute Resolution over the content of an article and you very well know it. As per your "critical remarks", you insist on bypassing the fact that the editors of the entry replied to all of them concretely and with evidence in the appropriate page to do this, something that you just did not like and chose arbitrarily to bring the issue of WP:NPA in here instead. But this is also a case of turning a blind eye to the edits of the entry because as I repeatedly demonstrated (but you prefer to ignore), all your sensible demands according to the editors of the entry -older and newer as well-, were met.- Panlis (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read again. There were several delete !votes, although they indeed are somewhat drowned in the walls of text that you and your friends were dropping on that debate, just as you're doing here. You obviously have read WP:TLDR and are trying to use it to your advantage here. The arguments that you brought forward on the talk page to counter my legitimate concerns were 1/ WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and 2/ "you're biased". That kind of arguments always crop up when a cabal of POV/COI editors are faced with somebody insisting on getting things done in a neutral and encyclopedic way. --Randykitty (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please use concrete evidence as passages, diffs etc., like I have been persistently doing inhere, so as to justify your "conclusions"? I just read the dialogue in the Democracy and Nature entry's Talk Page and I don't see any other user who had taken part in that discussion (Cwobeel, WallabieJoey, KosMal, Arran Gare and a couple of IP editors) who was in favour of deleting the entry back then except for you.! Isn't that correct? If I am mistaken please correct me by bringing here specific links, diffs etc. and not with aphorisms. My final take on this irrelevant and disorientating debate is that this is not the arena to solve the possible issues of an entry, and the other issues (Personal Attacking etc.) that you raised were addressed in painstaking detail above. I hope this has become clear and I plead you to stop raising repeatedly humiliating and aggressive cases against me by calling me part of a sect etc. and by pulling at straws inhere, as it could be taken for Harassment. You may have plenty of time to do tens of thousands of edits and to jump to conclusions in dialogues and debates, without getting into trouble to offer specific evidence as per WP:AOBF, but unfortunately I have not when it is not justified, as clearly happens in this pulling-at-straws case. And in addition to the fact that I try to be very precise and documented in my interventions these are the two main reasons for which I cannot contribute in the frequency and to the extent I would like to the Wikipedia project. Thank you! Panlis (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice try, but as my previous comment should have made clear, we're not here to discuss what happened in an AfD a year ago (even though that debate was marred by the same lack of good faith and personal attacks, and, yes, there were other editors !voting "delete", too), nor is this the place to deal with a content dispute. We are here because of the refusal to AGF and the personal attacks at Talk:Democracy & Nature (at the misnamed section Randy Kitty's recurring deletion attempt). The "discussion" there clearly shows that my efforts to explain why something needs to be done were met with scorn, personal attacks (throwing doubt on my integrity), and bullshit arguments that other articles should be cleaned up first. Diffs are not necessary here, a 5 min perusal of the section I just linked do will do the job just fine. --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you using foul and abusive language such as "bullshit"? Is not that a wiki "no no"? We are proving your bias, since there is a history to your attempt to delete D&N. So how can that not be evidence, because it happened in the past? Randykitty you dis other editors in the previous AfD of D&N as “creeping out of the woodwork” and as "your friends". If that is not an assault or name calling or personal attack or breaking of some wiki rule, or suggesting that bona fide editors are our "friends"let me know what is. Actually, if I were vengeful, I could say the same about the “univolved” editor as "your friend" “creeping out of the woodwork” at this late stage, but I will not because I have no proof. Four times D&N withstood deletion. Is this perpetual attempt to delete not part of something about journal writing? Notable is notable whether weak or strong is it not? Why are you beating a dead horse? Yes, maybe eventually, Randykitty, you will be able to put D&N under your belt, because at sometime you will be able to garner enough support, which speaks volumes of wiki objectivity (notable is notable whether weak or strong). Also you state “lists of authors should not be included in an article unless "there are independent reliable sources discussing their involvement with the journal in more than an in-passing way." We had this discussion about Chomsky who has published in many journals at Wikipedia, but with no reliable sources discussing his involvement with those journals in more than an in-passing way. That is why I demanded evenly applied wiki rules. You came with a ferocity of edits at (as you have tried in the past) the D&N article, and as well as placing tags immediately at Inclusive Democracy & Takis Fotopopulos. As an editor who wants to improve articles, your approach has the opposite effect and can be assumed to be not neutral. You say concerning delete votes on the last attempt to delete D&N, "delete !votes, although they indeed are somewhat drowned in the walls of text that you and your friends were dropping on that debate." A debate is a debate where there is discussion. The "delete" votes and "keep" votes were counted and there were more votes to “keep” as in the other attempts to delete D&N. Why are you accusing editors who help D&N as our "friends"? What proof do you have? Just because they help improve the article you think they are our friends? It is absurd. Furthermore, if you were bona fide and your problem is the quality of the article and not to get rid of the editors because you do not care for their replies, you could have proceeded to a Dispute Resolution procedure and why not open a new thread in the Administrators' Noticeboard with a relevant title. But what you did was to bring me and others to this board by calling us a "sect" and with accusations of WP:COI, WP:NPA etc. etc.. When you found out that your accusations do not have good basis, you came back to the purported problem of the content of the entry, which should be solved with the presence of informed editors about the content of the entry, and not within the context of an accusations thread, as you have just tried to cover over-"nor is this the place to deal with a content dispute" John sargis (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And hop! Yet another wall of text. The issue here is not the previous AfD, nor am I at this point asking for the article to be deleted. And the fact that I took this article to AfD and has been kept does not mean that I am now barred from improving the article where necessary, because I would somehow be biased. Hardly anybody who participated in the AfD has ever tried to improve the article as you claimed. Please stay to the point, which is your aspersions on my integrity. Could an admin please look at the above evidence and, if found to be correct, block me for disruptive editing so that we can put an end to this nonsense? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone summarise what the dispute is about in a few lines? The above is rather overwhelming, but I see lots of "other stuff exists" type arguments about why certain style conventions shouldn't apply to this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The dispute started when I removed a list of contributors and a listing of the journal's editorial board from the article, per the reasoning given in WP:JWG, which is based on a broad consensus in the WikiProject Acadmeic Journals: contributors or editorial board members should only be listed if reliable sources exist that discuss in depth the importance of their contributions for the journal. The reason why we are here is that the above group of editors argued that there exist articles on other journals or magazines that also have such lists and that the fact that I wanted to remove these lists in this particular article showed that I am biased and whatnot. It's the latter personal attacks that brought us here. Somewhere in the above walls of text more such attacks and failures to assume good faith are hidden. Of the group of editors involved, at least one (John sargis) has a COI. The other editors involved almost exclusively edit this article and two related ones (Takis Fotopoulos and Inclusive Democracy). I think this basically sums up the walls of text above (and on Talk:Democracy & Nature). --Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You tried the exact same tactic last year and failed to delete D&N, so again this year you attempt it. Does this not obviously show some type of bias by expanding your effort to all three related articles (D&N, Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos) rapidly adding tags without any genuine discussion? One wonders what the motivation is of your edits, since you now say, “nor am I at this point asking for the article to be deleted”, which still implies your plan for deletion. No one can restrict you (or anyone else) from making suggestions about improving any entry you like. But the issue of motives is very different and this is what we examine here, particularly as you immediately questioned my own motives and personally attacked me and other editors as a “sect”, etc. Prove to me this simultaneous attack on all related articles’ timeline is a coincidence, not unrelated nor politically motivated.

    D&N article: 22 Aug. 13:40 Randykittyk begins editing--3 edits 23 Aug. 11:14 Johnsargis does 3 edits “ “ 11:38 Randykitty does 1 edit “ “ 16:51 Johnsargis does 1 edit 24 Aug. 17:08 Randykitty does 11 edits, @ 17:22 RK adds “Cleanup Tag” 24 Aug. 5:08 Panlis does 4 edits “ “ 9:14 Randykitty does 2 edits “ “ 10:57 Panlis does 2 edits 24 Aug. 11:09 Randykitty does an edit “Take It To Talk” and does 3 more edits

    ID article:

    23 Aug. 17:42 Randykitty begins editing with tag plus 4 more edits

    29 Aug. 16:08 IP editor helpful edit. Takis article

    23 Aug. 17:53 RandyKitty begins edits with tag plus 5 more edits

    24 Aug. 4:41 Panlis does 1 edit 1 Sept. 6:18 Marcocapelle does helpful edit John sargis (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • You want proof? How about the fact that in the timespan you mention here I edited dozens of other articles, deleted dozens more, took one or two to AfD, etc etc. Where's your proof that I am concentrating on "your" articles? Where's any proof of political bias in any of my edits anywhere? Simple: anything any body does to "your" articles that doesn't go in the direction that you want is, per definition, politically biased. Perhaps it's time for some self-reflection here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said you only concentrated on the articles. I am showing a timeline where on 23 August your first edits at Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos were tags at 17:42 and 17:53 respectively, and on 24 August at 17:08 you add the tag to D&N. If there is not some bias, then prove it. Why did you add those tags in such rapid succession at the articles. It could be construed that you are going after those articles.John sargis (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that other articles don't follow those guidelines should probably be disregarded, unless lack of compliance is so widespread that it calls into question whether the guidelines are indeed widely accepted. It seems to be perfectly reasonable to me to request that sources are provided. Personally, I wouldn't be so insistent that those sources need to demonstrate the importance of the contributors to the journal - it seems a valid matter of interest that notable people have contributed - but if the guidelines reflect consensus, then they should be respected. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow at the intensity of the WP:WALLEDGARDEN here. RandyKitty's edits were perfectly in line with WP:JWG, and the, let's call them 'anti-Randykitty advocates', consist of WP:SPA accounts with close ties to 'D&N' itself, and sat on the Editorial board of the journal, of often published in the niche journal. I've brought the article mostly inline with our guidelines at WP:JWG. WP:JWG is not a 'hard law', so deviations from it can be warranted from time to time, but I've yet to see a justification for doing so here. I'm not convinced the journal is notable, but if it is to exist, it should comply with our guidelines on the subject. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everybody who has ever read a theoretical journal of political nature is well aware of the fact that a basic element of its notability is who used to contribute to it, either as a writer or an editor. If you strip the D&N entry (or any similar journal entry), from the names of its contributors, then it could be easily classified by those who never liked it to be listed in Wikipedia FOR POLITICAL REASONS (disguised under some bureaucratic rules) as not notable enough, and then be deleted accordingly. I challenge Randykitty and his friend Headbomb to provide us with a list of similar significant theoretical journals of political nature in wikipedia which do implement the rule they invoke. IF THEY CANNOT PROVIDE SUCH A LIST THEN THEIR GAME SHOULD BE CLEAR TO EVERYBODY! 165.120.27.172 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope whomever tries to ban us under wiki puppetry rule did their homework, because if it is proved we are not puppetry puppets of any sort for which there is a wiki rule, then I suppose any editor who attempts to ban us under that rule, is open for harassment. And it would give further credence to our other arguments in this dispute.John sargis (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, the examples mentioned betray only utter ignorance of the subject. D&N was not a political science journal, as a presumably ignoramus w/p editor classified it. D&N belongs to the same kind of theoretical journals of political nature as The Nation, Monthly Review, New Statesman and many other similar journals where lists of contributors and editors are abundant-as they should be!165.120.27.172 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    These three are categorized as magazines; if that's the case for D&N, then it should follow instead WP:WikiProject Magazines/Writing guide; if it's peer reviewed, then it needs to abide by WP:JWG. Also, involved editors are welcome to fix any other non-abiding article. Finally, any potential COI must be disclosed, or else that's an easy ban to apply. fgnievinski (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Based upon the extensive discussion above and the discussion here, User:John sargis and User:Panlis are hereby topic-banned from all articles related to Inclusive Democracy, broadly construed. The evidence from the number of new users, IP addresses and the editors in question show a distinct inability to avoid and reduce conflicts and conduct themselves civilly here and the encyclopedia is better off if those editors can show an ability to edit in another environment if they should choose to do so. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Given the extensive evidence presented above by John sargis and Panlis of their continued failures to assume good faith, their POV editing with a conflict of interest, and their clear WP:NOTHERE attitude, I propose that they be topic banned from editing any article related to Inclusive Democracy. --Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as nom. Given that these are the only articles that they edit, an indefinite block could also be appropriate. Not sure what should be done about the ranting IP. --Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • REJECT. Banning other editors, simply because their views on how the form of presentation of an entry should be is different from that of an administrator, despite the fact, (as they have shown here and in the past), they may have a vastly superior knowledge on a topic they are interested in than an administrator who has a view on almost everything under the sun in tens of thousands of edits, is not just ‘keeping up with the rules’ . It is a pure form of authoritarianism , if not fascism. In a democratic form of organization, particularly one dealing with knowledge, you fight what you do not like with words, not bans! Every authoritarian regime in the past had always some bureaucratic rules at hand to justify its actions. No originality here. I thought however that Wikipedia was genuinely trying to create an alternative democratic way of presenting knowledge. If bona fide editors do not intervene to stop these purely fascist practices, this could well be the end of Wikipedia as an alternative form of encyclopaedia. In fact, many people would prefer in such a case an orthodox encyclopaedia, which at least is controlled and written by people who do know what they talk about and do not just hide behind bureaucratic rules masquerading as democratic, which could easily be used the way I described. Needless to add that in such a Wikipedia I don’t wish to have any further involvement and therefore I don’t give a damn if the Randykittys of this world ban my ‘ranting’, as he 'politely' called it!165.120.27.172 (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reject Randykitty your sophistry is unparalleled. In your reason for banning/blocking you say: "Given that these are the only articles that they edit…". Let me remind you of what you said at D&N talk 24 Aug. @ 8:47: “You are under no obligation to clean up any article”. So, you want to get us banned on the one hand because we edit only “inclusive democracy” related articles, but on the other hand you claim we are under no obligation to edit any other article. So how does one hold two opposing viewpoints and not be in contradiction, bad faith, or bias? I do not know. Please instruct. You also assumed an IP editor and I are the same person. Your assumption is proven wrong as the two (or one as you would have it) of us have not been banned by wiki puppet rules. Another editor (headbomb) corroborated your wrong assumption and included Panlis in that he thought that we three would get banned as sockmeat puppets. That did not work, because someone, a sensible editor I assume, probably did a check and found out we are all different IPs. Thus headbomb's assumption is wrong. As far as assuming good faith, at the administrator page 24 August@ 21:43 I said I had no proof you have a political bias. In light of these wrong assumptions others must reject your proposal also. Thank you. John sargis (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reject. This is a hideous twist of the events! Bad faith was a thing demonstrated, -to say the very least disproportionally- by the user Randykitty in the debate both in the Talk Page and inhere, and I will try to show why in a somehow concise but I feel plausible way:
    a) the user began an activity of repeatedly putting tags and asking for citation demands over, first, the need for such a list and, secondly, the notability of the contributors of the journal themselves, despite the obvious non-agreement in the entry's Talk Page. This naturally led to edit warring and relatively heated debate in an entry which he had attempted to delete last year, something that had been solemnly rejected by all other users who participated in the dialogue back then --and these users were not only John Sargis and I- but uninvolved users as well apart from the ones who are being accused of WP:COI here.
    b) While the editors and I tried to address his, considered as sensible, issues in the journal's Talk Page by focusing primarily on his activity but at the same time without disconnecting his proven bias towards the entry (another indication of which is that he still virtually claims the journal is not notable despite last year's clear decision which had followed abundant documentation about its notability-to which of course turned a blind eye-, and when now implicitly shows his recurrent intentions when he writes "nor am I at this point asking for the article to be deleted”) as Randykitty would very much like them to, he jumped to accusing us in this forum, of WP:COI, WP:POV etc.
    c) This happened without him trying in the first place to use a Dispute Resolution route or post a related to the problematic content subject in here according to the same procedure, and ask for third opinions about the very issues debated in the Talk Page. His primary action in this board was to "tag" and accuse us of WP:COI, WP:PA etc. with the aim to get rid of all dissidents by blocking us. Getting rid of editors involved with the entry and having some experience with it (something that of course does not constitute WP:COI etc.) would be a definite way serving his claimed favor of potentially deleting it in the near future- as is more than evident now from the above.
    d) He showed once more his bias against the entry and his aim just to punish the older editors of the entry for not comforming to all of his demands, when he neglected the important effort to improve the entry that was taking place during the debate and indeed attempted to address mainly his own demands for citations, clean up etc.; just indicatively, sorry for the dropping [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]
    To the naked eye this simply cannot be called "bad faith", by any interpretation, against the user Randykitty as he blatantly accuses me and the rest, and and it is at least disorientating if not a clear mark of authoritarianism to use such a characterization as an "argument" in order to block us from editing an entry based on argumentation and the WP rules.
    e) Even worse, Randykitty was led to the point of essentially "blackmailing" all uninvolved users who happen to read the debate here in case we don't get "assorted" (i.e. blocked from editing the entry and even better for him as he declared, get blocked ad infinitum) when he blatantly stated that "Eventually, some uninvolved editors will get around to this and wade through the wall of accusations that has been thrown up above and, if they'll find that you are correct, I'll be swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here." -a statement which is a blatant act of self-victimization and emotional "blackmailing" to his favor. And this based on the fact that he has indeed the fluency to do thousands of edits, while I and other editors, as I mentioned in the debate, have not the same time and objective ability to help more with the Wikipedia project as I would like to and this is I believe a legitimate reason of maintaining a "sole-purpose" activity, particularly when I and the rest of editors demonstrate good faith as I clearly showed above, in contrast to Randykitty's direct aim to shut off anyone who doesn't comform to all his demands, that is now more than evident (his initiative says it all). Since as I tried to demonstrate above, no WP:PA was intended (something explicitly clarified by all other parts in the debate) --and calling someone that s/he maintains a bias towards an entry when it is based on his very deeds is not a "personal attack"--, this user, based on his experience, is constantly disorienting in order to pass his agenda: to eventually delete the entry - An aim explicitly demonstrated by his related history and revealed by his own very recent sayings, which I feel I plausibly exposed above.Panlis (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    References

