Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:51, 11 January 2015

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

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

• P-123 (talk · contribs) is topic banned for three months (expiry 12:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)) from all pages broadly related to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, notwithstanding the usual exemptions.
• GregKaye (talk · contribs) is warned that any further misconduct in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant topic area will likely result in a topic ban.
• P-123 (talk · contribs) and GregKaye (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages, for three months (expiry 12:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)) notwithstanding the usual exemptions.

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

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

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

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

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

Instances of canvassing and campaigning include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GregKaye 15:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of P-123's Comments section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the second of the references here I replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lor is not an admin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by GraniteSand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response by P-123 to AN/I charges

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

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

Further discussion (continued)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Voluntary Resolution

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

1. No posting to each others talk pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban and Iban for both editors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons for a topic ban on GregKaye

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diversion off section topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please close

My review of all this sees:

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

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

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

The Rambling Man forgets the IBAN once again

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

IBAN request (Users Baseball Bugs and The Rambling Man)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead. I might ask again in a month or so. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive talkpage behaviour

Walls of text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Administrative Intervention?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He has received comments, advice and warnings from several editors (examples: , , , , , , :, , ), however he continues to add walls of text to talk pages. These rants exhaust the other editors' patience.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks :) Robert Walker (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose: A cursory overview of this topic shows that the proposal to limit the user's privileges is unfounded. The supporting reasons are full of assumptions of bad faith and speculation about the user's intentions. The Assume Good Faith policy requires treating these issues as situation where someone can learn to collaborate better and where you must assume they are trying to work for the good of Misplaced Pages and follow Misplaced Pages policies. It has not been shown that the user in question is acting in bad faith. Rather, the user appears to have been excessively verbose but is learning and making good-faith effort to improve and to focus on specific Misplaced Pages policies. It is absolutely unacceptable to reduce editors' privileges without a very high burden of evidence that they cannot and will not learn to improve or that they are truly acting in bad faith. This burden has not been met. It seems that he may have legitimate concerns about the articles, and it is not in Misplaced Pages's interests to discourage his participation. It is only in Misplaced Pages's interests to help him follow best-practices in manner of discourse, and he appears willing and interested in learning to improve in that regard. Backfromquadrangle (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :). Yes I assure you I'm acting in good faith and doing everything I can to be more concise. Robert Walker (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that you make some sort of clear and identifiable effort to familiarize yourself with our existing policies and guidelines, or at least, a more visible effort than can be seen by your limited involvement here to date? So far as I can see, the only person who seems to be clearly not assuming good faith in this matter is you yourself, in jumping to conclusions about the motivations of others. There are several policies and guidelines relevant to editor conduct, including WP:DE, WP:TE, and I suppose in this case maybe even WP:CIR. There is, based on the evidence presented, rather clear reason to believe that Robert has a significant history of engaging in overlong discussion at relevant talk pages, and that at least to the time of this being brought there has been no real indication from Robert that such conduct is likely to change. So, therefore, this is both the reasonable place to raise concerns about editor conduct, and the place to seek remedies which the editors might not be willing to impose on themselves based on their counterproductive conduct. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: "...but is learning and making good-faith effort to improve and to focus on specific Misplaced Pages policies."

You are very incorrect. Robert Walkers attitude has persisted for a year or two. The question becomes not if there is good-faith, but his WP:COMPETENCE. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded - a day or two back I posted an ultra short version of my proposal that the Water on Mars and Life on Mars articles say the same thing as Encyclopedia Britannica in its habitability assessment Talk:Water_on_Mars#Stream_water_speed. Will you permit me to post this as a separate section on Talk:Life on Mars for any other editors to read and comment on, now that I have trimmed it down to 696 characters? Robert Walker (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

All the editors here who support this proposal have actual experience with Robert's lenghty posts, instead of a "cursory overview". To call their frustration with Robert's inability to contribute in a constructive way "full of assumptions of bad faith and speculation about the user's intentions" is misplaced, and dismissing their intentions. I don't doubt Robert's good intentions, but I have seen too much now of the actual results of his good intentions, just like many other editors here. Nevertheless, he deserves the chance to show improvement, and that's why I didn't propose a topic-ban, but a limitation. Otherwise, Jehochman may have made an uncomfortable but correct observation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:DRN

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

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

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

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

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

When you say disruption - all that amounts to is writing too much in talk page posts. All my wikipedia edits have been good faith. I've always acted in accordance with BRD, have followed the wikipedia guidelines to the very best of my ability, and always discuss anything that seems to be significant edits on the talk pages first. That's true right back and including the Mars stuff which was all added in good faith and collaboratively - the accusations against me there were false. And in this particular dispute, then I was involved as a reader not an editor.

