Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.169.16.240 (talk) at 17:12, 4 January 2015 (→User:Bbb23 abusing "admin 'power' "!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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?

WP:BLUD on Talk:Battle of Chawinda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nawabmalhi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban on Nawabmalhi and TheSawTooth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion and Action Requested

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

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

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

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

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)

AlexanderRa and original research at Diversity Immigrant Visa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm has resumed BLP violations

User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm (aka IP 213.114.147.52), after being automatically unblocked when the block (set by User:Black Kite for BLP violations) expired, has resumed his disruptive editing. In spite of warnings, he is still adding unsourced material to biographies of living people: 1 2 3 4 Please do something about him. 94.156.66.152 (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 94.156.66.152. VoS is continuing to push his agenda on adding unsourced info regarding "ethnic Hungarians" into BLP articles, either as a logged in user or the IP address. They've been contacted many times on their talkpage, but doesn't seem to want to cooperate. Lugnuts 13:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Correct user name is: László Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).--ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Black Kite, in the spirit of Christmas I blocked for only a week; I can see a NOTHERE block as well. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. Lugnuts 11:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Drmies - please also block his IP that he often uses to edit unlogged: Special:Contributions/213.114.147.52 (he violated BLPs using this IP just recently) 91.201.173.103 (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the user is now using IP edits to push their agenda. Lugnuts 11:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• User:Black Kite, can you help? I'm mobile and our adminterface sucks. Also, happy new year. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:KahnJohn27: Removal of referenced information

Issue #1: KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs). He has not been blocked even once for any of this:

Removal or corruption of referenced information: , , , , , (referenced information changed)

Previous sections created at ANI: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive793#KahnJohn27 (behavioral issues, problems with sources), Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive824#User:KahnJohn27 at Ariel Castro kidnappings (edit warring, civility)

Other incidents: Notices left for recent edit warring, "Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material", disruptive editing and personal attacks

Issue #2: Unconfirmed but there may be a connection between this user and a previous banned user.

Account Creation:

• KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs) (account created 6 September 2012)
• Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) (account banned 10 days later on 17 September 2012 for long term editing issues). He had 65,000 edits and has his own cleanup template.

KahnJohn27 (Edit analysis, top 100 articles edited):

• List of best-selling video games — 27

Also he edits articles related to Islam.

Jagged 85 (Edit analysis, top 100 articles edited):

• History of role-playing video games — 320
• List of best-selling video games — 238
• (Articles related to Islam)

Issue #3: Is there no way to stop people from corrupting the content of this site such as removing or changing referenced information? It is sad that this happens so frequently on Misplaced Pages and some editors can maintain a presence on this website for years before they are stopped and many times the damage is not reversed. --Chrisonp (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Chrisonp You are confusing me with someone else. My account is completely original. I am not Jagged85 and this is a legit account. All the users who complained about me at have bern thmselves been reported at ANI and many other users have complained those users who complained about me of being disruptive. Additionally you forget to mention that I was I who made it possible the usage of as a reliable source for box office gross.

Now about the Jizya article, I only removed the referenced material because theyvweren't properly cited because page numbere weren't specifically mentioned in some book sources which immaturely caused me to think it moght be wrong information and biased. However it was a completely immature and wrong decision on my part and I accept that. I only removed it from the article Jizya only once or twice that too months ago and it was an immature decision on my part I accept that.

Also about this edit where according to you where I changed referenced information on Muhammad bin Qasim, I actually had later added much more reliable and additional info about Al-Baladhuri's Qasim's death then there was earlier and you can see about this here . You have deliverately ignored that I later added much more reliable and referenced information then there was earlier. Referenced information can be changed if new reliable information is to be added or it is incorrect. It is a shame that people on Misplaced Pages keep picking bones of the past and use strong arm tactis, false and incorrect complaints and bullying to impose their opinion.

I therefore request the administrators to close this thread since it has no merit and is based on false claims and past incidences and also doesn't mention anything about my my contributions in improving the content Misplaced Pages. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Also pleace notice how that User:Chrisonp whose account was created just yesterday makes his first edit about complaining me? Notice all his edits. How did he so quickly came to knew about my edits on Jizya? Additionally notice that he hasn't made even a single edit that isn't about me. Also notice how extremely skilled he is in editing Misplaced Pages. This is almost impossible for a new user. I suspect his account might either be a sockpuppet or he is from a Wiki on internet that lists info about a certain topic? And if it is user of a Wiki from the internet then I think I might already know who he is and from which Wiki he is and why he is here. This guy seems to be very suspicious indeed. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, you said that "I only removed it from the article Jizya only once or twice that too months ago and it was an immature decision on my part I accept that." So you've admitted some of your mistakes. Have you added that information back?

Regardless of your later edit, you cannot change information in a reference as you did here.. For example if we had this statement: Room A has 10 boxes.<ref>A reference </ref>, I cannot change that statement to something else unless the reference says that.

Could you go through the links I mentioned in the "Removal or corruption of referenced information" section and make sure you have added back all the referenced information that you removed? For example this edit that you made about 3 months ago. Information cannot be removed simply on the basis of being biased against a group. An experienced user like yourself may already know that. thank you. --Chrisonp (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chrisonp Yes I admitted it and I also said it was an immature decision. Besides actually the whole of my edit on Jizya was later reverted by Latifa Rafaat and I had already checked it. All of the information I removed had already been added back months ago.

Additionally you are completely wrong that referenced information can't be changed. I had added much more information to the Muhammad bin Qasim article. Referenced information can be changed. Besides the text that about al-Baladhuri's account of Qasim's death was actually very brief and also somewhat incorrect and I had expanded it and also corrected it. If the referenced information can be improved or expanded or new reliable information can be added to it or if the information is incorrect or does not match the txt in the reference then it can be changed. Room A having 10 boxes is not the same as historical account of a person's death. Parameters are different under different conditions. Also even Room A has 10 boxes can be changed. For example I can say "Room A has 10 boxes x amount of y material in each box" if they contain that material or I can say that "Room A has 10 empty boxes". Additionally it can also be changed You clearly do not know how Misplaced Pages functions. You should try to find out all the facts before reaching a decision and stop beating a dead horse by unnecessarily raking up events that only happened once that too months ago. Instead of having a discussion that only wastes time let us focus on improving the content of Misplaced Pages.

Plus would you care tell me how is it that you find out so much about me so quickly and how is it that you are so skilled in editing despite being a new user? You either seem to be a sockpuppet or one of those editors from WikiIslam who blocked me for absolutely ridiculous reasons. Your whole complaint is based on either mistaken belief, incidences that happened much back in past, lack of knowlege or false accusations. You have even portrayed my constructive edits at Muhammad bin Qasim in negative light. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, please note that I am saying you have misrepresented sources being cited without updating the original reference (such as this edit).

You said "Additionally it can also be changed You clearly do not know how Misplaced Pages functions." , you're a person who has removed entire sections of sections referenced information often without even giving edit summaries (, , , etc) after two years of being an editor so your statement is like the pot calling the kettle black.

On your user page you mention "provide the reason for reverting in the edit summary box of the article", yet you choose to remove referenced information from the website and on top of that you dont give edit summaries for these vandalism-type edits (, ) even though you explicitly demand edit summaries from others yourself. Kindly apply the same standards to yourself that you expect others to follow.

As for me being an experienced editor, note that knowing how to edit wikis before joining Misplaced Pages or leaving the site and coming back later with a new user name is perfectly acceptable behavior, and your trying to attack the complainant rather than address the charges is a fallacy. So please focus on the work being done, not the person.

You have been warned here before about incivility multiple times (, ) but you have not understood the WP:NPA policy (which is a mandatory core policy to be followed, not an optional essay) and have continued to make recent offensive statements such as "I was here to edit not to get involved in a stupid edit war" () and "That is a very stupid rationale." (). Please read WP:NPA which asks people to be civil to each other and this includes not making statements like 'your rational is "stupid".' Please be civil to other editors and refrain from making inflammatory/offensive remarks.

As for you being blocked on other websites I suspect it may be because of the same kind of editing behavior you have displayed here in the past (deleting referenced information or being offensive). But now that you have said those were "immature decision"s on your part that's good. Referenced information is what Misplaced Pages aims to be made up of so it must be treated with respect and care. I hope you will make better decisions in the future.

The summary of my message to you is: (1) Please refrain from removing referenced information from the website (2) Provide edit summaries in your edits (3) Remain civil and (4) apply the same standards to yourself that you expect others to follow. --Chrisonp (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes User:Chrisonp, I had already realized my mistake after my removal of referenced edits was reverted. I am sorry for displaying such stupidity. Additionally I do remain civil.. And the only real reason I was blocked on WikiIslam.com is because they thought I was a tine waster. Additionally they were also criticising Misplaced Pages but when I said unlike Misplaced Pages, WikiIslam is not neutral they said I was attacking the site. Additionally they didn't even listen to even my valid arguments of their being ridiculous mistakes on the websites. Additionally when I tried to contact them they said I had to either create an article about critique of Islam or an article about Islamophobia. I am not good at creating articles and all the Misplaced Pages articles I have created are not much good. However I did hekp them with other tasks. They still refused to unblock me. They did block me for completely ridiculous reasons. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Please fully explain your reason for misrepresenting a source being cited without updating the original reference (such as this edit). This is a serious mistake and must not be repeated and you must understand why it was wrong and explain that here so you wont repeat it in the future. This edit of yours shows that you do not understand how Misplaced Pages works or how references work.

"Additionally I do remain civil." Using the word "Stupid" to describe the actions of others on this site is not civility (for example , ). Do not ever use the word "stupid" to describe the actions of others on this site. Do you understand that? It seems like you do not in spite of me pointing it out to you before and you think you are still being civil while using such offensive words for others.

I'm sure not sure why you are talking about external wiki websites here like Wikiislam or whatever site you are referring to. My discussion so far with you is only about your edits here, on Misplaced Pages so kindly refrain from talking what happened with you on other websites. Before responding read my reply carefully and understand the issues I have pointed out and the questions I am asking you. --Chrisonp (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Completely wrong. The rason I used the word "stupid" because their actions and reasoning were indeed "stupid" and irrational. You fail to notice that they kept reverting my edits just because they didn't wanted it to be people to thibk that Hinduism doesn't permit animal sacrifice. And this is biased editing which is not permitted on Misplaced Pages. My edits at Muhaamad bin Qasim didn't actually remove the source. The source is already there in the article and my edit only removed the that is used to cite the same source multiple times in the article instead of writing the whole citation again. It's actually nothing because I or anyone else can simply add it back in a second. I will add back the source right now. As for future I will discuss a source before removing it unless ofcourse the text in the article doesn't match the source and I will mention an edit summary if you do thibnk I was wrong in my actions. As to why I did it because I only improved the article. And you really are making a big deal out of nothing. My action on Jizya was wrong but not on Muhammad bin Qasim. And you sir are making big deal out of nothing. Also you said I might have been blocked on Wikiislam for the same reason? Were you there when I was blocked? No.You are either being prejudiced or are just doing it for infaming me. Now please let's not waste pur time on an unproductive discussion. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, if I said "your edits are stupid" or "you are stupid", is there any difference between those two statements? Do you still not understand why that word is not allowed under WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL when being used in either of those ways?

"My edits at Muhaamad bin Qasim didn't actually remove the source." . Did I say that you removed the source? Once again you are having problems understanding what your wrong doings are. Also please spell check your talk comments before submitting them (your spelling of Muhammad was incorrect). Submitting talk comments and edits in a hurried hot-heated manner also reflects the kind of editing you have been doing here which involves removal of referenced information: , , , , ,

"I will add back the source right now." - So you had to wait for me to come here to do that? Please go back and fix all of your previous erroneous edits that you have done.

"that is used to cite the same source multiple times in the article instead of writing the whole citation again." - you are wrong. In your edit you changed the information in the reference and removed one of the reference (<ref name="Gier"/>). Look at your edit carefully and see what you have done.

It seems like in spite of all these statements I have provided you still do not understand the inappropriate edits and your uncivil behavior and do not want to take the time to look at your actions. --Chrisonp (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Also User:Chrisonp no you cannot leave Misplaced Pages and just simply come back to the site unless there is no option but to create a new one and you've talked it out with the administrators.That is sockpuppetry. If you forgot your password of your previous account then simply tell it to an administrator. If you come to back Misplaced Pages and already have an account whose password you still remember but have created a new account on purpose then it is sockpuppetry. Also if you were earlier blocked then you can simply not come back until unblocked. If you yourself had your account blocked and deleted then you still must inform that to administrators before coming back. You have not done so anywhere. If you did have an account before and forgot password then you must inform that now. If not that then you must talk to administrators. This is not Facebook. You cannot leave and create a new account at will. In case you are from another Wiki and never had an account from Misplaced Pages then welcome. But please clearly state and be truthful whether or not you have ever had an account before. You are too skilled for a new editor. I edited without an account for 5 years and even I wasn't near to being so skilled as you. Forgive me but you clearly seem suspicious. If you did have an account state it now and why you're creating a new account. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, I have addressed this before. I have no other active accounts here and I am fully familiar with the user policies here and I am in full compliance with them. If there is anyone who is not aware of what Misplaced Pages policies are or what is not allowed on Misplaced Pages it is you (removal of large amounts of referenced text, misrepresented sources being cited without updating the original reference, incivility 1, incivility 2).

Please address the points I mentioned above involving removal or changes made in referenced information ( and others) and also explain why you saying "this is a stupid rationale" to other editors is not a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. --Chrisonp (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I had already accepted my mistake of removal of referenced text. So please don't bring that up again. Also here on Muhammad bin Qasim I already have many times explained that I added new information. That is no misrepresentation and adding more information is always encouraged. There is nothing wrong in that. Also you talk about me being incivil here and here. However I called their rationale "stupid" because their rationale was really not making any sense. Not only that they had started lying in order to prove themselves correct. Not only that they had been reverting my edits just to impose their opinion. I had to talk with them for days just to make them see reason. This kept happening for days. Do you know how tiresome and mind tiring this can be? I do not see use of word "stupid" as uncivil when people keep unjustifiably reverting edits for their own personal reasons. I removed referenced information for mistaking it for bias at Jizya but their editing at Animal sacrifice in Hinduism was biased. You do realize their mistake is much more serious than mine. If you really want policy violators to book then you should complaint about them too. You take offence at me using the word "stupid" but you clearly do not see that my contribution of freeing that article from bias and simply presenting the truth. Now that I have explained myself completely let us now focus on improving Misplaced Pages. You say you have no accounts so you are a new user. Welcome. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added back the Gier source to Muhammad bin Qasim's death. Now let's not waste time over it. If I would have removed the source completely from the article then you would have some point complaining about me. But you are complaining about me on incorrect reasons. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you for adding it back. If any of my reasons were incorrect you would not have said things like "I had already accepted my mistake of removal of referenced text" or adding back the information you removed so please dont make statements like that when it is you who has been at fault in this entire section. Working with other editors is not easy but you have to remain patient and follow the guidelines (WP:COOL which is an essay so I will point that out; it is still recommended to follow). At this point I have no further complaints. --Chrisonp (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:Chrisonp I understand your point of being WP:COOL. At Animal Sacrifice in Hinduism they kept arguing for near a month and the discussion kept going nowhere beacause of either bias or because people didn't try to understand what I was saying. I never used the word "stupid rationale" to insult anybody. If I had insulted an user then it would have been incivil. The reason why I said "please don't bring up that again" because I had already accepted my mistake much time ago and it seemed like unnecessary harrassment to me. Additionally I am editing on an iPod since my computer stopped working some months ago and it is extremely difficult to edit on it. That's the reason sometimes I make mistakes in editing. Because of the small space sometimes it gets nearly impossible to notice my mistakes. Anyway thank you for the advice and take care. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Rollback usage by Modernist