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=677453992&oldid=677323512
    2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=677454112&oldid=677453992
    3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=677454220&oldid=677454112
    4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=677454379&oldid=677454220
    5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=677489213&oldid=677456217
    6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=678449071&oldid=678231531
    7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=678495934&oldid=678491784
    8. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=678496972&oldid=678495934
    9. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=680197617&oldid=680158358
    10. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=680050086&oldid=678770864
    11. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=680084321&oldid=680079951
    12. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=678491784&oldid=678485497
    13. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=678231531&oldid=678110401
    14. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=678770864&oldid=678496972
    15. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=680055716&oldid=680051076
    16. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=680060052&oldid=680056313
    17. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=680079951&oldid=680062476
    18. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=677772255&oldid=677616691
    19. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_%26_Nature&diff=677575391&oldid=677575107
    • Comment I think that the involved parties have summed up their views very well above and request appropriate measures and closure of this thread. --Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this on the grounds of a conflict of interest that the editors concerned appear unwilling to step away from. Also, when an editor states "I hope whomever tries to ban us under wiki puppetry rule did their homework, because if it is proved we are not puppetry puppets of any sort for which there is a wiki rule, then I suppose any editor who attempts to ban us under that rule, is open for harassment", I start to think that action further than a topic ban is justified. No one should be subject to harassment for raising concerns about sockpuppetry, whether they prove to be accurate or not. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If you read the thread you will read that we were harassed and taunted as being sockpuppets several times over several days--just don't talk the talk. Yes, right or wrong wiki is always right. Wiki hides behind waves and waves of rules, some of which we pointed out are contradictory and asked why they were not evenly applied, we have to muck through, and we became the problem--sect, sockpuppets, etc.--while Randykitty portrayed himself as victim while all the time he carries all the weapons, sorry I mean rules. Thank you. John sargis (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment John, I don't think I accused anybody here of socking. At the start of this thread, I only remarked that I thought you had once forgotten to sign in. You said you didn't and I left it at that, that's what we here in this rules-infested harassing and taunting wiki call "assuming good faith", but a you have amply demonstrated, you're incapable of that. Socking is not the topic of this thread at all, that's your lack of AGF, personal attacks, and COI editing. Funny that you keep coming back all the time to this non-existent socking accusation, one would almost be tempted to think that you feel guilty... --Randykitty (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, the editors and IP in question have shown repeated and unrepentant uncivil behaviour, including various personal attacks, and have shown they cannot edit neutrally and level-headedly in light of their conflict of interest. WP:SPA certainly apply. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reject. I have no the intention or the time to spend on this nonsense but I’m gonna tell my opinion and gonna cast a vote just because user Panlis made a reference to my name. I took a short look and I have to say that although the users Panlis and John sargis maybe have a conflict of interest it’s also clear that the user Randykitty is totally biased against the entry of Democracy and Nature (not accidentally last year he tried to delete the entry). Although references have been made to him for other similar entries (political radical left journals) who are suffering from similar problems Randykitty was repeatedly ignoring them saying he has not the time, but, still, it seems has the time to apply these rules only to this specific entry and make such a fuss for it. At the moment that there are articles in the international press regarding the decline of the numbers of editors at the Wikipedia some users still spend hours and days trying to ban other users who in fact never tried to disturb the Wikipedia functions but just to keep a well known radical left political journal in the Wikipedia pages, although this may mean argumentative dialogues etc. which probably are simply boresome and bothersome for the former. If the users Panlis and John sargis gonna be banned then also the user Randykitty should be banned. Reject. KosMal (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)--Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is somewhat peculiar that a first time, 7 Sept., editor IP 78.149.243.116 commenting on 7 Sept. (see above thread) in the middle of a discussion of which he or she knows nothing about, but it is unusual for an editor who on his/her first editing day finds his/her way to this page not only demonstrating wiki research and expertise in wiki protocols and navigating wiki to be able to provide all the references he/she provides. Furthermore, this IP user had to navigate through reams of discussion threads in a few days and have the ability to “determine” whom he thinks KosMal is. This is very unusual and I am asking an administrator to look into this, because IP possibly be a sock puppet violation.John sargis (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reject. Panlis and John sargis may have not contributed to other pages not related to Inclusive Democracy, but this does not necessarily mean they are acting on bad faith. I cannot find an issue with their COI, as I have seen (see the links in their comments above) their strong will to positively contribute and cooperate in order for their edits to conform with the (admittedly, quite complex) Wikipedia writing rules. As I can see it, this disagreement was brought to this board by Randykitty too quickly, instead of following the Wikipedia rules for dispute resolution, which shows to me that Randykitty had assumed bad faith too soon. Since then, this has grossly escalated way out of proportion. Notwithstanding the rather heated tone coming from some of the editors' reactions to this issue (a tone which, while it can be understood, I do hope is reconsidered by the editors) I see it as extremely harsh to ban them. Fusedmilk (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fusedmilk: I'm impressed to see that an editor with just 4 edits found their way here. Dispute resolution is for resolving conflicts about content. Personal attacks and failure to assume good faith, which is the issue here, go to ANI. --Randykitty (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Randykitty: I came here and started following this issue when my user name was mentioned above (because I had recently made a small edit in the Democracy & Nature page). I am not saying I am a Wikipedia expert (I still have a tiny editing history anyway), but I would say I have been familiarising myself with the regulations to the degree of being able to positively contribute here. As I said above, my opinion is that the issue escalated needlessly, as bad faith was assumed (and hence brought to ANI) too quickly from you. Fusedmilk (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Randykitty, I am also very impressed by your ‘impartial’ zeal to have any possible reject vote of your proposal dismissed. Shall we assume on the basis of your comment on Fusedmilk’s reject vote that only full-time Wikipedia editors, (who could not possibly have the time to do any other job when they make over 60,000 edits in over two years), do qualify to make comments in Wikipedia? Very interesting thought but I want to hear also the views of other administrators on this, not just yours and the couple of your editor friends.165.120.27.172 (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but don’t pretend to be an impartial observer, a kind of a fair judge because you obviously are not, unless we talk about a complete travesty of justice. You are obviously very much involved in this and you simply cannot decide whose view should be taken into account and whose not. I HOPE OTHER TRULY NON-INVOLVED ADMINISTRATORS WILL EXPRESS THEIR VIEW ON THE MATTER WHICH, DUE TO RANDYKITTY’S VENDETTA, HAS ALREADY TAKEN THE FORM OF A W/P SCANDAL165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per above the editors and IP in question have shown repeated and unrepentant uncivil behaviour, including various personal attacks, and have shown they cannot edit neutrally and level-headedly in light of their conflict of interest. WP:SPA certainly apply. Even on this ANI, half the content is an uncivil tirade. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think we should be cautious when we characterize the others as having a Conflict of Interest. Particularly so since as I tried to demonstrate above I feel the accused editors acted bona fide and while the debate was taking place tried to address the -considered as sensible- issues raised in the entry by the "punisher". As about the behavior, the history of his deletion attempt and the recurrent rush by our accuser to ask for debatable dictations "accidentally" only to that entry, I think are enough to show who acted on bad faith and who not.Panlis (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cordless Larry, what exactly do you mean with unsourced material? As I can see in the diff you sent, editor John Sargis just added a list of the "International Advisory Board up to the last issue of D&N" and at the same time rightly removed the reoccurring names from the list of Contributors. I think it's very common sense that a Journal's Advisory Board can be straightly and easily deducted from the Primary Source itself (i.e. the Journal). Adding straightforward, non-interpretive material from the primary source is a clear case in which there is no need for another source to support it, per WP:PRIMARY as well: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Panlis (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No source was cited, despite the fact that he had already been reverted with a request for sources. Perhaps the more relevant point is that there is a clear COI here. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Bad Conduct is an easy thing to generically blame someone for, but could you please indicate some genuine instances in which my conduct became a negative substitute for argumentation and justification of my sayings or edits from the moment the whole debate began up to now, and how it seems to be "getting worse over time" (!) ? Unless you mean that I should not make any poignant comments or expose a user's recurrent frantic multi-tagging editing tactics and historic bias on a subject, just because he happens to be "popular" because of his many edits, or else I will get a bad conduct discharge..! Panlis (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Responding to disclosure of a conflict of interest by heavy filibustering and attacking the messenger instead of taking a step back demands a response, and this seems more proportionate than a block. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @David Eppstein. "Disclosure of a conflict of interest"? Can you please indicate what my COI is (an accusation unacceptably implied by almost all "supporters" of my ban in here), or else I will have to take measures to protect myself from clear attempt of Harassment. By the way, it now seems most supporting votes took place by just repeating what Randykitty said, without giving even a glimpse at the course of events that brought the matter here, as I tried to demonstrate above. Panlis (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • support 66.87.115.78 (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reject I have been a reader of the journal and frequently visited its entry among others on political philosophy and history and saw in the talk page the latest dispute and the proposal to ban John Sargis, who, in fact, was only an editorial assistant of D&N among many others, not an assistant editor. I do not see any conflict of interest on the part of John Sargis (just because he was assistant editor) and Panlis. Their edits seem in good faith. They reacted reasonably following Randykitty’s history and his unwillingness to take part in a discussion at D&N talk page and resolve the dispute- he almost immediately opened an indictment.Polimihanos (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC) — Polimihanos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Support Seems like another Instance of a Editor being drawn to ANI attempting to bury the opposition with massive walls of text and confusing and complex statements. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 18:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think this thread has been open long enough to attract all of the useful contributions that it's going to attract, so could an uninvolved admin bring it to closure? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can agree about the need for a non-involved objective administrator to close this, assuming of course the administrator will read all the discussion here at ANI and at the D&N talk page. This way the administrator will get the whole view of what the issue is so he/she can reach a bona fide decision.John sargis (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    May I be so bold as to request some kind soul close the previous section into this as this seems to have resolved it also? It's time all this sleeps with the fishes in an archive. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:ThorLives and the Heathenry (new religious movement) page

    In the almost ten years that I've been active here at Wikipedia I've never suggested that any editor be banned or blocked, but unfortunately I've come to the conclusion that it may be necessary in the case of User:ThorLives in order to prevent continuing disruption to the Heathenry (new religious movement) page. A self-described "Odinist" – and thus a practitioner of the religion that this article is about, a possible Conflict of Interest of sorts – it is clear from ThorLives' contribution list that this is one of very few articles that they actually edit, and that they have been active on it since opening their account in October 2011 (and thus they've had four years with which to familiarise themselves with policy). Thus, I do believe that their intentions are good, even if their behaviour of late has repeatedly and seriously violated a number of Wikipedia policies, including those on disruptive editing, edit warring, no personal attacks, and "outing", with no sign that they intend to stop.

    The article in question was formerly titled "Germanic neopaganism", but in August 2015 a Requested Move resulted in the group decision that the page would be renamed "Heathenry (new religious movement)". Several hours after User:Sovereign Sentinel had orchestrated the move on 2 September 2015, ThorLives (clearly unhappy with this decision) created a fork redirect back to "Germanic neopaganism". Within the hour I had realised what they had done and undid their edit, thus restoring the page to "Heathenry (new religious movement)", pointing them to the recent Requested Move discussion in my edit summary. Unfortunately, they ignored that and simply restored their fork redirect. Only after being warned about their actions by both User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh and User:Sovereign Sentinel on the article Talk Page did they then undo their edit. This reflects not only an initial refusal to accept group decisions and a willingness to unilaterally act against them, but also shows that they are prepared to wilfully engage in edit warring.

    The very next day, on 3 September 2015, they then proceeded to engage in a range of edits that removed much academically-referenced material and introduced content that was in part poorly sourced – consisting of self-published and other non-reliable sources – and in part not sourced at all. This was always going to be controversial. On 4 September I undid these edits, seeking to bring about the Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle. However, ThorLives then engaged in edit warring by restoring their edits. Also acknowledging the problematic nature of ThorLives’ content, User:Bloodofox then restored things to how they were, but ThorLives simply undid that too. On 6 September I once again restored the article to the established revision, but fearing that the edit warring would continue and that I myself might be accused of violating the three-revert rule, I successfully requested a three day full protection for the article, which was kindly administered by User:NeilN.

    During this edit war, on the talk page I repeatedly requested that ThorLives engage in dialogue so that their proposed changes, which were both sweeping and controversial, could be discussed with other editors first. They ignored my requests, and in their response instead broke Civility policy by attempting to expose my identity, which is an attempt at "outing" and thus in very clear violation of our Harassment policy, which states very plainly that "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block". Since then, they have posted some rather odd comments on my talk page trying to "out" me further by linking me to a different user (and wrongly, as it happens) and making pretty uncomfortable accusations regarding my gender, and then most recently they've done it again on the talk page, this time making a personal attack by libelously accusing me of sock puppetry.

    All in all, ThorLives has exhibited a pattern of disruptive editing, edit warring, and outing with no sign that they admit their errors and intend to cease. Attempts have been made to engage in constructive dialogue with them on the article talk page, all of which have proved fruitless. This has all been highly detrimental to the quality and stability of the article in question, and frankly has been unpleasant for me, and it has led me to the unfortunate conclusion (which I most certainly do not take lightly) that a block and/or ban (temporary or otherwise) on this user's ability to edit is necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am completely uninvolved with this other than carrying out the requested move, and therefore I am abstaining from this discussion. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Update (14 Sep): As soon as the three-day full protection on the article ended on 9 September, ThorLives proceeded to make a number of additions to the article, including of non-reliably referenced material, which had to be removed by others. On 14 September, ThorLives again engaged in edit warring to restore information on pre-Christian religious movements, despite a Talk Page agreement from myself, User:Bloodofox, and User:Ogress that this information should not be included within the article. On the Talk Page they have also begun making accusations of "bullying" against myself, and accusing me of being unfamiliar with the subject matter (in clear violation of our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy). This is getting to be a real disruption for the article and the editors working to improve it, so it would be appreciated if administrators could take action. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Second update (16 Sep): Surprise surprise, but ThorLives is edit warring on this page again. As I specified above, on 14 September they restored a contentious reference that was being discussed on the Talk Page. Given that most editors involved in that discussion thought that this was damaging to the article (for various reasons), later that day their edit was undone by User:Ogress. On 15 September ThorLives simply restored it, ignoring Talk Page warnings that they should not do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Third update (18 Sep): Unsurprisingly, ThorLives has continued their edit warring over at the Heathenry page. Earlier today they added a Tag stating that the article's factual accuracy is disputed, and opened up a Talk Page discussion in which they repeated this accusation, without sufficient supporting information. User:Snowded, who has been otherwise un-involved in the article and its content disputes, removed that tag, explaining why it had to be removed. ThorLives simply then added it back in, (erroneously) accusing Snowded's removal of having been Vandalism. Yet again, the edit warring and incivility continues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ThorLives' response

    From ThorLives — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorLives (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I suspected a "sock puppet." Midnightblueowl and Bhlegkorbh made the same edits and same arguments and disrupted the page in the same ways. If you check my edits, I was not deleting material: I was restoring material he deleted.[reply]

    Both editors insisted that "heathenry" is the ONLY term for Germanic neopaganism. Folkish types do not like "pagan" because it has Latin and French roots.

    Both editors deleted academic references dealing with medieval Norse Paganism. For example, who could object to the following, but both constant;y deleted it:

    Our most complete sources for reconstruction are from Iceland. On the alleged existence of a collective Germanic paganism in medieval times, Professor Lois Bragg makes this observation: “But we have no persuasive evidence of any common cult, belief system, or even pantheon that might ever have been recognized among speakers of various Germanic languages across geographical, cultural, political, and dialect boundaries. While there are obvious commonalities, for example in the names of some deities (Odin, Woden, Wotan), these point to common origins rather than common praxis or belief. Compare present-dy Jews, Lutherans, and Mormons who share common myths (the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, the Moses cycle, the Patriarch cycle ) and who similarly name their children after the heroes of these myths (Adam, Aaron, Judith, Rebecca), but maintain distinctive cult practices and identities and even disparage and attempt to convert one another.” Lois Bragg. Oedipus Borealis: The Aberrant Body in Old Icelandic Myth and Saga Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. 2004. ISBN 0838640281

    Both editors deleted saga, Prose Edda, and Poetic Edda references.n

    Both editors deleted links and references to mainline pagan groups. This is the lede before the two removed it:

    Heathenry or Germanic neopaganism,[1] also known as Ásatrú, Odinism, Forn Siðr, Wotanism, Theodism, and other names, is the contemporary revival of historical polytheistic Germanic paganism.[2] Dedicated to the ancient gods and goddesses of the North, the focus of Germanic neopagans varies considerably, from strictly historical polytheistic reconstructionism to syncretist (eclectic), Jungian, occult or mysticist approaches. Germanic neopagan organizations cover a wide spectrum of belief and ideals.