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

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

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

The old article had a section "Karma does not imply predestination" which you removed: along with many other sections, not sure why you are focusing on that particular one just now. I didn't write anything in the article and have said many times I don't want to help you write a new version, and I don't want to rewrite the old version. I don't want to be involved as an editor at all. All I'm asking for is a rollback and that you do the edits more slowly and discuss each edit first with the other editors of the pages. The many deleted sections are listed as one of eight issues in your rewrites in the draft notice. Another one of the main issues is the violation of NPOV. Attempt at filling out the dispute notice, but this is not the place to discuss the content issues. You know that Dorje is an editor with less time for editing wikipedia than most - that is why I took on this DRN Notice in the first place as you can check from the conversation I had with him about it.

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

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

Battlefield behavior in Canadian article; interaction ban?

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

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

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

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

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

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

My interactions with the user began here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action is needed here

At this point given the feedback of User:Maunus, User:Resolute, User:The Interior, User:Cullen328, and User:Legacypac, I am concerned about pattern. (Sorry if I've missed anyone; please ping them on my behalf. There's a wall of text up there.) I am not only seeing ongoing but escalating hostility at NORN. User:Skookum1 is continuing to assert that User:WhisperToMe is violating WP:AGF by asking for page numbers to verify claims in spite of feedback from multiple people that this is a common burden we all share. He seems to be continuing to take the request for verification as attacks on his "credibility and honesty". The only claims of personal attacks I'm seeing from WhispertoMe is his request for specific verification, coupled with what seems to be a misunderstanding of what original research is: "am conducting "original research" as if I'm a liar. WHICH I AM *N*O*T*.'"emphasis in original (There's a word of difference between "original research" and "hoax".)

But there is ongoing hostility and incivility from Skookum1:

• "Time for you to take a modesty pill, apologize for being such a %@Q%@% about this business about page-cites "; "Get a grip on your ego and your POV"; " 05:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• "why don't you get a grip on your ego and backtrack from setting yourself up as Supreme Inquisitor and Executioner and stop being so goddamned arrogant about you "saving an article." "Your behaviour and sophistry just gets deeper and deeper and uglier and uglier" "Intellectual flatulence, sophistry, and rule-happy wiki-copping arrogance and deletionism is all I see from you" 17:21, 10 January 2015
• "If it matters so much to him let him read the book for himself isntead of being such a @#%@#%# about what it says that he just doesn't want to admit belongs in the article" 18:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

For full disclosure: User:Skookum1 contacted me once via email over this issue, and I responded. This is where I offered to request mediation for him, although I emphasized my policy of discussing Misplaced Pages matters on Misplaced Pages; this contact was yesterday. I can share the text of my response if there is desire to see it, but can't share his letter without permission. That said, his idea of mediation (which I saw after that correspondence) is concerning to me, as it seems to be non-transparent and one-sided. He tells User:DocumentError: "I'll write you privately to lay out what i see is wrong with teh article, as there's no point in doing it "in front of him" as he'll write another "100 page treatise, with footnotes, telling me why I am wrong"" 09:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether you've been involved in this discussion before or not, If you could please indicate whether you support an interaction ban or other action, or no action at all, it would be very helpful. --Moonriddengirl 22:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Heavy long term abuse by sock army.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report made to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:O.Turani reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: ) since he/she continued to edit-war after receiving a warning.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: User has been blocked for two weeks for edit warring. Bjelleklang - talk 23:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I respectfully request a simple warning regarding adherence to WP:GF,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have never asked for you to be banned completely in this forum before. On insignificant AfD and talk pages, yes. Now is the appropriate time, when others are also showing serious issues with your consistently bad attitude. Now is the time for someone with authority look at your overall negative body of work. They should look at your consistent incivility. Look below at your responses to Jytdog. That is a typical reaction from the Banner. His talk page is archived, 47 editions so far. Go to any one of them and you will probably find at least one other editor complaining about his edits, usually about deleting someone else's contributions, usually followed by uncivil conversation where Banner is always in the right (though he can be quite civil when his opponent retracts). His edits are constantly against the consensus of others involved with those same articles, but only one dominating personality can win those arguments, with Banner calling the other party on accusations of the techniques HE USES to bully his opponents. The concept is called Psychological projection. Look beyond this one case, this is a bad apple. And Banner; while I may not be bothering your daily activities, if you are not banned; each time you are brought back to ANI (and you will be, you've been here often) I'll be back urging your removal. The short message that you've never listened to, I'll say it here publicly: Clean up your act. More than 50 people offended by your "work" telling you that your deletions are improper, that you are obnoxious, uncivil, disruptive etc etc are not wrong. Everybody else is not crazy. You are. Trackinfo (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Not true? Difs.