I allege misuse by User:Modernist of rollback to revert, without explanation, edits that do not belong to the cases in "When to use rollback". I replaced a low quality image on several pages with a high quality version and was rolled back several times. The editing history shows other recent uses of rollback () that do not follow the guideline because they are not fixing vandalism or widespread nonsense. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Without a word User:Hekerui began unilaterally removing an important Mondrian painting from several articles, frankly it appeared to me to be vandalism...Modernist (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing?! I replaced a Mondrian painting image on Misplaced Pages with an identical but higher quality from the Commons. By now an admin has removed the lower quality image as redundant. This is not vandalism. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? You were adding an inferior quality image to the articles; apparently you still do not realize that the image you added was in fact an inferior image...I spoke to the admin in question here in which I explained that the image you removed was the better image...Modernist (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As to the Greenberg edit - I reverted to the original wording so as not to disparage an extremely well respected but often targeted art critic...Modernist (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not give an explanation when you made the edit? The word "disparage" is not by itself vandalism. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess you just don't know anything about the people who are constantly looking to disparage Greenberg...Modernist (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The American Gothic edit was essentially vandalism by an IP who refused to read the reference used that clearly identifies the female in the painting, and who repeatedly made the same edit; the Cafe Wha addition that I removed while technically was someone's utterly unessential opinion about the article and his inaccurate opinion regarding his friends seems like vandalism of a sort and I added a coherent reference in my next edit...Modernist (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP in my last example was a newbie, why not copy-paste their comment on the talk page and explain there? Instead you rolled it back. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the IP is essentially a newbie. A newbie whom Modernist chose to not WP:AGF, rather, to WP:BITE with these words at the American Gothic talk page: "Your opinion is not required. Find a source for what you are asserting or find something better to do..." (found at the following link:). Apparently, in this case, Modernist's poor choices weren't limited to the improper use of rollback. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A little overzealous with the revert feature, perhaps, but the items you cite are all garbage edits which Modernist removed or repaired. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

How was my edit garbage? I replaced a low quality image with an identical higher quality image because the image entered the public domain. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody called your edit garbage, he called the edits you cited garbage, re-read the above comment please...Modernist (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Note Hekerui, more pixels is not always synonymous with better quality. The image you uploaded of Gray Tree by Mondrian had several problems: its was apparently scanned from a book, catalogue or magazine (i.e., it's riddled with halftone dots of different shades and colors), the contrast was overpoweringly pushed, the paintings edges were significantly cropped, and the colors (tones of grey) were not accurate. I've replace that image with one that does not present these problems. In the future, if you do upload more images of paintings, by Mondrian or others, please check the website of the museum (or gallery) where it is located. They usually have professional photographers that attempt to reproduce the picture faithfully (which is quite difficult). Unfortunately, others often accentuate contrasts and colors (because they like it better that way) deviating from a true representation of the original work. Thanks for your comprehension. Coldcreation (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Note too, I've also upload the Gemeentemuseum version: File:Piet Mondrian, 1911, Gray Tree (De grijze boom), oil on canvas, 79.7 x 109.1 cm, Gemeentemuseum Den Haag, Netherlands.jpg. While the pixel count is lower than the work linked above, the painting is uncropped (i.e. the entire work is visible), contrasts are not exaggerated, and no half-tone dots are present (since not scanned from a book reproduction). So this is actually the best version we have so far, even though the pixel ratio is lower. Coldcreation (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

What you wrote is not a reason to roll me back and it's certainly not the reason given by Modernist. Modernist gave none, until I asked for one. That's misuse of rollback. "reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with" is the issue, a behaviour. Hekerui (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

User Modernist did what anyone else familiar with the reproduction of paintings would have done. The image Modernist reverted to did not present the problems of photographic reproduction which plagued the version you uploaded. It has nothing to do with behavior. It has all to do with publishing faithful representations of artwork. Coldcreation (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

False, Modernist used rollback to achieve that. That's not what the feature is for. Roll back is for obvious vandalism, our own user space, your own edits, edits by banned users, and widespread/bot edits provided there is an explanation posted. None of this applies. Just because someone "guards" a page does not mean they can misuse a tool. Hekerui (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line - you added an inferior image removing a good image; I put the good image back; and told you on your talk page to discuss first before re-adding the image...Modernist (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue has been solved. That questionable image of a painting by Mondrian has been replaced at Wikimedia Commons by one that more accurately depicts the work of art. Coldcreation (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that the better image was re-added to the articles. That was what I told User:Hekerui when he asked and here ...Modernist (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is solved. I'd like an admin to give an opinion. Hekerui (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm an admin and I do not see anything actionable here. Seems like a misunderstanding which has been resolved. --John (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I want to point out that even though Modernist's changes were justified, using rollback was not the best choice, and he should be more discreet in the use of rollback in the future. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I want to propose a New Year's resolution: that Baseball Bugs edits articles instead of Admin noticeboard pages. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion/citation evaluation, and uncivil conduct by user

Earlier today, I edited the articles about two Polish cities with what I sincerely believe to have been constructive edits. Here we can see a removal of substantial content regarding demographics of Gorzow Wielkopolski (Landsberg), for the supposed reason of the source being unreliable. user:Volunteer_Marek feels as though he does not need to explain his rationale to me, which I find to be both personally insulting and poor conduct on the part of the encyclopedia editor.

Here, the user falsely alleges that I am a sock-puppet of a banned user. When I brought these issues up on his talk page, he responded by deleting my entry, adding "aren't you banned?".

I then decided to log into my account ("bring out the big guns", so to speak), Vrinan, and ask for a third time for Volunteer_Marek to provide an explanation for his reversions. I also brought up his uncivil behavior and suggested that if he, for some reason, has a problem with me, it would be best to bring it to my attention. He has refused to do so, and I feel compelled to bring this censorious and rude display to the attention of the administrators. I hope we can all get to the bottom of this. Vrinan (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason you've used a source from 1906 to support a claim for "etween 1249 and 1945..."? Woodroar (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The 1906 source presumably explains the proliferation of Germans in the region from the 13th century to the 20th century. From 1906 to 1945, the population distribution of the city presumably became even more German, as following WWI, many Poles migrated into the revived independent Poland, reducing the extent of this minority population in the Weimar Republic. 71.169.181.208 (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned that no attention has been given to these incidents. The user in question has been deleting content seemingly in the interest of Polish nationalism. Mainly, he is deleting content pertaining to the German history of towns that have been Polish since 1945. I really hope something can be done to prevent this flagrant historical negationism. 71.169.181.208 (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP is most likely a sock puppet of indef banned User:Kaiser von Europa, who has a long history of disruptive editing and sock puppeting on both English and German Misplaced Pages (possibly others, I can't remember). There just aren't that many people in the world who are obssessed with the "German" history of Gmina Szczytno within Szczytno County in a corner of northeastern Poland. We're talking about a division of about 10k people. The use of the archaic (and unreliable) source also indicates that this is Kaiser, as that was basically what they did in their previous edits.

As to the merits of the edits themselves, the info is undue (the results of a 80+ year old and controversial plebiscite in a short stub of couple sentences, inserted as some kind of exercise in "territory marking" for a village of a couple dozen people) and the source unreliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The source (Max Meyhöfer: Die Landgemeinden des Kreises Ortelsburg) is perfectly reliable. These stubs need to be expanded, it's completely absurd to remove information from a stub because it's a stub. That's just censorship because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. VolunteerMarek needs to stop his slander and editwarring. 80.136.85.134 (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that the book was written by a notable author and published both in Austria in 1967 with a second edition in 1971. The copy on Google Books is/was held by the University of California. It is quite possible that the book is biased (virtually all sources are). Describing a 1967 book as "archaic" is hyperbolic exaggeration. If Volunteer Marek thinks the book is so awful - then let him find some evidence in the form of book reviews, or other books that explain how wrong the book is, or something - then add this information to some articles.

Volunteer Marek has not taken this matter to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations. I wish that he would do so.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that many people are interested in the German history of Pommern, Schlesien, and Ost Preusen. Among them, the millions of descendants of German inhabitants who had been murdered and expelled in the ethnic cleansing of the land to open it for the Poles and Russians. Do I as an editor have a POV? Yes, because I happen to be one of those descendants. I find the deletion of valuable and well-referenced information regarding former German history in the region to be insulting to my family, who suffered so greatly in their flight from their homeland.

Since I have been open about my motives (preserving the memories of not only my ancestors, but the ancestors of millions of Volksdeutch), I would be happy to hear your motivations, Volunteer Marek. I do not wish to assume too much about these, but I feel the best option for the encyclopedia is to get it out in the open.

And for the record, I am no sockpuppet. I occasionally edit with the IP 71.169.181.208 , when I am logged out of Misplaced Pages due to OCD cache and browser clearing every night before shut-down. I have been open in the congruence of these two accounts, and since neither are banned, I hope we can agree that there is not real issue. Vrinan (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The user is pushing Irredentism German nationalist claims into articles using an obscure German author, and unsourced and false claims about Germans being "native" to Polish territories. In addition he puts forward information about a falsified referendum made under terror threats which would require extensive description far outside the scope of these small articles. Upon deeper review and though, I don't see these edits as salvageable.

"Do I as an editor have a POV? Yes, because I happen to be one of those descendants. " Then I suggest you stop editing these articles especially in view of your revisionist claims about "ethnic cleansing and murder of millions". "(preserving the memories of not only my ancestors, but the ancestors of millions of Volksdeutche)" No disrespect for your ancestors, since I don't know and don't care about who they were, but Volksdeutsche were overwhelmmingly pro-Nazi and significent portion of them(if not majority of capable males) were guilty of participation in Holocaust and genocide of Slavic populations. See Himmler's Auxiliaries: The Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle and the German National Minorities of Europe, 1933-1945 by Valdis O. Lumans --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC) PS:Now upon further review I see striking similarity to long gone user Kaiser von Europa who engaged in similar edits.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• It seems the author above user is using is connected to nationalist and Nazi related publisher

Publications by Max Meyhofer were made by Göttinger Arbeitskreis, Göttinger Arbeitskreis post-war was the refugee of nationalists Osftorscher who pressed territorial claims against Poland. "The activities of the Ostforscher had found a new institutional base in the Federal Republic in the form of the Göttinger Arbeitskreis Germany Turns Eastwards: A Study of Ostforschung Michael Burleigh - 1988. Kai Arne Linnemann in Das Erbe der Ostforschung. Zur Rolle Göttingens in der Geschichtswissenschaft der Nachkriegszeit on page 129 mentions that publications by Göttinger Arbeitskreis allowed former Nazis and nationalists to escape "political problems" when writing, and it was used among others by notorious Nazi Theodor Schieder(man responsible for planning genocide in Poland among other things). This obscure author seems to be too connected to Nazis and nationalists to take his claims about "nobody wanted to be in Poland, and Germans are native" as reliable. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC) I am continuing my research and he seems to have been also friends with notorious nationalist Fritz Gause, who stated that Hitler was "morally justified" in his war against Poland, this nationalist paper mentions this along the fact that they worked closely together.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything MyMoloboaccount has said is a content issue, not a behaviour issue. It belongs in article talk pages, not here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Nazi and German nationalist sources on Poland are not reliable and don't belong in articles. Putting nationalist and Nazi sources in articles is a behavior issue.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have also discovered further evidence that this is indeed a nationalist author. This German nationalist paper praises his book with confirmation that it was published by the Göttinger Arbeitskreis . This Yearbook of German university(Jahrbuch,Albertus-Universität zu Königsberg i. Pr

1952) names Max Meyhofer as close co-worker of nationalists Gause and Rothfelds(bot of whom supported territorial claims against Poland and German supremacy)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

section break

I'd like to know how you have deemed German nationalist resources unreliable. Are there any studies describing their falsehoods or inaccuracies? Or is this some original research on your part? You seem to think that all Germans active from 1919-1945 were Nazis, in the worst sense of the word. This is disingenuous. Many Germans never joined the NSDAP, many never fought in the war, and the great majority did not participate in war crimes. It is in insulting gesture to defame an entire generation of people for the crimes committed by a relative few.

I am sure you can find many resources describing the extent of German settlement in the East in the several centuries preceding 1945. And I am sure you will also find many describing the complete disappearance of this historically and culturally important ethnic minority living abroad.

I hope you can appreciate my concerns regarding Volunteer Marek's wholesale deletion of valuable historically relevant passages from dozens of articles. It is important for me, and for many others, to honor their ancestors, and the lives they lived. We owe ourselves to them. So when I see censorship of an important and long period of (one of my) people's history, I become upset.

My POV is for the inclusion of all historically relevant information, regardless of its potential political incorrectness. I understand that there are 7 billion others like me, all with their own values and moral obligations. Many of us feel that the history and memories of our people are important, and efforts to destroy this history are understandably met with opposition.

It is impossible not to possess a POV, or a non-biased outlook. It is part of being human to have relationships with certain subjects. If you think the American and Polish researchers cited in encyclopedias like this don't have a point of view, I would suggest that you are wrong. Only by examining all points of view, and judging the accuracy of each (by more than 'guilt by association'), can we arrive at the truth. Even then, Misplaced Pages's job is to present the information from reliable and reputable sources, not the truth. I disagree strongly with the idea that all German sources sympathetic to Germans living in eastern territories are all unreliable or "biased" (though what isn't coming from a biased POV in historical literature?) If Volunteer Marek wants to delete these relevant passages from the articles, I suggest that he explain on the article talk pages why he feels they merit deletion. Vrinan (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a forum, please take your debate about non-related subject to a proper venue, or "arriving at the truth". It is about publishing neutral information based on reliable sources. German nationalists with and publishers connected to Nazis are not reliable sources about Poland. I am sure you can find reliable non-nationalist related sources with the information you are seeking.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I should correct myself. This user: (along with several other IPs) is most certainly a sock puppet of indef banned user Kaiser von Europa. I am not sure what Vrinan's connection to them is. It's possible I guess that after I reverted them on the Zielona Gora article, Vrinan looked at my recent contributions, saw that I reverted Kaiser's sock puppet and decided to revert me as "revenge".

I guess I can file an SPI against the other IPs. As far as Vrinan/71.169.181.208 goes there are several edits from these accounts which I find deeply troubling. For example in this comments the user seems to be alleging that a photograph representing the Holocaust has been faked. This kind of Holocaust denial is made even more explicit in this comment (which I removed per WP:NOTAFORUM). While the user is entitled to have an opinion, they should not be using Misplaced Pages for advocacy of these kind of opinions, and frankly, I have no wish to interact in any manner with that sort of a person.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

constant addition removals on any Greek related topic

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

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

It seems like the user Alexikoua almost cringes anytime the word Persian is added to any article directly related to Greece, despite all additions I put in these statements related to it are fully sourced and well written literally every time. Look how many times he instantly removed my sourced additions, all of them only those related to Greece, with none of them having a valid reasons at all. ("IP disruption", no edit summary, and so go on)

This is just a tip of the iceberg and just look at him hammering on any addition I make on Greek related articles. Anyway, the reason I brought it up here is not just the sole fact that his allergy towards additions related to my edits is extremely annoying, it's even more funny when he literally obliges me to, after reverting whatever he can revert, in order to make any of these additions to any Greek related page, I need to bring it to the talk page first(!) So I need to ask him permission basically to edit on any Greek related article, per his own words. That's crazy and probably one of the most ridiculous things. Not only did I make the first step numerous times and ask him on his talk page to mediate firstly with me if he really just doesn't approve of certain additions (which he just deletes instantly afterwards and labels it as "trolling") It just doesn't work like this, on top of the fact that it's very disrespectful and disruptive. I've told him so many times not to remove well sourced statements/additions without a good reason, or not doing any effort himself to thin the information down he think is too excessive, or at least writing me on my talk page before reverting everything (a very basic thing, really, but even that he couldn't)

I left him another note about this as well today, which he instantly deleted as well. Obvious WP:JDL is obvious and this has to stop. Maybe I'm right and he's wrong, or maybe I am wrong and he's right, but this is just ridiculous in my opinion. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

All the specific edits clearly fall into wp:undo weight, as stated in the edit summaries, while the unlogged editor was welcomed to initiate a discussion in the correspodent talkpages. For example he insists that the "History of Greece" article should have an "Persian era section" ], quite weird for a 1-2 year period that concerns the Second Persian Invasion (480-479 BC) to have a section, while the article concerns a total of ca. 4 millenia of history (not to mention that historiography usually prefers to term the specific events as "invasion" or "war" not as "era"). Same undo weight in the rest of the above mentioned articles, such as in Greeks, Thessaly and Classical Greece ]. In the last article for an unexplained reason he inisists to add the map of the Persian Empire, while at the same time vital information about the Persian invasion against Greece is absent.