    Much of Germanic Neopaganism's origins are in 19th century romanticism, as the aboriginal cultures of Northern Europe came to be glorified. In the early 20th century, organised groups emerged in Germany and Austria. In the 1970s, new Germanic Neopagan organisations grew up in Europe and North America, although a broad division in the movement emerged between the folkish movement, who saw it as the indigenous religion of the Nordic peoples, and the universalist movement, who opposed strictly racialist interpretations. As present, established Germanic Pagan communities exist in Europe, North America, South America, and Australasia. A few adherents can even be found in South Africa.

    References to the Odinist Fellowship, Odinic Rite, Ásatrú Alliance, Asatru Folk Assembly, and so forth were constantly deleted by both editors.

    Both editors constantly deleted references to Valhalla, a curious "conceit" on a page about Germanic paganism. (It makes sense, however, in a certain context. One small American group, who always uses the name Heathen exclusively, denies that Valhalla exists, and they argue that the dead continue to live in the grave mound)

    Both editors deleted all references to modern Norse pagan leaders and their books, people such as Stephen McNallen, John Yeowell, and so forth.

    I could continue, but you understand the point.

    I should add that, in my opinion, an article on Germanic Neopaganism should be comprehensive, and should not promote a single agenda. It also should contain numerous links and discussions to help readers find related articles. --ThorLives (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. --Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorLives (talk • contribs) 04:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't the place to discuss content dispute, which seems to represent almost the entire gist of ThorLives' response here; they have neither acknowledged nor apologised for their repeated gross violations of various Wikipedia policies. All I can say in response to their above post is that I (and others) had good reason to delete the non-reliably referenced, in some some cases not referenced at all, often sectarian, sometimes irrelevant, and at times factually incorrect statements that ThorLives had insisted on repeatedly adding to the article (at the expense of concise, academically-sourced information on this new religious movement which they repeatedly deleted). Wikipedia has clear guidelines surrounding Reliable Sources which ThorLives disregarded time and time again.
    As to the claim that I am sock puppeting and that myself and Bhlegkorbh are one and the same individual, I completely and utterly deny the libelous accusations 100%. I am not, and never have, edited Wikipedia using the "Bhlegkorbh" account (Bhlegkorbh appears to have thrown in the towel and left Wikipedia in July 2014 anyway). ThorLives' claim rests in its entirety on the basis that, at different times, myself and "Bhlegkorbh" have expressed similar arguments and opinions about how the article can be improved (primarily by adding in material from academic studies of Heathenry and deleting un-referenced and poorly-referenced text). However, similar opinions (which would, IMO, be held by anyone familiar with Wikipedia's Manual of Style), have also at times been backed by the likes of User:Bloodofox - so by ThorLives' reasoning I guess that that must be simply be another of my accounts too! Frankly, I suspect that the accusations of sock puppetry launched against me by ThorLives are in part an attempt simply to distract attention from their own behaviour. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ThorLives, why would anyone want a long quote about medieval or ancient beliefs (or in this instance lack of consistent beliefs) in the lead of an article about a modern revival? That kind of material MIGHT belong in later sections comparing modern/ancient or on the articles about the 'old'. I fear you are arguing from a different 'base' from WP guidelines. Pincrete (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    This looks like a content war with some edit warring and mild incivility. Outing maybe, possibly but its not clear. I don't see any 3rr warnings on ThorLives talk page and you should exhaust process there before coming to ANI for a ban ----Snowded TALK 13:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ordinarily I would have waited until the edit warring got worse before bringing up the possibility of blocking/banning or anything like that, however when ThorLives started engaging in outing, which according to Wikipedia:Harassment is "grounds for an immediate block", I came to the opinion that the situation had become more serious and accordingly required a more serious response. (Also, in the spirit of disclosure for all readers, it probably is fair to say that myself and Snowded have had recent disagreements over content at Talk:UK Independence Party, which at points has become a little heated. That certainly doesn't invalidate their comment, but perhaps it is a factor that should be made clear - to use a colloquialism, we have history, as it were). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It just means I notice if your name comes up an ANI Midnight, its the way wikipedia works. Given that you seem well intentioned on the UK Independence issues I looked at this one to see if you needed any help, hence the comment ----Snowded TALK 00:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading the talk, I get the impression that 'Thor' doesn't fully understand how WP works, in the event of nothing happening here, might I suggest this is a candidate for dispute resolution. Pincrete (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Forms of dispute resolution, such as RFCs, have already been employed. ThorLives simply continued with many of their actions regardless, hence why there was the need to turn to the Administrators' Noticeboard. I agree with the statement that ThorLives doesn't appear to understand how Wikipedia works, however they have been repeatedly pointed to policies such as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources over at the Talk Page, so I do not believe that they can legitimately defend themselves through claiming an ignorance of policy. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been over a week since I posted this issue and the problem is simply continuing. Can an administrator please consider doing something so that the article can advance without disruption? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Could we perhaps get administrative support for a Topic Ban, which would be less extreme than a wider ban yet would put a stop to the constant disruptive behaviour which is damaging the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    At the moment its a low level content dispute with some incivility from Thor who evidently does not understand how wikipedia works. I'm not sure he can be bothered finding out either but lets see how it plays out. This has come to ANI prematurely and should be closed. Normal process can handle it ----Snowded TALK 00:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What about out WP:Harrassment policy, which states very clearly that "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block"? There can be no doubt that ThorLive engaged in attempted outing? Why are administrators turning a bling eye and the regulations being ignored in this instance? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    My only interest here is to prevent the additional degradation of the article on Germanic neopagansim. Midnightblueowl effectively rewrote the article using one book (see talk page), and I simply ask that other editors be respected. As to "outing," I am still convinced that he disrupted the article in the past under a different name. -- ThorLives (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ThorLives, either provide some proof that "he disrupted the article in the past under a different name" or remove it/strike it through. Pincrete (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Mezigue, individual comments would suggest to me 'young adult' or older in terms of age. Pincrete (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Either way, Sandra opposed to terrorism is a WP:SPA. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in the 'classic' sense of an editor who came here with a single PoV purpose. Pincrete (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My sentiments exactly. :) Versus001 (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I merely restored then improved on another editor's improvements. SEE Green Cardamom here [10] Your complaint is not an ANI (administrator's incident). Also supported by a third editor from Canada. [11] Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Smear?

    nb Sub-section heading added retrospectively Pincrete (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Sorry, your link is crap. Could you relink please? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Link works for me. It shows the log showing the creation date of the account. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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 [12], 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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. [13] [14] [15] [16] 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)

    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[21][22] but himself support removal removal based on lengthy explanations not based on policy.[23][24][25]
    • 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[26][27].
    • 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)[reply]
    Huldra, instead of so many words in a forum manner: let's be more simple and read his author page:
    already existing in a "Huldra, Nomoskedasticity & Pluto2012 reverts" topic where you are nebtioned too. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    FYI: the answer of Nishidani to this WP:AN/I request (Added by Pluto2012 (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)).[reply]

    I strongly endorse Huldra's suggestion to consider this a case of WP:BOOMERANG. Zerotalk 00:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @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. Zerotalk 09:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zero0000: Is it your private opinion or as administrator's one? --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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. Zerotalk 02:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    (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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @Huldra: Your proposal fails OR, SYNTH and probably more policies I don't even know about. Settleman (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Settleman: I honestly do not agree. But I would like to hear "outside" opinion on this, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    (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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Proposed WP:BOOMERANG for User:Settleman

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

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Come on. How did you get to that new page in just 4 minutes?Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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 [28][29] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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) [reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Sheesh'. Virtually every editor regularly involved in Israel/Palestine conflict articles is pushing a POV.' Disingenuous.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Comment - A suggestion by an extremely involved editor who got blocked for hounding me. Settleman (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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[30],[31] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    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. [[32]][[33]][[34]][[35]][[36]][[37]][[38]][[39]]. 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 [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. 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 [48]. 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 [49], yet the user persists in this type of behavior. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • [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. [50] 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[51]. Note the discussion regarding the edits in question began before the Scoobydunk reverted Rjensen's edits which I added back to the article.
    2. [52] 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[53]. 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. [54] 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[55]. The tag was restored by HughD at the same time [56]. 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. [57] This one is laughable. The editor in question was an "undercover" diarist at the Daily Kos. He was indefinately blocked shortly after this exchange [58]. 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 [59]. 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. [60] 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. [61] 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. [62] 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 [63]. Thus the article tag was an invitation to justify a questionable content addition. The tags were not stand alone.
    8. [64] 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 [65].
    • 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 [66]. Springee (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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" [67]. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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[68] and your frustration that it was not decided as you had wished [69]). You have disagreed with myself and a few other editors on the Southern Strategy talk page recently. Today I proposed making some changes here [70], 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[71]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [72] 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)[reply]
    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 [74]. The IP editor was attempting to undo that change. DaltonCastle also noted the change but his talk comment was not answered by HughD [75]. 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[76]. 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 [77], David Axelrod [78], Mit Romney [79], and Karl Rove [80]. 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 [81]. 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 [82]. 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 [83]. 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) [84]. 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 [85]. Springee (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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 [[86]]. 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 [87]). 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    (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: [88][89]. Hugh has filed a number of ANIs against other editors [90], [91],[92]. 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) [93]. 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)[reply]
    Without commenting on the other claims in this case, this edit[94] certainly looks like an example of "let's you and him fight". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Why didn't you post this ANI a long time ago rather than just today when I proposed making changes you disagree with?[95] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [96]? 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)[reply]

    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 [97]. 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)[reply]
    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[98] was just here to build a better encyclopedia you are certainly welcome to argue that case. Springee (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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 [99]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [100]. 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 ([101], [102],[103])? 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 [104] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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 angry 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @ 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]


    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)[reply]

    Hoaxing/Vandalism

    Hi, a few days ago I reverted this edit on The Snowman. Pretty clear case of vandalism by misattributing credit for several production roles. I looked further into the IP's edits and discovered a hoax which was spread over several articles. It's about a show called the Joey & Fido Show which apparently doesn't exist. Here are a few examples:

    [106] [107] [108]

    I researched this "show" and the only references to it I could find were all related to this user's entries in the encyclopedia. There is one unrelated Deviant Art page. Almost all of this user's vandalism pertains in some manner to Martin Lambie-Nairn. I ended up having to give up fixing this user's edits after around 70 of them spread all over Wikipedia. Please feel free to review my contributions for a full list. It includes several BLP violations pertaining to Lambie-Nairn in particular.

    This user has editing Lambie-Nairn's page each of the past three days adding in unsourced claims, and don't appear to be willing to stop: [109] [110] [111]

    I'm in over my head trying to deal with this as I have very little expertise and only sporadic time to edit. I'm asking for some of you folks to please watch some of these pages, and am also concerned that if a user like this spread a hoax once they may be tempted to again. I doubt they'd have been caught if not for making the mistake of editing a popular page like The Snowman.

    I apologize in advance if I reverted anything I shouldn't have but every one of those 70ish edits looked like vandalism after reviewing them. I'm posting this here instead of at WP:AIV because I'm not sure if the hoaxing aspect requires more attention than normal.

    They primarily edit from an IP in the range of 88.104.x.x, but not always. This changes almost every day. I will go and place the notification on their two most recent accounts.

    Thank you Zarcusian (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, yes, that is related to the deviant art page artist and is unrelated to these edits, I checked many times. This editor even refers to the show debuting in the 70s and having a feature film, etc.. Zarcusian (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need a rangeblock. There are a bunch of IPs that geolocate to Manchester, UK, and if we can get a handle on their extent, we can see how much collateral damage would come from a rangeblock. Here's what I'm seeing:
    There are a few outliers which are obviously connected, for instance 86.135.131.130 from nearby Heswell. But the main problem comes from the range 88.104.0 to 88.104.15. I think this should be blocked for a month. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    86.180.136.109 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) The same editor is back at it inserting hoax material into articles, seems to be on a static IP this time:

    Would it be possible to also block this IP for a reasonable amount of time? Zarcusian (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ArmstrongJulian nominating articles for deletion out of personal grudges and general editing with personal bias and rudeness

    − I have been having a lot of problems with the editor ArmstrongJulian. It began when this editor quite awhile ago got very angry at me over edits made in the article [[112]]. This editor accused me of making purposely false edits and was very aggressive in their accusations and rudeness towards me for no reason. I should have reported them then, but I just ignored them. I stayed clear of this editor after that. Then I saw some edits they made at the article of Michael Bramos, and they were edits that to me made the article hard to understand from sentence structure. I did not even remember it was the same editor. But I simply asked if the editor could please be careful in their grammar edits at their talk page. I also noticed that in several articles of basketball players that I was looking at, the heights of the players in their infoboxes was being changed. This was being done actually in dozens of articles, all by this same editor. So I simply asked at the same time, was there a reason for this? I wanted an explanation really. That was all. I was just trying to have a normal discussion. I normally can do this all the time with other editors and these things are no problem. But ArmstrongJulian was very rude and would have no discussion at all [[113]]. :Then, from there, the next thing that happened was I noticed that this same editor was following my edits, and then they started nominating several of my articles for deletion. Something i was not aware of, because they never notified me of them be ing nominated for deletion. When I asked about them not notifying me, they said they never notify anyone when they put their articles up for deletion, and always get articles deleted because editors are too lazy to notice. When I argued about all of this, I was told they would not discuss any of it with me, but I should take it to the basketball project of Wikipedia Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball. I did not realize at the time, this was their way of stalling me, and getting some others involved that would help them get my articles deleted. I thought this was reasonable, to discuss with other editors, so I did it - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#ArmstrongJulian, but I got no discussion from any others there and only Julian continued to be rude and refused to discuss anything. Meanwhile my articles continued for deletion with no discussion. Meanwhile, I tried to ask for opinions of other good editors I know and respect a lot, because they are very good editors and they work very well with others when you ask a question and they discuss everything and always try to help. User:Rikster2 and User:AirWolf Rikster advised me to come here with this, but Airwolf said that he would not personally do so when talking about another editor, so I did not. So I did not and waited.