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

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

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

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

User:Andcarr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raheja Developers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Yunshui.

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

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

References

1. "CCI order may change realty scene". Times of India. Retrieved 8 January 2015.
2. Anthony, Philip. "DLF FINED RS 630 CRORE: WAKE UP CALL FOR UNSCRUPULOUS DEVELOPERS?". CW Property Today. Retrieved 8 January 2015.

Copyvio reverts being called edit warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

Causes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Winkelvi and polemics, again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Winkelvi has made 57 edits to the talk page of Bess Myerson and 117 edits to the article itself in just the last two days, six of which have been explicit reverts. I believe that Winkelvi should take a long break from this article (and possibly others as well) or the community should separate him from the topic. His obsessive editing of the article and talk page has not improved it, only disrupted it. I attempted to address this problem on this talk page only to be told that my comments were "inappropriate" and that I was trolling and creating drama. Further, the editor has tried to make a number of false claims against Coretheapple to distract us from his problematic behavior, while at the same time, running to an admin's talk page to try and start a false RfC against Coretheapple. I'm wondering if this is a returning user with a cleanstart account, because this bad behavior seems very familiar. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Harassment of editors by Earl King Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's another response: .--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Andy I will not be taking the bait. He routinely abuses anyone he considers to be a TZM supporter (which in his mind is anyone who doesn't buy into his conspiracy theory), he uses the talk page as a soapbox, he ignores sources and instead spins the article to suit his own agenda. And when this is pointed out, he calls it 'bullying'. Evidently though few people care. end quote AndyTheGrump. Lets not use the excuse that few people care. There are a parcel of neutral editors on the Zeitgeist pages that hold an overview that is basically neutral and report what the sources say. Making absurd accusations of 'conspiracy' stuff does not cut it and I have no idea what you are even talking about except that you try and make mince meat out of a tofu sandwich with that approach. Your derogatory approach to other editors is one explanation why your block record is longer than my arm. I won't show any more disdain than that right now. Oh by the way this is about my being hard on I.P.'s by the way so why are trying trying to throw as much sh*t against the wall as is possible? Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Earl's bullying behaviour on the talk page is self-evident. As is his violation of Misplaced Pages BLP policy when he repeatedly promotes his entirely unverified conspiracy theories concerning Joseph supposedly inventing TZM for profit. Nobody has to take my word for it - the evidence is in plain sight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest you start a new Ani then about that subject (this one is about how I interact with I.P.'s) and supply all the diffs and make a case. I think its a real pity injecting so much false drama into this current conversation like asking me if I am a former member of Zeitgeist that is now alienated. You said above that I am clearly not 'neutral editing' and saying that you seem to have an irrational hatred of what is an organisation of next to no real significance, around which you have built a half-baked conspiracy theory. that is pretty strong rhetoric. I have no conspiracy bones to pick. You also said the nonsense you routinely trot out. Do you realize you are being insulting Andy? Does no one tell you to stop attacking other editors you disagree with? You say It achieves precisely nothing beyond antagonising everyone who doesn't buy into your obsessions. Do I really have to put up with your mental health analysis? You say they have as much right to contribute to the article as anyone else. You say You do not have the right to decide who is or isn't allowed to take part, and you are not some sort of article gatekeeper, as much as you'd clearly like to be. No, I don't want to be an article gatekeeper and am not and I do not really care who participates in the article as long as they are non pov and use cited material. And you say And yes, I'd recommend that people take a look at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series), where you regularly pile abuse on anyone who doesn't buy into your warped viewpoint on this trivial little 'movement'. My 'warped viewpoint'? that is pretty nasty. You also say Frankly, I have to question the rationality of anyone who can build such an obsession around a failed technocratic millennialist cult. Were you perhaps once a member? end quote.