Although the unlogged user has been continuously asked to participate in the correspodent talkpages (in one case I opened a discussion in Classical Greece but still no response ]) he just insists to post unacceptable comments in my talkpage simply accusing in general and ignoring wp:undo weight.Alexikoua (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

An "era" ] in historical documents doesn't just always mean that a territory was part of another territory; it also can mean that a certain nation/political grouping/empire, you name it, dominated the politics and history of that respective nation for example. The Greco-Persian conflict and everything affliated to it lasted more than a century, and are exceptionally crucial for the rest of Greece's/Greek history and European history as well. It completely dominated both the former and the latter for a long time. Disregarding the "Persian era" as merely the era in which mainland Greek soil was occupied is an utterly redudant way of argumenting.

References

1. Cite error: The named reference xxxx was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. "Waging War Without Warriors?: The Changing Culture of Military Conflict". Retrieved 2 January 2015.
3. "The Life of Greece: The Story of Civilization". Retrieved 2 January 2015.

You "welcomed" me to initiate a discussion in the correspodent talkpages, after what, - reverts without either an edit summary/calling everything "IP disruption" and after a message I placed on your talk page suggesting to talk? (which he instantly deleted as well) ] Quit presenting yourself better than you actually did.

Alexikoua made his first real attempt at mediation on 07:30, 25 December 2014 ], while he had been on his ridiculous WP:JDL reverting spree since 11:30, 24 December 2014.] After this one on the 24th of December, he made another 13 unreasoned reverts before trying to look for a debate ]]]]]]]]]]]]]

His attempts here to disort facts are not much more than endearing and sad at the same time, to be honest. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to initiate a discussion in the correspondent talkpages, going straight to wp:ani accusing coeditors isn't a sound approach. In general there was no era known as "Persian era" in Greek history & no wonder not a single reference given supports this.Alexikoua (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

IP creating article empty article sections, editing disruptively after numerous warnings

For about a week, IP user 70.190.229.97 has been creating sections in various articles but leaving them empty except for the article improvement tags he leaves in each empty section he creates. He adds no content, just the improvement tag. He has been asked not to do so several times, has been warned that this equates disruptive editing and that he could be blocked for doing so. He never responds to any warnings or comments on his talk page, even after being advised to do so by an administrator, he just removes the warnings, occasionally saying "sorry" in the edit summary. He has stated in edit summaries that he understands the warnings and won't do it again, but then goes right back to the same disruptive behavior. His other disruptive behavior has been adding Ref Needed banners on articles when plenty of references are already present. He also has a history of edit warring and has been warned about it by editors as well as at least one administrator. After numerous requests and warnings, he continues to not use edit summaries. He has removed categories and established content without explanation or even an apparent productive motive.

• A few diffs and examples of empty sections added and inappropriate refs needed tags along with reverting all of it back after being warned on his talk page that the edits are inappropriate and disruptive:

Matthew J. Munn article: ,

Paradise Cay, California article: , ,

Mike Elliott (comedian) article:

• Examples of necessary wholesale reversion of article edits when IP has removed categories, content, added extraneous content, and made strange, unexplained section changes:

Jim Meskimen article:

Jason Lee (actor) article (previously had to be been rewritten due to the IPs strange edits, empty sections, and inappropriate subsections and undue weight added - it was all reverted back in today with the following):

• Inappropriately adding references needed to article with an existing ref needed banner, but where plenty of references already exist:

David Cross article:

• IP's talk page revision history showing warnings left and removal of warnings, including his apologies for edits and indication that he would not repeat the disruption:

Edit warring comment from Drmies:

These are just a few examples. My guess is there are more articles across Misplaced Pages where empty sections have been created by this IP. Either he doesn't understand the warnings and comments that have been left on his talk page or he doesn't care. It's strange behavior, to say the least. If he had an account and was looking to rack up edits, I could better understand his motivation (not agree with it, but understand). But as an IP account, it doesn't make sense to me, outside of intentional disruption and possibly now seeking to win. Some of his edits have been fine, some of it has been helpful, but the seemingly intentional disruption and ignoring of MOS and general procedure and policies is concerning and seems problematic. Perhaps a mentor is what's needed? But, until then, I expect the defiant disruption and inappropriate editing to continue. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Again on Little Jimmy Dickens, btw. Connormah (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I just had a look at Michael Kittrell, where they were doing basically the same thing as they did before on Robin Williams, and I've blocked them for 60 hours. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Fed up

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

The article Weekly Shōnen Jump has seen a lot of censorship and removal of important content recently. Several editors have added useful criticism of the article to the page but it was reverted without reason and they were BLOCKED. This is a censorship attempt because Weekly Shōnen Jump now contains no criticism whatsoever of the article.

Examples of adding useful content that was later reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&diff=631117453&oldid=631117298 (reverted) without reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&diff=627636001&oldid=627635836 (reverted) without reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&diff=prev&oldid=627635818 (reverted) without reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&diff=624912068&oldid=624804058 (reverted) without reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&diff=623682056&oldid=623666650 (reverted) without reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&diff=623385185&oldid=622169060 (reverted) without reason

I believe that editors who work at Weekly Shōnen Jump are trying to hide the true problems that have been exposed at their organization. This needs to be stopped, immediately! --Higher & Higher (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG, toomerang... --00:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)

They were BLOCKED because they were SOCKPUPPETS of a VANDAL. See the SPI. Bobby Tables (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone is as naive as me, don't waste your time looking at the diffs. It's just Cow cleaner 5000 (talk · contribs) again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Higher & Higher isn't blocked yet, actually... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Is now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man forgets the IBAN once again

No sooner do I use the word iconic to describe a nomination at ITN does The Rambling Man quote me directly "iconic" but seems to do so tit for tat. Certainly an admin and sysop who's been blocked by Laser brain (talk · contribs) for previous violations of the IBAN can withdraw his comment or deal with a new block. I'd welcome an admin either notifying The Rambling Man of this comment or advising me I can do so myself in contravention of the IBAN.

μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

He used the same word as you? How about we don't notify him, and we just close this? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the second diff. He didn't just coincidentally use the word "iconic", he put scare quotes around "iconic", indicating he was quoting (and disparaging) what someone else wrote. Medeis' use of "iconic" in his own statement is right above TRM's comment. It's hard not to see this as a -- admittedly minor -- violation of the IBAN. Whether it's block-worthy I'll let an admin decide -- that's why they get the big bucks. BMK (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I failed to note that Medeis' comment was to oppose TRM's ITN nomination. Like Laser Brain below, I would consider that a violation of the IBAN as well, which makes TRM's violation (which, despite the comments below, it quite clearly is -- the use of "iconic" was a choice and not an accident, and the scare quotes make his POV about the Medeis comment obvious, so I'm not sure why that is not being seen by other commenters) a response to Medeis' violation. So if anyone is considering any kind of sanction here, Medeis would seem to be the party who should be sanctioned. The IBAN requires him to stay away from TRM, including his nominations etc. BMK (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've had multiple disputes with The Rambling Man (some evidenced in the collapse box above, which I hadn't even realized until I entered the editing window), but this complaint strikes me as petty. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I half expect Medeis to start pointing and saying, "he's looking at me!" This is beyond petty, and bordering on harassment by Medeis. The word at issue was iconic. It's hardly inappropriate for TRM to put it in quotes, given the context, and his statement was nothing close to disparaging. It's long past time for Medeis (and one or two other folks) to stop seeing IBAN violations in every edit Rambling Man makes, and start assuming a little good faith. I've seen third graders more able to ignore another's behavior. --Drmargi (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Who are these "one or two other folks"? If you mean Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) and the host of other users like Snow Rise and Phoenixia1177 or Drmies, etc., who've chastised him please mention and notify them. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Let's eliminate the IBAN because it's causing more trouble than it could possibly be solving. Jehochman 03:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Does this mean I am free to violate the IBAN as I see fit? Shall I take the "leave the cesspool to the shitheads" comment currently on TRM's talk page as read?

When someone directly quotes me with quote marks around a word no one else has used but me, I take that a explicit violation of the IBAN. Given the last time he was blocked he promised to quit the project, threw a fit on his talk page, and I personally asked that he be unblocked I take comments like Drmargis' as uniformed and insulting.

Either there is an IBAN or there isn't. PS, has anyone notified TRM?

And no, Jehochman, let's enforce the IBAN since only one party keeps breaking it, and you were the last to unblock TRM, so your recusing yourself would be appropriate. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a clear violation. Even if this was a subtle jab at you which I don't think it is, then your reaction would be the exact sort of thing wanted. I recommend you ask this complaint be closed and move on. Chillum 03:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

If anything, the only violation I've seen of late is Medeis's constant running to this noticeboard to stir up trouble. --Drmargi (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

responding to a violation of the IBAN is explicitly allowed under the terms of the IBAN. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, Medeis, would you consider opposing TRM's ITN nomination a violation of your IBAN? Because I would. And that occurred before the needling you are here to complain about. I agree with Jehochman that the IBAN is pointless. --Laser brain (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

No, we both comment on the same threads on ITN and at the Ref Desks and that fact was directly addressed in the three ANI's that were initiated to get the IBAN put in place. Had I said something like Nergaal when he opposed TRM's nom a few weeks ago because it was TRM's nom, then yes, that would be a violation, as would directly quoting him or trying to do so surreptitiously. But both TRM and I have agreed and disagreed on various nominations, and TRM has even thanked me several times since the IBAN via the thank function for my comments saying he should have been unblocked, and in support of his nominations. The only question here is the very obvious violation with a direct quote of my comment, using quote marks. Given I am explicitly and happily banned from responding, I have brought it here. I don't expect that to be ignored. I just want TRM to watch what he's doing and stop testing the limits as Drmies expressly forbade him to do. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• What was reported is not a violation IBAN, this is however. Given the pettiness of the report I'm considering blocking Medeis. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Would it be feasible to keep the iBan, but prohibit Medeis from reporting violations? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Prohibiting an editor from openly reporting an alleged violation of an interaction ban would tend to encourage behind-the-scenes or off-wiki discussion instead. Is that really preferable to openness? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Knock it off Medeis - you're obviously trying to get a Rambling Man blocked. How about we ban you from mentioning his name anywhere on this encyclopedia. I fully support such a ban KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Uh, that's already there. It's called an Interaction Ban. And again, if you try to impose such a ban, you'll encourage behind-the-scenes behavior, which I can't see as an improvement. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Question - As a "compromise" between lifting the IBAN and preventing Medeis from reporting violations, how about making it one-way? TRM should no longer be prevented from interacting with Medeis (but warned that the IBAN may be reinstated), but Medeis is prohibited from interacting with TRM? Since TRM would no longer be prohibited from responding to Medeis, any further reports of ban violations would no longer fall under an exception, and the community would no longer have to deal with these petty reports. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's just get rid of the IBAN and tell both editors not to needle each other. If there's needling or worse, block shopping like this thread, whoever is causes disruption will get a series of escalating blocks. That should put an end to it. Jehochman 14:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

An IBAN is usually an imperfect solution, but it actually works a reasonable amount of the time. For it not to work, you need:

• Two editors of sufficient usefulness that we don't just want to apply the banhammer (or, the topicbanhammer) to one or both and say good riddance;
• One or both of whom have sufficient dislike of the other that they just can't seem to let go;
• One or both of whom have sufficient lack of concern for everyone else that they don't care that continuing this feud is a pain in the ass for everyone else;
• Both editors active in one or two areas (in this case, ITN and Ref Desk), where replying to other editors is an integral part of the process.

I agree with Jehochman that the IBAN isn't working here, and is actually leading to an increase in annoyance for everyone. I disagree with many here that it's all Medeis' fault. I think it's partly her fault for being ultra-sensitive to perceived slights, some of them minor but real, others imagined; partly our fault for not making clear whether we want the IBAN to apply to talking about the other editor personally, or making comments that specifically disagree with the other's comments; partly TRM's fault for not being able to resist directly quoting remarks by someone with whom he has an IBAN; and partly the world's fault for being imperfect. I suspect that just repealing the IBAN and telling them both to stop picking at scabs won't work. But we should either:

• Try that first, see if it works, and do something below if it doesn't;
• Go the bureaucratic route and try tweaking the wording of the IBAN to make clear that specifically disagreeing with each other is allowed, or disallowed;
• Go with a more Solomonic cut-the-baby-in-half-to-piss-them-both-off approach, and ban Medeis from ITN and TRM from the Ref Desks; or
• Go with the blunt force approach, and ban them both from ITN and the Ref Desk.

I suggest the first (even if I fear it has a low likelihood of success), but any of the four would work for me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to point out that today happens to be the one-year anniversary of when I first engaged this issue and tried to "tell both editors not to needle each other" (Jehochman) and "stop picking at scabs" (Floquenbeam). Anyone who doesn't see how thoroughly that approach hasn't worked out has got their head in the sand. The IBAN hasn't worked either, because here we are a year later. Jehochman tried opening an arena for a Festivus-style airing of grievances but that doesn't seem to have had any effect. Baseball Bugs seems to have been far more successful than Medeis or TRM in putting this in the curbside garbage can, but I fear nothing short of issuing topic bans for Medeis and TRM from ITN and Ref Desk is going to solve this issue. Or, we can continue to let it fester and we'll see everyone at ArbCom a few weeks or months from now. --Laser brain (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Let's try both editors banned from ITN and the reference desk and if they want to figure out a detente they can ask for the restrictions to be lifted. My arena page is open for them if they want to talk about it. Otherwise they can't interact in any way, broadly construed. It's just tiresome for the rest of us to have to endure this constant sniping. Jehochman 16:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

So, to be clear, we'll both be banned from ITN and the Ref desks indefinitely? Could someone please send me a note if this is the case as I'm one of the few admins left at ITN posting stories and I guess a ban from there would stop me doing that. Presumably it wouldn't stop me from updating the stories nominated? Thanks all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I concur with the proposal to temporarily suspend their IBAN and see if that makes things better. (As for my own IBAN, keep it in place. It's not a problem for me.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm of similar mind to BMK here. I find it hard to believe TRM wasn't at least partially thinking of μηδείς's comment when replying, particularly given the history here of TRM pushing the boundary of the Iban. I do however agree with some others that considering how indirect it was, even with the history here, it was probably the sort of thing best left be, regardless of whether that's only going to mean more of the same. However it also seems to me that μηδείς opposing TRM's initiated ITN candidate was also problematic, even if it had had other supports so μηδείς may be partially replying to those comments (and the support/oppose is ultimately related to the candidate anyway). I'll admit I've never really understood how the iban was supposed to work on ITNC. My assumption a while ago based on comments they made was they would work it out, but it seems clear this hasn't happened. I therefore agree that going the bureaucratic route is worth considering. I have the nasty feeling we're still going to end up with discussions about boundaries just more complicated ones (or a 10000 word iban notice) but I'm not totally sure if there's any other good alternative. I do agree that it's not simply μηδείς who is at fault. μηδείς does seem oversensitive, but TRM does seem to like to push the boundaries (although μηδείς also has too). (Let's not forget in the early days of the iban TRM seemingly admitted to still watching the talk page of μηδείς over a month after the iban Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260#.5BMoved from ANI.5D Possible interaction ban violation and I think, didn't seem particularly interested in removing it at the time User talk:The Rambling Man/Archive 45#Watchlist. Sadly that seemingly just set the tone, and since I rarely visit ITNC where the problem seems to occur, I'm guessing I haven't even seen half of it, and I'm thinking on both sides.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  Yep, you're right, you're not clear on it at all. If by "pushing the boundaries" you mean "providing a cited response to counter an outlandish claim which happened to use a single common word" (I'm guessing I can still use "the" and "and" and "it" etc in responses) then you're right. Otherwise you're way off mark. Let's just ban us both from ITN and other similar locations, like the Ref Desk, or else let's just use some common sense and agree that this, amongst the other seven or eight complaints, is complete bollocks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  The history suggested 'happened' is highly misleading. It's hard to believe that you were not thinking of μηδείς claims when you were responding, just as with all the other times. BTW, whether or not μηδείς claims were outlandish is a moot point, you're forbidden from responding to them in any way on wikipedia per the iban although you're free to respond to other comments like the person who started that candidate. Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Fuck me, is this still rumbling on? May I suggest that you all just start the new year with a new slate and move the hell on! Cassianto 19:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  Indeed. Utter bollocks, but hey, what do you expect here these days? It's odd that around 3pm UTC we have such a barrage of outrage.... I wonder why.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose that we close this thread with no action other than warning that any sort of frivolous reports about this IBAN in the future can result in a block and will result in a look into the reporters behavior. This is a silly waste of time. Chillum 20:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You really think it's better to encourage behind-the-scenes complaints instead of openness? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Did I say it's better to encourage behind-the-scenes complaints instead of openness? I am fairly sure I did not. Chillum 20:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume by the "behind-the-scenes complaints" you are referring to Medeis and not me? Please make this clear in your response. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't know what either of you might do off-wiki. I'm merely saying that the proposal of some here, in trying to pre-empt every possible complaint, is not an appropriate solution - either for this case or any case at ANI. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's really important you're clear here as both you and Medeis have been in regular email contact, along with various admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for either you or Medeis. I myself have had very little contact with any wiki users off-wiki, for any reason. To put it another way, I am not in "regular" contact with any Misplaced Pages user. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but you and Medeis have both had communications with admin(s) in relation to this. To deny it would be wholesale lying. On the other hand, I have never attempted to circumvent the "system" with any kind of off-wiki emailing. Neither of you can say that, and you know it. Medeis has admitted as such. So, please, clarify the point, that you and Medeis have already resorted to such off-wiki tactics. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have asked this at least three times now, and no one has answered yet: Is the off-wiki approach better than being open about it here? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