    But since I waited, already my article All-Europe Player of the Year was deleted, with the reason being given that I had no external sources provided in the article. That however is a flat out lie. The article had two external media sources provided in it. And every editor involved in claiming that either is mistaken, or is lying, and yes I am saying that. Because i said it had those sources, it did have those sources, and it did meet the site criteria. Which is why Julian did not inform me when he nominated it for deletion, and which is why he then involved another user User:Bagumba into the discussion of whether it should be deleted or not. I am not making a complaint against Bagumba. At least not yet. Let me clarify that. But i want to make clear that in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball they are always agreeing with each other and they are always suggesting one thing, with the other agreeing and trying to change things or set new standards. As soon as I told Julian that i would send a complaint against him if he did not stop being rude to me at that basketball wiki project, it was Bagumba that then started talking at my articles nominated for deletion, sending me that discussion invited and then it was he who nominated my latest creation for deletion, a template that I made. I would have to be a complete moron to not see the connection. Just as I would have to be a complete moron not to notice that as soon as I asked Julian about his edits at the Michael Bramos article and why he was changing heights on dozens of articles, that he got very rude with me, and then he nominated my articles for deletion. I tried numerous times to have a discussion with him and he refused and was very rude, and insulting. So obviously this is my only recourse.Bluesangrel (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bluesangrel: - WP:TLDR. Also please include diffs. GiantSnowman 17:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, what exactly specifically do you need diffs of? Because every single thing stated here can be verified.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bluesangrel: - Just a small notice. Your statement that I have advised you not to "come here" is incorrect. Please, in the future don't make such falsehood.--AirWolf talk 18:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I mean. I am saying that you said you would not do so. Which is what you told me.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, there was confusion because of how I worded it when I wrote it, I did not word it how I should have. I meant to say, that AirWolf said he would not take a user to a complaint board, so I did not do it. But what I failed to clarify was that I was using that advice, but from when I was asking him from before, when another editor was being difficult to deal with and rude. It was not me specifically asking him about Julian. So I mean to say, I asked him about another editor. Sorry for the confusion. I did not word that properly.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I respectfully ask that I be left out of this. I never asked to be involved and have no grudge or alliance with either party. I'm just trying to get this aired out in the proper place (which would NOT be my Talk page). Rikster2 (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rikster2, I am merely asking that you confirm that you have been involved in this, going back all the way to when Julian began calling me into a discussion at the Pallacanestro Treviso talk page, to that I tried to bring a discussion several times at the basketball project, after Julian told me that was where he would discuss matters with me. I am not asking you to be involved in anything. Only to confirm what I am saying. I certainly don't think that is asking too much.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a correction to make, it was not Rikster that was talking with me and Julian at the Pallacanestro Treviso talk page. It was Anthony Appleyard. That's why Rikster was confused on that. Sorry for that mistake.Bluesangrel (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have the following comments:
    —Bagumba (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He also opened up one on Greek Basketball Hall of Fame, something you personally are aware of because of this: [115] I read the notability guidelines, and that article did not meet them. So i simply did not contest that. Despite that I was never notified at all of it being nominated like in all the other cases) and despite it git nominated right after Julian got mad at me when I asked him to be careful with his edits at the Michael Bramos article - User talk:ArmstrongJulian#Grammar in your edits and heights and weights of players in infobox templates article. It is interesting that this case is not mentioned, because it did not meet notability, as I read through it, and I did not contest it and i let it go completely. My other articles had/have no reason to be deleted. Including the one that was deleted, in which you claimed it had no external sources, even though it had two external media sources, and was still deleted. So now I am basically being accused of lying, in order to just defend my work here.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Including the one that was deleted, in which you claimed it had no external sources": If you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/All-Europe_Player_of_the_Year, I stated that there was "No evidence of independent reliable sources", which is quite different than mere external sources. You can refer to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Independent sources if you are unclear why there is a distinction.—Bagumba (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not forget this article either, since you also failed to mention it European Basketball Player of the Year Awards. That's also what Julian called editing like a fan forum. I was told that I source nothing, all my editing is made up, and i edit like I am in a fan forum. Yeah, so naturally let's delete that article also. And why not stop there either right? Of course again, I was not notified of it being nominated, and again, happens after he gets mad at me just for asking him a couple of perfectly normal questions at his talk page, to which he got angry and rude for no reason at all.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion If the results of an AfD(s) is being contested, Wikipedia:Deletion review is the proper forum. As I suggested to Bluesangrel earlier at one of the AfDs, pursue WP:HOUND if that is the accusation.[116] And it goes without saying diffs are needed. Otherwise, it's fair to ask if it is Bluesangrel who is the angry one when they posted this at 17:06 before this ANI: "My articles got deleted. Not one person even tried to help in this. I am reporting this to a moderator. This is abusive."[117].—Bagumba (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    On your user rights Bagumba it says you are an admin. Is that not correct? I discussed this in detail at that basketball project, and I was under the impression that is correct under Wikipedia guidelines, as these were all basketball articles. And you completely ignored everything. However, you did claim that my deleted article had no external media sources, which was untrue, but that was what you used as justification for it to be deleted right Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-Europe Player of the Year https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/All-Europe_Player_of_the_Year&diff=prev&oldid=681406389 "*Delete Fails WP:LISTN. No evidence of independent reliable sources that discuss this grouping. Granted, I might not find these on English websites, and also wouldn't know which ones are reliable. This is the difficulty with dealing with potentially notable subjects covered in predominantly non-English sources. However, no persuasive arguments have been forthcoming either.—Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)" - So what exactly did I do wrong? Shall I give the external media sources here, since now that the article id deleted no one can see them? Or if they were in a foreign language would that not count? The article also had English external sources also as well. You keep giving these instructions from Wikipedia that I am supposed to read and follow, I have already. I did nothing wrong. And is it so much to ask an admin to help a problem? You don't seem to interested in helping this problem.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "And you completely ignored everything": As I commented above at 19:07,[118] you did not provide the diffs that I request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#ArmstrongJulian, and have not provided substantial ones in this ANI yet either.—Bagumba (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "you did claim that my deleted article had no external media sources": Please see my above comment at 19:32 about your mischaracterization of "external sources".[119] Perhaps someone can help facilitate this discussion, because it is unfortunately going in circles.—Bagumba (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bluesangrel Did not need me to make a fool of himself, his accusations are clearly baseless and I'll provide the explanation underneath:
    • This started with a discussion on his move (without a proposed move) of the Pallacanestro Treviso article to another (wrong) article, which you can find (here). I politely told him he had been wrong yet he kept arguing without ever providing anything to back it up and I was more straightforward (yet civil) to point out he wasn't making any sense.
    • He then came on my talk page to make these accusations about the grammar of one of my edits on the Michael Bramos article when in fact the grammar mistakes were not even mine. At this point I told him to stop creating trouble for nothing as he had also complained about another editor.
    • Completely unrelated, I nominated a number of articles for deletion as they did not prove their notability and I could not find any multiple, reliable and independent sources on them. These included articles created by Bluesangrel and other articles, I did not even know he created the articles, just that they clearly did not answer to wikipedia's notability requirement.
    • When opposing an article's deletion, he did not provide a single additional reference, instead accusing me (and then others that got involded without me having anything to do with it) of picking on him. His attitude was clearly that of article ownership and WP:ILIKEIT and not in line with wikipedia policy.
    • He created a thread making baseless accusations against me (that I was agressive and rude) yet provided nothing to back it up and when I answered to dispel what he had said only replied with hot air (not even providing a single link).
    • He has repeatedly created articles or made edits that were based on no sources or a few primary sources, not establishing either notability of the article or providing any other independent sources when prompted (Greece men's national under-21 basketball team and Greece men's national under-17 basketball team for example). And yet he claims, as above, that all his articles are sourced despite everythin pointing to the opposite.
    I am sorry, that you were not able to find a site loophole to claim that those articles should be deleted. But I am sure you will try, and that Bagumba will mark it with an "Agree". Keep claiming none of my work has any sources, can be backed up, or deserves an article. You are proving exactly what I am saying here. As are your comments in the history of those articles you posted. Notice how Julian did not mention this article Greece men's national under-18 basketball team. Look at the history, [[120]]. The way he accuses me of editing, is actually how he is doing some edits. Of course, he won't use that as an example, while he is pretending to be some kind of saint here.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    His attitude has gone from annoying to plain disruptive. I could tolerate his inadequate edits but he has now started a whole campaign against me and anyone (like Bagumba) who's tries to reason with him. I'd argue to give him a warning so he realises that he can't do what he wants on here (which is what he is doing when making edits unsourced), hopefully he can start respecting wikipedia policy and other editors afterwards. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    How about any editor here look through Julian's history at any of his edits and any talk page or discussion he was ever involved with. That should pretty much sum up his attitude towards everything. As far as Bagumba goes, he is clearly biased and trying to help Julian without any question. Suggesting Wikipedia is not the place for me, and claiming my article that had external sources did not. I am not wasting one second with either of them, because they are being aggressive towards me and both should be reading all those things they keep posting. Any other editor that wants any diff, or clarification please ask for it. Any background, please ask for it. For now, I am going back to editing, because no one is involved in this right now. But I am not going to involve myself at all with the people causing the problem, and certainly not the one that has been bullying me. But I do expect this to be resolved, and I will provide anything, including the litany of personal insults sent in discussions from Julian to me, which can be given. I am just waiting for anyone to show that they are going to actually do something about this, which so far, no one has. For now, I am going back to editing, I won't engage with Julian, nor if he posting here.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Any background, please ask for it": For the record, GiantSnowman asked for diffs above [121], and Liz and Tide rolls have encouraged you to do so at your talk page.[122] I can only conclude that you either don't have the evidence, or refuse to provide it. Without evidence, going forward, I ask that you refrain from any further accusations of personal behavior that lack evidence. I think WP:DROPTHESTICK applies to your most recent comment at TfD.—Bagumba (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have specifically said, what diffs does anyone want and I will give it. There is a lot to this. So I need to be asked for what specific example they want, so I can give it. I find it interesting how you can find these examples so easy that support Julian, but you can't find a thing to support me, even though all the examples are there. Why is that? Ask me specifically what example it is you want me to provide. You have not done so. You are being purposely vague as possible, and then accusing me of not proving specific info. That's a tactic you are using. Also, it is not Julian's place to suggest I be given a warning, nor was it right for him to nominate articles without notifying me. He's not an admin according to his user rights info.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Since Julian suggested I be given a warning, just some examples of his general interaction with me and I am sure many others, [[123]] - just one example of basically every single time he posts directed towards me. As far as I know, this is not acceptable interaction in this site. Yet, it is the only kind of interaction he seems to do. At least, it's the only kind he has done with me. I can list the same, except much more aggressive and insulting of many more diffs. But this is just an example of the ones in the articles up for deletion, to which again, I was never even notified. His interactions in personal discussions tend to be much more rude than that, such as something like this,
    "@Bluesangrel:I was not going to dignify your first message with an answer, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, you might want to check the difference between grammar and spelling too" ArmstrongJulian (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    "No, I'm implying you should try making useful edits (with things called sources) instead of pestering everyone (I note I'm not the only one you've approached) with nonsense accusations. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)" at his talk page User talk:ArmstrongJulian#Grammar in your edits and heights and weights of players in infobox templates

    Again, I can give numerous more examples of this. Just general normal interaction and conversation I supposes though.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am done with this. Admin you can forget this since obviously no one is going to do anything about this. Bagumba, Julian's obvious friend is the only admin interacting, and just defending him, and making all kinds of accusations against me. This is ridiculous. One last thing though. If any more of my articles get wrongly nominated for deletion by ArmstrongJulian, I am going to file a formal grievance with Wikipedia.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't quote Greece men's national under-18 basketball team because I didn't want to quote too much articles, it's another example of a poorly sourced article, thanks for providing it. As for the quote above, I'll gladly own up to it, there's nothing wrong in what I said and while it may be blunt I would not call it rude. It's not my role to give warnings or block people, but this whole thread is designed to answer improper behaviour, I didn't want to go down that road but Bluesangrel did and his attitude here is exactly why he should be given a warning. He makes every single one of his grievances a major issue and opens threads all over the place with no clear goal. Besides he still refuses to admit he is not following wikipedia guidelines (saying he'll just go back to editing), I didn't claim he had no place on wikipedia, I said and still say his style of editing (without any reliable, independent sources) has no place here. I just want to make clear (if it wasn't clear enough) that I never allied myself with Bagumba, our only interactions have been though wikiproject basketball which is how he got involved (along with a number of editors) in the deletion discussions, through Bluesangrel's actions everybody has had to get involved as he keeps posting vendetta threads on the project's talk page. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang on Bluesangrel

    Bluesangrel (talk · contribs) Even after providing allowances for a cooling off period above, it seems that the originator will not drop the WP:STICK. They were already warned above about WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". They refused to provide any diffs above, and claimed "I am done with this." (see above at 21:46, 17 September 2015).

    This is unfortunately not the case with continued unsubstantiated attacks against ArmstrongJulian:

    • 18:57, 18 September "Yet, there it is completely falsely nominated for deletion by the same editor, and even has others agreeing it should be deleted already. This seems to be a pattern involving ArmstrongJulian."

    And there are other WP:POINTy comments reflecting a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of late at AfDs, seemingly out of spite:

    • 18:48, 18 September "Let's please put a stop to this kind of behavior, and not allow it to go on."
    • 18:43 "It seems a lot of editors here are not following site guidelines perhaps some people should be reported for that?"
    • 18:40 "... he meets the standard and deleted the article is a violation of site etiquette and just trying to destroy other editor's work for no reason."
    • 18:38 "Actually contribute something, rather than try to destroy everything others created."
    • 18:35 "Keep No reason at all to delete this."

    —Bagumba (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just let someone INDEPENDENT review whether or not my articles should have ACTUALLY been deleted or not. I provided evidence of an article Julian just nominated for deletion that is not to be deleted under site guidelines. It meets site criteria totally, and yet he still nominated it. It was provided for nothing in a personal attack, but as an example. You keep interfering in this issue. that is why I included you in the discussion. Just allow another admin to please review the deletion independent of yourself. You need to step back from this and do that. I have already contacted the admin that deleted my article and I am waiting for them to discuss it with me. There is no reason for you to keep involving yourself in this, but you insist on it, always backing up Julian and also always coming at me aggressively. So please allow me and the admin that deleted my article the time to discuss this. Otherwise, you are seriously escalating this situation and you are intentionally doing so. Now, every single person here can see the issue at hand. I have already told you I am handling this with another admin. There is no need for you to keep involving and injecting yourself into this.Bluesangrel (talk)
    One more comment, I am no longer engaging in any discussion with Bagumba. He is clearly biased and aggressive towards me from the beginning on this. So any further comments he makes or posts he makes here, is all on him continuing to escalate this issue. As I said, it was being taken care of with me and the editor that deleted the article. So, I will not respond to any posts he makes here, because I consider him to be harassing me. P{lease don't take my ignoring him as any rules violation. Any other admin or editor can discuss with me. But I will ignore anything he writes here or anywhere in the site.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to discuss this with the admin that deleted my article User:MBisanz because they would be independent and neutral and Bagumba again had to inject themselves into it User_talk:MBisanz#Could you please answer some questions for me? - Bagumba, I will ask you one more time, please allow me and an independent admin to deal with issue and to follow the site guidelines on this and please stop injecting yourself into this over and over. I am asking you again, please stay out of this. You are not helping at all, and you are just making things miserable for me. Please let me and MBisanz discuss the article of mine that they deleted ourselves. Thank you ahead of time for your cooperation Bagumba, if you will have it in your heart to be able to do this.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a suggestion for Bagumba, Bagumba, your pal is not going to get in trouble for anything, if it was not understood by you and him, I will clarify it now. I am not making a complaint against the editor, but against the wrongful nomination of my hard good work being so carelessly and nonchalantly put for deletion and then deleted, and the very condescending and cavalier attitude about it, when asked why this was being done. Along with the reactions it garnered from someone like you, defending at all cost those actions, and coming at me like I am totally out of line to even wonder about it. It's nothing personal, and it's not a personal complaint, nor intended to get anyone in trouble (if you doubt that I can show you where I already talked to an admin called Liz here at the start of this, and told them I wanted no one to get in trouble over this). It's just trying to get my articles protected from wrongful deletion.
    I am trying to handle that away from you with the editor that deleted the article. So just please, leave this alone. OK? This is nothing to do with getting anyone in trouble. It's a dispute about my articles being wrongly deleted and trying to be deleted. Now, please just have the courtesy, the common decent courtesy to allow me to follow through on the site policy of contesting the article deletion. There is no reason to keep reviewing every single comment I make or every single edit I make in the site. If I see a bad edit or policy, or an article falsely put for deletion, or an editor doing something they should not be doing I am allowed to make notice of that and state a comment on it. Nothing nefarious about it. However, the fact that every single time I make a comment or vote on an issue, it seems almost to be used against me as some sort of doing something bad here, is starting to look suspicious to me. So I don't know what it is that has you so angry and upset with me, but relax. I am not angry or upset with anyone here, but I am starting to feel like you are very angry with me. You need an apology for something you think I did? Say so, that is all you have to do. I am a very nice person, and I don't understand this way of dealing with matters. Maybe it was wrong for me to decide not to converse and talk with you, because you went right to the other admin. I thought you would understand that as let us handle it. So let's take a different approach. Talk to me at my talk page, just the two of us. OK? No Julian, no anybody else. Please don't bring Julian or anyone else into it. Let us just have a discussion with each other and then hopefully you can see I am not doing any of the things you seem to think I am doing.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bluesangrel, while it stings to have an article one created nominated for a deletion discussion, the nominating editor isn't responsible for the deletion, the participants in the AFD discussion and the discussion closer determine whether it ends in a delete, keep or no consensus decision. The next best move when an article is nominated is to go to the deletion discussion and argue for your article, stating why it should be kept. Listen to the criticism that editors offer, it can help you make the article stronger and less likely to be deleted. The smartest editors work on building up a nominated article while it is being discussed so they can show that it meets notability standards (since this is often the rationale for deletion). If an editor makes a claim that there are no reliable sources, you can show how there are or you can add additional ones that are more acceptable.
    Now that the AFD discussions have resulted in deletions, you can talk to the deleting admin (which you have done) and then go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Most admins are open to userfying deleted articles and putting them into Draft or User space so you can work on improving the content.
    Please think of the result you want here which I believe is for your deleted articles to be reconsidered. You accomplish this not by attacking the nominating editor (who you say you are not seeking sanctions against) but by focusing on addressing concerns about your articles and making them more substantial if the reliable sources exist to support them. 21:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the helpful input, it is nice to actually get that from someone. I did try to go to the article deletion pages and argue why I did not think they should be deleted, but Bagumba kept saying I should not be allowed to do so, and kept saying it was against site rules to do that. When I persisted he ended up bringing this complaint against me. So It really isn't that easy to argue for the articles when an admin is doing that.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But maybe he Bagumba will talk with me about this at my talk page. Then if whatever Bagumba's issues are with me would get resolved, I can hopefully get the admin that deleted the article to discuss it with me.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bluesangrel: Perhaps you are referred to this comment I made made about multiple !votes? Typically a participant only bolds one !vote. Not that a discussion is done by merely counting votes, but it's just the (unwritten?) norm. Sorry, if you were not already aware. Feel free to add additional comments. I typically just add "<b>Comment</b>" if I have more to say, or you can just not bold anything in front. However, it can sometimes be counterproductive to WP:REPEAT the same argument also. Use your best judgement.—Bagumba (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bagumba, with all due respect, you should not be making an editor feel like they can't defend their article and discuss it and why it is being nominated for deletion, particularly when several of their articles are being nominated at the same time, all by the same editor, and no notice was given for any of them being nominated. Any editor here is going to wonder about that and want to discuss it and defend their article, also when they are told that they edited with no sources, they edited like they were using a fan forum and so forth. So when things like that are happening, I am sorry, but it takes more than just one or two posts, or oppositions. And it's really not fair for you to make the editor with the articles being up for deletion to feel like that are in the wrong for even doing so.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    Using the lab comparison tools HERE and HERE you can see many many overlaps between this set of editors. Both share also a belligerent attitude and focus on basketball with extra interest in greek topics. Coincidences? (NB before anyone accuses me of being a sock, I have a wildly dynamic IPaddr and no account to log into.) --2.96.177.115 (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @2.96.177.115: Amen, I've had the same suspicions and they've done nothing but grow. I didn't want to make the accusations before having proof but I think the similarities are strong. I also did the comparasion and it had other 1200 cross edits with Wiki Greek Basketball and about half of that with the sock, for comparison's sake I also compared myself (as I often edit basketball articles) and got something in the low hundreds. Some of those articles have been edited by only a hnadful of editors yet Bluesangrel somehow knew of their existence (see Lega Basket, Euroleague attendance], Steve Giatzoglou). Above all, I just noticed something that I had missed at first. See this comment by Bluesangrel from the discussion above: "He also opened up one on Greek Basketball Hall of Fame, something you personally are aware of because of this: [202] I read the notability guidelines, and that article did not meet them. So i simply did not contest that. Despite that I was never notified at all of it being nominated like in all the other cases [...] My other articles had/have no reason to be deleted". The thing is Bluesangrel did not create that article, one of Wiki Greek Basketball or the Euroleaguebasketball project did, I know because I stated "Note that the article creator was banned for disruptive editing" when nominating it as I had stumbled across the whole affair (I can't link the history as the article was deleted but I'm sure someone can check). As the above poster mentionned their attitudes are very similar, including constant whining about being picked on and the fact he never listens to what people tell him, they both like to use "rude" a lot (see here and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wiki Greek Basketball). The whole thing is quite fishy, I'd appreciate if @Snigbrook:, @MuZemike: and @Phantomsteve: (who were involved in the past case) have a look. ArmstrongJulian (not a home so can't log in). --213.174.123.193 (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - ArmstrongJulian, your account was created in February of this year and you are going back to similarities with blocked socks that haven't been active for over five years. Do you have a previous user name? This just seems weird (doesn't excuse sock behavior for Bluesangrel of course). Rikster2 (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My other comment is that I don't think those overlaps are conclusive and would prefer a more stringent check is done before a user is blocked. FWIW, Bluesangrel and I have 1600+ edits in common and I can assure you we aren't the same person. Rikster2 (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, Wiki Greek Basketball, that was quite the train wreck. Unless WGB has vastly matured in the last few years, I have doubts that Bluesangrel is linked to that account. WGB had a great deal of trouble letting go of anything. They also had a great deal of trouble seeing through others perspective instead insisting that everyone was out to get them. Bluesangrel is far more accommodating in their interactions and there are certainly no signs of finger pointing that was the hallmark of WGB. Blackmane (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Not helpful to you maybe. That don't mean much to me. Doc talk 09:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    So you don't give a toss about improving the encyclopedia. OK. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    ^ "...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)[reply]
    Oh good, a one-man peanut gallery. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    NE Ent! Yay! Thankfully you've come in to save the day. You, frankly, rawk!!! Doc talk 09:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody clearly has a lot of time on his hands. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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." [128] [129], which was just fine of course.]) IHTS (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 122,190 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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, 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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).[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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).[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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) Editor has apparently changed his mind. IHTS (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to come late to the party. Guy's behaviour is indefensible. See the complaints at [130]. 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)[reply]
    The complainant (thread OP) is another user, not me. IHTS (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    User MisterMorton