• I would like to make a request now for Andy The Grump to be blocked for uncivil behavior by making a mockery of a decent debate, attacking another editor that generally is supported by the neutral editors on the page in question and turning or trying to turn this into a battlefield and not what it was supposed to be, a request to see if I am too hard on I.P.'s on the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Technically, this discussion is about your overall treatment of other editors in this topic area. Just look at the heading and read the whole opening statement from SDS.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

So Earl is now arguing that I should be blocked for suggesting that people see for themselves how he has behaved on Talk:Zeitgeist (film series), in a thread on his behaviour regarding the article. A novel suggestion, to say the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Block-proposal for User:Enigmafay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

Section created by Kautilya3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threat by User:Worldchampion2014

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

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

Is there anything in the article which could violate BLP rules? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Have you tried asking for semi-protection? That should fend off the gnats. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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

TBAN Violation by P-123

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First tell me what your actual user ID is. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Only by you and the OP. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

You're being dishonest. Start being honest, and you'll get better treatment. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→

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

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

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

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

• No one starts editing Misplaced Pages by going to the ANI page. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Noted, 23.27.252.124. I asked three questions, please consider addressing the other two as well. Bishonen | talk 15:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

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

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

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

Given the trolling report here by an out-of-the-blue IP, and its continual support by another trolling, out-of-the-blue IP , both of them should be blocked and this section should be boxed up. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

And it is now finished, as you are blocked. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Edit warring User:Binksternet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of 0RR restriction for Binksternet