And I have suggested that, in this complaint, only you and Medeis are guilty of off-wiki attempts to manipulate Misplaced Pages. She has openly admitted it, you cannot deny it. Stop trying to cover your tracks. Admittedly you are just part of a game, and you have shown on numerous occasions that you wish for the best for Misplaced Pages, but sadly the double-teaming off-wiki campaign is all too clear and painfully obvious. I'm sorry that you ended up being associated with her, other editors have suggested that she should be banned, not just from the Ref desks or ITN, but from the site as a whole. I'm sure you don't want to end up in that situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no way to know whether you're telling the truth about your own off-wiki activities, if any. However, I interpret your comments to mean that you would prefer any complaints be made here, in the open, rather than behind the scenes. Yes? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

All communication should be on wiki unlike those between you and Medeis and other admins, yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

So any and all complaints should be brought here, and the notion of censoring such complaints, as promoted by some here, is non-operative. Sounds good. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you've said more than enough Bugs. Sorry! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Bugs I said frivolous complaints, not every possible complaint. There is a big difference. Chillum 20:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

How is Medeis supposed to know ahead of time, how you're going to judge a given complaint? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

She could base it on the other seven (or so) complaints that came to nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Using the mighty power of competence to judge if the complaint has merit before making it. Chillum 21:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to guess how you're going to interpret something would require ESP. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Or a level of common sense, competence or understanding of what has gone on before. Clearly that is not applicable here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Or one might question the competence of those who claim the complaints are frivolous. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Or not admitting to your own off wiki collusions? Do us all a favour, do something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I am most pleased that you agree that off-wiki discussion should not be necessary. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, so if you and Medeis could stop doing it, that'd be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to have my competence reviewed by the community at any time. Chillum 22:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's already on display here. >:) In any case, since TRM agrees that complaining off-wiki is an undesirable approach, then he has tacitly approved bringing all complaints here. Then you and your equally-competent pals can decide on a case-by-case basis whether the complaint is actionable or not. OR, you could fix this by abolishing or at least suspending their interaction ban. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Baseball Bugs is derailing the discussion in order to deflect from the problem highlighted by Callanecc above at 04:22, 2 January 2015. Callanecc pointed out that Medeis had violated the IBAN by opposing (diff) TRM's nomination, while the issue Medeis complains of in this report is highly trivial. Baseball Bugs knows how to keep out harm's way and is only disruptive when one of these discussions starts. The solution is to topic ban Medeis only as they are the source of the conflict. The situation can be reviewed if that remedy is insufficient. TRM does good work at those venues and should be encouraged to continue. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • A violation is a violation. Either there's an IBAN or there isn't. To dismiss one item as meaningful and the other as trivial suggests bias on your part. As to your personal attack on me, please note that I have no current problems with either editor, nor do I anticipate any. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Wait, what? We aren't allowed to distinguish between meaningful issues and trivial ones? Please. Also, it seems to me the lengthy "discussions" in this thread between Baseball Bugs and TRM are violating the spirit of the iBan. Finally, a question: if it's (apparently) okay for the iBanned users to talk to each other in this thread, does it make any sense for Medeis to not be allowed to notify TRM when one of these threads is opened? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
      • We're allowed to discuss the matter here. And you raise a good question about the awkwardness that's a consequence of an IBAN. That's why their IBAN should be modified or abolished. OR, there needs to be a solid, consistent mechanism for reporting and notification, i.e. a list of exceptions built into the definition of an IBAN, so that the victim can handle it openly instead of having to sneak around back of the house and pass notes to an admin. The apparent need to do that kind of stuff undermines the (presumed) intended purpose of an IBAN, or any ban for that matter. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Do you think there is any real chance an admin would have blocked Medeis for posting a notification on TRM's talk page? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
• There's been a death in my extended family which has been a big strain as my sister was visiting from 300 miles away for the holidays and that has been upset with the need to care for her young children and plan for the viewing and funeral tomorrow. Hence my unwillingness to stop by here for what is unpleasant enough in normal circumstances. Editting WP should be a pleasure. To summarize, a year ago, after three ANI's and with a huge consensus among dovens of commenters in favor of an IBAN it was instituted, and all the parties were formally warned not to address or interact with each other directly or indirectly. Over that period one editor has regularly flouted the IBAN, been warned for it and blocked for it. And there's really not even been a good reason like an edit war of religion to violate the IBAN, just a feeling the admin involved is above it. When this happens in regard to me I can remain silent in the face of criticism, I can respond and face a block for violating the IBAN myself, or I can bring the complaint here and hope an admin will at least deliver a talk-page warning. There's no need for any other action if this IBAN is actually enforced. Given coming here is the proper course of action, I come here. I don't expect editors who don't want to be bothered looking into the reasons for the IBAN to tell me my complaints are a nuisance, they needn't comment. The nuisance is one editor who can't seem to go a month without violating the IBAN. There's something extremely wrong when making goodfaith edits in favor of an ITN nomination gets you abuse from both a user who should know better and from people with a duty of care given their position who just don't want to be bothered. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Replace IBAN with very strong warning

I propose that the IBAN be lifted, since it is not working except to facilitate gaming, but instead replaced by a very strong warning that any incivility be dealt with by a block of one week, escalating on second offense to two weeks.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Please stop dropping "let's be nice to everyone" messages into contentious topics. We all know that Medeis is more "civil" than TRM (and is only disruptive by cluelessness, not by language), so the proposal is not addressing the issue. Medeis needs to stop doing the things that TRM feels duty bound to highlight, and Medeis needs to stop bringing minor issues to ANI. As shown above, there is an IBAN violation, namely Medeis opposed (diff) a nomination by TRM. That is what needs to be sanctioned, although no one here really cares about the IBAN—we just want the silliness to stop. The solution is to topic ban Medeis and let them propose a solution to return to that area if they want. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • It was my understanding, when this general question was raised about a year ago, that the normal course of business at ITN was not to be considered a violation. If Medeis had instead said "Support", would that still have been a "violation"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
      • If this is true then the entire premise of this particular ANI is fallacious and should be closed immediately with a warning not to repeat such behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
        • That's a major "if", because I may be remembering incorrectly. The question is whether, if users X and Y are in an IBAN, and if user X proposes something, is user Y allowed to comment on the proposal? I thought so, but maybe not. Someone needs to clarify that detail, as there seem to be opinions both ways here. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Indeed, but it's certainly something I recall Medeis herself saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you're thinking of μηδείς's comment in the discussion I linked above which I'll relink here Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260#.5BMoved from ANI.5D Possible interaction ban violation where μηδείς said

"Please note the other editor has voted in opposition to my nominations in the past, for example diff without my objection then or now, just as I am accused of here. Please note the other editor has acted directly on the same thread on which I have just commented, with no objection by me or any other user. diff"

and

"I am not interested in stopping the other editor from acting on or voting on ITN threads with which I have been involved, and I don't see any reason for any restriction on my addressing such matters objectively without regard to the other editor. On occasion we disagree on the issue at hand. Neither of us has to address the other to do so."

At the time, I didn't think was going to work, nor did I think this was really in tune with how ibans are supposed to work. However as mentioned above, I decided to trust that you'd all somehow work it out (also I was more concerned about the watchlist issue). Since I don't visit ITNC much at all, I presumed for a long time this was mostly happening. However the recent ANI threads suggests it's not.

I don't know if μηδείς has changed their mind, it appears their complaint is not that you commented on a proposal which had been started by them, but that your commented appeared to be addressing a specific comment they had made, which is a somewhat distinct point and seemed to be specifically precluded by their earlier comment. (They also suggested it was addressing their comment in a retaliatory or tit for tat way.) This may be why μηδείς felt their reply to the candidate started by you was acceptable, even if they felt yours wasn't. (Although I find it hard to believe they too weren't thinking at least of your comment, although of course it's difficult comment on a candidate wording if without at least partially replying to the person who proposed it, one of the reasons I felt this wasn't going to work.)

Of course since the iban is community imposed, your view, that of μηδείς or BB is ultimately not that important compared to the communities view on what the iban entails as I think you agree.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is certainly not the first time that one of them has commented on an ITN proposed by the other. However, I agree that doing so doesn't seem to be in the spirit of IBAN, nor does it seem to be very workable in practice. I would favor a clarification of the IBAN that says that parties can not comment on (or take action on) ITN candidates proposed by the other party. Dragons flight (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The clear and obvious difference being I never drag Medeis here every two minutes when she comments on any of my proposals. Yet it seems fine, even commonplace for it to work the other way round. She can't have her cake and eat it. Having said that, if the community wish to block me, please make sure the block is evenly handed out this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• The interactions in this section indicate to me that the IBAN is still needed to prevent disruption. So I'd much rather see the IBAN enforced with an iron fist (which I'm happy to help with) than a civility parole (which have proved ineffective in the past). What about adding a clause preventing them both from commenting on each other's enforcement requests and from making any comments other than the initial report on their own enforcement requests. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That kind of leads up to what I was pondering earlier today. A given party could report a complaint, and then let the admins here decide whether it's a valid complaint or not. No further comments by the complaining party and none by the one being complained about. That might work. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I seldom respond to these endless requests, so mandating that I shouldn't in the future will make little or no difference to me. This was an exceptional circumstance as the double-teaming (as is clearly evident) has kicked off once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • You are mistaken about the "double-teaming". I have no quarrel with either of you. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
      • How are you, Bugs, not violating your IBAN by chiming in here? Jehochman 09:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I was under the impression that ANI was a safe haven for reasonable discussion of IBANs and the like. And as you may recall from your "arena" (i.e. "sandbox") page a month or two ago, there are no real issues between TRM and me. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
          • You two need to officially shake hands and end the IBAN before you join a thread like this one. Please cease commenting here about TRM and Medeis until that happens. Thanks. Jehochman 10:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
            • How should I go about doing that? Should I ask here for the IBAN to be revoked? OK, I will. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • For clarity, are you saying you don't normally respond to the ANI requests by μηδείς calling for some intervention due to alleged violations by you of the iban? Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
      • A rough review of the archives seems to indicate that TRM has participated in more than half of the IBAN complaints initiated by Medeis. Dragons flight (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm mildly surprised by that, but, as most threads deteriorate into hysteria and inaccuracies, I am sometimes obliged to correct them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
          • I found the same thing so wanted to make sure I understood what was being stated. While it's possible I've missed some (in particular if they were hatted or otherwise not findable by searching the displayed page, or if they were removed, or if they didn't happen at AN//I or simply if I didn't noticed that μηδείς was complaining about TRM somehow), my finding was in these two Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Further violation of interaction ban and incivility by The Rambling Man at ITN, etc & Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive865#IBAN violations by User:The Rambling Man, further evidence, TRM did reply. In Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#IBAN violations by The Rambling Man, further evidence (although this appeared to be a sort of follow up to the earlier complaint) and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#IBAN Violation between User:The Rambling Man against User:Medeis TRM did not reply. TRM also replied to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive865#IBAN Revisited: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, Medeis although that was a general discussion of the iban and not initiated by μηδείς. I didn't look for these and if μηδείς didn't participate I may not have seen them (as people may refer to μηδείς as medeis). There's also the request a long time ago I mentioned above although that was against by μηδείς and not initiated by them or TRM. Finally there was the original discussion to implement the topic ban as well as Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive258#Community sanctions and block. Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Counter argument

You know what, in all the bluster and guff above, I had actually failed to read that Medeis had used scare quotes and commented (using exactly the same words as me) on one of my proposals, just here before I'd even added a factually accurate and sourced comment to an item that she didn't nominate. I have no problem at all with Medeis commenting however she likes on any ITN item I nominate, nor have I ever made any claim to the contrary. I firmly believed that we could work together on ITN items, albeit mainly in opposition to one another. But now it's clear that Medeis is taking every possible opportunity to get me blocked, banned, whatever. I am sick and tired of her constant harassment and nitpicking and sad stories. I am out of this discussion, frankly I'm sorry I even commented in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Given the ongoing disruption caused by the frequent unfounded visits to ANI by Medeis, and by this new, spurious thread based on something Medeis has previously done themselves, I think we need to consider the possibility of a topic ban for Medeis from ITN. Several other editors have now complained of the disruption here by Medeis constantly filing reports, all of which have been refuted, and this has to end. - SchroCat (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a mischaracterization to say they have all been refuted. TRM was blocked last month (and Medeis received no sanction) after an admin was sufficiently convinced of her claims of harassment. Having been introduced to TRM by that incident and having no prior experience or opinion of him, I can tell you it seemed pretty cut and dry to me as well. That block was only overturned (bizarrely) after Medeis and Bugs advocated for it to be set aside. And most of the rest of these ANI's have ended with the community here just throwing up their hands in exasperation at what to do about these two (and to a lesser extent the issues between Bugs and TRM); that's a very different thing from refuting that there is an issue with the behaviour of one of the three parties. However, I do agree with you that, as of this filing, things have clearly gone to an unacceptably hyperbolic place. This is why I view IBANs as counter-intuitive and inconsistent with the spirit of our most important behavioural policies -- because they excuse unacceptable behaviour on the part of one or more of the involved parties as a mere matter of context, when clearly if an editor is capable of violating the collegial spirit of the project with regard to one person, they are capable of doing it with another or (as in this case) finding ways to lob broadsides at the original party from a distance anyway.