    I left this report at AVI but was told to come here. MisterMorton (talk · contribs) has a long history of removing standard parameters from infoboxes without explanation, including Natonality and Alma Mater or other educational parameters, even if inclusion of this information is not controversial or challenged. Examples: [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], and this one after the most recent warning [141]. Has edited for four years but never leaves an edit summary and never discusses on article or user talk pages. Has received numerous warnings from several editors about all of these problems, but does not respond. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Trying to discuss with the user. — Earwig talk 20:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of responding to Earwig's attempt to discuss, MisterMorton continues undeterred in removing legitimate parameters without edit summaries or discussion: [142].
    And again: [143] Sundayclose (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked MisterMorton for 72 hours. — Capt'n Earwig arr! / talk 18:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been bothering me all day. He has, in the past, responded to many requests on his talk page (see 1 2 3 4 5, including 6 crucially where he agreed to use edit summaries, and which he indeed followed through on). Then, in September 2014 he posts this. He returns less than a month later, uses (very) detailed edit summaries for a short while, then goes back to not using them after a couple weeks; there are a few article talk page posts in the past year but no responses to messages on his own talk page. I can't figure out what happened here, other than maybe getting fed up with constant complaints from people to the point where he tried to detach himself from the community as much as possible. It is quite frustrating, as many of his edits are perfectly ordinary gnoming work. — Earwig talk 02:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There does seem to be an attrition of gnomes through communication issues. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    I recently noticed that User:MaronitePride had added a WP:COPYVIO to Schengen Area:

    I removed it and left a note on the user's talk page explaining why this could not stay in article space. The user has responded by edit warring to include this content, albeit now including the text in quotations. Ignoring the fact that the edit misrepresents the source (as I explained in the edit summary), slapping quotations marks around the whole thing does not change the fact that it still violates WP:NFCCP. For one thing, there is no WP:INTEXT attribution and it also fails "no free equivalent" (the sentence could be rewritten to make it free, which is what I did but which is what is being reverted).

    I subsequently noticed that User:Drmies had recently warned the user for the same behaviour on Kurds in Iran. Further investigation has found that this seems to be a widespread problem in MaronitePride's edits, even since Drmies' warning:

    Much of Kurds in the Netherlands appears to be a copyvio:

    copyvio 3

    "stormed the national parliament building in The Hague on Monday night in a protest against ISIS offensive on the Syrian town ... Dutch police raided a secret meeting of members of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in the Netherlands ... prosecutors office said, adding that the Kurdish PKK recruits young Kurds in the Netherlands for its armed struggle against the Turkish army ... left-wing pro-Kurdish party, which won 13 percent of the votes in the Turkish parliamentary elections, leading to much joy and celebrations among the Kurds who want more autonomy for Turkish Kurdistan, but Turkey refuses to give it"
    "stormed the national parliament building in The Hague on Monday night in a protest against Islamic State fighters who are attacking a Kurdish town in northern Syria" .. "Dutch police raided a secret meeting of members of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in the Netherlands ... prosecutors office said, adding that the PKK recruits young Kurds in the Netherlands for its armed struggle against the Turkish army." ... "the left-wing pro-Kurdish party won 13 percent of the votes in the Turkish parliamentary elections, leading to much joy and celebrations among Kurds ... want more autonomy, but Turkey refuses to give it."

    as does Syrians in Saudi Arabia:

    and Polish people in Lebanon:

    copyvio 5

    "The first mention of Poles in the areas of modern Lebanon was from the time of the Crusades, which were attended by Polish nobles, as well as numerous pilgrimages to the Holy Land. From this period comes the first recorded pilgrim brother Anselm of Bernardine order that contains a reference to passing through Lebanon. First described the Lebanese lands Prince Nicholas Krzysztof Radziwill in his diary of the journey to Jerusalem, which took place in the years 1582-1584. ... In recognition of the regiment was drafted into the Guard and sent to Lebanon in 1865. The first commander of this department was Stefan Gościmiński (Tufan Bey), and his successor Louis Sas Monasterska (Lufti Bey). After 24 years Polish regiment in Lebanon ceased to exist."
    "First mention of Poles staying in the Middle East ... the period of the Crusades, which were attended by Polish princes, as well as numerous pilgrimages to the Holy Land. From this period comes the first record pilgrim Bernardine - Brother Anselm, who mentions passing through Lebanon. Be the first to describe the traditional Lebanese hospitality of Prince Nicholas Christopher Radziwill in his diary of the journey to Jerusalem, which took place in the years 1582-1584 ... In recognition of his regiment he was drafted into the Imperial Guard and seconded to Lebanon in 1865. The first commander "Polish regiment" numbering about 3,000 Stefan Gościmiński (Toufan Bey); his successor and Louis Sas Monasterski (Lufti Bey)."

    Note this is a comparison of a google translate of the source, so the copyvio is probably even more serious

    I think a WP:CCI needs to be launched to clean up all the copyvios. But more urgently, MaronitePride needs to either heed the warnings and stop adding copyvios into article space, or be forced to stop adding copyvios. TDL (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems this has been going on for months despite several warnings from different users. WP:IDHT? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, gave them a "respond or be blocked" warning. Either we figure out what to do with their lack of understanding of policies (or their intentional violations) and make sure that it will not be repeated, or no reason to not protect the project from them. Max Semenik (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Max Semenik, I am responding as you requested. What's the actual issue at stake here because to be honest, I did not get it? (All the texts that I added have a proper citation.) Could you explain it to me using a plain language. Thanks in advance. MaronitePride (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources, which summarizes the relevant policies. Citing the content makes it not plagiarism, which is a different issue. MER-C 13:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your help and suggestions. MaronitePride (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks by User:Jgstokes against User:Drmies and myself

    At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordinance (LDS Church) (which I raised), Jgstokes has made personal attacks against Drmies and myself and then, when asked to withdraw them made accusations of sockpuppetry against us as well. Could an uninvolved admin take a look and see whether anything can be done to (a) curtail this behaviour, and (b) bring the AfD back to its original purpose, from which it is now somewhat distracted? Many thanks! RichardOSmith (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, not an admin but I've hatted some of the interpersonal stuff. More editors commenting on the merits of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordinance (LDS Church) itself would help refocus discussion. NE Ent 14:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks - that's removed the distraction nicely! RichardOSmith (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm half-inclined to hand out a block for restoring copyright violations ([144][145]). While I can't find sources for some I checked, others are clearly copied (e.g. "And They Counted Happily Ever After"). (Ping @Justlettersandnumbers: for the list of copyvio urls). MER-C 15:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ping failed, MER-C, I just happened to notice the username on my watchlist. I didn't check every mortal one of those summaries, but spot-checked four or five and got hits on pbskids.org for every one of them. I considered rolling back to the last clean version from 2007, but opted for blanket removal instead. Looking at it again, it seems to me that some of the unacceptable material (for example, the Season 5 summaries added with this edit) has been subsequently rewritten, and that I may therefore have been over-cautious. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those comments by Jgstokes are completely idiotic. I got nothing against LDS (or the other branch--keep forgetting which one was the original and which one was the copy). I don't know why this Stokes person is harping on ARTEST's arguments for blah blah blah, something about the MOS for LDS or IDK, when it was clear that none of the guidelines said "copy, changes a few words, then paste". I rather think this Stokes person has an obvious bias against those who speak Truth to Power; also, help, I'm being oppressed/bullied/silenced. Their two cents aren't worth a dime.

      Anyway, someone should slap them on the wrist for this bullshit comment. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Those comments, both edit summary and edit itself, do seem to place him firmly on the tinfoil hat team, don't they? Some admin should probably do something, but it should probably be an admin to help make it obvious to the editor in question that it isn't just another one of your innumerable socks, Drmies, because there might be a real question about competency in basic logic here. John Carter (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I make sure my socks don't sound a thing like me. My meats, on the other hand, are simply clones. Pink slime. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've dealt with Jgstokes before. His specialty is drawing on LDS websites to create articles on LDS topics. Since LDS topics aren't independent of LDS websites, those articles have often been subject to deletion unless non-LDS sources can be found. He (and User:Johnpacklambert as well) have a habit of being really oversensitive at those deletions. I think, in light of his ignorance of the need for independent sources, and his continual attacks of other editors, a topic ban from LDS topics might be in order. pbp 18:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    On a marginally related topic, I guess, although this might best be asked at RSN, do the rest of you think that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, even though it is, obviously, published by the LDS church and kind of obviously not independent, would reasonably count as one of the required indicators of notability? I have on my computer the beginnings of a list from that source to start a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism/Prospectus, and am curious whether there should be an indicator at the top of the page whether it can be used to help establish notability or not. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a good question for WP:RSN, John. As for the original complaint, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordinance (LDS Church) looks like a snow close for deletion and Jgstokes hasn't edited since this filing. Can this case be closed? I don't think you can force an apology and it looks like Jgstokes has let this one go. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive move requests

    Shhhhwwww!! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has nominated more than a dozen pages at WP:RM in the last couple days, many for specious reasons like [146]. At quick glance, these moves are being resoundingly opposed (see here and here, for example). These requests are being made shortly after he was blocked for disruptive page moves [147]. At this point, I feel the moves should be speedy closed as Disruptive and the user in question instructed to stop filing such requests. Calidum 23:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the editor has made specious WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC arguments for moving Syria, Armenia, Mexico, Samoa, Sudan, Ghana, Mali, Guinea and Benin. Looks like deliberate disruption to me. BMK (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor has a long history of disruptive move requests, not just at these articles but for language and ethnicity articles as well. During the summer he would propose a move and then when soundly opposed would argue for days and days without moving his position one inch or recognizing consensus. He is a wikilawyer and contributes very little besides endless move requests. On one day last summer he proposed 20-25 move requests. --Taivo (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor has withdrawn all the requests noted above, and changed his "Semi-retired" notice to "Retired". I propose a very short leash here, and an eye kept out for potential socks. BMK (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He's done the "retired" tag before, while continuing to edit and argue. BMK is right. --Taivo (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Mavsfan123

    I'm strongly suspecting a lack of WP:COMPETENCE from Mavsfan123 (talk · contribs). Starting in August 2014, they were crapping out sub-stub level articles with no wiki formatting, sources, or categories, such as this. All of their articles since then have had unnecessary disambiguation in the titles, no sourcing, and almost no content; compare this entry over a year later. They previously got an ANI thread in March and promised to do better, but as the Find Me a Baby link shows, they are clearly not learning, nor willing to converse with other editors. They have also had all of their contributions deleted from Commons for repeatedly failing to understand copyright policies; see here. In short, this user is just continuing to make a total mess of Wikipedia, refuses to learn how to edit properly even after promising to do so several months ago, and clearly has zero idea of our policies and guidelines despite having been here for well over a year. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would think that there might be some possibility of the individual maybe becoming a better and less problematic editor if he or she were to receive some form of mentoring first, possibly with the mentor having the right to levy sanctions at his discretion should he or she deem them appropriate, either on their own, if they are an admin, or at request to an admin. Has that option been tried, and does the editor in question have any opinions on the matter? John Carter (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I love ya, TPH, but you really need to be nice and nurture this good faith editor. I appreciate that you work in the same field and that you and they have a different sense of where the notability line lies. Be friendly and help them learn. This is absolutely not a WP:COMPETENCE situation here. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm with Tim. Those articles aren't gibberish, they aren't on nonsense topics, they're in halfway decent English... Drmies (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious and disruptive editing by User:DynEqMin

    Note: I have taken the liberty of removing DynEqMin interspersed comments, which made the posting utterly incomprehensible. If DynEqMin wants to add rebuttals, DynEqMin should do so in a less-incoherent way --Calton | Talk 02:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    DynEqMin (talk · contribs) has been editing tendentiously to the point of disruption on B. Alan Wallace and its talk page. This user apparently has a bone to pick about the inclusion of some of Wallace's more fringe investigations of consciousness and mindfulness. A glance a Talk:B. Alan Wallace and User talk:DynEqMin will show paragraphs and paragraphs of invective about why the article is incorrect. The main problem appears to be that DynEqMin is not able to clearly communicate their ideas. They write in a style that is essentially incomprehensible, so it is usually impossible to tell what changes they would actually like to see in the article.

    The issue has come to a head with this user placing a {{POV}} tag on the article, and subsequently placing {{POV-statement}} tags on several innocuous statements (such as "Wallace is a former Buddhist monk" or "Wallace's work focused on the relationships between science and Eastern philosophy").

    When I asked them to defend these claims (i.e. to define why these statements or the article at large are non-neutral), they responded that they had already stated their claim (in the voluminous comments already placed on the talk page). When pressed for specific details of non-neutrality, they asked for an "adjudicator", so I sought a third opinion. Mark Marathon kindly provided his opinion (that the article appeared neutral, if of questionable notability), to which DynEqMin responded with yet another TLDR reply about all the ways in which Wallace was, of course, notable.

    When I removed the neutrality tag from the article in response to the 3O, DynEqMin simply restored it. When warned by the 3O volunteer that this could be seen as edit warring, DynEqMin removed the 3O volunteer's comment about edit warring.

    A quick survey of DynEqMin's contributions will show that they are an SPA: they have edited nothing but this page, another page that has since been deleted, and their own user talk page.