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

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

• OPPOSE - Times change, redistricting is an example of that. User:Binksternet understands that WP policy and procedures need to be flexible enough to adapt to changes in the real world. "How its been done for years" is not a valid reason to not change or update how the project presents information. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is too restrictive to be practical - and it is not clear from the above, that any restriction is merited anyway.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – I don't see this as anything like clear-cut enough for such a restriction. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support The fact that this user is as experienced as they are, yet continue to regularly edit war against standing consensus, tells me that they knowingly do this in complete disregard for policy. Maybe a short period with this restriction will help change their attitude, and it can be lifted at a later time when they agree to stop edit warring. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose A few editors who don't like Binksternet's position on infoboxes does not merit such an onerous restriction. OhNoitsJamie 21:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – without understanding the issues in detail, it seems clear that Binksternet is a serious and conscientious editor involved in a two-sided disputed and working in good faith. This is more likely a boomerang situation. Dicklyon (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Agree that boomerang applies here, and that this is a vindictive and frivolous complaint. No evidence was produced that Binksternet violated any of our policies or guidelines in letter or in spirit. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support per the above discussion. TL565 (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, of course. Thanks for the good faith from the majority here who believe I have the project's best intentions at heart. This retaliatory proposal by Kraxler appears to me to be an attempt to remove a strong argument from his path, to clear out a point of stiff opposition so that he can get his way in the dispute. That's not sufficient reason for 0RR proposals; they must clearly show that the encyclopedia needs to be protected against disruption. Kraxler might want to take another look at the behavior of TL565 and SleepCovo to see where the edit-warring disruption is coming from. SleepCovo has already been blocked for this exact issue.
  I make many thousands of edits to Misplaced Pages, 137k as of today. Some of my edits add extensive text to articles, or research to talk pages, while the majority by sheer quantity revolve around the reversions of faulty work from others, including the removal of vandalism and the issuing of warnings. There are lots of ways to help the wiki; in making so many thousands of reversions, my style is based on the idea that a house should not be built of bad lumber. I think my reversion work is constructive in the sense that bad work is cleared out so that good work can be made in its place. The wiki would not be helped if I were to be prevented from reverting.
  I will abide by whatever consensus is determined in the current RfC about succession boxes. There is no need to protect the wiki from me. Rather, the focus should be on the behaviors of Kraxler, TL565 and SleepCovo who have not been respecting the existing consensus. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, How many times must it be said that the so called consensus you are referring to does not apply to the box in the bottom as it is not an infobox. You stubbornly stick to this claim and falsely accuse people of not respecting consensus when it is you who has not been respecting consensus. You are not immune from edit warring, so don't use how long you've been on here as an excuse. On the page Jing ping, you just made 13 reverts. That more than enough violates the 3RR. TL565 (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The RfC about infoboxes set the standard for succession boxes, as that was the topic of discussion, which you can clearly see in the name "RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting". The name of the RfC did not limit the result to succession boxes that are up high rather than ones found down low, nor did the discussion. The RfC was more general than you think: it was about succession in the case of radical redistricting. Absent any other working rule about succession boxes that are found in the footer, the consensus reached in the "successor/predecessor" discussion applies. Why do you think Kraxler started a new RfC? To change the existing consensus. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I looked at Template:Infobox officeholder, and it only refers to infoboxes only. Navboxes or "Succession boxes" as Kraxler calls them, are completely different and no such consensus was reached. So stop using an unrelated consensus, which was dubious in the first place, to think that you are exempt from edit warring. If you are talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC, then you are wrong. Collect started that RfC not Kraxler. TL565 (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per 'we don't impose sanctions to enable people to win content disputes'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - AndyTheGrump beat me to it. This looks too close to gaming for comfort. - Sitush (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Support per WP:DRNC. Using consensus alone as an argument for reversion is ridiculous. Looks like a clear violation of the DRNC policy to me. Furthermore, Binkster lied about no more edit warring to get out of a block. This appears to be a repeat problem. --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be unfamiliar with what you are commenting about. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• 20 mule team Oppose So somebody vandalizes an article and Bink isn't allowed to fix it? There is certainly some gaming going on here. Oh and consensus is a perfectly valid reason for a reversion. MarnetteD|Talk 03:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose on the grounds of what looks to be borderline gaming. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• User:Aknaqvi created Ali Kamal Naqvi
• User:Aknaqvi removed Speedy Deletion Template from Ali Kamal Naqvi

• User:Aknaqvi removed Speedy Deletion Template from Ali Kamal Naqvi
• User:Aknaqvi was warned about removing speedy deletion templates
• User:Aknaqvi was warned about removing speedy deletion templates
• User:Aknaqvi removed Speedy Deletion Template from Ali Kamal Naqvi
• User:Aknaqvi was warned about removing speedy deletion templates
• User:Aknaqvi removed Speedy Deletion Template from Ali Kamal Naqvi
• User:Aknaqvi created Bollywood chugly
• User:Aknaqvi removed Speedy Deletion Template from Bollywood chugly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Bill the Cat 7 19:18, 2 January 2015‎ (Yes, it's fringe. Take it to the talk page and see a whole host of quotes stating that it's fringe.)

- Renejs 21:20, 2 January 2015 (Mmerjeri already asked you to please obtain a consensus first as per WP:BRD.)

- Bill the Cat 7 21:55, 2 January 2015‎ (I did. We do.)

- Gekritzl 22:08, 2 January 2015 (Not a fringe theory.)

- Jeppiz 22:21, 2 January 2015 (A large number of sources have been given for the cat, stop the POV-pushing.)

- Gekritzl 22:49, 2 January 2015 (A large number of sources are given supporting Jesus Myth theory, stop POV.)

- Mmeijeri 19:46, 5 January 2015‎ (This is edit-warring, you do not have a consensus for this change.)

- Renejs 20:10, 5 January 2015‎ (Obviously false statement is deleted (see Talk). Stop being obstructive and edit warring.)

- Bill the Cat 7 02:18, 6 January 2015‎ (Peddle your fantasies somewhere else.)

- Renejs 05:03, 6 January 2015‎ (Grant's "no serious scholar" statement is obviously obsolete, as everyone knows.)Renejs (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Grant's statement is actually true, if you read the entire quote...

To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200