But all of that being said, it seems the community is still not yet ready to invoke longer-lasting and more general blocks -- though I'm increasingly convinced this acrimony will not ultimately stop short of such sanctions. So, until I got diverted into addressing issues of personal attacks between these parties in the section bellow, I was about to suggest something along the lines of what you have above, but on a more voluntary, mutual, and equitable basis. I was wondering -- though I very much doubt both parties will agree to it -- if Medeis would be willing to voluntarily abstain from contributing to ITN if TheRamblingMan agreed to stay out of the Reference Desks, the other area where they sometimes cross paths with explosive consequences. I think TRM might be amenable to that solution, but I'm more dubious about Medeis, since ITN seems more central to her activities than the Ref Desks are to TRM. Still, if neither party can entirely respect the IBAN, I think carving up the areas the two operate on (ridiculous as that is), is the only option short of blocking one or both. Personally my observation has been that one party is much more inclined to instigate these little meltdowns, but the other is rarely far behind in responding to these passive-aggressive overtures. So, if they can't find a way to stay out of eachother's way (and stop wasting all of our time), it may just be the case that both being asked to take a break from the project will be the only solution remaining. Snow talk 01:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• The repeated complaints by Medeis certainly seem to suggest a vendetta on her part and this does not favorably impress me. I think Medeis needs to do some soul–searching and ask herself why she continues to open these threads. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to strengthen IBAN

Proposing this in a new section for discussion. The discussions between Medeis and The Rambling Man at ANI (as well as the various bits of evidence) have shown that an IBAN is still needed as they don't seem to be able to work collaboratively. So I propose that What about adding a clause preventing them both from commenting on each other's enforcement requests and from making any comments other than the initial report on their own enforcement requests be added to the wording of the IBAN to prevent the disruption evident in this section. In addition that they both be warned that the IBAN will be strictly enforced with blocks (which I'm happy to help with, assuming people don't consider me INVOLVED given my comments here). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support it would probably be easier to anaylze these complaints without the involved parties getting off on lengthy arguments that hinder any actual resolution. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose With due respect to Callanecc, my take-away from the past few ANI's (and the events at ITN and elsewhere which have prompted them) has been distinctly different; from what I have observed, the more the IBAN has been stressed as a solution, the more drama has resulted as more editors (in an every increasing number of project spaces) become unwitting proxies for their issues. This results from the fact that the increasing focus upon the IBAN causes one of the parties to react to provocation that is increasingly minute in nature, be it perceived or real. Meanwhile, the other editor seems prone to launching passive-aggressive comments that either attack the disliked qualities of his perceived opponent in broad terms or else target large groups of editors in the spaces they share, such that he can continue to criticize that party without being said to be directly engaging him. I can't escape the conclusion that the IBAN has served no purpose but to greatly exacerbate the existing drama between the two, spread the ill-will to encompass many more parties, and draw more and more editors into the the effort to parse just who is more at fault, to the detriment of several highly-important spaces. I have little faith that adding more specific conditions to the IBAN will do much to reform the approach and attitudes of the involved parties in a long-term manner, which is really the issue that ought to be addressed here. I think the IBAN should be removed or that we should at least stop trying to lean on it as a solution reasonably likely to bring closure to this issue. I think the next time there's a conflict between the two, a single, uninvolved administrator should be asked (by every party present at the time, to make sure it gets due attention) to investigate the issue, make his best determination as to who was the real provocateur and block that user for two months. I daresay nothing short of that message will disentangle this pair. Alternatively the two could come to a mutual understanding between them as to who will operate where on the project, with no overlap, but given just how little they can agree on, I don't see that as terribly likely either. Snow talk 03:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Wouldn't this proposal just encourage more of these time-wasting complaints? And let's be clear, it is time-wasting. Medeis seems to feel completely free to flaunt the IBAN when it suits her (eg this diff pointed out above) but then comes running here when TRM does more-or-less exactly the same thing. If anything, Medeis actions are a considerably worse violation of the blockban - if the IBAN is really phrased so that one can comment on the other's ITN nominations then whoever drafted it deserves a largish trout. I just can't see how that isn't a violation of the ban in and of itself. Given that background, only hours before the edits that spawned this complaint, it's pretty hard to see this complaint in good faith. I think the time has come to stop tinkering with the terms of the ban and hand out some hard porridge - either a block each way for IBAN violations, or a TBAN for Medeis that will stop this nonsense. Or both. GoldenRing (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no TBAN, GR, and the issue of a TBAN on any editor was argued directly and roundly rejected in the Jan 2014 ending ANI. Both TRM and I are allowed to oppose and support and work on each other's nominations and those of third parties, simply without quoting each other directly, reverting, etc. We've done so repeatedly, and to his credit he has thanked me for my comments, although I don't believe I have thanked him. I have defended him though. Had TRM complained here like I did above I would probably have simply removed the comment out of good will, as it was a side matter. (Has he complained about this? I realize that sometimes noms I oppose are posted anyway, so I do try at least to improve their blurbs) I commented along with others that the blurb was inaccurate (at least in American English, I don't know if stampedes in Britain are called crushes) but opposed it on notability grounds. I did not quote, immediately after he used it, a word which only TRM had used. In other words, I did not quote, immediately after he used it, a word which only TRM had used. You are simply not comparing like to like. He was quoting mine and only my rationale in support of a nomination, I was criticizing the wording of a blurb as a blurb. μηδείς (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

...a blurb that TRM had proposed, yes. TBH, I think, given the sorts of proposals being made above, that you should stop commenting here. But that's my non-admin $0.02 and you're free to ignore it. GoldenRing (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support I think that in this case neither user should communicate about or to each other including violations. It should be permissible for them to leave a single message to an admin if they think it has been violated, that admin can act or bring it here if they see it has merit. Chillum 06:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

IBAN request

I would like to ask that the interaction ban between me and The Rambling Man be ended, effective on the anniversary of its imposition, of which I'm not sure of the date, but I think it would be about January 15. 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)

• My thanks for the patience during my unforseen absence. I don't seek any further sanctions as would be implied by the stronger IBAN proposal above. I won't comment on any disruptiveness, but everyone here needs free speech if its factual and civil. I can also understand that someone only just coming upon this might think that TRM's quoting my "iconic" and directly arguing against in itself it wasn't a big deal. But that's only true on its own, and when it's seen in the context of more than two years of hounding now, it's kind of like saying somebody's violating parole is not a big deal. The disruption is wanton, willful, and one sided. And very simply addressed by nothing more than taking the already hard-fought IBAN seriously.
  

I think this comment of TRM's about secret campaigns and off wiki-emailing is telling in the extreme. First, is this "campaign" the reason why TRM felt it necessary to violate the IBAN this time? Does TRM even deny that he violated the IBAN by directly quoting me?

Yes, I have emailed BBB and various admins in the past, and I welcome them to release the entire text of my emails to them, so long as they are complete and unaltered. You'll see I emailed an Admin last spring who had placed a stern warning on TRM's page and asked him to enforce it when TRM ignored it. That admin said he was already in a conflict with TRM and didn't want to be seen as piling on. It's why I have been bringing violations here, Most recently you will see me emailing BBB and suggesting that we ask that TRM's 48 block be removed, and me making Jehochman aware that I had done so and supported BBB's request that TRM be unblocked.

But I haven't waged any sort of secret campaign that I haven't stated openly, and I did not contact BBB or any admin re this complaint off-wiki, or even want to, or expect to have to file this complaint.

It's clear from the above diff that TRM thinks the entire process, including the ANI concluded last January with his support, has been a conspiracy against him, that he's the victim, that he deserves better, that he shouldn't face the consequences of his actions, that I am 'doing this to him' and that you are 'doing this to him' .

Note that all I asked for from him was that he withdraw the comment in the first sentence of this complaint. I still ask that. μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Medeis, I'm of two minds on this issue. One the one hand, you are absolutely right about the personal attacks. Putting aside for the moment the question of whether his activities at ITN and elsewhere have or have not violated the IBAN (and whether they constitute him hounding you), there is no question here on whether his behaviours have violated WP:NPA repeatedly in these very ANI threads. Point in fact, for the last couple of months, he has made dozens of vocal and unambiguous accusations against no fewer than seven different editors that I've seen (some of whom had just met him) that they are a part of a conspiracy/club/plot/scheme/bandwagon to get him banned. And he has insinuated that this secret cabal is utilizing all manner of underhanded tactics and that they are violating any number of specific policies, but in all of these accusations, he has yet to once provide a single diff, link, or other piece of evidence to support a single one of these claims. There are no two ways about this; these are absolutely classified as serious personal attacks under WP:NPA. And yet, somehow, despite the fact that he is blatantly and repeatedly launching personal attacks from ANI itself, over an extended period, he has not received so much as a single warning from a single admin. I am nothing short of astonished that the community and admins here have let this fly right in front of their faces, and it raises serious questions about the efficacy of our administrative process at present and the willingness of our admins to engage with a problem editor once he's passed a certain bar of tenaciousness. He seems utterly immune to sanction at this point, no matter what behavioural policy he violates, unambiguously and in our most active forum for behavioural oversight.

On the other hand, look at how you've behaved over the same period. Last month, you filed two ANIs against him for IBAN violations and hounding. Then, unless I'm remembering this wrong, after he was blocked for this behaviour, you and Bugs both petitioned to have that block removed (!?), and it was. For a certainty you and Bugs then both bent over backwards insisting that the problem had been blown out of proportion and that all parties had proven that they could work together constructively. Meanwhile, other concerned editors, attracted by your request for assistance in this matter who were trying to establish exactly what had happened and what should be done about it suddenly were getting no help from you in straightening things out; in fact, you were working very much at cross-purposes to that effort. You were asked repeatedly whether you felt that TRM had followed you to the Reference Desks to hound you, a question which directly ignored, all while you and Bugs insisted that there was no problem that you couldn't work out with TRM and that, if anything, the IBAN should be dropped, in the middle of a thread you opened to get it enforced more stringently. More than willing to be done with the matter, the community allowed the discussion to expire on your and Bugs' insistence that it was a non-issue. A day or two later, Bugs had opened a new ANI again TRM, which was quickly shut down in disgust by the community here. Now, here we are, not three weeks later, with yet another ANI lodged by you, this time on an issue that you yourself stipulate was not a significant violation. What we have her is a girl who cried wolf situation, if ever I've seen one. This bipolar behaviour has got to stop. You don't like TRM's behaviour? Well guess what, you're the one who is both encouraging his worst behaviour and enabling him to get away with it. You've created an atmosphere here where everything has been reduced to a discussion of the IBAN and the issues between the two of you, when there are actually much larger issues at work. Without this IBAN smokescreen, discussion here would be concentrated on the fact that there has been an insane number of civility violations that we could have, and should have, been talking about all along.

So here we are, at the place you've brought us to. I don't think your behaviour has been nearly as objectionable as TRM's -- but that being said, if you get blocked or topic banned, it's going to be more your fault than his. So I'm asking you, as a last-ditch effort to find a compromise solution to this nightmare of a situation, to be the bigger person and to pull back from one of the areas you two share in common and see if maybe he wouldn't be willing to do the same, removing the contexts in which you two are likely to cross paths and (inevitably) begin to flame one another. It's not a thing any editor should be asked to do, but then, no editor who has the best interests of the project in mind should have let the situation get this far. So I'm asking you this favour. I can't ask TRM; he'll just treat the request as a sign of weakness and go on the offensive, as he did when I tried a similar approach in the last ANI. So, though I have doubts that TRM will agree to it himself, is there any posibility you'd be willing to give up editing on ITN if TRM will agree to stay out of an area important to you, say, for example, the Ref Desks? Because, short of that, I don't see this resolving without a block or topic ban for someone, and at this rate, I'd say it's 50-50 which one of you it will be. Snow talk 08:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User DD2K calls people "8chan trolls" in bad faith and might have outed an admin

Violation

• 05:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification

• 06:13 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In the reported edit, DD2K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) accuses me of being an "8chan troll" and reverts my comment letting him know of a possible violation of WP:OUTING by him done here in which he attributes a comment made on reddit to OverlordQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and somehow knows he's "active on 8chan", implying of a brigade encouragement regarding the deletion vote for the article Cultural Marxism. I had posted this on the General Sanctions board for GamerGate since admin Black Kite recused himself of the closing of said case because he participated in the GamerGate ArbCom, but was told it was better here. In my opinion, this user attributes bad faith on both me and user OverlordQ. Looking at his editing history he often accuses people of being sent from Stormfront, "/pol/" and other sites in a WP:BITE-esque behaviour. He accusses another editor here of being "delusional" , and he has been let known of his uncivil behaviour here.

I had no intention of reporting this and was just at first letting him know so he could fix his behaviour. He also reverted my General Sanctions entry notification here in seconds and I know users are free to clean their user pages but reverting is less civil than simply deleting. So since this is a repost I consider the user notified, if not let me know and I'll repost a notification.

And on an unrelated note I'd be interested in knowing if a deleted article can be copied to an user's page sandbox, since admin OverlordQ was asked to delete his copy of the now gone Cultural Marxism article. I thought we were free to do that provided the article didn't violate WP:BLP or wasn't offensive, most of the article was on the main site as long ago as 2006 so it came out weird that he was forced to delete it. Thanks. Loganmac (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Loganmac, it largely depends on the situation when it comes to a userspace article. In most cases you can move stuff to the userspace in order to work on it, but sometimes articles will be deleted if there were issues with the article (blp, offensive, notability, tone, etc) or if there were other underlying issues like issues with the specific editor (like they had an agenda) or it was them trying to get around a mainspace deletion. (Although that last bit is usually just in situations where it's extremely unlikely that the article would ever pass notability guidelines.) It's kind of a complicated thing to answer. Usually you can just ask the deleting admin and they'll give you the reasons why they deleted the page and occasionally they'll restore the page if you ask. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like it was discussed (the page move and deletion) at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Move_of_Cultural_Marxism_to_User:OverlordQ.2FCultural_Marxism and it looks like this is one of those pretty complicated situations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's why I'm pointing it out the discussion was so fast and it looked pretty weird to me. The article in its final state didn't have anything that looked like BLP, in fact it was pretty critical by calling it a conspiracy theory, mentioning that a mass murderer believed it existed. In my opinion it could have been a good place to discuss changes to introduce it in the Frankfurt School article (to which it now redirects) for a small mention of it. Also the entire history was deleted for some reason. Loganmac (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Admins posting Dropbox links to deleted articles and deleting their talk pages are frowned upon, hence the reaction you saw. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd rather we didn't rehash the subject of the other ANI request concerning OverlordQ and his use of article space, that's a discussion best suited for elsewhere or on the talk page(s) of admin(s) involved in that ANI. Weedwacker (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright you're right, wasn't asking for admin action, just a question I had. Loganmac (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I commented on the ANI concerning OverlordQ raising my concerns about what I saw as a possible attempted WP:OUTING by DD2K, but gave him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't aware of the recent rule changes. After discussing my concerns with Black Kite he removed our conversation and the possibly policy violating external link (though it's still in the history, the linked to comment is deleted). I still had concerns with DD2K's edit because of the 8chan accusation against OverlordQ but I was willing to let the issue lie and just chalked it up as an isolated thing and the case was closed anyway. It wasn't until Loganmac reported DD2K to the General Sanctions board that I looked into his edit history, primarily to find if he had ever been notified of Gamergate Sanctions. I found that he hadn't despite being involved in the topic relating to ANI requests, Arb Com, and Arb Com requests, but also found other troubling comments. I know users are free to remove notices from their talk page, but the violation diff cited here carries the edit summary "Rv 8chan troll." Other troubling edits . Uncivil accusations of political beliefs: . DD2K brings up neo-nazis in quite a lot of discussions in a way that looks like Godwin's law, saying the neo-nazis are doing this and so are these other people in the same comments. Weedwacker (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I got tired of accusations being thrown around for everyone voting Yes to keep the article that we were neo-Nazis or "right-wing" thrown as an insult, as if we never covered notable neo-Nazi ideology as sickening as it is. Wouldn't this be BLP violation against William_S._Lind accusing him of furthering a neo-Nazi agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganmac (talk • contribs) 07:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure looks like one to me. Weedwacker (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wp:rfc is thataway. Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually WP:RFC/U does not exist anymore after 7 Dec 2014. As for DD2K, I've had interactions with him before - he certainly makes his dislike for others known and uses a rather aggressive tone and edit messages like "bullshit". Unfortunately, Cultural Marxism talk page has been removed after the merge so can't diff the latest one. He cast aspersions that I was favouring Metapedia's content, which probably fits with calling everyone who voted keep a neo-Nazi on RGCloucester's talk page. Personally, I don't really mind it but certainly such bad faith aspersions aren't very constructive. The incivility on the other hand is rather mild, it's mostly a "mild things over a long period" thing. --Pudeo' 21:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

If RFC/U is gone, RFAR is thataway. My understanding, unless some under-the-table hack took place, was that ANI was for emergent issues, not long-term user conduct. Hipocrite (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It was officially referred here from AE. Well, he does seem to have a bit of a problem with incivility, but I don't see how anyone could dispute that certain websites are sending SPAs to disrupt our normal operations. Maybe an admin might choose to warn him; I'm not an admin, so I'll give some advice, instead. @DD2K: Love may be a battlefield, but Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Stick to policy-based arguments, don't personalize conflicts, and don't emulate the unblockables. You don't want to end up like MilesMoney, who got community banned for constant battleground behavior in politics-related areas. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's probably good advice and I'll take it in good faith. Some of the diffs above are just me sniping in frustration, especially the diffs directed at Jimbo. If editors and admins want me to explain the diffs above, and Logan's claims of 'outing', I will do that too. Although this thread, to me, is absurd. It's just an attempt by POV pushers from GG to try and silence people who understand what they attempting to do here. Except for @Pudeo:, I suppose he could have taken what I stated on that Talk page in the manner he states, and for that I apologize. Dave Dial (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"Although this thread, to me, is absurd. It's just an attempt by POV pushers from GG to try and silence people who understand what they attempting to do here" there it goes again, even in front of ANI Loganmac (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