    I'm all for improving the Wallace article with any pertinent, well-sourced information. I just think that DynEqMin is not the person to make those improvements. They are clearly too close to the subject. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: I invite @Mark Marathon:, @Huon:, @Collect:, and @Cwobeel: to voice their opinions on this matter, as other editors who have had interactions with this user. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    More of an example where the idea that articles must be written in readily understandable language appears a problem, I fear. More likely a suggestion from an outsider that they ask a person who is more used to writing in more common English phrasing might help a bit, but I find their current style a bit cumbersome to wade through. Collect (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC) (adding) the person being commented on has edited the BLP down to a "readability index" of 19 - meaning one needs a post-graduate degree to comprehend it. The version on 1 Sep 2015 had a readability of 25 which is quite sufficiently erudite, indeed. Ideally it would be made readable by the typical college student at worst. Large chunks of the article talk page discussion have readability at 6 or less. Collect (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have engaged this user regarding their writing style, in an effort to have them write clearly and plainly, to no avail. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did point out on the talk page that the editor should refrain form using polysyllabic jargon and simply list the material that they thought was missing from the article. I received no response, or at least none that I could understand. I like to think I have at least high school level literacy, and I can not understand what point they are making in their edits. It's not just too dense for me, it is also so jargon filled that I would need to do hours of research to decipher the material.
    My first knowledge of this editor (or indeed the subject of their edits) came about as a 3O request I provided less than 24 hours ago. Just based on what I have seen in that time, I have the following comments.
    Assuming good faith, this user is presumably not capable of writing in a manner that an educated layperson can comprehend. If that is the case, no blame attaches and there is probably some valuable material hidden in their edits. However the edits still run contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and need to be altered, something the editor seems reluctant to allow, much less assist with.
    I am less inclined to assume good faith in other areas. There appears to be an unwillingness to discuss disputes, stemming from apparent ownership issues. There is the continual dismissal of the concerns of other editors as 'antogonistic objections' , 'conflict-making' and 'lying about Wallace'. There is the lack of respect for consensus and the resulting edit warring. This behaviour, IMO, takes this into the realm of tendentious editing. We also have open declarations of Meatpuppetry, with claims that the editor is going to contact Noam Chomski in the hope that 'Chomski or others from his department will adjoin'. I don't believe for a second that Noam Chomski's office is going to join a Wikipedia discussion about an obscure academic (though it would be cool), but the fact that an editor is attempting to do so is concerning and runs counter to policies.
    At this stage I can't see a lot of evidence that this editor is willing to discuss this issue and reach consensus. All that I can see are declarations that all other editors are wrong and they are right due to some deeper knowledge. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    These are wholly fibs, and what was written on the pages, and your editing just shows your quality in these endeavours. I have complained about you to the board. --DynEqMin (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This response in itself is a good example of the problem. Rather than engage the issue, DynEqMin has chosen to sidestep this process and go to "the board" (whoever that might be). As to the language issues, I think there is a line between densely erudite language (as is often found in philosophy tracts) and language that is attempting to be densely erudite and misses, thus imparting no meaning at all. I think DynEqMin has crossed that line with just about all of their lengthy edits, which is why I have pleaded (unsuccessfully) for more concise and plain language. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    All this is wholly untrue, and continue to be libellous, breaking every protocol in the book. Thanks--DynEqMin (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @DynEqMin: I'm not sure what protocol book you're reading, but this process is exactly the protocol that we use at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly talking about libel can easily be construed as a legal threat and this is not the smartest place to be making legal threats. Secondly after seeing this thread I took some time to go through the talk page of the article in question and it is apparent that the majority of your excessively lengthy comments there are gibberish. It is obvious that you are unable or unwilling to engage constructively with other editors and I therefore recommend that any admin reading this consider a block to prevent your continued disruption of the project. - Nick Thorne talk 23:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a look at the article and did what could be best described as 'aggressive pruning'. I suspect the subject is notable enough for a bio, however the sourcing is generally not the greatest to demonstrate it. As for DynEqMins comments - they are comprehensible to a degree and in many areas not technically inaccurate, however they are not remotely close to what is acceptable when working in a collaborative environment. Far too obtuse, difficult to parse, meandering away from a point etc. There is also the subtle (and not so subtle) inference that they know better - which doesnt help when you use language that is not in common use to someone - it comes off as arrogant/aloof. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    DynEqMin's response, all 11,000+ bytes of it, collapsed for convenience

    === Replies To Accusations === DynEqMin (talk · contribs) has been editing tendentiously to the point of disruption on B. Alan Wallace and its talk page. Reply to not waste peoples time further, no progress what so ever has been made in the actual editing: This has already been answered. Continued: This user apparently has a bone to pick about the inclusion of some of Wallace's more fringe investigations of consciousness and mindfulness. R: Rude remarks already and meaningless. C: Look at your own words and yourself as a person. C. A glance a Talk:B. Alan Wallace and User talk:DynEqMin will show paragraphs and paragraphs of invective about why the article is incorrect. Yea, that contradicts your own words as usual. C. The main problem appears to be that DynEqMin is not able to clearly communicate their ideas. R. their: abuse. C. They write in a style that is essentially incomprehensible, so it is usually impossible to tell what changes they would actually like to see in the article. R. Wholly untrue.

    The issue has come to a head with this user placing a tag on the article, and subsequently placing [neutrality is disputed] tags on several innocuous statements (such as "Wallace is a former Buddhist monk" or "Wallace's work focused on the relationships between science and Eastern philosophy"). Every clause is speculation that was given reasons to.

    When I asked them to defend these claims (i.e. to define why these statements or the article at large are non-neutral), they they they they responded that they had already stated their claim (in the voluminous comments already placed on the talk page). R. Following is also a wholly misleading record: When pressed for specific details of non-neutrality, they asked for an "adjudicator", so I sought a third opinion. Mark Marathon kindly provided his opinion (that the article appeared neutral, if of questionable notability), to which DynEqMin responded with yet another TLDR reply about all the ways in which Wallace was, of course, notable. R. Personal again, no, I did not those were impersonal statements about the evolvement of efforts.

    When I removed the neutrality tag from the article in response to the 3O, DynEqMin simply restored it. When warned by the 3O volunteer that this could be seen as edit warring, DynEqMin removed the 3O volunteer's comment about edit warring. R. You know yourself all I did was remove the latter word as more antagonism.

    A quick survey of DynEqMin's contributions will show that they are an SPA: they have edited nothing but this page, another page that has since been deleted, and their own user talk page. R. Fibs, like here the waffle is clear.

    I'm all for improving the Wallace article with any pertinent, well-sourced information. R. No. I just think that DynEqMin is not the person to make those improvements. R. I already did. C. They are clearly too close to the subject. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC) R. No, you are wrong and disorientated.

    PS: I invite @Mark Marathon:, @Huon:, @Collect:, and @Cwobeel: to voice their opinions on this matter, as other editors who have had interactions with this user. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC) More of an example where the idea that articles must be written in readily understandable language appears a problem, I fear. R. Compare my edits to the ones previously and after. Continued: More likely a suggestion from an outsider that they ask a person who is more used to writing in more common English phrasing might help a bit, but I find their current style a bit cumbersome to wade through. Reply to colleague, I wrote outlines on this again and again on the collaboration needed. Thanks Collect (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC) (adding) the person being commented on has edited the BLP down to a "readability index" of 19 - meaning one needs a post-graduate degree to comprehend it. R. Well that shows a good contribution, and I did say this is tentative, and we are talking only of a few paragraphs it tool me a long time to figure. No, these statements were very concise outlines that were very well sourced. It is wrong to impute bias. I have not been aggrandising any of this. The version on 1 Sep 2015 had a readability of 25 which is quite sufficiently erudite, indeed. Ideally it would be made readable by the typical college student at worst. Large chunks of the article talk page discussion have readability at 6 or less. R. These are of the present editor, as I left his other comments there with meticulous notes at each stage of editing. Thank you for this. I also do not just copy the ISP style, it is 3rd-person valid and does not as you suggest need unqualified editors either. This complements the outlines I suggested. Collect (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

    I have engaged this user regarding their writing style, in an effort to have them write clearly and plainly, to no avail. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC) R. I have made this page look more formal than dogmatically wasting more editing time as all this is. I did point out on the talk page that the editor should refrain form using polysyllabic jargon and simply list the material that they thought was missing from the article. R. The editor: that must be me! No-one contacted me at all while I was editing all night, still it looked really good and I have a record of it. Still, this page is also waffle as shown. Yes, all lists are present and correct. Continued I received no response, or at least none that I could understand. R. Now you are also getting metaphysical, don't put yourself down!

    I like to think I have at least high school level literacy, and I can not understand what point they are making in their edits. It's not just too dense for me, it is also so jargon filled that I would need to do hours of research to decipher the material. R. You are talking of brief and concise text with great English that transpired as working document for others now hidden from view of course; and no jargon but the facts in acknowledging so many others concerned now and past. Cont. My first knowledge of this editor (or indeed the subject of their edits) came about as a 3O request I provided less than 24 hours ago. Just based on what I have seen in that time, I have the following comments. Assuming good faith, this user is presumably not capable of writing in a manner that an educated layperson can comprehend. R. Contradicts the replies I give here. Cont. If that is the case, no blame attaches and there is probably some valuable material hidden in their edits. However the edits still run contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and need to be altered, something the editor seems reluctant to allow, much less assist with. R. These are deeper aspects that tally with what was on these pages previously. This is really a decisive statement, and it perhaps insults your superiors as I mentioned to give then a chance to assimilate. Cont. I am less inclined to assume good faith in other areas. There appears to be an unwillingness to discuss disputes, stemming from apparent ownership issues. R. Yes, you have come in from the cold and follow the dogma of the editor. Cont. There is the continual dismissal of the concerns of other editors as 'antogonistic objections' , 'conflict-making' and 'lying about Wallace'. There is the lack of respect for consensus and the resulting edit warring. R. I wonder if you are aware of what took place previously on these pages for years. This behaviour, IMO, takes this into the realm of tendentious editing. R. And are you aware of the volume of inconsistancy in these denials and aspetions placed as above on this page. Cont. We also have open declarations of Meatpuppetry, with claims that the editor is going to contact Noam Chomski in the hope that 'Chomski or others from his department will adjoin'. I don't believe for a second that Noam Chomski's office is going to join a Wikipedia discussion about an obscure academic R. Now you are getting personal: I am a scholar, but that would be a complement if true. Cont. (though it would be cool), but the fact that an editor is attempting to do so is concerning and runs counter to policies. R. We are talking of qualified needs.

    At this stage I can't see a lot of evidence that this editor is willing to discuss this issue and reach consensus. All that I can see are declarations that all other editors are wrong and they are right due to some deeper knowledge. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC) R. This is not true in any sense. These are wholly fibs, and what was written on the pages, and your editing just shows your quality in these endeavours. I have complained about you to the board. --DynEqMin (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

    This response in itself is a good example of the problem. Rather than engage the issue, DynEqMin has chosen to sidestep this process and go to "the board" (whoever that might be). R. You ignore you know what I talk of here, and fail to acknowledge the plainness and politeness of my Talk page statements. Cont. As to the language issues, I think there is a line between densely erudite language R. Such as yours you really mean (as is often found in philosophy tracts) and language that is attempting to be densely erudite and misses, R. No, no you are pretending. Cont. thus imparting no meaning at all. I think DynEqMin has crossed that line with just about all of their R. Insult. Cont. lengthy edits, which is why I have pleaded (unsuccessfully) for more concise and plain language. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Respect you. All this is wholly untrue, and continue to be libellous, breaking every protocol in the book. Thanks--DynEqMin (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

    @DynEqMin: I'm not sure what protocol book you're reading, but this process is exactly the protocol that we use at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Firstly talking about libel can ealily be construed as a legal threat and this is not the smartest place to be making legal threats. R. What has gone on on those pages and now, I have made it clear that I am not doing that. Cont. Secondly after seeing this thread I took some time to go through the talk page of the article in question and it is apparent that the majority of your excessively lengthy comments there are gibberish. R. Wholly untrue. Cont. It is obvious that you are unable or unwilling to engage constructively with other editors and I therefore recommend that any admin reading this consider a block to prevent your continued disruption of the project. - Nick Thorne talk 23:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC) R. --DynEqMin (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

    I need to point out that this editor has now vandalised this discussion by editing and deleting comments made by other editors including myself. At this stage nothing more really needs to be said on the issue of tendentious editing. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A readable version of the above

    Replies To Accusations

    Complaint (C) DynEqMin (talk · contribs) has been editing tendentiously to the point of disruption on B. Alan Wallace and its talk page.
    Reply (R) to not waste peoples time further, no progress what so ever has been made in the actual editing: This has already been answered.
    (C) This user apparently has a bone to pick about the inclusion of some of Wallace's more fringe investigations of consciousness and mindfulness.
    (R) Rude remarks already and meaningless. Look at your own words and yourself as a person.
    (C) A glance a Talk:B. Alan Wallace and User talk:DynEqMin will show paragraphs and paragraphs of invective about why the article is incorrect.
    (R) Yea, that contradicts your own words as usual.
    (C) The main problem appears to be that DynEqMin is not able to clearly communicate their ideas.
    (R) their: abuse.
    (C) They write in a style that is essentially incomprehensible, so it is usually impossible to tell what changes they would actually like to see in the article.
    (R) Wholly untrue.
    (C)The issue has come to a head with this user placing a tag on the article, and subsequently placing [neutrality is disputed] tags on several innocuous statements (such as "Wallace is a former Buddhist monk" or "Wallace's work focused on the relationships between science and Eastern philosophy").
    (R)Every clause is speculation that was given reasons to.
    (C)When I asked them to defend these claims (i.e. to define why these statements or the article at large are non-neutral), they they they they responded that they had already stated their claim (in the voluminous comments already placed on the talk page).
    (R) Following is also a wholly misleading record:
    (C)When pressed for specific details of non-neutrality, they asked for an "adjudicator", so I sought a third opinion. Mark Marathon kindly provided his opinion (that the article appeared neutral, if of questionable notability), to which DynEqMin responded with yet another TLDR reply about all the ways in which Wallace was, of course, notable.
    (R) Personal again, no, I did not those were impersonal statements about the evolvement of efforts.
    (C) When I removed the neutrality tag from the article in response to the 3O, DynEqMin simply restored it. When warned by the 3O volunteer that this could be seen as edit warring, DynEqMin removed the 3O volunteer's comment about edit warring.
    (R) You know yourself all I did was remove the latter word as more antagonism.
    (C) A quick survey of DynEqMin's contributions will show that they are an SPA: they have edited nothing but this page, another page that has since been deleted, and their own user talk page.
    (R) Fibs, like here the waffle is clear.
    (C) I'm all for improving the Wallace article with any pertinent, well-sourced information.
    (R) No.
    (C) I just think that DynEqMin is not the person to make those improvements.
    (R) I already did.
    (C) They are clearly too close to the subject.
    (R) No, you are wrong and disorientated.
    (C)PS: I invite @Mark Marathon:, @Huon:, @Collect:, and @Cwobeel: to voice their opinions on this matter, as other editors who have had interactions with this user.
    (C)More of an example where the idea that articles must be written in readily understandable language appears a problem, I fear.
    (R) Compare my edits to the ones previously and after.
    (C) More likely a suggestion from an outsider that they ask a person who is more used to writing in more common English phrasing might help a bit, but I find their current style a bit cumbersome to wade through.

    (????)Reply to colleague, I wrote outlines on this again and again on the collaboration needed.

    (C)the person being commented on has edited the BLP down to a "readability index" of 19 - meaning one needs a post-graduate degree to comprehend it.
    (R) Well that shows a good contribution, and I did say this is tentative, and we are talking only of a few paragraphs it tool me a long time to figure. No, these statements were very concise outlines that were very well sourced. It is wrong to impute bias. I have not been aggrandising any of this.
    (C)The version on 1 Sep 2015 had a readability of 25 which is quite sufficiently erudite, indeed. Ideally it would be made readable by the typical college student at worst. Large chunks of the article talk page discussion have readability at 6 or less.
    (R) These are of the present editor, as I left his other comments there with meticulous notes at each stage of editing. Thank you for this. I also do not just copy the ISP style, it is 3rd-person valid and does not as you suggest need unqualified editors either.
    (C) I have engaged this user regarding their writing style, in an effort to have them write clearly and plainly, to no avail.
    (R) I have made this page look more formal than dogmatically wasting more editing time as all this is.
    (C) I did point out on the talk page that the editor should refrain form using polysyllabic jargon and simply list the material that they thought was missing from the article.
    (R) The editor: that must be me! No-one contacted me at all while I was editing all night, still it looked really good and I have a record of it. Still, this page is also waffle as shown. Yes, all lists are present and correct.
    (C) I received no response, or at least none that I could understand.
    (R) Now you are also getting metaphysical, don't put yourself down!
    (C) I like to think I have at least high school level literacy, and I can not understand what point they are making in their edits. It's not just too dense for me, it is also so jargon filled that I would need to do hours of research to decipher the material.
    (R) You are talking of brief and concise text with great English that transpired as working document for others now hidden from view of course; and no jargon but the facts in acknowledging so many others concerned now and past.
    (C) My first knowledge of this editor (or indeed the subject of their edits) came about as a 3O request I provided less than 24 hours ago. Just based on what I have seen in that time, I have the following comments. Assuming good faith, this user is presumably not capable of writing in a manner that an educated layperson can comprehend.
    (R) Contradicts the replies I give here.
    (C) If that is the case, no blame attaches and there is probably some valuable material hidden in their edits. However the edits still run contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and need to be altered, something the editor seems reluctant to allow, much less assist with.
    (R) These are deeper aspects that tally with what was on these pages previously. This is really a decisive statement, and it perhaps insults your superiors as I mentioned to give then a chance to assimilate.
    (C)I am less inclined to assume good faith in other areas. There appears to be an unwillingness to discuss disputes, stemming from apparent ownership issues.
    (R) Yes, you have come in from the cold and follow the dogma of the editor.
    (C) There is the continual dismissal of the concerns of other editors as 'antogonistic objections' , 'conflict-making' and 'lying about Wallace'. There is the lack of respect for consensus and the resulting edit warring.
    (R) I wonder if you are aware of what took place previously on these pages for years.
    (C) This behaviour, IMO, takes this into the realm of tendentious editing.
    (R) And are you aware of the volume of inconsistancy in these denials and aspetions placed as above on this page.
    (C) We also have open declarations of Meatpuppetry, with claims that the editor is going to contact Noam Chomski in the hope that 'Chomski or others from his department will adjoin'. I don't believe for a second that Noam Chomski's office is going to join a Wikipedia discussion about an obscure academic
    (R) Now you are getting personal: I am a scholar, but that would be a complement if true.
    (C) but the fact that an editor is attempting to do so is concerning and runs counter to policies.
    (R) We are talking of qualified needs.
    (C)At this stage I can't see a lot of evidence that this editor is willing to discuss this issue and reach consensus. All that I can see are declarations that all other editors are wrong and they are right due to some deeper knowledge.
    (R) This is not true in any sense.
    (C)These are wholly fibs, and what was written on the pages, and your editing just shows your quality in these endeavours. I have complained about you to the board. --DynEqMin (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC) This response in itself is a good example of the problem. Rather than engage the issue, DynEqMin has chosen to sidestep this process and go to "the board" (whoever that might be).
    (R) You ignore you know what I talk of here, and fail to acknowledge the plainness and politeness of my Talk page statements.
    (C) As to the language issues, I think there is a line between densely erudite language
    (R) Such as yours you really mean
    (C) (as is often found in philosophy tracts) and language that is attempting to be densely erudite and misses,
    (R) No, no you are pretending.
    (C) thus imparting no meaning at all. I think DynEqMin has crossed that line with just about all of their
    (R) Insult.
    (C) lengthy edits, which is why I have pleaded (unsuccessfully) for more concise and plain language.
    (R) All this is wholly untrue, and continue to be libellous, breaking every protocol in the book. Thanks--DynEqMin (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    (C)@DynEqMin: I'm not sure what protocol book you're reading, but this process is exactly the protocol that we use at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

    Firstly talking about libel can ealily be construed as a legal threat and this is not the smartest place to be making legal threats.

    (R) What has gone on on those pages and now, I have made it clear that I am not doing that.
    (C) Secondly after seeing this thread I took some time to go through the talk page of the article in question and it is apparent that the majority of your excessively lengthy comments there are gibberish.
    (R) Wholly untrue.
    (C) It is obvious that you are unable or unwilling to engage constructively with other editors and I therefore recommend that any admin reading this consider a block to prevent your continued disruption of the project.
    (R)I need to point out that this editor has now vandalised this discussion by editing and deleting comments made by other editors including myself. At this stage nothing more really needs to be said on the issue of tendentious editing. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)--DynEqMin (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @DynEqMin: your massive wall of text is dispiriting to read and such presentation will not aid your case. This includes (lack of ) paragraphination, bizarre and repetetive use of initials and abbreviation, and minimal distinction of quotations. I notice you have not taken User:Calton's advice re. incoherency. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have put a readable version below. Suffice to say it is comprehensible with work, however the substance of the replies indicates he doesnt get it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have lost track of how many people here have looked at DynEqMin's writing and judged it incomprehensible or gibberish. There is clearly an issue of competence involved. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He's had a piece of chalk thrown at him. Possibly all will be well from this juncture. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which they've removed and will probably ignore. The CIR block edges ever closer. Blackmane (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We now have this, which leads me to believe that this user simply refuses to engage in a meaningful fashion, and lacks the competence required to edit Wikipedia. Can an admin please take the necessary action? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wide ranging promotional edits on behalf of a movie producer

    I've reported this to the COI noticeboard [148], but believe it merits further attention here, owing to widespread use of Wikipedia to promote various movies and associated people. Nearly every edit, even those which are adequately sourced, appears designed to publicize a walled garden of productions. Promos for yet to be released films are sneakily inserted into actors' bios; over a lengthy period Wikipedia has been used here as an offshoot of Variety. My suggestion is that the user be blocked and associated IP accounts be scrutinized. Then a history of edits needs to be examined. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:517E:290E:27C2:A07A (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have found that Wikipedia's threshold for movie articles and even TV episode articles is far lower than other articles. There should be a community wide discussion on what is encyclopedic. F117IS (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is related to WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Money (2016 film). The article Money (2016 film) is currently at AfD; the film hasn't been released, and notability is questionable. 204.148.13.194 (talk · contribs) has deleted the AfD template twice [149][150]. That IP could be blocked for disruption, if some admin wants to bother, but they're not doing many edits.
    There's also heavy promotional activity for the film's producer, Atit Shah, director Martin Rosete, and the film An Act of War. It's a matter of PR content being dumped into the articles. This is coming mostly from Ban003 (talk · contribs), with over a hundred edits. They've been warned about re-inserting PR material removed by other editors. That user has not disclosed a conflict of interest. It's a drain on volunteer editor time removing the PR.
    Doubld414 (talk · contribs) uploaded File:An Act of War Movie Poster.jpg, with the comment "I am the Operations Executive at Revolver Entertainment authorizing the use of this art work." So we know there's paid editing involved. They should probably be guided through the ticket system to verify ownership. This isn't a classic sockpuppet situation, but the overall impression is that they're on the same PR team. None of these accounts engage on Talk or reply on WP:COIN. They just put in their PR and revert deletions. Block for undisclosed COI per WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE? John Nagle (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I just removed File:Frank Grillo and Minnie Driver for A Conspiracy On Jekyll Island.jpg (a non-free image uploaded by Ban003) from four articles related to the film A Conspiracy on Jekyll Island where it really wasn't necessary as it is easily replaceable with free images. 97198 (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Shahzada Mohiuddin

    Hello, for the 2nd time here I'm asking attention for the repeated removals of a picture I added to the article Shahzada Mohiuddin. One ore more anonymous users with ip addresses starting with 182.18... have now ten times been removing it. On no occasion any explanation has been given. The first time I brought in this item here, someone stated something could be wrong with the copyright. As a result, the image was tagged with a permission request on Commons. In one of my undo actions, I pointed to that, saying a proper process there should be awaited. Nevertheless, the 182.x actor continues with these very irritating removals. A block? Apdency (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would suggest the image is left out until the permissions issue is resolved. At the moment, the image could be deleted at any time. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd rather choose for the benefit of the doubt. Someone's doubt about the copyright started as a result of this edit war. I don't see a reason that this file should be suspected more than millions of other files of which uploaders say are their own work. Apdency (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, if there are suspicions that use of an image might be a copyright violation (and/or, as in this case, the uploader has provided no evidence of its copyright status), it should be left out until it is decided. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and @Apdency:, you are edit warring against a number of different editors, and you must not do that (even if you're right). I suggest you stop now or you could be blocked. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect the "number of different editors" are interrelated, as they are all similar IP addresses which have only edited that one article. But still, it does look like a violation of WP:3RR has occurred. Best to wait this one out, although I'm not sure what the procedure is for establishing permission? The user who uploaded the image is not a regular contributor.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Suspect" is an understatement. IP, remember, edit warring is edit warring even if you're right--wait, you said that already. If Apdency has reverted enough to warrant a block, so do you. Of course, you're hopping around and so a block is useless, but I could always revert to the wrong version (what in your opinion is the wrong version) and then protect the article. I don't rightly know if you're the same cat as the Pakistan IP that keeps reverting (and if there's anything that pisses me off it's reverting without explanation--lazy-ass snobbery) and I don't really care, but for the sake of argument I'll assume that you are, via remote control or whatever. Amakuru, we need a Commons admin to sort this out. Cirt, didn't you run Commons? Drmies (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Actually, I only reverted once. If you check the other IPs you'll find they're nowhere near mine. I'm with Virgin Media Limited, UK, and they allocate fixed IPs. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was that I can assume whatever I want, especially when I'm in a bad mood. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, a hard-pressed admin always has my sympathy on that score, of course ;-) (I happened to take a look in here and thought I could offer some advice about copyright and edit warring, but I can see how multiple IPs can look suspicious - especially to an admin in a bad mood ;-) 82.35.107.31 (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we do assume good faith (I reckon this image is probably OK - it doesn't look like a screenshot from the actual TV broadcast and it has the EXIF data intact) but we still need evidence of permission. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Black Kite, for your remark on assuming good faith. But why do we need evidence more than in all the other cases? I also upload pictures on Commons which I say are my own work. Now I made people aware of that, is there a reasonable ground for suspection against my files? Apdency (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that no one has decided to actually use the talk page Talk:Shahzada Mohiuddin to say discuss the issue. The IP is right in that the image is up for deletion at commons. Inserting it will just be an academic exercise in that it may soon be deleted and then a red link will continue. I don't know nor think either way is better but the point is, (a) has anyone brought it up at the talk page and (b) does it really matter at the time? I will bring it up there and we can cut all this ANI discussion off as a typical content dispute. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also requested page protection. The proper remedy is to discuss the insertion of the image (the copyright issues are not for here but if this was an image here, it would be a separate argument) and/or request protection first and then discuss to show consensus to override the protection and get the image restored/removed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm less sure than Ricky81682 that the IP is right in that the image is up for deletion at commons. I pointed to that in this discussion already, and now I also questioned it on the file talk page on Commons. Apdency (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Copying my reply from the Commons talk page: :"I think a difference here is that this photo appears to be a professional studio shot rather than an editor's amateur work, and copyright would usually belong to the TV studio - and that's what I think has prompted the suggestion that further disclosure/release is needed." 82.35.107.31 (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: In reality, I think it's unlikely that anyone is going to sue over copyright (and it's a good encyclopedic photo which I hope we can keep), but Wikipedia is very strict concerning copyright. My thought remains that when copyright is disputed, it's better to omit the photo from articles until the matter is settled. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Honey

    IP User 85.211.102.121 (prior 85.211.99.93, 85.211.101.34) is referencing past ANI incidents and Tag Teaming regarding research into medical usages of Honey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that appear to meet MEDRS standards; the IP User is at minimum correct in that the edits were mislabeled as referencing Primary when they are review articles that do appear in PubMed. Not sure if this is entirely the right place to put this or how much detail to put, or what other editors involved in the discussion to mention; There appears to be prior history and prior history that involves Administrators outside of the specific question of whether any part of the purposed content changes meet the standards of MEDRS and how to word correctly those changes with regards to FRINGE, which is the concern of the MED editors. Falconjh (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this ANI is premature. The article is protected now and the ip is discussing the matter on the talk page. That comment [151] might demonstrate some prior familiarity with Wikipedia, but to me looks like an inexperienced editor that has read criticisms of Wikipedia's treatment of fringe and alt-med topics. If this is a sock, there's little to work from. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I do share some potential sock concerns especially with how quickly this IP was to accuse me of gang behavior and digging up some false accusations from others to link on that. Seems to be someone with a chip on their shoulder anyways. I think we're fine with the semi-protection though, and I wouldn't want to semi-protect the talk page due to personal attacks, etc. because we do get other IP editors who are civil and would want to propose edits. I don't think we can do much more since this is a dynamic IP. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    UMM The report is also of the Wiki ganging and tag teaming, which I think actually does need to be looked at here as in the talk page MEDRS is repeatedly being violated in blatant attempts to keep off any mention of the research; the user is in my opinion completely justified in just this instance feeling GANGED and if there are past interactions that needs to be looked at. Falconjh (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is frustrating to attempt to try to make alt-med related edits, then find out that there is a huge amount to learn regarding such edits. Editors who don't wish to learn should move away from topics where ArbCom enforcement applies. --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Except, the rules aren't being followed as I stated, so it doesn't matter if the user is learning or not; I realize that I am not an expert in this field but the rules are being broken here. AS in multiple MED editors have stated that the sources are in compliance with MEDRS, while others are still attempting block based on criteria that isn't in MEDRS or specifically spoken against in MEDRS. Falconjh (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So we have a dispute over the quality of potential sources. Editors differ on their understanding and application of MEDRS. In this case, some editors would like us to use articles from journals that others find questionable. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Spartan 003

    This guy just doesn't get it. He's already been blocked twice (see [152]) for variations of WP:OR (either putting original research and refusing to provide a source, or worse - altering sourced sentences). I might be misinterpreting WP:GAME, but he does seem to be gaming our system at least in a way that he hopes that his disruptive editing will just go unnoticed, simply because he waited long enough. Here are his most recent disruptions:

    • A week ago:
      • He edited the page Russian phonology (see the rev) changing "where the pronunciation [ɨ] occurs" to "where the pronunciation [ɨ] or [ɘ] occurs". It's true that [ɘ] is a possible pronunciation of unstressed /ɨ/, but only after /t͡s/, and only for some speakers! So I edited the article accordingly ([153], [154], [155], but see especially [156], which sounds as it should). He then reverted, saying that "It's not only when after /ts/." Apparently, the fact that I sourced the previously unsourced sentence meant nothing to him. I then reverted, telling him (not very nicely, that's true) to cut this bullshit once and for all, or I would report him again.
      • He then altered the explanatory note for Russian on close-mid central unrounded vowel that said that [ɘ] "occurs only for some speakers after /t͡s/". He first changed it to "This occurs only after /ʐ/, /ʂ/ or /t͡s/." (see the rev), then to "This occurs only for some speakers after /ʐ/, /ʂ/ or /t͡s/." (see the rev). That was clearly at odds with Jones & Ward (1969:38), who do say that [ɘ] occurs only for some speakers after /t͡s/, so I obviously reverted him. I didn't report him after that, because it happened minutes after his reference falsification on Russian phonology, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt - which, as you will see, he didn't deserve.
    • Today:
      • He edited the page Gulf Arabic (see the rev), changing:
        • "Some classicisms preserve the [q] sound" to "Most dialects preserve the [q] sound." (I removed it, because the source says neither of those)
        • "By Persian influence, sometimes the qaf (ق) changes to ghayn (غ) [ʁ]." to "By Persian influence, extremely rarely the qaf (ق) changes to ghayn (غ) [ʁ]." (I reverted that - the source says the former, not the latter, so it was a reference falsification)
        • He also deleted "This change is extremely rare." (This one is good - the reference actually doesn't say that, so he (probably unintentionally) removed a ref falsification).
    Peter238 (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Misuse of talk pages

    A relatively new editor, Nn9888 (talk · contribs), recently posted long essays on Talk:Philosophy of computer science, Talk:Chinese room, Talk:Imagination (very long), full of personal opinions and devoid of any mention of sources. I removed them and explained on his talk page why they didn't belong. He responded by putting the essays back, with section headers saying, "Article can be improved if the following is considered". It would be helpful if somebody other than me would explain why that won't fly, and the inevitable consequences of persisting in it. I don't think a block is called for at this point, but some sort of notice that a block lies down the road would be helpful. I will notify the editor of this section. Looie496 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought it might be worth a try to simply hat the discussion, which doesn't remove it but also makes navigation for editors who are uninterested in reading it easier. I started to do so on the imagination page, but I see someone removed it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought about that too but it didn't seem like the right solution. If nothing else, this behavior has to be nipped in the bud sooner or later. Looie496 (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like this isn't a new and recent issue with him. The mediation request he posted in July was for the same thing. KoshVorlon 16:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Both KoshVorlon and Randykitty have posted warning notices on his user talk page and he hasn't returned to editing to see them yet. Looie496, can you update this notice if he returns to posting inappropriate material to talk pages? Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz He just tried to re-open a mediation that was previously rejected by adding me into the mediation, the mediation was promptly closed by Transporter Man . This was definitely in response to my comment on his talk page, as I hadn't edited on the page he opened the mediation on. Also see his response to me about comment on his talk page. Someone's not getting it. KoshVorlon 11:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Huldra

    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.[157] Debresser (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Clearly a content dispute and nothing else. Debresser should follow the processes for resolving content disputes. Zerotalk 23:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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).[158] Debresser (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Btw, besides objecting to WP:ASPERSIONS, I also object to WP:NPA [159] and note WP:STALKING [160], Huldra (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The recent POV issue began here [161], 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 [162]. 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" [163]. I mistakenly asked an involved editor to close ([164] 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 [165]) Darknipples[reply]

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    @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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Ent and NE Ent:..."HighInBC" is seems to be referring to "an image" or something like that... [166]. 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @NE Ent: January isn't the most recent according to the logs. April of this year just before we requested the GA review [167] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    Current discussion between Mudwater and myself on the GSL article's TP [168]. 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 [169](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 [170] 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 - [171] - 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    Now that I look at the records, I never actually asked Etamni "to close" the discussion [172], just asked if they had any experience etc... Darknipples (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone please offer another opinion on this image/issue?