From my perspective, it seems that user:DD2K is often resorting to ad hominem insinuations regarding the character of other editors. Since DD2K is intent on attacking the messenger(s), he/she has gone so far as to "out" the alleged activity of an admin off of Misplaced Pages. This is clearly against the rules, and for this reason alone, some action is warranted. But in general, I would say that the way that DD2K has conducted him/her self throughout this Gamergate controversy is uncivil and should be reprimanded, either through warning, or through sanctions. Vrinan (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

IP NOTHERE except to promote ISIL

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

I've been aware of this Pakistan based IP User:175.110.139.126 for a while, but digging into their edit history I found this is a single purpose account engaged in editing to further the goals of ISIL. They are going against Misplaced Pages WP:OR (you can't create and delete countries for starters) and other policies. I can't see where they have added one source yet. They will not communicate on talk pages and don't use edit summaries. Because they tend to do a few edits in a row, I'll sometimes link to the reverts by other editors as its easier to see the effects of the IPs edits in one link. Here are the low lights:

1. soft peddling the self-proclaimed wording
2. and and and changing away from rebel group to caliphate against hidden note. He was blocked for edit warring on this.
3. and removing Iraq and Syria from map description.
4. Working on an article for a fake state of ISIL, adding a link to a possibly official terrorist site (facebook sure hates this site, deletes them every couple days)
5. adding pro-ISIL template, now deleted.
6. add ISIL propaganda photo of Sinai attack.
7. add ISIL as an historical unrecognized state, wiping out another entry on list.
8. wiped ISIL off the list of rebel groups that control territory.
9. Added ISIL to List of states with limited recognition while wiping Somaliland of the list. \
10. unsourced addition of Kurd deaths.
11. broke Baghdadi infobox taking out the Rewards for Justice info and inserting crap about him succeeding the prophet.
12. Building and inserting and rebuilding and reinserting new Template:Provinces of ISIL to replace the just AfD'd Template:Wilayats of ISIL. The first template and the names in it were judged to be inappropriate under a number of criteria including promotion, manufactured etc.
13. Removing a AfD tag on an ISIL article.

I'm requesting an indef ban under WP:NOTHERE. I have not notified the IP due to the pro-terrorist narrative nature of these edits and their complete lack of any communication in any talk page or edit summaries to date. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• SUPPORT: This is an easy case and a well presented incident. The IP is from Pakistan, btw. 208.123.223.74 (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

And to save you looking, the above diffs are pretty much their entire contribution history. The rest is inconsequential little changes and fiddling. Legacypac (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Wow, I'm surprised it's gone on for so long. Blocked for six months per POV-pushing and WP:NOTHERE. I wouldn't be optimistic about being rid of the type of editing, though; it's only too easy for dedicated individuals to jump to some other proxy. If you hear quacking, I'd say block on sight. Thank you for reporting, Legacypac. (Incidentally, for several edits in a row, you can show the combined real diff by using the Compare selected revisions function; it's not necessary to go via the reverts.) Bishonen | talk 11:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for the block and the tip - learned something new. No one gave me the block hammer just yet, so I'll leave that part to others. Legacypac (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know — in that sentence, I was addressing other admins, I hope some of them may be watching this. If you should see new similar stuff, Legacypac, please report here again, or on my page. BTW, I didn't indef because it's an IP (even though static), and we can't do that. It wouldn't stop the person, anyway. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC).

I agree with Bishonen's comment about the need for quick action given the heavy amount of editing on this topic. And support the 6-month block. — CactusWriter 21:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Hashemabucu120 and repeated advertising

This user needs to be blocked because he has created 4 pages with different titles but essentially the same content which are entirely advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kges1901 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Please provide wikilinked username and diffs of your claims so that the matter can be looked into. See above incidents. 208.123.223.74 (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  You can't provide diffs to deleted articles (and an admin isn't going to turn this down just because the username isn't wikilinked - which it is now). Squinge (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  Good job Squinge (talk). 208.123.223.74 (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you kindly for reporting, Kges1901. The user has been blocked by Tokyogirl79. Bishonen | talk 12:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC).
• Definitely thanks for reporting, Kges1901. I blocked this guy, but sometimes people fall through the cracks for whatever reason so I'm glad that you're being vigilant. I know that sometimes I'll forget to block someone because I have to do a cleanup or because I'm deleting a bunch of pages or whatever, so I'm always glad to see that there are people coming behind me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Sock of Hashemabucu (talk · contribs), now also blocked, who created ten versions of the advertisement, compare this AN thread. Hashemabucu120 was created only four minutes later than the puppeteer account, and the accounts have been creating these articles pretty much simultaneously. Perhaps there are more out there, both socks and articles? Can versions of this name and this article be, hmm, blacklisted? I'm not good with this stuff. Pinging User:Kww. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC).
• Three additional socks blocked. Blacklisting of usernames happens at Meta, I'm not in a position to do so now but someone else can ask for this, or contact a steward/global admin who can assist. Risker (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack in edit comment.

I would like this edit comment to be expunged please. The description of what I said is, of course, bogus.     ←   ZScarpia   12:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Bishonen | talk 12:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC).

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   12:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor subverting "XfD" discussion and edit-warring

Unfortunately, it seems to be necessary to report the recent actions of User:Edokter. Please see:

• this "Redirects for discussion" thread;
• Edokter's contributions this morning (2 January 2015);
• This request and notification added to Edokter's talk page;
• Edokter's contributions this afternoon (2 January 2015);
• This warning added to Edokter's talk page (and, it now seems, promptly deleted).

Disappointedly, Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You should have notified Edokter of your report here on his talk page with an ANI-notice template. Arfæst! 15:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC). I see that you have done it. Arfæst! 15:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh, they were notified before your message here. I, JethroBT 15:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears Edokter has been replacing a redirected set of templates under an RfD preemptively, as the discussion has not yet closed (in fact, it just started yesterday, by Edokter). I don't understand what the purpose of doing this is, other than the editor's assertion that these are completely redundant and There are too many . The justification is There is nothing wrong with restoring the previous template names to accommodate for a potential outcome from the template discussion. I'm sorry, but this rationale is not acceptable, and the behavior is disruptive as I see it. I, JethroBT 15:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There is also absoutely no justification for creating a redirect for an already existing template, purely out of personal preference (as I can't think of another reason), then going around slowly replacing all existing uses with the redirect! There is nothing wrong with restoring the previous version as I have done, RfD or not. I am well within my right to undo a series completely useless edits that otherewise only adds to the confusion in template naming, create a nightmare in template maintenance and landing everyone in navigation hell. Sardanaphalus has a history of bold template editing that do not always work, and his behaviour in moving templates has also created a slew of redirects that need to be cleaned up. I have warned him before about his template edits; I may well request that his template editor provileges be revoked. I have had it up to here about now. -- ] {{talk}} 16:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please allow the RfD to conclude. That is the proper venue for deciding whether to keep these redirects. I agree that your edits today have been disruptive. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Also agree, Edokter I understand you believe these redirects to be un-necessary. Let consensus make that decision, and if they are, then by all means, you have the rationale you need to remove them, but to do them ahead of time really looks disruptive. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention Edokter is an administrator who should be well aware of the deletion procedures.--Jetstreamer  21:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Edokter has continued removing/reverting these in spite of this discussion: , , . What are you thinking, anyway? There's no urgency to remove all these, there is no compelling problem that requires this. I've seen no evidence of this "confusion" that Edokter repeatedly invokes. This is completely out of line for an administrator. I, JethroBT 01:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why my actions are considered so controversial, while the initial change is not. But I will let the discussion run its course. Whatever the outcome, I do expect that (after the RfD) any reverts on my part are considered no more controversial; since the initial changes were unnecessary to begin with, I am simply restoring the previuous state. -- ] {{talk}} 09:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned, with good faith, that Edokter's messages suggest he has lost good faith and perspective and may continue to edit disruptively. I note that reversions/deletions/etc seem prevalent in his editing history and I wonder how many are dogmatic rather than e.g. purely anti-vandalism. I don't know what actions have been found to transform such situations elsewhere in the past. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Don't try and make me the bad guy here... that is quite bad faith. Yes, I revert a lot; that is certainly not uncommon, for both editors and admins, and certainly not limited to fighting vandalism. Perhaps I should make some snide remarks about your edits being primarily in template space? My main problem with you is your lack of understanding the basic technical principles of Misplaced Pages; your multiple (too) bold edits of some core templates without testing them in a sandbox; reinstating your edits after a revert in the hope it will stick, showing a poor grasp of WP:BRD; your complete lack of regard for small or mobile displays judging from the many hardcoded CSS properties you use to fit your screen, and overuse of inline CSS in general to micro-manage template's display; moving templates multiple times leaving a slew of redirects behind for others to clean up; and the reason we're here: creating redirects to existing templates and then changing existing calls to the redirect. That is just bad practice; I see it as a very sneaky way to enforce a preferred name. If you really want a different name, request a move like anyone else would. I am very intolerant of these underhanded paractices and that is why I revert them. In short: you are a loose cannon in template space, and I have been monitoring you since I spotted you, reverting when necessary and averting some potential accidents along the way. I have had to explain some principles of template coding multiple times before you adhere to them, and sometimes you slip back into old habits.

Don't get me wrong... I really want to work with you, and not against you; I really hate that. But we both seem to have strong personalities and will result in an occasional clash. But Misplaced Pages should not suffer from that, and that is my first resposibility. I am one of the "technical" veterans here, and I know how MediaWiki works, quirks and all, and I am more then happy to share that knowledge. I do look out after most core templates here to ensure they are in proper working order. You happen to come across a few of them, so naturally you will find me acting slightly conservative around those templates. Div col is one of them. You have a lot of ideas, some of them good. Unfortunately, some of them not soo good, and when those are rejected, you tend to take it personally, which appears to others as being stubborn. So think about your contribution to these conflicts. Just know that Misplaced Pages is not your personal playground and your edits can have major impact on millions of readers. Once you adopt that mindset, I am absolutely positive we can have very pleasent cooporation. -- ] {{talk}} 10:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think there is some truth in User:Edokter's remarks. I have similar concerns with User:Sardanaphalus's editing. There is a number of points I would like to make.

1. Edoketer's reversions have not resulted in discussion on talk pages. Correction: some exchanges have taken place, but on user talk pages, which I didn't see. Suggestion: perhaps template talk pages might be more appropriate, if you want outside opinions? I have some of the concerned templates on my watchlist, and have seen some of the conflicts described. But I have not seen any discussions take place. Lets put it this way. Edokter has concerns about Sardanaphalus's editing on technical reasons, and reverts. Even if this is not correct, surely the thing to do would be to discuss the changes to allay Edokters concerns? But I have not seen this happen, and I really feel this needs to happen. The onus is on Sardanaphalus to do so, s/he is the one making the change. Instead Sardanaphalus sometimes seems to reinstate changes at a latter date, usually under the guise of fixing other perceived "problems". This is sneaky, and tantamount to edit warring.
2. Many of Sardanaphalus's edits feel they are purely change for the sake of change. There is an old adage: don't fix something that isn't broke. The reaason for this adage is that you are more likely to cause problems by fixing it then solve non-existent problems. For example, the recent moving of Template:Misplaced Pages Manual of Style to Template:Manual of Style. I mean really what is the point? It simply doesn't matter what it's called, the title is distinct from the page name. Moving the page is simply going to cause confusion on the matter by making things more complex, and possibly breaking things in the future.

Now I'm not saying all of Sardanaphalus's edits are without point. I'm sure many of them are constructive. But combined with an unwillingness to discuss other editor's fears I feel could cause danger to the project. Sardanaphalus really needs to justify his/her changes to a far greater extent. See correction above. ----Mrjulesd (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm willing to try to share what I make of the last two messages above, but I think doing so here would be taking this thread further off-topic. Unfortunately, it seems that there's still a fundamental misunderstanding. Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I understand your point. But please, after this ANI, try to make an effort to collaborate with Edokter. Nobody likes being reverted, but you've got to try to not take it personally, and try to build bridges between good faith editors. --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
• @Sardanaphalus: I'd like to correct my statement. I've checked both of your user talk pages, and it does seem many exchanges have taken place. I didn't see them as neither are on my watchlist, only some of the concerned templates were. Hence I'd like to adjust my statement accordingly. Apologies. Also my sentiments apply to you both. --Mrjulesd (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your acknowledgement; I hope your sentiments also extend to Edokter. Yours, Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sanction appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Promotional username

Publicstep has been blocked indefinitely per the username and spam policies. De728631 (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Dear sir/madam

During my study of Misplaced Pages's internal infrastructure at MIT, I learnt that this page is the right venue for such queries. The following user @Publicstep: seems to have the same username of a copyvio page that he made Publicstep which I marked for CSD. According to the username policy "Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company" are not permitted. So could you please review this case and possibly ask the user for a change of username.NetworkOP (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@NetworkOP: reported at good luck with your project. Avono (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.NetworkOP (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the place to report these is not here but Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention. That one has been reported by Avono and dealt with by another editor. Thanks, OP, for your efforts to keep things right here. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring between User:ChumleeS and User:Lackope

ChumleeS (talk · contribs) and Lackope (talk · contribs) are edit warring on a lot of articles (just look at their contributions). Both have received warnings (the latter removed one). This has been going on for weeks. Maybe someone can get them to stop? APK whisper in my ear 23:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I gave both users a final warning against edit warring and invited them to explain their point of view here. The amount of edit warring here really is unacceptable, and the only reason I didn't immediately issue blocks is that both users appear to be relatively new. Dragons flight (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the edits seem to relate to Serbia and Croatia, would this also be getting into an area where discretionary sanctions could be applied? —C.Fred (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Discretionary sanctions could be appropriate under the Macedonia case for disputes related to Serbia and Croatia. Dragons flight (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Shit. I came across the pair at RFPP and blocked both of them. ChumleeS has been here since April but with fewer edits than Lackope who arrived in December. If anybody wants to change the blocking or remove it go ahead, it's fine with me. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Since neither of them had edited after my "final warning", I went ahead and undid the blocks in the hopes these two would be willing to come together and explain what is going on. Obviously, if they return to edit warring then blocks would be appropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dragons flight. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

SPA Rebecca1990, possible industry insider

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

As you may clearly see in her User Contributions, User User talk: Rebecca1990 is a 19-month old WP:SPA that edits solely in pornographic discussions, and only (LITERALLY as in 100%!!!) in favor of pornography or a certain pornographic actor/actress. In Afds relating to pornography she always votes "KEEP." Like literally (again), she has NEVER, EVER, EVER voted "Delete" or against a pornstar page in the entire time she has been here.

Recently, users have picked up on her conduct and have begun suspecting her of being an insider for the porn industry who gets paid for AVN or some firm: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_December_26 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eva_Angelina

One user said, "for the love of Buddha/Jehovah/Flying Spaghetti Monster, will someone take "Rebecca1990" to ANI and propose a topic ban already? If this editor isn't a paid shill for AVN or some related PR firm or whatnot, I'll eat my shorts." And another said, I would observe that you appear to be here solely to promote and defend pornography articles, as it's 100% of your activity, and so strong reasons exist to assume you're an industry insider in violation of Misplaced Pages:TOS.