    Looks like everything was sorted out amicably.Blackmane (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC) (replacing previous signature, which was me logged out)[reply]

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

    I added a photo I took of a Boston Fire Department fire truck to the Boston Fire Department article and to one other article. Another editor ( User:Ɱ ) reverted the addition as its being a bad photograph and perhaps redundant to the article. Would someone be so kind as to tell me if it is that bad a photograph (I hadn't thought so or I wouldn't have added it -- nevertheless I might be wrong) and if it deserves to be deleted from the Boston Fire Department article by the other editor? I'm a little bit confused on the issue despite having been editing WP since January 2005. ;)

    The comments are at: User_talk:Ɱ#Boston_Fire_Department_image_I_added_but_abruptly_reverted_by_you

    The image in question is: File:Engine_41_Boston_Fire_Department_09222015.jpg

    Many thanks. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute pure and simple. If the two of you cannot agree then seek outside opinion on the article talk page. Administrators cannot solve content disputes. HighInBC (was Chillum) 19:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with Chillum. There's no admin action needed here. I also concur with User:Ɱ in that the image quality is a bit off. Not a bad image per se, but the camera isn't rendering true colors here. But, that's an issue for another place. I will say that your edit summary here was not exactly...shall we say...'friendly'. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to change the colors. ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikiklrsc: OK, so I changed the colors, but I can't do anything about the overexposure or focus without making the photograph look fake.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough. Thanks for your comments and corrections. I agree my original knee-jerk edit summary was a little off-kilter although polite but could have been better. I'd welcome anyone else too. Bests. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page move vandalism

    All dealt with, and blocked. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Johnduckengland (talk · contribs)

    This recently registered user has made several inappropriate page moves this evening. Can someone intervene? This is Paul (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Arbitration Committee Motions

    There are currently four motions drafted by the Arbitration Committee (at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions) that involve rescinding, extending or changing editing restrictions in previous arbitration cases. The specifics of the restrictions and links to each case are included in the motions and your input as community members is invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Input? Since we can neither propose a motion or vote on any motion, it looks like no one except the arbs actually has any input to offer. (Not being a dick here, just stating the obvious ) KoshVorlon 11:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did think myself that it was kind of like being told that the Duke of Westminster has just made another blooming million; very nice for him but of no earthly use to anyone else. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Much as with cases, where we ask parties to furnish us with evidence and suggest remedies, it's always a good idea for arbitrators to consider the wider community's opinion when making decisions. As such, while you aren't asked to vote on the final decision directly, opinions and suggestions are very much welcomed, and will be considered by the voting arbitrators. Yunshui 雲水 11:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yunshui - I respect the Arbs and know they've just about got the hardest jobs on Wikipedia, however, with respect, it's not that we're not asked to vote on the final decisions, we're literally told that we cannot vote on any motion. Since those motions effect all of us, arb or not, how about allowing us a say (meaning a vote ) on it? KoshVorlon
    I don't think you're getting the essence of what an elected representative does. BMK (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how it would work to allow a nonarbitrator to vote on a Motion but it already looks like editor feedback is influencing the motion regarding changing sanctions on articles concerning New Religious Movements. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Volkswagen emissions violations

    With respect to John this appears to be a content dispute. You have asked for uninvolved admins to look and now several are aware of the article. This matter can be settled on the talk page or on the BLP noticeboard if needed. ANI is not the place to resolve this. I am placing the article on my watchlist and will be responding to people edit warring and otherwise failing to give regard to consensus. I ask that other admins also watch the page. My talk page is available if anyone has any justifiable and actionable suggestions. HighInBC (was Chillum) 00:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    More eyes please at this high-traffic article, currently linked to from the main page, which has become a poisonous nest of copyvios, unjustified legal statements and other problems. User:Dennis Bratland may need some coaching as well. But mainly other eyes. Should this come off the main page while it is sorted out? --John (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You've gotta be shitting me. Instead of engaging with other editors on the article talk page, you're escalating and trying to use ANI to bully me. That is not cool, dude. I've given actual reasons for why I think plain English is required: 1) sources, sources, sources, 2) WP:NOTCENSORED, 3) WP:EUPHEMISM. And the best you can come up with is "does not sound like a neutrally written encyclopedia article"? Sound? Is it or isn't it? Is it verifiable or not? I say it's verifiable. Your job is to cite sources saying its not, or else bugger off. Instead you run to ANI? And why are you mixing up copyvio issues with my talk page thread over use of plain English vs euphemisms? I had nothing to do with the copied text. Why don't you simply fix it instead of plastering tags all over the place? You're the one who needs coaching. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a look. I think we should not say that VW's behaviour was illegal until we have a court finding. Wikipedia does not yet have the ability to make judgements and enforce them. I'm also concerned that some editors don't have a good grip on the systems involved. There was no cheating during testing: the engine management chip detected the test and ensured that the emissions controls operated fully so that the actual testing resulted in an accurate reading of compliance with standards. If cheating occurred, it occurred when there was no testing! --Pete (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do any sources say there is any doubt that the defeat device was illegal? Neutrality is about balancing significant points of view, but there are no significant points of view on the "not illegal" side. Our most reliable sources agree it was illegal. VW admits it was illegal. You are also misunderstanding how EPA enforcement works. There will be no court finding over this. The EPA has ruled. Now the EPA will now assess fines and corrective actions, and the Justice Department may or may not bring criminal charges against individuals. But the legal finding has been made: the regulatory body, the US EPA, has made the determination of guilt on the part of the company.

    Your other theory about cheating in real world driving totally makes sense to me. We could say "they cheated all the time except during testing" but that's very awkward and the exact opposite of the dozens of sources that say they "cheated on the test"[173]. The point of the deception was to fool the test. That's essentially "cheating on the test".

    Why aren't we having this discussion on the article talk page, where it belongs? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    While ITN articles aren't held to the same level of scrutiny as a FA, there is more potential for BLP violations, NPOV, etc as it is a rapidly evolving article. At this point, it's still a content dispute and not one that requires admin action as yet. Blackmane (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to say here that I'm disturbed by the heavy handed treatment of a 10+ year good-faith contributor. I don't see why an ANI case was necessary literally minutes after the first appearance of an admin on Dennis' user talk out of the blue. — Brianhe (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone needs to close this. This is a content dispute and has no business whatsoever at ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary, anyone who thinks German car maker Volkswagen AG was caught using software to illegally cheat on emissions tests passes WP:NPOV should not be editing that article. Next time I see someone edit-warring to restore this sort of crap into an article, I will just block them. In this case I had edited the article so felt I did not pass WP:INVOLVED, so I brought it here. Our main page linking for several hours to an article which contained a seriouus copyvio and untested legal claims about a major company is most certainly an incident worthy of this board. --John (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is apparently still a problem here. Could someone uninvolved show Dennis the clue stick, please? --John (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Counter proposal: A topic ban, requiring John to cease editing any articles related to the VW emission scandal. There are a dozen editors doing good work resolving this content dispute. John is disruptively using his Admin status and the ANI board to get his way, rather than using the normal process of dispute resolution. It's Bold, Revert, Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, Run-to-ANI-and-threaten-to-abuse-your-blocking-power. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think there are likely flaws in Dennis' edits, but that can be discussed on the talk page and managed as a content dispute. I'm more concerned by John's conduct. John, whether you are right or wrong about Dennis' conduct, you really do need to calm down and take a deep breath. It's clear that you feel strongly about this, but you are absolutely involved here and don't need to be threatening blocks and such. It's clear that this is a content dispute on a high traffic article on a subject that is, at the moment, in the midst of a highly public and evolving international incident. I would recommend no action. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dennis, why are you trying to push the loaded term "illegal" into such an article? Over-cautious perhaps, but clear convention is that such terms are not used prior to a conviction. It adds nothing to the weight of the article, there is no exceptional condition to justify it. So why use it? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, because highly respected sources say so. Second because illegal is not equivalent to "convicted of a crime". You can do an illegal act but not be a criminal due to extenuating circumstances. Third, the EPA is not a prosecutor who has to present their case in a court of law-- they are a regulatory agency empowered to determine if a company has violated the law. Criminal charges for people are pending but the guilt of the company is a fact. And this content dispute does not belong here on ANI.Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it "illegal" as in, against the law, or is it against regulations? If it's not clear which, then it's better not to use the term. In any case, this is a content dispute. Geogene (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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: [174], [175], [176], [177], [178]. ༆ ((talk) 04:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ༆, 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)[reply]
    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,[179] 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)[reply]

    User:Megacheez

    User:Megacheez changes number and numerical symbol styling on hundreds of pages in violation of MOS:NUM. The user has been asked to stop doing so numerous times over the past few weeks on his talk page, but he continues nevertheless. As another editor on his talk page notes, he is doing this on so many pages it is impossible for any particular editor to revert them all. The editor should be blocked before he makes an even larger mess. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I just manually reverted probably a bit over 100 of their edits. It'd take a while to sift through them all because they intersperse their edits with some text changes and I'm making sure the edits are actual MOS:NUM violations. Blackmane (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's some examples:

    There are dozens if not hundreds of others. Some are changes between optional forms (e.g., 1500→1,500 or ten→10), but there does not seem to be a compelling reason (e.g., internal consistency) to change from one approved form to another. There are good edits mixed in with the questionable or bad edits. Megacheez does not interact with others on his talk page, so it is very difficult to say whether there is any change at all. For example, it may be possible that Megacheez learned MOS:NUMBERSIGN and so isn't making that mistake again, but hasn't yet digested MOS:SPELL09. On the other hand, it may just be that Megacheez has finished looking for places to insert the # and is now on to a new crop of edits. Obviously, there is a lot of energy and enthusiasm, I only wish it could be channeled in a more effective direction. YBG (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As I stated, and others are now corroborating, this user is creating a gigantic mess to clean up. There are literally hundreds of these edits to sift through and clean up -- I count about 100 from the last two days, and five hundred in less than the last two weeks. As another editor above stated, the user will not respond to requests to stop or even engage in discussion. The longer this is allowed to go on, the more work it is creating for other editors. This is disruptive editing distracting other editors from more productive work. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is a major problem. I've blocked the user with the following statement on his user talk page "Please note to any admin (or anyone else) who comes by here to respond to any potential unblock requests. This block may be lifted at any time by any administrator so long as Megacheez agrees to stop making the rapid MOS-violating edits he's been warned about above, AND agrees to discuss the matter with others. Once he starts communicating, and agrees to stop the problem, this block may be lifted." This should at least force him to agree to stop and communicate. Once he does that, anyone may feel free to lift the block. --Jayron32 16:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I trawled through another batch of their edits last night and manually reverted back. I'm doing the easier ones that are tagged (current). Quite a few articles been edited by others, which will require some care in checking. Blackmane (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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 [180], especially what he try to do with Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. Kmicic (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PS [181]. Kmicic (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    please, Stop polonized articles about Ukrainians or Ukrainian descent peoples.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be Jaroslaw, not Jarosław, but surely not Yaroslav. Kmicic (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    surely not Jaroslaw or Jarosław. Read Shevchenko Scientific Society at Encyclopedia of Ukraine --Бучач-Львів (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Your sources is old. All modern, esp. in Ukrainian science, take only my option.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Can anybody stop, because he reverting even my minority technical edition [182]. Kmicic (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing that out. Volunteer Marek  15:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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 [183] demonstrate nothing except my contribution see nothing — why you don't see this? --Бучач-Львів (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Google search for Yaroslav Padoch include German, Polish and other Latin letter languages.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hvarena

    Could someone please take care of this guy? Quote:

    "Are you an Avestan knower?? What gives you the right to edit Avestan language without having any ties to it? Why are your edits correct? You also lack info and your edits are clearly in favor of western powers who want to see Judaism as first monotheistic religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.54.62 (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "[reply]
    "Nonsense? Without sources? Go and read the Avesta!! it's obvious that you don't dare to critice Judaism. In the Torah it's mentioned that the Jewish God has given the Jewish people the Land of Israel, divided between 12 tribes. If a jew uses this info to correct an article in wikipedia about Hebrew or judaism, then you wont have any opinions. But when we the Zoroastrian/Aryan people want to correct misinfo about us, then everyone stands against us. Of course you don't dare to stand against Israel and USA. You're obviously working for christian Europeans who don't want to admit that their history actually came from Indo-Aryans and not Greeks and Romans. Indo-Aryan languages have to major groups Avestan and Vedic sanskrit. These to became origins for Latin and Greek language. It's no coincidance that 7 in Greek in Hepta (Hapta in Avestan) and in Latin septa (Sapta in Vedic s.). Go and read books before you become and editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.54.62 (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "[reply]

    Thanks in advance, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Which guy, Joshua? The link above points to your own edits. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes--the edits are made by an IP, the "this guy" links to edits pertaining to User:Searchpow who you say is a suspected sock of User:Adiagr, but the heading here is User:Hvarena. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right! Too many arguments. I've corrected the link; it's a diff for my talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a suggestion and some comments. Not in that order. a. This doesn't rise to a level which requires administrative intervention. b. Their comments are uninformed but not untypical. c. Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryian--Ethnologue says Indo-Iranian and that's good enough for me. d. I think you should tell your visitor, in one sentence or less, that thingies on Wikipedia ought to be decided by reference to reliable sources (such as Ethnologue), and that this is to be discussed on the article talk page, thank you for your comment. That's what I'd do. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits.

    Socks have been put back in the drawer. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Mouad911 and User:Moumou101 have been making similar disruptive edits that deal mostly with geographic entities. I trust somebody will look into this. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    He's been blocked by User:NeilN. Apparently this started a little while ago. Argyriou (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Island6

    I'm shamelessly advertising a discussion on COIN about (alleged) shameless advertising. The discussion involves an art "platform" Island6 and associated articles (there's a lot of them), and its editors. I just reverted a slew of promotional edits made by ArtaMell and Karashanghai on two articles, Zane Mellupe and Ifa gallery. These articles, as well as the discussion on the noticeboard, need more attention from more editors and, really, administrators. I've trimmed some of those articles and posted a few warnings here and there, but it should not be left to me alone, especially after having trimmed those articles, to decide on blocks or editing restrictions. But that there's something fishy going on, with COI accounts and possibly socking, that much is clear. Eyes please. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There might be a bit of socking but it looks to me like a case of poorly coordinated meat puppetry. WP:MEAT is vague about what constitutes evidence of such activity and what the remedies are. I can only say that this situation reeks of unethical behavior and IMHO something should be done to restore a semblance of integrity. Vrac (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible COI with Pixel Press

    So it was brought up at the Video games WikiProject that there might be a possible COI with the article Pixel Press due to it being made by new editor User:Bathchurnning. It certainly has raised some suspicion and brought back thoughts of OrangeMoody but it was suggested to take this here to see if there is a change of paid editing. Cheers. GamerPro64 19:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:COIN is thataway. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    GamerPro64 - If you want this looked into, you need to start a discussion on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. They'll be able to handle your concerns properly. Marking this as resolved. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved

    GregJackP "retires" to avoid scrutiny

    Trolling. IP blocked by HighInBC. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    GregJackP, an editor of ten years, refuses to acknowledge his toxic leadership here and when simply questioned about it from Jytdog, puts up a screed and "retires." This is not the way editors should be left to leave. 166.170.49.106 (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is close to trolling, and I hope that it will be closed quickly. There will soon be an ArbCom case, and I expect that GregJackP's conduct will be examined regardless of his retirement. No need for drama here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So long as he continues to not edit, there is no reason why his retirement should mean nothing. You can try to contact him all you will, but I hope he does not answer. He does not have to. If he has been driven away, that is his choice, not the community's. If he decides to stop editing, we should respect that, so long as he respects that we expect him to not edit. SInce he has so far not edited since his retirement, I believe that his retirement is sincere. I would not be saying this if he had continued to participate in discussion/argument. -- Orduin Discuss 23:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: with thanks to Orduin for putting a lid on this with this close, the wording is somewhat confusing, so I have re-closed it. The circumstances immediately preceding GregJackP's retirement are not connected to the arbcom case mentioned, and are detailed in this thread; while the matter may be revisited should he return, he is perfectly free to return to editing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent hoax articles on Time News India

    I remember coming across this some weeks ago--a user named Rockteem Bhattachjree was blocked and their hoax articles on news outlets and actors were deleted. There may be a history of socks involved. More of same being hatched again, with the primary article purporting to represent a nonexistent news service. Please salt this in all forms. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User blocked, article and copy vio images and fake logo deleted, title salted. Thank you for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=682665697"