That is why I open this discussion, If she really is an insider for the porn industry and gets paid to protect them here, then her edits violates WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:SPA, and WP:NOTOPINION. I think a temporary topic ban would help or a firm warning. At the very least this noticeboard can force her to explain her outrageous 100% pro-pornography, promotional-based edit history. BBnumber1 (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you see the irony of creating a new account for the sole purpose of reporting a single purpose account? Chillum 00:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I will also mention that WP:SOCK says that Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Chillum 00:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment If you look at their contributions, you'd see they are obviously not an SPA and that their deletion !votes are not a violation of policy. It seems the IP is taking issue with the fact that they vote !keep in certain afd discussions, and is attempting to get them blocked for that. That's not against any policy or guideline. The IP is also going on a witchhunt with the terms "If she gets paid" and saying that she is possibly in violation of WP:ADVOCACY. I think a boomerang is in order. Addendum: I believe that OP might be an illigitimate account of this user. This diff is what led me to this understanding as well this discussion. Tutelary (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  Agreed with this comment, this should go to SPI and the filing editor looks to be a sockpuppet created to hide personal disagreements with the reported editor. Weedwacker (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - members of the porn project tend to be passionate especially in defense of articles and subjects that have been so routinely on the receiving end (in a usually detrimental way) of, to put it lightly, very non-open minded attitudes. As evidence of this, I refer you to the recent discussion, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#SqueakBox_and_porn_again. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: "...members of the porn project tend to be passionate especially in defense of articles and subjects..." ...which makes them no different than anyone else around here. They are granted no dispensation or special privileges to create a hostile debate environment by slinging ad homina. (Disclosure: I created the Eva Angelina AfD which the other user referenced above; this is its current state.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, I suspect the opener is yet another sock of infamous User:Redban who was banned less than two weeks ago. A SPI would be appropriate. Cavarrone 10:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be my surmise as well, but it should be addressed in a separate notice. I would like to see this one to resolution in an objective manner.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The pattern of abuse this user (Rebecca1990) and some of their apparent SPA WP:duck adult entertainment industry cohorts engage in is as follows:

• a) create a hostile debate environment with personal attacks, hoping the targets retreat or overreact.
• b) after overreacting targets are blocked, accuse newly-arriving editors of being sock-puppets of blocked users.
• c) rinse/recycle/repeat, and all the better if some of those editors are sock-puppets - anything to deflect attention off the arbitrary mess that is WP:Pornbio and the horde of unexceptional articles it has unleashed in recent years.

Examples of the pattern:

1. The submitter of this notice is called out above (and he may very well be a sock).

2. I am accused of being a sock three different times in three different places in less than 24hrs by Rebecca1990: 1, 2, 3.

--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment. A bit funny seeing these accusations coming from you as your own behaviour is a bit questionable as well. You seem hell bent on reopening various discussions which already have been discussed “ad nauseam” and around which there is a consensus (see: Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people) vis-à-vis the Hall of Fame discussion, which you reopened a mere 5 days after a clear consensus decided not to change). And then you reopen AFD's (for instance regarding Brittney Skye) mere days after it's closed. One could accuse yourself of being a Single Purpose account as well as the majority of your edits since you registered in Nov. 2014 have been in AFD's. Which for a relatively new user is rather uncommon…

It’s peculiar to day the least, that various accounts have popped up the last weeks all with the same pattern and behavior, and all contrary to porn articles and hell bent on deleting them, even when according to WP:PORNBIO there is consensus to keep them. I’m thus not surprised that some people are questioning the appearance of these as sock puppits.

The allegations against Rebecca - that she is in the employ of the porn industry - are just that allegations. I've still got to see the proof that she's a Single Purpose account set up by the porn industry. She might very well be, but as far I'm concerned, until seeing such proof, she's just an overenthusiastic editor with a very particular niche interest in favor of porn articles/bios, which isn’t a crime. -- fdewaele, 3 January 2015, 19:25.

• Comment I am sickened by Раціональне анархіст's attack on Rebecca solely because she is !voting something that Раціональне анархіст does not like. Please stop with the personal attacks against Rebecca, else I am going to advocate a topic ban for your own disruption. Unfounded, unsubstantiated and repeated allegations in the topic area are very much grounds for a topic ban for pornography related topics. I find it funny that in a. you're accusing Rebecca of doing personal attacks against you, when you blatantly called her an 'insider' for the porn industry without proof. Either quit the disruption or get topic banned. Tutelary (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. That's nonsense. Rebecca's undeniably a porn-centric SPA whose likely COI editing has been raised as an issue by multiple users, and whose behavior in deletion discussions was characterized as "appalling" bad faith by at least two different admins. She's been accusing the editor you criticize as being the sock of a banned editor without any significant evidence, and keeps it up after the SPI you opened was closed without action and Checkuser was declined "in the absence of actual evidence". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• The editor who initiated this ANI has been found to be a sock for a blocked user. I think this can be closed now. Weedwacker (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

QUESTION - Wasn't this closed by an Admin? Why is it open again? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Requesting speedy delete, but also a salt

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

Hi, may I please request a speedy delete of Talk:Tarzan III: Tale of Two Jungles under G8 criteria (Talk page dependent on a non-existent or deleted page) and G5 criteria (creation by banned or blocked user). I'd also like to request a salting of the talk page and the article. Background: A persistent vandal from Vietnam keeps creating disruptions to Disney-related articles, and keeps creating this pointless Disney-related talk page. (Three times so far according to page logs) There is zero indication that this is a valid project, and the user keeps creating unattached talk pages where he stores hoax content, presumably to escape scrutiny. There is, however, an indication that it is some fan-based wishful thinking. fan project. Requesting salt on the basis that there is no likely reason for this article or talk page to exist for N-span of time. Grazie, and please drop me a note if you have any further questions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal threats at Satyananda Saraswati

See Talk:Satyananda Saraswati#Legal Implication of Adding Controversy/Controversies section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Which specific entry is a legal threat? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"Adding a new legal section. In case the Controversy section is opened in a rush there are legal implications". Maybe not exactly a threat, yet, is it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I see what you're getting at. It might be the rumblings of a legal threat about to sprout. But do the complaints have merit? Is the "controversial" information supported by valid sourcing and does not constitute a BLP violation? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Bugs, he died in 2009. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If so, then BLP doesn't apply. Even so, the sourcing for whatever the controversy is, needs to be valid and notable. Be sure of that, and then you can call the other editor's bluff. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Major Australian newspapers reporting on a hearing by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse . Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

hi Joshua,The comment was certainly not a threat to anyone and certainly not to the news papers as you have mentioned.(at least speaking of myself) but more for the wikipedia contributors to be mindful of sensitivity of the Royal Commission currently on.The interim report is not yet out. Adding a Controversy section and parts of that could be quoted by any party on both the sides to go after each other. Infact by adding new section we are making life difficult for both the parties( Parties mean the Australian Yoga center and the group of people who are aggrieved.) Protocol108 (talk) 08:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Protocol108 (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Protocol108 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible Legal Threat by Jqadrij

Jqadri has been edit warring on Saman Hasnain. This is there latest edit on Saman Hasnain]. A couple of lines stick out "Anybody including Chadd who tries to alter thefactual content of this article without providingevidence should be criminally prosecuted"' and "Anybody who challenges these facts should produce evidence or Misplaced Pages is responsible"

I am not sure if this is a legal threat or if this is just the person saying they should be charge with a crime. Either way this edit does not seem to be here to build up wikipedia. Thanks, VViking_TalkEdits 07:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a combination of attempting to intimidate, combined with poor editing. Probably just trolling. But if it continues, ask for an indef block. However, be sure any facts in question are validly sourced and do not violate BLP rules. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The facts that she was charge are well sourced, however the lawsuits Jqadri has brought up, I cannot find any information on them. As you know often times after the initial news cycle about the charge there is never any follow-up as to what has happened with the case. I will revert and warn editor about edit warring. Thanks, VViking_TalkEdits 07:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I am asking for an indef block on Jqadrij. This editor has been warned multiple times about edit warring, and saying people should be tried criminally for reverting them. There latest after I warned them about edit warring was this ] Thanks, VViking_TalkEdits 08:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There was a lawsuit: . Jqadri is trying to make it appear that this lawsuit has exonerated the Hasnains. However it was dismissed before it even went to trial. There was no judgement in Hasnain's favour, and it certainly does not show that the charges against him and his wife are "false". Harry the Dog WOOF 08:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc has blocked Jqadri for three days for edit-warring. I discovered this while preparing to block the user indefinitely; mentions of potential legal actions are sometimes "watch out, or someone might sue us" rather than threats (see my comment on one such situation), but when the user's adding the warnings in the article as part of an edit-war, and when he's sending legal emails to Misplaced Pages and insisting that we therefore treat him differently, it's time for a NLT block. Since he's currently under a block, I'll not change anything, but if he keeps it up when the block expires, alert an admin (here or privately) for a NLT block. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The BLP in question, Saman Hasnain, currently uses a Daily Mail story as a reference, which flat out states that she is guilty of the crimes she is accused of, even though she has not been tried or convicted. That's garbage. I am not defending her or her husband's business ethics but countless thousands of people got caught up in the excesses of the mid-2000s mortgage bubble, and this BLP looks a bit like a coatrack to beat up a beauty queen. Cullen Let's discuss it 19:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It is also clear that Hasnain and her husband vigorously deny the criminal charges, and the current version of the article fails to mention that, violating both NPOV and BLP. Jqadri is going about things the wrong way, but when legal threats are made in the context of pointing out egregious BLP problems, then those problems need to be addressed as forcefully as the legal threats. Cullen Let's discuss it 19:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Our BLP policy says "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured". As the winner of a third tier beauty pageant for married Pakistani women up to 45 years of age, I consider her "relatively obscure" and question why this section is even in the article. Cullen Let's discuss it 19:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

See my replies on the article's talk page. We should move discussion on how to improve the article there. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. A discussion of whether material is libelous absent indication of intent to sue is not a legal threat, https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#What_is_not_a_legal_threat -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:LatterDaySaint1830

Would somebody block the Mobile editor-in-question? He's continuing to update US Senators service dates, before they actually leave office. GoodDay (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: The premature updates he/she is making, aren't complete & so is messing up the articles. GoodDay (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like they've stopped for now, I'll keep an eye on them and if they start again I'll block them for a bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Seeing as they're using a mobile, I'm guessing they've no clue that they were being reverted or contacted. GoodDay (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I think User:Spongebob1944 & User:2601:A:6400:775:78B9:B1AB:F7FC:4BFF may have been the same mobile-editor. Though, these haven't been used for a few hours. GoodDay (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Why revert the edits to the outgoing senators, rather than completing them? By law, the terms expire on 3 January, and these senators didn't get reëlected; the only ways non-reëlected senators could have left office on a different day are resigning, dying, or getting expelled on a previous day, so once 3 January rolls around, it's not possible for them to leave on a different day. The incoming members aren't certain to take office (see List of members-elect of the United States House of Representatives who never took their seats), but it's certain that the outgoing people are outgoing today. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

They're outgoing at Noon EST, though. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

He's back as Pickle Mon, but it's alright now :) GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Shawn Oakman

I've reported at WP:RPP, but there's what looks like an organized vandal attack been going on at Shawn Oakman for a couple of days, from a lot of new accounts - and I wondered if there might be a quicker response from here. Squinge (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for three days, which should slow down the IPs and new accounts. Head back to WP:RPP if it resumes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Squinge (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

My account appears to be hacked

Somebody else using my account has edited Cricketl here is the diff http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cricket&diff=prev&oldid=640882235, btw, I used rollback to revert the edits done by the hacker. --- TheChampionMan1234 03:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Make sure you set a new strong password known to nobody else. --TS 14:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:WPPilot

It looks to me like somebody has taken over this account; look at tonight's edit history of the userpage. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Not likely. The voice is definitely WPPilot's. See this for a nice summary of the problem, and see WP:DIVA. BMK (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

For BMK to call anyone a Diva is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs) 05:24, January 4, 2015 (UTC)

You really should have read WP:DIVA before commenting. BMK (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not compromised. This is the grand finale of his behavior in the past 24 hours. He's upset, make that furious, that other editors believe some of his photos should not be the lead images in several highly viewed articles. As I told him yesterday, we understand he has several FPs and kudos for that. But that doesn't make every photo of his superior to other ones. He keeps mentioning that's he's a professional photographer and that his work is published in various outlets. I don't doubt that. But that has nothing to do with replacing images that are superior to his. He has replaced lead images on articles such as White House, Washington Monument, United States Capitol, Empire State Building, Brooklyn, Ellis Island, etc., some of which are FPs, with the reasoning his photos are more recent. Several editors have told him at various talk pages that consensus is against him replacing these photos. He's taken this very personally and lashed out at several of us. In the past 24 hours, we've been called idiots, tweakers, stalkers, and after he couldn't have his way at Talk:White House, he left this on my talk page. (for unaware users, "fruitcake" is derogatory slang for a gay male, like myself) There's also this, though it's not directed at anyone specific. He keeps insulting my photography skills even though I freely admit I'm an amateur and that my photos are not the ones being judged on these talk pages. He's been warned twice about NPA. He says he doesn't "fucking care anymore", but he's still editing even after saying he's done/retiring. His meltdown may also have something to do with what's happening at Commons. APK whisper in my ear 04:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Now he's removed his photo from an active FP discussion that wasn't going his way. I'm not going to fix it as I'll probably be attacked, but someone else should properly close that nomination. APK whisper in my ear 05:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is about a gang land mentality that has prevailed, and all of these users have participated and 24 hours of non stop BS from them. I could care less if a picture is used as a lead. I update photos that I feel need updating. This has turned into a lynch mob, and I am far from having a "Meltdown", I am just making sure that the gang has nothing to go after me for anymore. It has consumed a day and a half and I need my time back. Both BMK as well as APK deal in the same space, on the edge of cyber bulling there way to a consensus in minutes, issuing a judgment and executing it on the spot. He is correct in that I just don't care anymore, why should I, this has become a joke. A consensus is never reached in a hour, on anything and this is a lynch mob mentality that I don't need to deal with, I am sure that another aerial photographer will someday contribute photos the site, AgnosticPreachersKid can get his pilots license real quick to cover for now! I am over defending myself. talk→ WPPilot  05:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

He's now removing his lead image from a highly viewed GA, Manhattan, without replacing it with the original photo. (same thing with Liberty Island with the edit summary "shitty photo, BMK of APK can get a better one") I assume he thinks other editors are responsible for fixing his mess. APK whisper in my ear 05:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No I fixed it, I just assumed by your continued comments that my pictures are not welcome here. talk→ WPPilot  05:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing your photo is fine with me, but you need to replace it with the previous image and not just leave the job for other editors. APK whisper in my ear 05:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have replaced it with the aerial image that was there before WPPilot removed it, as it is a better representation of Manhattan. BMK (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No I don't, BMK was right there to get it done, nice job, you two make a great tag team.talk→ WPPilot  05:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You certainly will not believe this, because you're enjoying your snit too much, but such decisions are made -- at least by me -- strictly on the basis of function and quality. Your aerial photograph of a small strip of the West Side along with a strip of the Hudson River does not represent Manhattan well at all. The original photo of midtown to lower Manhattan does. You might note that while I removed your picture of the two South Ferry ferry buildings from the Whitehall Terminal article, because the image did not actual feature that building (the Governors Island ferry building was in the foreground), I left it in the South Ferry, Manhattan article, and, in fact, madre changes to feature it. That's because it made sense there, but not inthe other article. BMK (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I might also add -- though, again, you will not believe me, I'm sure -- that there have been many occasions where I have taken pictures of a building, taken pains select the best one, to crop it and adjust it for best visibility, uploaded it, and then discovered that someone else's image was better. Every single time that has happened, I have used the other person's image, because my only concern is to improve articles and make them as good as they can be. I only wish that was your concern as well, and not inserting your images whether or not they were improvements on what is there. BMK (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

BMK, I just don't care anymore, and will not contribute aerial photos, to the site. I really could care less what it is you do, where you do it and what you do it with. talk→ WPPilot  06:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but you drop little hate-bombs on my talk page. Either stay or go, but don't stick arouind if you're not going to contribute and plan on doing nothing by kvetching. BMK (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Your wrong in your assertion that I do not find better images, if they exist in Commons and use them. I really could care less about MY images, it is about "kiazen" or the need to always improve. You have already said your trying to have me banned, as a diva, and you think my photos suck, so why are you even talking to me? talk→ WPPilot  06:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I never said your photos suck, many of them are quite good. I've said that they're at times not as good as the image you're replacing, and that doesn't seem to concern you. That's not just my take, a number of editors have seen yourbehavior in exactly the same way. BMK (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Might I add that a year ago, or so when we first interacted you felt a photo of a street lamp as well as a road and sign were far better depictions of the Santa Ana Mountain's then a aerial photo of the Santa Ana Mountain's, right? I just wanted a day to greave for my pet of 20 years today, rather then dealing all day with this BS. Its been a really really hard day. talk→ WPPilot  06:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

And might I add that you're totally incorrect, that it didn't happen that way, and that this being Misplaced Pages, everyone can see for themselves that it didn't happen that way by going here. Why are you making up this stuff? BMK (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Your correct, " I'd also strongly urge BMK to dial the inflammatory rhetoric down several notches" was one of the editors comments, and the last comment was "was wondering how the photo of San Mateo Canyon Wilderness, southern Santa Ana Mountains, from April 2007 was considered a better graphical image of these mountains then the photo that WPPilot took. That photo seems to show the whole range, and the photo "San Mateo Canyon Wilderness, southern Santa Ana Mountains, April 2007" yet the 2007 photo is on the page and mine never made your cut. talk→ WPPilot  06:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for you to try and spin the discussion, since it's all there for anyone who wants to read it. BMK (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jersey_City,_New_Jersey#Lead_Image_for_the_page you really are making me sick. I have to go now. talk→ WPPilot  06:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Placing an image of a fruitcake on the talk page of an user who identifies as being gay is totally unacceptable, and you should apologize. Your rationale for doing so, "It is the holiday season", doesn't really strike me as being sincere either, especially under the circumstances. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Some assistance please

Can someone please go to Talk:Manhattan#Photo feedback requested and straighten out the mess that WPP is making of it? He opened the request for comments about the two lead images, but now he's gotten pissed off and has decided to take his ball and go home. That includes removing his image from the page, even though it's the focus of the discussion, removing some of his comments after they've been responded to and posting childish things about me. I tried to fix the thread, but WPP keeps reverting me, just as he keeps posting messages on my talk page after I asked him not to.

Oh, and you might check the similar threads at Talk:Battery Park City, Talk:Jersey City, New Jersey and on the Wikiproject talk page to see if he's doing the same thing there. BMK (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like NeilN has restored the Manhattan discussion, as long as WPP doesn't revert him again. WPP removed an RfC tag from the NYC Project talk page, but that seems to be all he's done there. BMK (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, WPP reverted NeilN again. Oh well. BMK (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

WPP has restored the thread, minus the childish comments, but with his own comments struck through, and did the same on the NYC Project talk page, so I guess there's no action needed, BMK (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• my comments are facts, this user makes me feel sick. talk→ WPPilot  09:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Be that as it may, I was thinking more along the lines of this, this, this, this, and this. BMK (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Not to mention this and this from Talk:Battery Park City BMK (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• You say that I make you sick, you say all these really childish things about me ("All hail the Grand Poobah of Misplaced Pages" - really?!), you say you're sick of Misplaced Pages and you're going to leave the site... and then you go and revert an edit of mine from Staten Island Ferry Whitehall Terminal where I removed your image because it didn't feature the slips of the Staten Island Ferry terminal, which are in the background, but the slips of the Governors Island ferry, which are in the foreground. I specifically brought to your attention above that I kept and even featured that image in the South Ferry, Manhattan article, and yet you felt compelled to revert my removal from the other article, despite the very specific reason I gave, knowing that it would bring you into conflict with me again.

  So, what the hell is going on here? Why are you (apparently) stirring the pot, when you say that you're sick of the whole thing? BMK (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  • And why, for that matter, did you revert me here on Talk:Manhattan? You had struck-through the caption of your photo, the locus of the dispute, and replaced it with "(Please do not use)". The caption "Aerial photo #2" was not one of your comments, and was therefore not yours to strike out, and the plea to not use the photo should be in the discussion, not in the photo caption. (Although since you've already licensed the image when you uploaded it to Commons, there's really very little you could do about it if other editors decide that it should be used.) These changes were mere housekeeping, and yet you blindly reverted them. BMK (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• I am sick as your random lack of logic, and willingness to make war, it is unhealthy. Your a brick, and just as think as one. I don't care what you do, just do it without me involved. As with before, if you contribute/control a Wiki, I will avoid it like the plague. talk→ WPPilot  16:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive COI editor

FirstPathAU created a holding page for a likely promotional entity titled FirstPath. After the page was nominated for speedy deletion, FirstPathAU removed the speedy deletion tag. DOCUMENT★ERROR 03:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I reported this to WP:UAA as a violation of WP:CORPNAME. I think it can be handled there adequately. --Drm310 (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 abusing "admin 'power' "!

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

I'm an observer of a negative situation that's being created here by one of your so-called "admins." Therefore, we need a super-admin ("top brass") to investigate and deal with this case.

User:Bbb23 is abusing his so-called "power" by blocking people who are not breaking Misplaced Pages policy, such as falsely accusing them of so-called "sock-puppetry" just because he thinks they edited or/and reported someone while not being logged in. He has misunderstood the definition of sock-puppetry. Just because he thinks an IP address belongs to a person who has a named account and is editing with the IP address instead of logging in, he's blocking them! But just because someone has signed up with a named account doesn't mean they're no longer allowed to edit without being logged in. Sock-puppetry is to use another account for a prohibited purpose, such as edit-warring under the guise of more than one name, which was not happening in this case between IDriveAStickShift and an IP user. He is also assuming that only autoconfirmed users should edit One Magnificent Morning even after the previous semiprotection had worn off, which is where he seems to have gotten his "sock-puppetry" rationale: "It's sock-puppetry if an IP user of someone who might also have a named account edits an article that was recently semiprotected even if that semiprotection has worn off." If that's not flawed logic, I don't know what is!

So bbb23 is really overstepping his bounds here!

Another problem that b is having is that in one case, he says that 2 users were both potentially edit-warring, but then says that one of them didn't send a 3rd revert in within the 24-hour period. But that's like saying that breakage of the 3RR part of edit-warring only needs 3 reversions within that period. You guys know, though, that it requires 4. However, he should also remember that general edit-warring (non-3RR) doesn't require the 4th reversion within the day's worth of time.

Another problem with bbb23 is that he applies his blocking tactics, or his assumption-of-edit-warring tactics, inconsistently. For example, in one case he blocked IDrive for "edit-warring" with spshu but did not also block spshu. He admitted that right in this edit-warring report linked to below. I've looked at that, and I saw that spshu was not reverting banned-user edits or vandalism, and therefore he was warring too. On the other hand, bb does make the claim that between spshu and Ttll213, they were both probably edit-warring, which is inconsistent with the case between spshu and IDrive.

Here is the edit-warring report that shows this problematic "admin" at "work:" https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Spshu_reported_by_User:71.213.12.5_.28Result:_Filer_blocked.29

So bbb23 is really overstepping his bounds here, and needs to be reevaluated for potentially being removed from admin service, and I feel for users who are being mistreated by over-reaching "admins," whether I know them or not. Will you please fix this mess and get rid of bbb23 as an "admin"?

Happy New Year,

71.219.21.215 (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This is probably the same person that Bbb23 blocked earlier. He was on 71.213.12.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —Soap— 04:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Since your original block is still in effect changing IPs amounts to block evasion. I have blocked this IP on that basis. I am leaving this report here so that any "abuse" can be looked at by the public. Chillum 04:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Are all the scare quotes supposed to make it more emphatic? ekips39 04:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No, quotation marks were never intended to be used for emphasis. That's not one of their jobs. They're used to indicate that something either is or would be someone else's words if not your own also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.16.240 (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

They are regular quotes to indicate the the wording was someone else's and not my own term. It was not for emphasis. Chillum 04:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I was replying to the IP, not to you, hence the indentation. Sorry for the confusion. ekips39 04:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

My confusion. Chillum 04:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Also given that both IPs are in the same city and have the same internet provider and this IP has claimed he is not the same person I would say that Bbb23 was correct in his sock puppet block. Chillum 04:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

StAnselm and Leelah's Law

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

StAnselm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who four days ago nominated Leelah Alcorn for deletion, came across a related article that I created earlier today, Leelah's Law, and moved it to Leelah's Alcorn Law , claiming it is the actual title of proposed legislation. StAnselm then added a citation to the change.org petition and a Huffington Post article, to justify adding Leelah's Alcorn Law to the lead. There is a typo in the change.org petition call to action, and HuffPO picked it up, but the title of the petition is conspicuously Enact Leelah's Law to Ban Transgender Conversion Therapy. Almost all reliable sources call it Leelah's Law. (search change.org and "Leelah's Law")

Note: Alcorn is Leelah's last name, not an adjective. Ponder that for a moment.

I moved the title back to the original name, and dropped a note on StAnselm's talk page here and on the article talk page here. He made a series of reverts, ignoring WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO:

StAnselm has a history of less-than-collegial editing on LGBT-related articles. He's has a history of aggressive edit warring. In view of this, the AfD, the nonsensical move, and the addition of Leelah's Alcorn Law to the article, I am left to conclude that StAnselm is trying to make a WP:POINT; perhaps that transgender people are illiterate, or disordered. His edits compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages and, if intentional, are WP:VANDALISM. Since the article involves a recently deceased person, I believe WP:BDP also applies, not to mention WP:HUMANDIGNITY, WP:GOODTASTE, and WP:COMMONSENSE.

I am requesting the community's thoughts on StAnselm's conduct and, as appropriate, admin intervention to prevent further disruption.- MrX 04:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Smacks of trolling. Other than that, you've pretty much said all that need be said. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 13 Tevet 5775 05:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Edit: Also, changed the last edit he made on the article, but I just fixed the name and took out the sic. 05:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Either MrX wants admin action against StAnselm for a history of persistent abuse of editing privileges, for which he is going to have to provide a compelling argument supported by a lot of diffs, or he wants a ruling on the naming of an article, in which case he should take it to WP:DR. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as no one else has bothered, and having now spent far too much time on this, I find for "Leelah's Law" 115,000 Ghits and for "Leelah's Alcorn Law" 3 Ghits only in the Daily Mail. Obviously an error on the part of the Mail's editor(s). I think we ought to give MrX the benefit of the doubt and perhaps ask StAnselm to cool it and have a bit more respect in the wake of such an unnecessary and tragic suicide of a young person. Closed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor / Parent

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

Standard3 has simultaneously created three separate BLPs on the same minor child actor who will soon have a small role in her first movie (possibly in a misguided attempt to increase SEO): Ella Jones II, Ella Jones (actress), Ella Jones (raleigh). As fast as speedy deletion tags are added to these unreferenced and non-GNG articles, Standard3 removes them. Multiple editors have attempted to engage or counsel Standard3 on Standard3's Talk page to no avail. Editor has been repeatedly attempting to add this child actors name to The Disappointments Room cast list, despite the actor's very low-billing. Finally, Standard3 attempted to hijack the article of a different actor named Ella Jones by overwriting said actor's biography with one for this other actor. (see: ). DOCUMENT★ERROR 05:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it the same content as at the IMDB page? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, word for word. Most likely this is an extremely zealous stage parent. DOCUMENT★ERROR 05:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Or at least "enthusiastic". Understandable. But not a candidate for an article. Unless she gets nominated for best supporting actress Oscar, or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Appeal of RFPP decline for Douchebag

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

Douchebag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. On 14 May 2012, Douchebag was suggested as a target on The Oatmeal, a high-traffic website as a target for Vandalism
2. Since then the page has been the target for multiple drive by persons for vandalising it by following the suggestion.
3. The page has been under various states of protection including Full protection
4. The page recently came of extended full protection on January 1st
5. Shortly after the page protection lapsed, the same persistent vandalism recurred and Joe Decker stepped in to add Semi-Protection for 1 year.
   1. This is less than what the page had previously
6. I petitioned at RFPP to have full protection restored and asked for Indefinite full protection citing:
   1. Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. - Over 2.5 years after the original suggestion, the idea is still being re-instated. The fact that the same signature of vandalism showed up less than 2 days after protection lapsed indicates that this still a venue for internet trolls to get their laughs. Included in this is the type of vandalism similar to "John Doe of Anytown" inclusions which are automatic BLP violations.
   2. Subject to edit-warring where all parties involved are unregistered or new editors (i.e., in cases in which full-protection would otherwise be applied). - As evidenced in the original 2 year full protection protection applied by CharlieEchoTango who admitted Long-term full protection. This is unfortunate, but given the history of the page and the popularity of The Oatmeal, it's not likely to stop.
   3. Subject to vandalism or edit-warring where unregistered editors are engaging in IP-hopping by using different computers... - Being vandalized by both many fans of The Oatmeal as unregistered users, newly registered users, and established accounts. See the article history, Talk page history and archives, and special edit notices for the page.
   4. Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption. - A regime was established to forcefully shut down any attempts to introduce Thomas Edison or any living person to the talk page (Please do not request listing any people on this page., Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Douchebag)
7. We had multiple inexperienced (or inept) editors (tutterMouse—Steven Walling—Callanecc—CambridgeBayWeather) attempt to shunt the discussion off on the grounds that the semi-protection applied meets the minimum necessary. I assert that the first vandalism coming in less than 48 hours for the exact same vector that the page was originally protected indicates that editors are still interested in Righting Great Wrongs.

For these reasons I appeal CambridgeBayWeather's exceedingly poor decision to attempt to shove this off the page as it's only pushing the issue down the road and even then only leaving enWP open to BLP violations and confirmed Oatmeal fans looking to score one for the right side. I cite as precedent the Malamanteau debate in which another popular site (XKCD) caused us to spend several days worth of debate as to how to deal with vandalistic edits suggested by popular media. Hasteur (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Users notified. CharlieEchoTango (the admin who applied the Full Protection) has since retired from enWP. Hasteur (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hasteur, if you hadn't named me up there you'd be blocked for personal attacks (and possibly the disruptive editing at RFPP). Administrators will almost never override the administrative actions of another admin based on the same or similar evidence. As I said there you need to discuss this with the protecting admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • See the abuse inherent in the system, Help Help, I'm being repressed! Seriously Callanecc do you really think we're going to have anything but one of the numerous sleeper accounts (which you should be aware of since you've taken clerking action with respect to the GamerGate case) that infest wikipedia is going to step in and do the exact same behavior. For shame that a ArbCom clerk and Admin can't see the writing on the wall and the precedent that is already established. Hasteur (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Furthermore Callanecc, Joe Decker was pinged multiple times and invited to respond, yet he didn't. This was not an override or reversal of an administrator action (which your objection of 06:46 seems to suggest is your burecratic objection) but strengthening the protection to what it already was. Hasteur (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Page was upgraded to Full page protection for a year by Kudpung. I think this tables the discussion, though I'll lay good odds that when the page comes off protection it'll be vandalized in the exact same manner within a week of the protection expiring again. Hasteur (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion of User:László_Vazulvonal_of_Stockholm

László Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on 02:50, 1 January 2015 for disruptive editing, but this editor is evading his block by using the static IP 213.114.147.52. The IP 213.114.147.52 was blocked in the past: also for being "László Vazulvonal of Stockholm editing logged out" 95.65.65.29 (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

SqueakBox and porn again ... again (evading topic ban)

Per the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#SqueakBox and porn again, SqueakBox is subject to a topic ban on porn-related articles as of 2014 January 1. However, today, the editor has made at least 4 edits that are against that ban today alone; (1), (2), (3), (4). Steel1943 (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If the material the user removed was unsourced that would fall under WP:BANEX and therefore would not be a topic ban violation (in case the topic ban doesn't cover that) Avono (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Avono: considering the ban was regarding edits such as this.... I can't check the sources on the page, although even if it was mentinoed in the "external links" links, I think that should be enough to show this is a TBAN issue. The fact they are continuing shows WP:GAME in action, even if nothing else. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggest Block for 48 Hours and let me save everyones sensibilities - ya they are porn articles. The first one is very disturbing - I had no idea that kind of film even existed. Looking at the first link to his contributions is enough to judge his actions. Doesn't matter if the articles were sourced or not (they are), he is TBANed from Porn for deleting some or all the people involved in films, and that is exactly what he is doing again, wholesale deletions. Just this time he chose some truly vile content so everyone would see it when this thread was started. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards