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

• You assume wrong what you think is my IP address. It is not me. You should be sure about your "facts" before making veiled presumptions against me. After I repeatedly showed you the irregularities about the way wiki rules are applied in terms of what you see as "problems" with the article, you blame me for attacking you. I am pointing out the foolish consistencies in the way the rules are applied in that there are many other articles that suffer from the same "rule", but it seems they only apply to D&N, even after it has been pointed out to you those other articles. If there are wiki rules that are “double standards” and an administrator enforces them, then logic dictates that the administrator is biased. This is not a personal attack. Furthermore, I do question your motives since if you think I did attack you personally, you threatened to take me to the WP:ANI board to get me banned. I question your motives, because before you post a grievance against a user with the board, you must FIRST try to resolve the issue on my talk page. Which you did not do. Thus you are harassing me. And I am asking now that an administrator can have a look for proof at my talk page. Thanks. John sargis (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue was discussed at Talk:Democracy & Nature, so there was no need to start yet another discussion on your talk page. And apparently there are situations where you do want to use those darned Wikipedia rules... --Randykitty (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but again as I have repeated, I want the rules to be evenly applied, which you did not do. The rule says that you go to my talk page to iron out the personal issue(s) and not at the article page which is inappropriate. You bypassed and undercut the rule so that you could preemptively get me banned by going immediately to the administrators. This is harassment. So again a foolish consistency underscores how you use or not use wiki rules for your convenience. John sargis (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Your insinuation, Randykitty, is I am hypocritical when you say, “apparently there are situations where you do want those darned Wikipedia rules.” implying I am biased is a personal attack. I replied, above, I want the rules applied evenly, but yet you are insisting not to use them evenly as evidenced not only in your discussions here and especially at your post at 19:36 (UTC) above, but also at D&N page where last year you tried the same editorial tactics with no success of deletion—and now you are at it again. It is difficult for it not come to mind that you have a political bias, but I do not know. John sargis (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh man... Could somebody not involved please have a look at this? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And ongoing PA by another editor, Panlis, who exclusively edits topics related to the ones mentioned above. Given the vehemence and the accusations, I feel almost like I am dealing with a sect here. --Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User Randykitty, as demonstrated in Talk:Democracy & Nature, has consistently tried to impose his way of editing the article, by adding repeatedly tags and requests for citations, that were effectively shown to him that are at least irrelevant to the article and constituted the -to my mind as well- justifiable assumption that he indeed maintains a bias toward the entry. His recurrent editing "spree" has been accompanied by his unwillingness to answer to documented and logical questions brought to his attention in the Talk Page. So the assumption of his maintaining a bias towards the article does not constitute a Personal Attack, as so easily and conveniently Randykitty accuses me and other editors of, and this is because all criticizing was aimed at his activity in the entry, accompanied by documented and -to a decent degree- laborious argumentation on his recurrent and lately almost totally exorbitant actions showcased in the Talk Page. And this is particularly so, when in the meanwhile and while he accused the other editors, I tried to contribute to the article by particularly addressing his demands for citations, from the moment they seemed somehow sensible. At the same time, the only thing Randykitty did was mainly deleting, and adding tags!..

Then, Randykitty didn't take the time to activate the Dispute Resolution procedure, before bringing the matter to the Administrators' board. On the contrary he accuses the other editors involved in the discussion, with a striking nerve, of being a "sect"! But this is to say easily when an editor is short of answers to the points raised by me or anybody else who out of necessity does not spend his life in checking wiki entries and he resorts to the facile ‘accusation’ that "I exclusively edit topics related to the ones mentioned above”. But why specialist knowledge on a topic is something wrong when editing an article in an encyclopedia and in Wikipedia, when of course it's not a field for advocacy? Yes, I do have specialist knowledge on the topic and this is why I take party on discussions related to it rather than on brain cancer surgery. Unless of course, according to Wikipedia rules, people with no obvious knowledge on a topic or on the meaning or the function of a theoretical journal should have more say on any topic, as long as they have memorized some wiki rules. Of course rules are needed but the issue is how (as every rule) are interpreted. Panlis (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to give any more rope to this group maintaining a walled garden, per WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:NPA. --Randykitty (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty increasingly acts in -to say the very least- bad faith and total unwillingness to follow any gradual protocol required by Wikipedia before dropping in the row and without any documented reply his "allegations" in this board. Now he demonstrates once again his blatant unwillingness to take part in the discussion in the Democracy & Nature Talk Page and to reply to the concrete arguments posed against his theses, when at the same time, he continues adding tags that have been demonstrated to him to be at best irrelevant and at worst, totally biased as [I (and other editors) have tried to prove here, without any at all, further participation to the dialogue by this obviously Disruptive Editor. It's also becoming now more than clear that the same user uses his "credentials" of thousands of edits in articles and of being an administrator, so as not only to impose his unacceptable editing methods to the D&N entry, despite my and other editors' best attempts to concretely and in detail show his inconsistency (and, ultimately), bias in this case, but to also throw mud against all other editors with whom he simply does not agree with: By putting at the venture labels on them of the sort of "WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA" etc..

And all this when

(a) positive response to some of his sensible demands was accurately applied to the entry,

(b) his blatant inconsistencies were meticulously shown with specific examples and passages in the Talk Page, without him caring to give any concrete reply to my and others' argumentation in the Talk Page,

(c) he jumped without any constraint to blame me and other editors of WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NPA etc., without any effort on his part to follow a normal procedure of the many available in WP:DR and elsewhere before resorting to these accusations and before bringing me and others to the WP:ANI, and finally,

(d) he continues even at this moment his disruptive editing and undocumented reverses without giving any explanation at all in the talk page for this, while at the same time he has the "nerve" of accusing me (with the non-argument) of "not addressing the underlying problems" (!), something that I tried to do in -I think- a decently laborious and well-documented attempt! Hence Randykitty's action that suits to his case could also be showcased vividly in the following clear passages from WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

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

1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." (...)
2. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable." (...)

Panlis (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This thread had been archived. I have restored it in hope of solliciting some input about this case of SPA editors owning some articles. --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Having completely lost the argument, Randykitty now returns (as was fully expected of him!) with yet another wp rule: owning. However, once again, he simply distorts another wp rule. He has no evidence whatsoever to support his new allegation apart from the fact that the editors who tried to make sense of his multiple tagging (like John Sargis and Panlis) were involved before in exchanges related to D&N and related entries. However, the owning rule itself stresses that “It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert” and Panlis himself admitted his special knowledge on the topic. Randykitty has to show convincingly that “this watchfulness has become possessiveness” and he NEVER MANAGED TO DO SO, particularly as the editors involved (as well as myself) tried repeatedly to improve the entry following those of Randykitty’s suggestions which were specific enough and looked reasonable,e.g. providing the citations and the links to references he asked for. I also supposed that as long as he does not just put tags all around, without usually giving concrete advice on what has to be done, the editors already involved –and hopefully others as well—would continue helping to improve the entry. Unless of course his real aim is not to improve the entry but simply to have it deleted, after his failed attempt for deletion last year.165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Still no comments from uninvolved editors. --Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• According to Randykitty’s “interpretation” of wp rules, all comments from ‘involved’ editors can easily be dismissed or ignored, irrespective of the quality of the arguments concerned, just because these editors are interested in a particular topic on which they happen to have some knowledge. On the other hand, his own heavy involvement in this particular entry in the past when he tried (and failed) to have it deleted, does not matter simply because he has managed to make 62,000 edits in the short period of 2 years and 10 months - obviously working on a full-time basis - i.e. over 60 edits per day, apart from starting over 60 new entries!165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• After the personal attacks, we now progress to taunting. Directly ON Ani... --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not personally attacking or taunting anybody and that was obviously not my intention. I simply stated some OBVIOUS FACTS and Randykitty, instead of trying to dispute them, resorts to his familiar tactics of playing the victim.165.120.27.172 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I really need not to "dispute" anything you and the other editors above have been writing. It is there for everybody to see and what is true of it is equally simple to see. Eventually, some uninvolved editors will get around to this and wade through the wall of accusations that has been thrown up above and, if they'll find that you are correct, I'll be swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here. --Randykitty (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Randykitty, please avoid this "self-defeating" rhetoric. The way you set the demand, i.e. for some non-involved users to intervene in order to clarify if it's that "we" ("the sect" according to your -at least, humiliating-, accusation about me and other editors of the Democracy & Nature entry) "are correct", something meaning that you will have to be "swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here" (!) is at least disorienting for any user that happens to see this debate. No one asked or suggested such a "response", which shows that you probably have personalized the whole debate. In fact no one asked anything from you, apart from the logical need to show where you believe the editors are mistaken in the first place as regards the editing of the aforementioned entries, particularly when they explicitly claimed that their intention was not Personal Attacking and that they tried to a more or less degree to address your sensible "demands" for citations etc.. On the other hand, you brought two editors before this Board, with a (at least slanderous against me) row of accusations, when, as I tried to show above and in the Democracy & Nature entry's Talk Page, it' s your mistake that you haven't tried to reply to any of the significant arguments raised against your activity, (by abstaining from any dialogue in the entry's Talk Page despite my and others' effort for precise argumentation) and secondly you continued to bypass the fact that significant effort has been in the making to collectively improve the article, even by newer editors like Niceguyedc and Fusedmilk. You didn't even TRY to follow a Dispute Resolution procedure but you jumped directly into here when you saw that not all your demands would be "fulfilled"...Panlis (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Personal attacks don't go to dispute resolution, they go to ANI. Simple. --Randykitty (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You are wrong. This is from the WP:NPA.

"Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease can be resolved through dispute resolution and third opinions. In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and focus on content, and immediate administrator action is not required." (my emphasis). And the bold is what you don't try to do but you bring editors in this board - avoiding an attempt to reply to specific arguments as regards the entry's content in the entry's Talk Page and above.Panlis (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Could I read a reasoning for the conclusion that you see "an assumption of bad faith towards Randykitty by John sargis, Panlis and the IP (with sock/meatpuppetry always a possibility) which is unusual even by WP standards." ?Panlis (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It is very easy (and convenient too!) for somebody to declare himself ‘uninvolved editor’ and then to go on slandering other editors like me as sockpuppets etc mainly because I am an IP address editor. However, I thought that according to WP rules “the treatment of IP address editors as second-class editors is unacceptable”. If this rule is not valid anymore please let me know and I will stop immediately taking part in the discussion. I think that good or bad faith should be assessed on the basis of the arguments offered not on the basis of suspicions and offering no arguments at all does not help anybody in drawing conclusions about the good faith of other editors. Quite the opposite.165.120.27.172 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Randykitty accused me and an editor using an IP address (read first two posts of this thread), of claiming political bias against him in which which he assumes the IP editor is me and thus he reported me to “the editor”. I told him he is assuming wrong. It is not my IP address. Thus by notifying the editor he harassed me for no real reason, because he does not show evidence that it is my IP address and he never first tried to resolve the issue on my talk page, but bypassed that wiki rule to file a grievance against me. I do not see how you can claim bad faith on my part, when it was Randykitty who harassed and threatened me. He replies that there is “no need to start yet another discussion on your talk page” (where personal issues are resolved). And “apparently there are situations where you do want to use those darned Wikipedia rules.” Thus there is proof that he uses the wiki rules when it is convenient for him, and yet he accuses me that I want wiki rules to be used only for some situations. But if you look at my replies, I said that I want the wiki rules “evenly applied”, which is obvious by reading the thread above. Thank you. John sargis (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the editing/behavior pattern of this group of editors is quite clear. They are not here to create a neutral encyclopedia, but to push an agenda. Anybody interfering with that gets hit with a barrage of accusations and wikilawyering. Trying to improve one of "their" articles is hit by demands that other articles that have similar deficits get cleaned up first because if you don't do that, you have a political bias. This all started with an effort by me to make the article on the (borderline notable) journal Democracy & Nature compliant with our journal article writing guide. Sargis, as a former contributor to this journal, obviously has a conflict of interest here, but that doesn't hold them back spouting a stream of accusations in my direction. And as demonstrated above, anybody who dares say that this is not the way things are done here, clearly must be biased against them, too. I think that, at the least, some topic bans are in order here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sargis is more than a former contributor, he's the assistant editor. It wouldn't be surprising if this group of editors is an evolution of the group of IPs who used to edit the talk pages of these articles identifying themselves as Takis, members of the journal's editorial board/committee or the webmaster of the journal [3][4][5][6]. --78.149.243.116 (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It is somewhat peculiar that a first time, 7 Sept., editor IP 78.149.243.116 to comment on 7 Sept. in the middle of a discussion of which he or she knows nothing about, but it is unusual for an editor who on his/her first editing day finds his/her way to this page not only demonstrating wiki research and expertise in wiki protocols and navigating wiki to be able to provide all the references he/she provides. Furthermore, this IP user had to navigate through reams of discussion threads in a few days and have the ability to “determine” whom he thinks KosMal is. This is very unusual and I am asking an administrator to look into this, because IP possibly be a sock-puppet or other violation. John sargis (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Everybody and everything you don't like has to be banned. This is direct democracy in action. Particularly so if some people are 'more equal' than others in imposing their own view of what a neutral encyclopedia should all be about and are able to dictate who is allowed to speak and who is not. Personally I refuse to take part anymore in any further 'discussions' of this kind.165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• You say

"I think the editing/behavior pattern of this group of editors is quite clear. They are not here to create a neutral encyclopedia, but to push an agenda. Anybody interfering with that gets hit with a barrage of accusations and wikilawyering. Trying to improve one of "their" articles is hit by demands that other articles that have similar deficits get cleaned up first because if you don't do that, you have a political bias."

a)You still throw accusations and mud against me and others without even getting into trouble to support your case the way you should do according to WP:AOBF,-as I tried to do-, but you assumed bad faith from the beginning, and this was not accidental as you had attempted to delete the entry as non-notable in the recent past, something that was unanimously rejected with the active participation of other editors as well. And pardon me but..who talks about wikilawyering when you drop rows over rows of Wiki rules which some of them contain significant passages as I tried to show above in my replies that serve the opposite case to what you want to demonstrate! (see the passages from the WP:ANI above, WP:AOBF etc.)

b)As usually you bypass the argument. What you did and this is why you were criticized in the first place was mostly that you added citation demands repeatedly and in a row despite the clear no-need for them in a significant dialogue to which you decided not to take part and reply, while at the same time I and others tried consistently to address your own demands so as to improve the entry, something that demonstrates a reasonably bona fide approach and clearly undermines your accusations for WP:NPA and doesn't explain at all the initiative for beginning this debate in here!.

"This all started with an effort by me to make the article on the (borderline notable) journal Democracy & Nature compliant with our journal article writing guide."

c)Yes, and the editors replied with documented argumentation, passages, examples etc. to your edits in the page's Talk Page; To their answers you did not get into trouble to answer but you brought me and the rest in here when you saw that not all your demands would be fulfilled.

d)Calling a journal borderline notable needs proof which should be given in the entry's Talk Page and not through aphorisms here. A clear decision that the journal is notable was formed just a year ago after extensive discussion and documentation with the participation of other editors too, when you first raised the non-notability factor. Your insistence to show how not notable the journal is, is just another indication of your obvious bias against it and that you just like to pull at straws in this case.

"And as demonstrated above, anybody who dares say that this is not the way things are done here, clearly must be biased against them, too. I think that, at the least, some topic bans are in order here. "

e)This is simply not to say when clear effort to improve the entry was made as a reply to your own dictations. On the other hand your bias is a pattern shown repeatedly, beginning from your attempt to delete the entry a year ago (based on the supposed non-notability of it), which was rejected, by your call still for non-notability of the journal despite the decision last year, by the fact that you proceeded in a spree of cite-tagging that you didn't like to address in the major medium to do it: In the entry's Talk Page.

g)From the above, the case to my mind is simply pulling at straws and should be archived. Moreover no reasoning at all was given by the non-involved editor who appeared yesterday. Panlis (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but I think you misread things. The previous AfD was not unanimous at all (despite a host of SPA editors creeping out of the woodwork), which is probably why you didn't link to it directly. (The fact that it was taken to AfD no less than 4 times shows that its notability is not as clear as you try to make it seem). And from the moment that I dared voice some critical remarks of the article on this journal, my motivations have been put into doubt, so it's a bit rich that you now call upon AGF, something you have never done yourself. The references "for which there is no clear need" that I requested are clearly needed. The journal article writing guide, based on a wide consensus in the WikiProject Academic Journals, explicitly states that lists of authors should not be included in an article unless "there are independent reliable sources discussing their involvement with the journal in more than an in-passing way." The appropriate sources should be provided or the list should be removed. Now lest somebody thinks that this is a simple content dispute that does not belong at ANI, please have a look at the talk page of the article and the blatant personal attacks there (continued for all to see in the postings above). --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right, it was not unanimous, you were the only one who didn't agree as far as I recall among a variety of editors. But the documents and dialogue back then demonstrated for good the notability of the article, with dozens of 3rd party references that I digged out, if you remember, which further showed its significance. Secondly, this is not a forum for solving the possible issues of an article but this should be done in its Talk Page to which you decided not to answer. Particularly when the issues raised above were replied in that Talk Page by using relevant examples from many important Journal entries to which for peculiar reasons this rule for Journals you mention doesn't abide, and for which entries you did not make any further fuss e.g. raising respective complaints for their having a simple and direct listing of contributors. And this is mainly because of your bias against the Democracy and Nature entry that has been more than evident from all dialogue in that Talk Page and here, that you disguise as WP:NPA. This is then to my mind clearly a pulling at straws case you continue raising in this Board as it is not intended of course for Dispute Resolution over the content of an article and you very well know it. As per your "critical remarks", you insist on bypassing the fact that the editors of the entry replied to all of them concretely and with evidence in the appropriate page to do this, something that you just did not like and chose arbitrarily to bring the issue of WP:NPA in here instead. But this is also a case of turning a blind eye to the edits of the entry because as I repeatedly demonstrated (but you prefer to ignore), all your sensible demands according to the editors of the entry -older and newer as well-, were met.- Panlis (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Read again. There were several delete !votes, although they indeed are somewhat drowned in the walls of text that you and your friends were dropping on that debate, just as you're doing here. You obviously have read WP:TLDR and are trying to use it to your advantage here. The arguments that you brought forward on the talk page to counter my legitimate concerns were 1/ WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and 2/ "you're biased". That kind of arguments always crop up when a cabal of POV/COI editors are faced with somebody insisting on getting things done in a neutral and encyclopedic way. --Randykitty (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please use concrete evidence as passages, diffs etc., like I have been persistently doing inhere, so as to justify your "conclusions"? I just read the dialogue in the Democracy and Nature entry's Talk Page and I don't see any other user who had taken part in that discussion (Cwobeel, WallabieJoey, KosMal, Arran Gare and a couple of IP editors) who was in favour of deleting the entry back then except for you.! Isn't that correct? If I am mistaken please correct me by bringing here specific links, diffs etc. and not with aphorisms. My final take on this irrelevant and disorientating debate is that this is not the arena to solve the possible issues of an entry, and the other issues (Personal Attacking etc.) that you raised were addressed in painstaking detail above. I hope this has become clear and I plead you to stop raising repeatedly humiliating and aggressive cases against me by calling me part of a sect etc. and by pulling at straws inhere, as it could be taken for Harassment. You may have plenty of time to do tens of thousands of edits and to jump to conclusions in dialogues and debates, without getting into trouble to offer specific evidence as per WP:AOBF, but unfortunately I have not when it is not justified, as clearly happens in this pulling-at-straws case. And in addition to the fact that I try to be very precise and documented in my interventions these are the two main reasons for which I cannot contribute in the frequency and to the extent I would like to the Wikipedia project. Thank you! Panlis (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice try, but as my previous comment should have made clear, we're not here to discuss what happened in an AfD a year ago (even though that debate was marred by the same lack of good faith and personal attacks, and, yes, there were other editors !voting "delete", too), nor is this the place to deal with a content dispute. We are here because of the refusal to AGF and the personal attacks at Talk:Democracy & Nature (at the misnamed section Randy Kitty's recurring deletion attempt). The "discussion" there clearly shows that my efforts to explain why something needs to be done were met with scorn, personal attacks (throwing doubt on my integrity), and bullshit arguments that other articles should be cleaned up first. Diffs are not necessary here, a 5 min perusal of the section I just linked do will do the job just fine. --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you using foul and abusive language such as "bullshit"? Is not that a wiki "no no"? We are proving your bias, since there is a history to your attempt to delete D&N. So how can that not be evidence, because it happened in the past? Randykitty you dis other editors in the previous AfD of D&N as “creeping out of the woodwork” and as "your friends". If that is not an assault or name calling or personal attack or breaking of some wiki rule, or suggesting that bona fide editors are our "friends"let me know what is. Actually, if I were vengeful, I could say the same about the “univolved” editor as "your friend" “creeping out of the woodwork” at this late stage, but I will not because I have no proof. Four times D&N withstood deletion. Is this perpetual attempt to delete not part of something about journal writing? Notable is notable whether weak or strong is it not? Why are you beating a dead horse? Yes, maybe eventually, Randykitty, you will be able to put D&N under your belt, because at sometime you will be able to garner enough support, which speaks volumes of wiki objectivity (notable is notable whether weak or strong). Also you state “lists of authors should not be included in an article unless "there are independent reliable sources discussing their involvement with the journal in more than an in-passing way." We had this discussion about Chomsky who has published in many journals at Wikipedia, but with no reliable sources discussing his involvement with those journals in more than an in-passing way. That is why I demanded evenly applied wiki rules. You came with a ferocity of edits at (as you have tried in the past) the D&N article, and as well as placing tags immediately at Inclusive Democracy & Takis Fotopopulos. As an editor who wants to improve articles, your approach has the opposite effect and can be assumed to be not neutral. You say concerning delete votes on the last attempt to delete D&N, "delete !votes, although they indeed are somewhat drowned in the walls of text that you and your friends were dropping on that debate." A debate is a debate where there is discussion. The "delete" votes and "keep" votes were counted and there were more votes to “keep” as in the other attempts to delete D&N. Why are you accusing editors who help D&N as our "friends"? What proof do you have? Just because they help improve the article you think they are our friends? It is absurd. Furthermore, if you were bona fide and your problem is the quality of the article and not to get rid of the editors because you do not care for their replies, you could have proceeded to a Dispute Resolution procedure and why not open a new thread in the Administrators' Noticeboard with a relevant title. But what you did was to bring me and others to this board by calling us a "sect" and with accusations of WP:COI, WP:NPA etc. etc.. When you found out that your accusations do not have good basis, you came back to the purported problem of the content of the entry, which should be solved with the presence of informed editors about the content of the entry, and not within the context of an accusations thread, as you have just tried to cover over-"nor is this the place to deal with a content dispute" John sargis (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And hop! Yet another wall of text. The issue here is not the previous AfD, nor am I at this point asking for the article to be deleted. And the fact that I took this article to AfD and has been kept does not mean that I am now barred from improving the article where necessary, because I would somehow be biased. Hardly anybody who participated in the AfD has ever tried to improve the article as you claimed. Please stay to the point, which is your aspersions on my integrity. Could an admin please look at the above evidence and, if found to be correct, block me for disruptive editing so that we can put an end to this nonsense? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone summarise what the dispute is about in a few lines? The above is rather overwhelming, but I see lots of "other stuff exists" type arguments about why certain style conventions shouldn't apply to this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The dispute started when I removed a list of contributors and a listing of the journal's editorial board from the article, per the reasoning given in WP:JWG, which is based on a broad consensus in the WikiProject Acadmeic Journals: contributors or editorial board members should only be listed if reliable sources exist that discuss in depth the importance of their contributions for the journal. The reason why we are here is that the above group of editors argued that there exist articles on other journals or magazines that also have such lists and that the fact that I wanted to remove these lists in this particular article showed that I am biased and whatnot. It's the latter personal attacks that brought us here. Somewhere in the above walls of text more such attacks and failures to assume good faith are hidden. Of the group of editors involved, at least one (John sargis) has a COI. The other editors involved almost exclusively edit this article and two related ones (Takis Fotopoulos and Inclusive Democracy). I think this basically sums up the walls of text above (and on Talk:Democracy & Nature). --Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You tried the exact same tactic last year and failed to delete D&N, so again this year you attempt it. Does this not obviously show some type of bias by expanding your effort to all three related articles (D&N, Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos) rapidly adding tags without any genuine discussion? One wonders what the motivation is of your edits, since you now say, “nor am I at this point asking for the article to be deleted”, which still implies your plan for deletion. No one can restrict you (or anyone else) from making suggestions about improving any entry you like. But the issue of motives is very different and this is what we examine here, particularly as you immediately questioned my own motives and personally attacked me and other editors as a “sect”, etc. Prove to me this simultaneous attack on all related articles’ timeline is a coincidence, not unrelated nor politically motivated.

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

ID article:

23 Aug. 17:42 Randykitty begins editing with

tag plus 4 more edits

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

23 Aug. 17:53 RandyKitty begins edits with

tag plus 5 more edits

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

• You want proof? How about the fact that in the timespan you mention here I edited dozens of other articles, deleted dozens more, took one or two to AfD, etc etc. Where's your proof that I am concentrating on "your" articles? Where's any proof of political bias in any of my edits anywhere? Simple: anything any body does to "your" articles that doesn't go in the direction that you want is, per definition, politically biased. Perhaps it's time for some self-reflection here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said you only concentrated on the articles. I am showing a timeline where on 23 August your first edits at Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos were tags at 17:42 and 17:53 respectively, and on 24 August at 17:08 you add the tag to D&N. If there is not some bias, then prove it. Why did you add those tags in such rapid succession at the articles. It could be construed that you are going after those articles.John sargis (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Some people here have wider interests than just a single subject. I edited the article on the journal, then looked at the article on its former EIC, then clicked on the Inclusive Democracy link. I tagged the articles for the problems that they have. Then I went on to other subjects. It is not me who has to prove my innocence. Here, people are assumed innocent until proven guilty. You have constantly failed to assume good faith and as soon as you disagreed with me and I didn't cave in immediately, started calling my integrity in doubt. --Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • The fact that other articles don't follow those guidelines should probably be disregarded, unless lack of compliance is so widespread that it calls into question whether the guidelines are indeed widely accepted. It seems to be perfectly reasonable to me to request that sources are provided. Personally, I wouldn't be so insistent that those sources need to demonstrate the importance of the contributors to the journal - it seems a valid matter of interest that notable people have contributed - but if the guidelines reflect consensus, then they should be respected. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow at the intensity of the WP:WALLEDGARDEN here. RandyKitty's edits were perfectly in line with WP:JWG, and the, let's call them 'anti-Randykitty advocates', consist of WP:SPA accounts with close ties to 'D&N' itself, and sat on the Editorial board of the journal, of often published in the niche journal. I've brought the article mostly inline with our guidelines at WP:JWG. WP:JWG is not a 'hard law', so deviations from it can be warranted from time to time, but I've yet to see a justification for doing so here. I'm not convinced the journal is notable, but if it is to exist, it should comply with our guidelines on the subject. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Everybody who has ever read a theoretical journal of political nature is well aware of the fact that a basic element of its notability is who used to contribute to it, either as a writer or an editor. If you strip the D&N entry (or any similar journal entry), from the names of its contributors, then it could be easily classified by those who never liked it to be listed in Wikipedia FOR POLITICAL REASONS (disguised under some bureaucratic rules) as not notable enough, and then be deleted accordingly. I challenge Randykitty and his friend Headbomb to provide us with a list of similar significant theoretical journals of political nature in wikipedia which do implement the rule they invoke. IF THEY CANNOT PROVIDE SUCH A LIST THEN THEIR GAME SHOULD BE CLEAR TO EVERYBODY! 165.120.27.172 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• All I can say after this diatribe is QED... --Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many examples can be found in Category:Political science journals. Take for example Acta Politica or Cato Journal. Many counterexamples also exist, but those pretty much fall under WP:OTHERCRAP, and are in need of copy-editing. Although, I have to say from the tone and general behaviour, I wouldn't be surprised if the lot of you didn't get banned under WP:SPA/WP:MEATPUPPET. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope whomever tries to ban us under wiki puppetry rule did their homework, because if it is proved we are not puppetry puppets of any sort for which there is a wiki rule, then I suppose any editor who attempts to ban us under that rule, is open for harassment. And it would give further credence to our other arguments in this dispute.John sargis (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, the examples mentioned betray only utter ignorance of the subject. D&N was not a political science journal, as a presumably ignoramus w/p editor classified it. D&N belongs to the same kind of theoretical journals of political nature as The Nation, Monthly Review, New Statesman and many other similar journals where lists of contributors and editors are abundant-as they should be!165.120.27.172 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These three are categorized as magazines; if that's the case for D&N, then it should follow instead WP:WikiProject Magazines/Writing guide; if it's peer reviewed, then it needs to abide by WP:JWG. Also, involved editors are welcome to fix any other non-abiding article. Finally, any potential COI must be disclosed, or else that's an easy ban to apply. fgnievinski (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: John sargis and Panlis topic banned from all articles related to Inclusive Democracy

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

• Support as nom. Given that these are the only articles that they edit, an indefinite block could also be appropriate. Not sure what should be done about the ranting IP. --Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• REJECT. Banning other editors, simply because their views on how the form of presentation of an entry should be is different from that of an administrator, despite the fact, (as they have shown here and in the past), they may have a vastly superior knowledge on a topic they are interested in than an administrator who has a view on almost everything under the sun in tens of thousands of edits, is not just ‘keeping up with the rules’ . It is a pure form of authoritarianism , if not fascism. In a democratic form of organization, particularly one dealing with knowledge, you fight what you do not like with words, not bans! Every authoritarian regime in the past had always some bureaucratic rules at hand to justify its actions. No originality here. I thought however that Wikipedia was genuinely trying to create an alternative democratic way of presenting knowledge. If bona fide editors do not intervene to stop these purely fascist practices, this could well be the end of Wikipedia as an alternative form of encyclopaedia. In fact, many people would prefer in such a case an orthodox encyclopaedia, which at least is controlled and written by people who do know what they talk about and do not just hide behind bureaucratic rules masquerading as democratic, which could easily be used the way I described. Needless to add that in such a Wikipedia I don’t wish to have any further involvement and therefore I don’t give a damn if the Randykittys of this world ban my ‘ranting’, as he 'politely' called it!165.120.27.172 (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject Randykitty your sophistry is unparalleled. In your reason for banning/blocking you say: "Given that these are the only articles that they edit…". Let me remind you of what you said at D&N talk 24 Aug. @ 8:47: “You are under no obligation to clean up any article”. So, you want to get us banned on the one hand because we edit only “inclusive democracy” related articles, but on the other hand you claim we are under no obligation to edit any other article. So how does one hold two opposing viewpoints and not be in contradiction, bad faith, or bias? I do not know. Please instruct. You also assumed an IP editor and I are the same person. Your assumption is proven wrong as the two (or one as you would have it) of us have not been banned by wiki puppet rules. Another editor (headbomb) corroborated your wrong assumption and included Panlis in that he thought that we three would get banned as sockmeat puppets. That did not work, because someone, a sensible editor I assume, probably did a check and found out we are all different IPs. Thus headbomb's assumption is wrong. As far as assuming good faith, at the administrator page 24 August@ 21:43 I said I had no proof you have a political bias. In light of these wrong assumptions others must reject your proposal also. Thank you. John sargis (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. This is a hideous twist of the events! Bad faith was a thing demonstrated, -to say the very least disproportionally- by the user Randykitty in the debate both in the Talk Page and inhere, and I will try to show why in a somehow concise but I feel plausible way:

a) the user began an activity of repeatedly putting tags and asking for citation demands over, first, the need for such a list and, secondly, the notability of the contributors of the journal themselves, despite the obvious non-agreement in the entry's Talk Page. This naturally led to edit warring and relatively heated debate in an entry which he had attempted to delete last year, something that had been solemnly rejected by all other users who participated in the dialogue back then --and these users were not only John Sargis and I- but uninvolved users as well apart from the ones who are being accused of WP:COI here.

b) While the editors and I tried to address his, considered as sensible, issues in the journal's Talk Page by focusing primarily on his activity but at the same time without disconnecting his proven bias towards the entry (another indication of which is that he still virtually claims the journal is not notable despite last year's clear decision which had followed abundant documentation about its notability-to which of course turned a blind eye-, and when now implicitly shows his recurrent intentions when he writes "nor am I at this point asking for the article to be deleted”) as Randykitty would very much like them to, he jumped to accusing us in this forum, of WP:COI, WP:POV etc.

c) This happened without him trying in the first place to use a Dispute Resolution route or post a related to the problematic content subject in here according to the same procedure, and ask for third opinions about the very issues debated in the Talk Page. His primary action in this board was to "tag" and accuse us of WP:COI, WP:PA etc. with the aim to get rid of all dissidents by blocking us. Getting rid of editors involved with the entry and having some experience with it (something that of course does not constitute WP:COI etc.) would be a definite way serving his claimed favor of potentially deleting it in the near future- as is more than evident now from the above.

d) He showed once more his bias against the entry and his aim just to punish the older editors of the entry for not comforming to all of his demands, when he neglected the important effort to improve the entry that was taking place during the debate and indeed attempted to address mainly his own demands for citations, clean up etc.; just indicatively, sorry for the dropping ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]}

To the naked eye this simply cannot be called "bad faith", by any interpretation, against the user Randykitty as he blatantly accuses me and the rest, and and it is at least disorientating if not a clear mark of authoritarianism to use such a characterization as an "argument" in order to block us from editing an entry based on argumentation and the WP rules.

e) Even worse, Randykitty was led to the point of essentially "blackmailing" all uninvolved users who happen to read the debate here in case we don't get "assorted" (i.e. blocked from editing the entry and even better for him as he declared, get blocked ad infinitum) when he blatantly stated that "Eventually, some uninvolved editors will get around to this and wade through the wall of accusations that has been thrown up above and, if they'll find that you are correct, I'll be swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here." -a statement which is a blatant act of self-victimization and emotional "blackmailing" to his favor. And this based on the fact that he has indeed the fluency to do thousands of edits, while I and other editors, as I mentioned in the debate, have not the same time and objective ability to help more with the Wikipedia project as I would like to and this is I believe a legitimate reason of maintaining a "sole-purpose" activity, particularly when I and the rest of editors demonstrate good faith as I clearly showed above, in contrast to Randykitty's direct aim to shut off anyone who doesn't comform to all his demands, that is now more than evident (his initiative says it all). Since as I tried to demonstrate above, no WP:PA was intended (something explicitly clarified by all other parts in the debate) --and calling someone that s/he maintains a bias towards an entry when it is based on his very deeds is not a "personal attack"--, this user, based on his experience, is constantly disorienting in order to pass his agenda: to eventually delete the entry - An aim explicitly demonstrated by his related history and revealed by his own very recent sayings, which I feel I plausibly exposed above.Panlis (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think that the involved parties have summed up their views very well above and request appropriate measures and closure of this thread. --Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this on the grounds of a conflict of interest that the editors concerned appear unwilling to step away from. Also, when an editor states "I hope whomever tries to ban us under wiki puppetry rule did their homework, because if it is proved we are not puppetry puppets of any sort for which there is a wiki rule, then I suppose any editor who attempts to ban us under that rule, is open for harassment", I start to think that action further than a topic ban is justified. No one should be subject to harassment for raising concerns about sockpuppetry, whether they prove to be accurate or not. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you read the thread you will read that we were harassed and taunted as being sockpuppets several times over several days--just don't talk the talk. Yes, right or wrong wiki is always right. Wiki hides behind waves and waves of rules, some of which we pointed out are contradictory and asked why they were not evenly applied, we have to muck through, and we became the problem--sect, sockpuppets, etc.--while Randykitty portrayed himself as victim while all the time he carries all the weapons, sorry I mean rules. Thank you. John sargis (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment John, I don't think I accused anybody here of socking. At the start of this thread, I only remarked that I thought you had once forgotten to sign in. You said you didn't and I left it at that, that's what we here in this rules-infested harassing and taunting wiki call "assuming good faith", but a you have amply demonstrated, you're incapable of that. Socking is not the topic of this thread at all, that's your lack of AGF, personal attacks, and COI editing. Funny that you keep coming back all the time to this non-existent socking accusation, one would almost be tempted to think that you feel guilty... --Randykitty (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the editors and IP in question have shown repeated and unrepentant uncivil behaviour, including various personal attacks, and have shown they cannot edit neutrally and level-headedly in light of their conflict of interest. WP:SPA certainly apply. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject. I have no the intention or the time to spend on this nonsense but I’m gonna tell my opinion and gonna cast a vote just because user Panlis made a reference to my name. I took a short look and I have to say that although the users Panlis and John sargis maybe have a conflict of interest it’s also clear that the user Randykitty is totally biased against the entry of Democracy and Nature (not accidentally last year he tried to delete the entry). Although references have been made to him for other similar entries (political radical left journals) who are suffering from similar problems Randykitty was repeatedly ignoring them saying he has not the time, but, still, it seems has the time to apply these rules only to this specific entry and make such a fuss for it. At the moment that there are articles in the international press regarding the decline of the numbers of editors at the Wikipedia some users still spend hours and days trying to ban other users who in fact never tried to disturb the Wikipedia functions but just to keep a well known radical left political journal in the Wikipedia pages, although this may mean argumentative dialogues etc. which probably are simply boresome and bothersome for the former. If the users Panlis and John sargis gonna be banned then also the user Randykitty should be banned. Reject. KosMal (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)--Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that according to their talk page, this user edits from the same IP address as the indeffed Nikosgreencookie. --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KosMal is obviously a sock of Nikosgreencookie [7]. They share an IP address and an interest in articles related to Democracy & Nature/Inclusive Democracy as well as the Green Cookie Records article [8][9]. It's not too hard to discover that this person has also been a long-term member of the editorial committee of the International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. --78.149.243.116 (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is somewhat peculiar that a first time, 7 Sept., editor IP 78.149.243.116 commenting on 7 Sept. (see above thread) in the middle of a discussion of which he or she knows nothing about, but it is unusual for an editor who on his/her first editing day finds his/her way to this page not only demonstrating wiki research and expertise in wiki protocols and navigating wiki to be able to provide all the references he/she provides. Furthermore, this IP user had to navigate through reams of discussion threads in a few days and have the ability to “determine” whom he thinks KosMal is. This is very unusual and I am asking an administrator to look into this, because IP possibly be a sock puppet violation.John sargis (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject. Panlis and John sargis may have not contributed to other pages not related to Inclusive Democracy, but this does not necessarily mean they are acting on bad faith. I cannot find an issue with their COI, as I have seen (see the links in their comments above) their strong will to positively contribute and cooperate in order for their edits to conform with the (admittedly, quite complex) Wikipedia writing rules. As I can see it, this disagreement was brought to this board by Randykitty too quickly, instead of following the Wikipedia rules for dispute resolution, which shows to me that Randykitty had assumed bad faith too soon. Since then, this has grossly escalated way out of proportion. Notwithstanding the rather heated tone coming from some of the editors' reactions to this issue (a tone which, while it can be understood, I do hope is reconsidered by the editors) I see it as extremely harsh to ban them. Fusedmilk (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fusedmilk: I'm impressed to see that an editor with just 4 edits found their way here. Dispute resolution is for resolving conflicts about content. Personal attacks and failure to assume good faith, which is the issue here, go to ANI. --Randykitty (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Randykitty: I came here and started following this issue when my user name was mentioned above (because I had recently made a small edit in the Democracy & Nature page). I am not saying I am a Wikipedia expert (I still have a tiny editing history anyway), but I would say I have been familiarising myself with the regulations to the degree of being able to positively contribute here. As I said above, my opinion is that the issue escalated needlessly, as bad faith was assumed (and hence brought to ANI) too quickly from you. Fusedmilk (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Randykitty, I am also very impressed by your ‘impartial’ zeal to have any possible reject vote of your proposal dismissed. Shall we assume on the basis of your comment on Fusedmilk’s reject vote that only full-time Wikipedia editors, (who could not possibly have the time to do any other job when they make over 60,000 edits in over two years), do qualify to make comments in Wikipedia? Very interesting thought but I want to hear also the views of other administrators on this, not just yours and the couple of your editor friends.165.120.27.172 (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong with "part-time" editors commenting here, but it is slightly unusual for an editor's fourth ever edit to be to a noticeboard such as this and to demonstrate knowledge of the dispute resolution process. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • • And let's not forget that this editor came back after a 4+ year break, to edit Democracy and Nature with their 2nd edit during the dispute. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And there's nothing wrong about not being "impartial" towards editors that engage in tendentious COI editing and personal attacks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excellent. Taking for granted what we have to prove is a very convenient way to dispense 'justice'.165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not at all. I have been steadfastedly NPOV in my edits to articles. Nothwithstanding my clear POV against disruptive editors like you. --Randykitty (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, but don’t pretend to be an impartial observer, a kind of a fair judge because you obviously are not, unless we talk about a complete travesty of justice. You are obviously very much involved in this and you simply cannot decide whose view should be taken into account and whose not. I HOPE OTHER TRULY NON-INVOLVED ADMINISTRATORS WILL EXPRESS THEIR VIEW ON THE MATTER WHICH, DUE TO RANDYKITTY’S VENDETTA, HAS ALREADY TAKEN THE FORM OF A W/P SCANDAL165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I couldn't agree more! --Randykitty (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per above the editors and IP in question have shown repeated and unrepentant uncivil behaviour, including various personal attacks, and have shown they cannot edit neutrally and level-headedly in light of their conflict of interest. WP:SPA certainly apply. Even on this ANI, half the content is an uncivil tirade. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think we should be cautious when we characterize the others as having a Conflict of Interest. Particularly so since as I tried to demonstrate above I feel the accused editors acted bona fide and while the debate was taking place tried to address the -considered as sensible- issues raised in the entry by the "punisher". As about the behavior, the history of his deletion attempt and the recurrent rush by our accuser to ask for debatable dictations "accidentally" only to that entry, I think are enough to show who acted on bad faith and who not.Panlis (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• John sargis's user name suggests that he is the assistant editor of the current version of the journal. That's a pretty big potential conflict of interest. When he then adds unsourced material on big-name contributors to the journal to the article, we have a COI problem. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Cordless Larry, what exactly do you mean with unsourced material? As I can see in the diff you sent, editor John Sargis just added a list of the "International Advisory Board up to the last issue of D&N" and at the same time rightly removed the reoccurring names from the list of Contributors. I think it's very common sense that a Journal's Advisory Board can be straightly and easily deducted from the Primary Source itself (i.e. the Journal). Adding straightforward, non-interpretive material from the primary source is a clear case in which there is no need for another source to support it, per WP:PRIMARY as well: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Panlis (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No source was cited, despite the fact that he had already been reverted with a request for sources. Perhaps the more relevant point is that there is a clear COI here. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The behaviour of Panlis, John Sargis and the IP in this thread alone makes me put aside my usual oppose on principle against sanctions proposed by an involved party. Blackmane (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Blackmane and Pincrete. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Blackmane and Pincrete, based on issues related to editor conduct. As some may have seen, I have added an edit to the article talk page recently, after seeing the discussion here, but I was basically too damn lazy to read through this whole thing here. But the conduct seems to be getting worse over time, unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Bad Conduct is an easy thing to generically blame someone for, but could you please indicate some genuine instances in which my conduct became a negative substitute for argumentation and justification of my sayings or edits from the moment the whole debate began up to now, and how it seems to be "getting worse over time" (!) ? Unless you mean that I should not make any poignant comments or expose a user's recurrent frantic multi-tagging editing tactics and historic bias on a subject, just because he happens to be "popular" because of his many edits, or else I will get a bad conduct discharge..! Panlis (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Responding to disclosure of a conflict of interest by heavy filibustering and attacking the messenger instead of taking a step back demands a response, and this seems more proportionate than a block. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @David Eppstein. "Disclosure of a conflict of interest"? Can you please indicate what my COI is (an accusation unacceptably implied by almost all "supporters" of my ban in here), or else I will have to take measures to protect myself from clear attempt of Harassment. By the way, it now seems most supporting votes took place by just repeating what Randykitty said, without giving even a glimpse at the course of events that brought the matter here, as I tried to demonstrate above. Panlis (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• support 66.87.115.78 (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject I have been a reader of the journal and frequently visited its entry among others on political philosophy and history and saw in the talk page the latest dispute and the proposal to ban John Sargis, who, in fact, was only an editorial assistant of D&N among many others, not an assistant editor. I do not see any conflict of interest on the part of John Sargis (just because he was assistant editor) and Panlis. Their edits seem in good faith. They reacted reasonably following Randykitty’s history and his unwillingness to take part in a discussion at D&N talk page and resolve the dispute- he almost immediately opened an indictment.Polimihanos (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC) — Polimihanos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Support Seems like another Instance of a Editor being drawn to ANI attempting to bury the opposition with massive walls of text and confusing and complex statements. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 18:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ThorLives' response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could continue, but you understand the point.

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

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

This isn't the place to discuss content dispute, which seems to represent almost the entire gist of ThorLives' response here; they have neither acknowledged nor apologised for their repeated gross violations of various Wikipedia policies. All I can say in response to their above post is that I (and others) had good reason to delete the non-reliably referenced, in some some cases not referenced at all, often sectarian, sometimes irrelevant, and at times factually incorrect statements that ThorLives had insisted on repeatedly adding to the article (at the expense of concise, academically-sourced information on this new religious movement which they repeatedly deleted). Wikipedia has clear guidelines surrounding Reliable Sources which ThorLives disregarded time and time again.

As to the claim that I am sock puppeting and that myself and Bhlegkorbh are one and the same individual, I completely and utterly deny the libelous accusations 100%. I am not, and never have, edited Wikipedia using the "Bhlegkorbh" account (Bhlegkorbh appears to have thrown in the towel and left Wikipedia in July 2014 anyway). ThorLives' claim rests in its entirety on the basis that, at different times, myself and "Bhlegkorbh" have expressed similar arguments and opinions about how the article can be improved (primarily by adding in material from academic studies of Heathenry and deleting un-referenced and poorly-referenced text). However, similar opinions (which would, IMO, be held by anyone familiar with Wikipedia's Manual of Style), have also at times been backed by the likes of User:Bloodofox - so by ThorLives' reasoning I guess that that must be simply be another of my accounts too! Frankly, I suspect that the accusations of sock puppetry launched against me by ThorLives are in part an attempt simply to distract attention from their own behaviour. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThorLives, why would anyone want a long quote about medieval or ancient beliefs (or in this instance lack of consistent beliefs) in the lead of an article about a modern revival? That kind of material MIGHT belong in later sections comparing modern/ancient or on the articles about the 'old'. I fear you are arguing from a different 'base' from WP guidelines. Pincrete (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

Ordinarily I would have waited until the edit warring got worse before bringing up the possibility of blocking/banning or anything like that, however when ThorLives started engaging in outing, which according to Wikipedia:Harassment is "grounds for an immediate block", I came to the opinion that the situation had become more serious and accordingly required a more serious response. (Also, in the spirit of disclosure for all readers, it probably is fair to say that myself and Snowded have had recent disagreements over content at Talk:UK Independence Party, which at points has become a little heated. That certainly doesn't invalidate their comment, but perhaps it is a factor that should be made clear - to use a colloquialism, we have history, as it were). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It just means I notice if your name comes up an ANI Midnight, its the way wikipedia works. Given that you seem well intentioned on the UK Independence issues I looked at this one to see if you needed any help, hence the comment ----Snowded ^TALK 00:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the talk, I get the impression that 'Thor' doesn't fully understand how WP works, in the event of nothing happening here, might I suggest this is a candidate for dispute resolution. Pincrete (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forms of dispute resolution, such as RFCs, have already been employed. ThorLives simply continued with many of their actions regardless, hence why there was the need to turn to the Administrators' Noticeboard. I agree with the statement that ThorLives doesn't appear to understand how Wikipedia works, however they have been repeatedly pointed to policies such as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources over at the Talk Page, so I do not believe that they can legitimately defend themselves through claiming an ignorance of policy. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

At the moment its a low level content dispute with some incivility from Thor who evidently does not understand how wikipedia works. I'm not sure he can be bothered finding out either but lets see how it plays out. This has come to ANI prematurely and should be closed. Normal process can handle it ----Snowded ^TALK 00:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about out WP:Harrassment policy, which states very clearly that "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block"? There can be no doubt that ThorLive engaged in attempted outing? Why are administrators turning a bling eye and the regulations being ignored in this instance? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 August 2015, I read the sentence "Politkovskaya was found dead in the lift, in her block of flats in central Moscow on 7 October 2006, the birthday of Vladimir Putin” in the ‘Murder, investigation and trial’ section of the article Anna Politkovskaya. I felt that the implied connection between the murder of Politkovskaya and Putin’s birthday was an innuendo bordering on libel and thus had no place in an encyclopedia. Therefore, I deleted it. It was immediately reinstated by user Lute88. I deleted it again with an explanation, but it was again reinstated by Lute88 without explanation. After this went on for some time, I brought the matter to the talk page of the article in the section ‘Putin's Birthday & the lead’. There, I found the support of an admin,Drmies. There ensued a heated discussion with another editor,My very best wishes, later joined by Lute88. Drmies explained why the mention of Putin’s birthday was inappropriate and said she was going to delete it. She did so and was immediately reverted by Lute88. After that, Lute88 made a post where he asked why he "was smelling something" and provided a link to a CNN article about Russian trolls paid by Putin. Drmies remarked that this was not funny and I asked her to convince him to stop because I would hate to take the matter further. He replied with this new post: "No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant…"

I asked him to take his words back, but he made no response. That decided me to bring the matter here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Againstdisinformation (talk • contribs) 22:50, 7 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that, absent some strong evidence of a connection, the death should not be linked to Putin's birthday, this is essentially a content dispute and should be dealt with on the article's talk page. BMK (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMK I may be wrong but I believe that Againstdisinformation is here to for Lute88 to "take back" the comment 'No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant' - it seems the content dispute has been sorted. Flat Out (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that, but Antidisinformation threw around words like "libel" and "slander" in the discussion from the very beginning, which is now getting pretty darn close to violating WP:NLT, so he's not really in a position to demand anything from anybody. BMK (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Againstdisinformation there is no possibility of slander when no-one knows who you are. Both you and Lute88 have been edit warring and this is no way to solve a simple content dispute. The best way to resolve these kinds of disputes is to walk away and work on another article. As BMK notes above, you should read WP:NLT and I would add WP:3RR Flat Out (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certanly no edit-warring on my part. Antidisinformation however is an SPA that has been edit-warring with a lot of people on Russia-related articles, with total disregard for consensus, RS, 3RR, with legal threats, and now - this. Simply preposterous.--Lute88 (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article that piqued my vigilance - http://news.yahoo.com/wikipedia-blocks-accounts-linked-paid-edits-200646137.html;_ylt=AwrC0wwVZ.9VMkQAeCPQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg-- .Lute88 (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with "vigilance". You just threw that at me as an insult out of frustration when you realised that sensible editors were on my side and you were prevented by an admin to reinstate your preposterous innuendo connecting Putin's birthday and Politkovskaya's murder. Your Russophobic passion has blinded you to the point of believing that anyone who doesn't share it is necessarily paid by the Kremlin. I sincerely hope you come back to your senses. Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And this is precisely what I warned you about in my previous comment here: groundless personal accusations. What "Russophobic passion"? Why? Any reasons for blaming Lute88 of this? It is an ethnically-motivated slander by you, much worse than expressing suggestion that someone might be a COI contributor. And you came here to complain about slander... My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, Flat Out is right, the dispute has already been sorted by the felicitous intervention of Drmies. However, I cannot agree that User:Lute88 can throw any kind of insults at me, just because he does not know my identity. I cannot agree either that I violated WP:NLT because I called a spade a spade. Yes, his accusation is slanderous and I am certain of what your reaction would be if it were thrown at you. Now, you say that I "threw around words like "libel" and "slander" in the discussion from the very beginning". I am afraid that your reading has been cursory. I didn't say at the very beginning that I had been libelled, I just tried to make my opponent aware that, the innuendo he made about Putin would without any doubt be considered libel in a court of law, unless he had incontrovertible evidence. Therefore, I think this has no place in an encyclopedia, which must remain neutral. He can always write this in The Daily Mirror, if he so wishes. Besides, I am not asking for a sanction, I would just like him to take back his words, which, I am sorry to say, I take as an insult. In any case, it's a great comfort for me to see that you agree with me on substance. Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Againstdisinformation are you saying you have been libeled? Flat Out (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Out Yes, I consider that accusing me in no uncertain terms of being paid by the Kremlin for editing WP is slanderous. Againstdisinformation (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Againstdisinformation - they aren't withdrawing the comment, which is why you came here, so might be best to move on. Flat Out (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The more that is said here, the more confused I become. It's becoming impossible to tell who is supposedly being libeled, slandered or whatever. Since the dispute apparently has been sorted it would be best to drop the matter. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm fairly confused as well. Saying that person A murdered person X on person 3's birthday is clearly not libel for the person 3 unless it's also implied that person 3 supported or sanctioned the murder. While I can't recall any examples offhand, there have definitely been cases when nutty person A have done something (whether murder or whatever) out of their "love" for person 3, where person 3 is horrified by the actions. It may be libel for person A who did the murder to give them incorrect motiviations, but while we should get these things right, I'm not sure libel is ever our biggest concern for murderers even if it's theoretically there. (Of course calling them murderers when they are not would raise more serious libel concerns.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Nil Einne, I undersand why there may be confusion, there are two cases. The object of the dispute between User:Lute88 and me is the sentence: "Politkovskaya was found dead in the lift, in her block of flats in central Moscow on 7 October 2006, the birthday of Vladimir Putin”. I mentioned to User:Lute88 that, in a court of law, this would without any doubt be considered libel, and I added that, moreover, it was preposterous. This was my argument why it should be removed from the article. A number of editors have agreed with me and this matter is now settled. Note that, at that point, i did not accuse him of slandering me, of course, I am not Mr. Putin. However, he was unhappy with the decision taken by admin Drmies and lashed out at me on the talk page of the article, a first time asking why he "was smelling something" and providing a link to a CNN article about Russian trolls paid by Putin. That was already very offensive but, after he was admonished by User:Drmies, who told him it was not funny, he added "No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant…". This is this direct accusation that I am paid by the Kremlin for editing WP which, in my strongly felt opinion, is slanderous. I asked him to take his words back, but he wouldn't. This is why I took the matter here. As I have already said, I am not seeking a sanction against him, I just would very much like that he be told to take back his words. If he did, that would be the end of the matter for me. Againstdisinformation (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What say we save ourselves a lot of time and angst and ban Againstdisinformation as being a painfully obvious Warrior For Truth? Guy (Help!) 13:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. However, it would also be important to zap the part about Putin's birthday from the article in question, unless there's a reliable source demonstrating that it's a notable fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually more than a dozen of such sources. It is a notable fact given the circumstances and that's how sources treat it. Volunteer Marek  20:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy If you want to ban me for "being a painfully obvious Warrior For Truth" as you elegantly put it, you should leave the innuendo about Putin and give a medal to Lute88 for slandering me, at least that would be consistent. 13:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Againstdisinformation (talk)[reply]

• Ah yes. I did in fact support the removal of that one clause, and I gave my reasons on the talk page, though it may be difficult to find between all the mud-slinging. I don't see libel or slander, just a couple of editors with their own POV bitching at each other. This is NPA territory, as far as I'm concerned, and I urged the two editors to tone it down, clearly to no avail. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• User Againstdisinformation is clearly engaged in WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAP by starting irrelevant and contentions discussions like here, demanding an apology like here and by edit-warring on multiple pages. I think this is a textbook example of WP:NOTHERE, a "disruption only" account. My very best wishes (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but! if it weren't for them that silly "coincidence" would still be in the article. Gadflies are irritating but sometimes necessary--if only this one wasn't so loquacious. (First time I wrote that word! Woohoo!) Drmies (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As should be clear from sources already provided on the talk page by VM and others, this is not a silly coincidence, but something considered significant in multiple RS. Yes, this must be better described and better sourced - I agree. But here is the question: even if you consider his removal on this page a positive contribution, did it worth wasting other people time by starting this ANI thread, other soap-like discussions (link above) and edit wars on a number of pages? However, this is probably a question only WP:AE can answer. If he/she will not be blocked now, I would expect a prolonged drama and waste of time on numerous page. This is already a pattern. My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, now you agree that there was a problem with the page but, never mind that I pointed it out (like a number of others) and got insulted by Lute88 for it, he is making us lose time. Let's just ban him and these pesky issues of inaccuracies will disappear. Why then did you, volunteer Marek and Lute88 consistently refuse to discuss the issue with me on the article's talk page, if your only concern was to save the community's time? On this waste of time, I beg to differ. There should be a whole team of editors dedicated to tracking inaccuracies (disinformation) if instead of using WP to further an agenda, we want to preserve it as a repository of knowledge anyone can trust.

Lute88, My very best wishes, Volunteer Marek and Ymblanter are all defending the same POV, roughly stated: Russia is evil. This is their right. However, my goal is to help (as much as my capacities allow) to rid Wikipedia of inaccuracies or, worse, disinformation. I knew this would not attract much sympathy but I did not expect a witch hunt. Now, there is a whole group who share a strongly felt common point of view on everything that concerns Russia and they are hellbent on having me out, because I am an irritant to them. It's very funny that I am accused of WP:BATTLE wwhen Lute88 has erased, without trying to discuss with me, any single edit I made in the last ten days. Now, My very best wishes promised him to help him on the ANI and, of course, here he is trying to put me in as bad a light as he can. This is very sad. I would have preferred, as I have asked many times, a reasoned discussion on the substance of the issues I raised, but I have been consistently dismissed by them.I think this is a loss of time. Why could he not just acknowledge that he went a bit too far when he accused me of being paid by Putin? I would just have said ok, that's alright and all this would not even have started. Againstdisinformation (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Volunteer Marek and Ymblanter are all defending the same POV, roughly stated: Russia is evil" - Didn't you just show up here to whine about how you're bring "slandered"? Volunteer Marek  20:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Making factually incorrect statements and accusing others without evidence on the ANI is a very bad idea. In particular, (a) no one refused to discuss anything with you (there are very long discussions on article talk pages by numerous users), (b) none of the users you mentioned have "evil" POV you stated, (c) at least three users (including me) on the article talk page did not agree with your removal of this info (this is something debatable), (d) I did not promise Lute88 to "help" on the ANI, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is making factually incorrect statements. Let me quote you: "I know these subjects and might be willing to help with sourcing, but discussing anything with such guys again is something I would rather not do". This is taken from the 'A comment' section of Lute88' talk page, which is entirely devoted to me. It's absolutely your right to come to his defense, but this shows also that you were, let's say, reluctant to discuss the issue with me. And where did I ever state that any user had an "evil" POV? Everyone of us has a POV and it would be ludicrous to describe any POV as "evil". It is precisely through the confrontation of POVs that we can hope to achieve impartiality or, at least, consensus. Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to continue this discussion here. As others have said, there's no point demanding someone apologise, and ANI isn't the place for that any way. The rest is a content dispute which can be resolved either on the article talk page, or via some other method of WP:dispute resolution. Nil Einne (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, I think you are right. This has gone on for too long now and we might as well leave it at that. However, I am not asking an apology from Lute88, I am just asking him to take back his claim that I am paid by the Kremlin. He does not have to apologise, he can just say that he didn't really mean what he said and all would be forgotten. Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still not something for ANI, at most a single request on the editor's talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the short amount of time Againstdisinformation has been actively 'editing' here, there's been an awful lot of community time sunk into "I've been hard done by" agitation, and "I'm here to right great wrongs" (i.e., WP:NOTHERE). It grew very WP:TEDIOUS some time ago (see this and this ANI). Jangled nerves, hurt feelings, and complaints every time there's a personality clash do not make for useful gadflies but, rather, a needy entity who confuses experienced editors over what the real issue at stake is. There's been no lack of patience been shown the user by other editors, yet the ICANTHEARYOU attitude persists. I truly believe that Againstdisinformation needs to gain more experience in editing articles s/he doesn't feel emotionally invested in before jumping into contentious areas of Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Harpy I agree with you on one point. ANI was not the proper venue for the dispute between Lute88 and me. I have come to realize this. It is unhelpful and a great loss of time, especially for me. I am reluctant by nature to report anyone as I have already told Lute88. This is the first and last time I do it. However, Lute88 has been erasing almost every edit I made in the last ten days, without any explanation. I did not complain. He only entered the discussion on the talk page of the article Anna Politkovskaya after an admin agreed with me and deleted the contentious phrase. He also reverted her but she told him she would have none of it. Probably not happy with this, he suggested I was paid by the Kremlin. The admin told him that this was not funny and I asked him to take back his words. His response was: 'No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant.’ Is this civil behaviour ? Now, I don’t see why you provide links to two ANI, which are supposed to shed a bad light on my behavior. The first one was brought against me by Reaganomics88 about misplaced quotation marks. An edit already long since corrected and for which I had apologized (talking of wasting the community’s time). The second ANI was brought against Reaganomics by a third editor and I have nothing to do with it. It's true that, in trying to improve what I perceive as biased articles, I have attracted a lot of animosity, but I challenge you to find a single instance of rudeness, threats or complaints on my part. I have always tried (without much success) to discuss the content and I have never made any ad hominem attack. Againstdisinformation (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Againstdisinformation: You're working on the premise that being uncivil is easily identified by personal attacks. No, it is not that cut and dry. Read WP:IUC on Other uncivil behaviours. Introducing this to the talk page of the "2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine" was not determined by your wanting to 'improve Wikipedia', but to behave in an intentionally disruptive and provocative manner (aside from canvassing/advertising for fellow 'righteous' brother and sisters in arms to join you in your battle for the truth). After this was removed from the talk page, you reinstated it twice after two editors had already removed it. There's no small irony in the fact that you've painted yourself as being the victim of Groupthink, yet you're trying to enlist like-minded editors to create your own Groupthink battalion... and all after you have had numerous editors patiently (escalating to impatiently) trying to explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and your responding with what have become obviously ingenuous apologies for the error of your ways, and that you now know better and won't repeat them. Is stuffing beans up your nose just a compulsion you can't shake, or is this evidence that you're WP:NOTHERE in any shape or form, and have no intention of trying to be HERE? 'But I've never made any personal attacks' does not make you a civil editor: it just means that you want to WP:GAME the system by hook or by crook. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indef block Againstdisinformation until such time that they can understand the difference between a snippy remark and a full on personal attack, until such time that they understand that badgering the opposition (through repeated and loquacious postings) does not make for a collaborative editing environment, until such time that they have familiarized themselves with wikipedia rules/policy/practices/guidelines including WP:RGW. Reading this complaint provides nothing more than a single editor doubling down on doubling down on a content problem. We've already expended enough time/energy on this editor without extracting certain guarantees of improved behavior. Hasteur (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef block for Againstdisinformation. The reason: she/he continue making factually incorrect accusations against other users right on this noticeboard, even after being warned about it. In particular, Againstdisinformation complained about being followed by Lute88 who allegedly refused to discuss. But in fact just the opposite occurred on this page. As clear from the editing history, it was Againstdisinformation who came to revert edit by Lute88, not the other way around (unless another red-linked account was an alternative account of Againstdisinformation). And it was Lute88 who started discussion on this article talk page [10], but received no response from Againstdisinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that it is OK to frivolously accuse an editor to be "paid by the Kremlin" and that not understanding that it is just a "snippy remark" deserves being indefinitely blocked then, please, do it. I am used to polite academic debate, not to trading insults. This is the last post I make to explain my perception of what happened, I am growing tired of an almost palpable aggressivity on the part of some editors. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was OK. This is not OK. Once again, you accuses someone of something he never did or said. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My very best wishes is mistaken in saying that Againstdisinformation is "a 'disruption only' account"; he/she contributed usefully at Talk:Yulia Tymoshenko#Allegations of torture. As for whether he/she is paid to edit, I can only suggest the WP:Duck test.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see only one minor edit by Againstdiscrimination on this page. Is it all one can tell in favor of this user? I am not even sure this edit was an improvement because it has been reverted later by FPS. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: your link is to the article page; look at the talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is my reading of this. Timoshenko was put in prison by Yanukovich government for political reasons. That is what sources tell. Againstdisinformation is trying to minimize significance of this by referring to a remotely relevant primary source. I can't blame FPS who reverted this in the article (diff above). This is not a positive contribution by Againstdisinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, I do not think that Againstdisinformation is a disruption only account but they have shown a long term pattern of disruptive editing that appears to push a pro-Russian agenda. They have a tendency to twist the truth for their convenience and portray themselves as a victim of aggression whenever they do not get their own way (I personally found myself accused of being part of some kind of shady conspiracy that had been formed to act against them). I think some kind of admin intervention is needed as the rules have been explained to them countless times yet they show no signs of improving their behaviour. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that ADI is talk page harassing people who are opposing them on their talk pages Hasteur (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, slander and libel, that's not really what is happening here. If Againstdisinformation is indefinitely blocked, it's probably because they talk too much. The posts on the talk pages of Hasteur and Reaganomics are a bit silly, and unwise, but it doesn't rise to the level of harassment. Lute88's comments aren't really sanctionable, but they're very uncollegial, and thus also unwise. Now, that I happen to agree with Againstdisinformation on that birthday thing in that one article doesn't mean I don't consider their edits to exhibit a pro-Russian slant. So I'm torn a bit, not in the least because the stubborn resistance to the birthday thing revealed a similar contrasting POV from the other side; I can't help but wonder what would have happened if I hadn't come along and played the admin. I'm pretty sure that Againstdisinformation wouldn't have been able to solve that problem by themselves, since their comments are simply too wordy and their tone too sarcastic, besides having that POV. So yeah, I'll break a lance for them, just a little bit, but that's also because I am a bit disappointed with the opponents. (Not Volunteer Marek, of course, who I despise for football-related reasons.) Drmies (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I talked with him, but did not see anything encouraging. For example, the way he mentioned you here is troubling. My very best wishes (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not troubling that he/she wrote that "it didn't convince Drmies either". Nor is it troubling that he/she asked you sarcastically "do you believe that she [Drmies] too is on the Kremlin's payroll?"-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he/she made this edit. I asked what they know about the subject from secondary RS [11]. They did not respond to the question, but said that sources are not important because he/she knows everything already ("Even if I was an alien and I didn't know anything about Russia, the story would still sound preposterous to me" [12]) and implicitly accuses me of supporting claim by Lute88 that I do not support at all [13]. His/her problem is not being "too wordy", but inability (or lack o desire) to contribute constructively to the project. Hence indeff. My very best wishes (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I dislike indeffing a new editor who's made productive edits, but after a decade-plus on Wikipedia, I don't think I can recall as many as a half-dozen cases where an attitude problem like this calms down to be a productive, civil editor. (I can recall quite a few of the MickMacNees of the world, where a large enough edit count somehow allows them to make hundreds of uncivil edits with impunity.) Better nip this one in the bud. Ravenswing 11:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I will not comment on the indefblock, but the claim that I defend[ing the same] POV, roughly stated: Russia is evil is laughable. Last time I was dragged on ANI it was a troublesome Ukrainian user claiming I am a strong pro-Russian POV pusher.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So either you're an equal-opportunity offender or just a pro-Slav activist. Or you can't make up your mind and should read Dante's Inferno, Canto 3, as a warning. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If I sum up all accusations in power-pushing in my 8 years here pro-Slav sounds too narrow: I am also pro-Armenian, pro-Azeri, pro-German and I think it was smth else. Inferno, Canto 3 I definitely read several times (in translation; now I should try the original). Sounds the closest to my situation.Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support an indef block for Againstdisinformation. They show no signs of improving and the key issues have been dragging on for months now.

They appear to be on Wikipedia chiefly to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (or at least perceived wrongs).

They have responded in a combative manner to multiple editors and behaved in a manner that violates WP:WQ. This in particular has caused me a great deal of grief personally, just recently I was asked "can you behave like this and still look at yourself in the mirror?" I have lost count of the number of attacks this user has made on myself and other users. If these were isolated incidents then I would believe that just a warning would suffice. However it is clearly a greater trend and is causing damage to the community. This user has to be stopped. Reaganomics88 (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, indef him!!! Good idea! And then we give a medal to Lute88! Sorry, just joking. In my view Lute88 is trying to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view, which btw, is strictly forbidden according to the behavioral guideline of gaming the system. Keep in mind that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. However, Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I agree with Ravenswing , we ought to nip this one in the bud. This is not just about the issue with Lute88, this about a greater civility and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS issue. This user has been warned countless times yet continued to persist with their behaviour. Reaganomics88 (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think admins might be willing to give Againstdisinformation a little more "rope", however, without having any promises that he will stop making irrelevant political rants (like here [14], [15]) or ridiculously confrontational comments (like here), I am afraid this is going to continue. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I also think that's what happening. Note that I am not swinging my admin tool (yet) here since I am interested in more opinions; clearly too many admins are already bored by the topic and aren't weighing in. That's a shame. As for those three diffs, I think I read AD the riot act about that forum post, and the personal accusation ("go see your shrink"), if I had seen that I might have blocked for it on the spot. More of that, since it does add up, will no doubt lead to a block and they better beware. I mean, Putin is paying me some serious cash (actually, he's paying me in confiscated Dutch cheeses), but there are limits to my loyalty. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I my opinion Lute88, should be blocked for disruptive editing. He is clearly trying to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view. Ref.

• Revision as of 21:57, 7 September 2015
• Revision as of 23:31, 1 September 2015
• Revision as of 01:44, 1 September 2015
• Revision as of 00:25, 31 August 2015

Volunteer Marek and Skere789 should be warned too. Ref:

• Revision as of 20:25, 13 September 2015 Updated 13 September 2015
• Revision as of 19:25, 13 September 2015 Updated 13 September 2015
• Revision as of 06:51, 7 September 2015
• Revision as of 19:17, 7 September 2014

Erlbaeko (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the difference between Lute88 and Againstdisinformation. In the diff you provided [16] Lute88 restores a fair summary of something that a reliable source tells. It is enough to make translation of the title from Russian: "Politkovskaya and Putin. Day of death and day of birth." (Политковская и Путин. День смерти и день рождения.). The source does make such connection, and for a number of good reasons. Author of the publication is a well known and a highly respected journalist. A lot of other RS tells exactly the same, as has been already noted on the talk page [17]. On the other hand, "Againstdisinformation" is a perfect "warrior for the truth" who removes this info only because it seems "preposterous" to him [18] and without providing any sources on the subject he does not know and does not want to know (the diff is response to my question on what they read about this). Yes, I agree that Lute88 was wrong. She had to remain civil and rise concerns, if any, on an appropriate noticeboard, such as WP:COINB in this case. Does it warrant this long ANI discussion? No, I do not think so. This long discussion had happened only because of the highly problematic behavior by user Againstdisinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also another difference. Againstdisinformation use the talk page. Lute88 does not. That is true until an admin intervene. First post on that talk page by Lute88 is this: Revision as of 22:00, 7 September 2015, three minutes after the users fourth revert.

And no, a translation of the title is not enouth. Maybe you can translate this part? "Был ли это подарок ему, или, напротив, кто-то хотел напакостить? Или это мистическое совпадение? Мы не будем гадать сегодня.". This is nothing but speculations and it does violate WP:NPOV to include it. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the entire publication it is abundantly clear that it does make such connection: someone killed her on Putin's birthday because she criticized Putin personally. Same claim appears in a large number of English language RS (diff above). As, about "contributions" by Againsdisinformation on this article talk page, here they are (in chronological order): 1st comment, 2nd comment, 3d comment, and so on. It would be much better if he did not take part in this discussion with such comments. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to translate it, maybe you can verify the Google translation of the article? Does the part I quoted translate to; "Was it a gift to him, or, on the contrary, someone wanted to play a prank? Or is it a mystical coincidence? We will not speculate today." or is Google wrong? Erlbaeko (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a place to discuss translations and sources. Please see discussion on article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you brought it up here. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Againstdisinformation just received a topic ban, however his problem is not a bias in a narrowly defined subject area, but telling something that is simply not true about other users (and he does it even during standing ANI request [19],[20]), and irrelevant political rants [21]. BTW, he did receive previously an official WP:AE warning [22]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @My very best wishes: Where did Antidisinformation receive a topic ban? I can't find it. BMK (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here, at the bottom. He/she removed the notice from their talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't realize it was a AC/DS sanction. BMK (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, Volunteer Marek was also warned. He/she also removed the notice from their talk page. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've gone completely WP:OFFTOPIC here, Erlbaeko. Stop finger-pointing in order to play out your personal animosities: or are you just shopping? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that warning was connected to this case, and so is this edit warring report against Beyond My Ken, which btw, was closed without any action against him. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erlaebko, as Iryna points out you are only here to pursue grudges, and in your attempts to shop for blocks you've completely managed to hijack this thread (putting aside your false statements). Keep going please - in my experience that's a pretty quick way to get yourself blocked. Volunteer Marek  15:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop speculating about my motives for commenting here. It may be seen as a personal attack. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Yes, under such circumstances I feel compelled to take it on good faith that you have absolutely no 'personal' agenda per this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this on another Eastern Europe article you've never been involved in before and, presumably, forgot to read through its 9 talk pages. Your lack of POV interest is duly noted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is just another personal attack on me, and totally off topic. Btw, you are welcome to comment on the discussion I started regarding the verifiability of that info. It's here. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persistently invoking 'personal attack' does not make it so. I am making a candid and verifiable observation as to your behaviour. Again, looking at the discussions (plural) you've started on that article's talk page merely confirms that you haven't read the current talk page, nor the archived talk pages. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edits on the War in Donbass-article are in no way related to this dispute, which essentially deals with the behavior of editors in a content dispute (whether Putin's birthday should be linked to the murder of Anna Politkovskaya, or not). Please, restrict your comments to that case, and stop commenting on the contributors to this discussion. Note that repeated "personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." Erlbaeko (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oliv0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Lebob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Azurfrog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Schlum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello, 4 users from the French Wikipedia (single purpose accounts on the English Wikipedia to "gain control of the page") are threatening to disclose my identity. This come after an edit war that was closed in my favor and the other side bannished for H24. They can not discuss changes in the articles with edit justification so they have to go through personal attacks. One user warned them about that personal attacks are useless to justify changes, but they continue their threat on that other user. Please note that these users have pushed until 4 times (See here and here!!) of the deletion of the related article of Asselineau and finally changed their position to maintain the article but to influence as a group on the content for the article (by azurfrog who lead the team).

• Oliv0 (talk) threatening "[[User:D0kkaebi]]=[[User:Lawren00]], who is well-known as a high-ranking member and activist of this micro-party" revealing my previous nickname that was changed for privacy issue
• Lebob (talk) threatening "As such this would not disturb me too much if it would also not appear that he has endorsed medium or high level responsibilities in the UPR organization, which he has never disclosed (at least to the best of my knowledge)"
• Azurfrog (talk) threatening "shouldn't we, after all, state who D0kkaebi/Lawren00 really is? Shouldn't we disclose his exact rank [http://www.upr.fr/responsables within the Popular Republican Union organization, since he never did it himself?" and "shouldn't D0kkaebi/Lawren00 have immediately disclosed (on his talk page and in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions) that he is a high ranking member of PRU"]
• Oliv0 (talk) justifying his personal attacks by doing other personal attacks after being warned that his personal attacks dont help solving the edit war
• Azurfrog (talk) continuing on personal attacks against user who warned them
• Schlum (talk) who is the origin if this personal attack something tells me it’s D0kkaebi aka Lawren00, member of UPR team
• Lebob (talk) saying my I get approval from UPR party to participate in Wikipedia

I will wait the result of this request before requesting an oversight. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior of those users is ridiculous (apparently they don't know or care about WP:OWN); however, in none of those diffs did I see anyone threaten to out you. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@D0kkaebi: I see on your user talk page that you are asking that others not refer to you by a prior user name. Is that the outing of which you are speaking? If so, providing a diff to when someone referred to you by that name, or whatever other name you consider outing, would be helpful. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Erpert, I don't know where I stand on this one yet, but "shouldn't we, after all, state who D0kkaebi/Lawren00 really is? " is pretty damn clear. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, guess I missed that part. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How should D0kkaebi's suspected Conflict of Interest be best dealt with?

Erpert, Drmies and John Carter: my remark, "shouldn't we, after all, state who D0kkaebi/Lawren00 really is?" meant nothing more than what Schlum just stated below, with appropriate public links showing that Lawren00/D0kkaebi is indeed a very senior lieutenant of François Asselineau within his organization. At the very least, there is enough readily available information to authorize legitimate misgivings about D0kkaebi's "neutrality".
Reminder: "references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing"..
From which I gather that this entire discussion on these so-called "Threat of Outing / Personal Attacks" is groundless, since they are all based upon "still-existing, self-disclosed information". --Azurfrog (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So did you check the link you are posting? Did you read the first sentence? Let me quote that for you just in case you missed it: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." Now can you give us a link where Laurent Pawlowski from UPR is claiming being member of Wikipedia under the nickname D0kkaebi? And vice-versa, do you have a link where user:D0kkaebi is claiming being Laurent Pawlowski from UPR? Unless you give us a link that expressly shows that, those information are not voluntarily posted. You are threatening of outing and this, "whether any such information is accurate or not". D0kkaebi (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are outing yourself here, nobody mentioned your name, only your well-known affiliation to the party when you are the main contributor to the articles about the party and its leader. Oliv0 (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well, D0kkaebi... Thank you for coming out at long last, just as I recommended.
As for myself, I abstained from ever mentioning your personal information, even though you should have.
Now then, you still have to state to which degree you fall within the scope of Wikimedia Foundation: Disclosure of Paid Editing.
And please keep in mind: Many believe that users with a potential conflict of interest should engage in transparent collaboration, requiring honest disclosure of paid contributions. Making contributions to the Wikimedia projects without disclosing payment or employment may also lead to legal ramifications --Azurfrog (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced this kind of "affiliation" (local party leader) is what is meant in WP:DISCLOSEPAY, but in WP:COI certainly, and I now discover (sorry for not being an experienced editor here) that WP:COIN is the right place to go and then allows use of {{Connected contributor}} {{COI}} etc. So since you know best about your conclusion of COI in the French AfD for the party leader Asselineau (and you may remember the results of the simple Google search you mention which then gave more useful results from social networks), maybe you could do it? Oliv0 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COIN certainly seems an appropriate place to report such a conflict of interest as the one we have to deal with. However, I am not convinced either that it does not fall under WP:DISCLOSEPAY: after all, it is difficult to claim that that a local party leader is not an "affiliate" of his own party, even as defined by WP ("Affiliation refers to other connections that might be relevant"). But you are right, we should probably start by reporting on WP:COIN. --Azurfrog (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: I will have no or little Internet access (in the mountains) for 6 days starting this afternoon, so I will not be able to answer here or help on COIN. Oliv0 (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Oliv0 - Lebob - D0kkaebi - Schlum

I just started a request on WP:COIN here.
So, D0kkaebi, I finally fulfilled what you called my "threat": that is, not "out" personal information about you, but simply disclose your close connection with François Asselineau and his party, as you should have done in the first place.
Now, on WP as well as anywhere else, I do not think that threatening to place a legitimate request disclosing this connection and the resulting conflict of interest - as I just did - can in any way be considered as a "personal attack". --Azurfrog (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

All 4 users notified. Userlinks added to top of thread. Blackmane (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I listed all the personal threats above. There are several. If you need additional explanation or links for evidence, let me know. By the way, shall I request for oversight, or shall I wait the result of this incident? I do not feel comfortable seeing my previous nickname and that I am paid by UPR for my contributions on wikipedia D0kkaebi (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks or threats in the 2 diffs by me above (I put a nowiki in the first one since it did not display the diff). Outing would mean personal details not already known, but the French AfD I refer to in the first diff mentions at a prominent place as an important fact that Lawren00 is the Lawren00 that could at that time (much less now) be seen on social networks as an activist from the micro-party Popular Republican Union (2007) and among those shown as local leaders on the party's website. The correspondence between D0kkaebi and Lawren00 is something I saw in "What links here" on User:D0kkaebi after I noticed an edit war in which D0kkaebi, who first started undoing disputable changes by Francis Le français, then used the opportunity to modify even more with a definite POV. So I believe this mention of a "POV by D0kkaebi/Lawren00" in the talk page is useful to editors, so that they can have a better view of his frequent arguments and of the possible edit wars on Popular Republican Union (2007) and François Asselineau. As for Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure mentioned in the talk page, I do not think he is paid anything by the micro-party, his POV is rather out of personal conviction. Oliv0 (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your diff mentions half a sentence and your comments on the talk page about personal attacks is 4 lines + 20 from your crew. You justified your revert on several topics and summarized by " addition of "gaullism", "centrist" and removal of section about Internet activism certainly goes against NPOV, article improved by undoing this". Just to discuss one claim, Centrism has been extensively discussed on the talk page here and the only undoubtedly neutral user participating in the page, Ravenswing , concluded that the proper translation for English native is "centrist". I did not agree neither as I preferred "syncretic" but since Ravenswing is neutral, I apply his proposal as a proper consensus. I do not understand why your opinion should prevail on previous discussions and consensus reached on the talk page. Is it because you are admin on the French wikipedia or related to many of them and used to impose your POV without prior discussions? I hope not, and thus, please discuss on the talk before imposing your opinion. D0kkaebi (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) My edit summary you quote just above was clear, and your assertion is false that on the talk page in the link you mention @Ravenswing: would have said that "centrist" is a good English word for what the micro-party calls "neither left nor right / above left and right" (that is, focusing on anti-europeanism and not on left-right divisions).

And you should certainly not be the one demanding that any modification from other users should first get your approval on the talk page, given your known POV as a local leader of this party (btw, I just had a look at WP:DISCLOSEPAY and it is not clear to me if this counts or not as an "affiliation" that has to be disclosed). Oliv0 (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you say Ravenswing did not say "centrist" is the proper word to describe UPR's political positioning? It does not look like you even checked the link. Rather than interpretation, I'll just quote his words "We need pay no attention to what a Frenchman would call "centrist" -- what matters is what your average English-speaker would think of as "centrist".". This is the best evidence that you just impose your POV without even checking prior discussions and even ignoring others' input. I did not agree with him, but I agree on the logic he brought for the sake of the consensus. So who is not neutral here? D0kkaebi (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are being non neutral, @Ravenswing: only said that the English word is not to be avoided because of the French meaning, which does not say it is the appropriate word in English. In fact, "centrist" and "gaullism" mentioned in my edit summary quoted above and probably even "syncretic" are all a POV attempt at a more positive vocabulary than the sources. Oliv0 (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so let's summary. The sources says "neither right nor left", so I write this in the article but that's a POV. Another user suggests that syncretic would be more understandable for English Native but that's a POV. Then Ravenswing write instead "centrism" in the article, then it is debated on the talk page, but that's also a POV. In brief, everything not inputted by yourself is a POV. Do we understand correctly the logic of Oliv0pedia? D0kkaebi (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to the independent sources, that is not POV. So far you did not mention Ravenswing wrote "centrism" in the article, the talk page is more important and does not conclude "centrism".

Also please stop saying everybody else has a POV, wants to impose the French WP on the English WP and wants to control the article that they think their WP:OWN, since everybody now saw your POV and COI as a local official of the party who wants to control the article that you think your WP:OWN. Oliv0 (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, and nothing which is not public here ; User:Lawren00 is a redirection to User:D0kkaebi, Lawren00 having public Twitter account with his name ([23]), and this guy telling everything about him and his relations with the UPR on Facebook public page ([24]). Btw, as he is in the board team of the UPR and is quite heavily implicated in the redaction & maintenance of François Asselineau and Popular Republican Union (2007) (with strong Wikipedia:Conflict of interest), doing edit wars with many users on both articles, he should provide the information on his user page by the WMF rules (at least if he receives financial compensations for his activities). Schlum (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC) PS : my contributions list on en WP show that I’m far from being the WP:SPA User:D0kkaebi is on the PRU & F. Asselineau subject… Schlum (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Come on now, D0kkaebi! Is it a "personal attack" or a "personal threat" to suggest that you disclose your relationship with François Asslineau and his Popular Republican Union, as it is central to understanding the reason behind your ongoing claim that most of the other contributors are "not neutral"?
On the other hand, you are now accusing me of being "a single-purpose account on the English WP"... Well, this is definitely not the case, even though I spent an undue amount of time recently on this matter.
Moreover, you are deliberately misquoting me as having said that we were trying to "gain control of the page"(please provide the exact wording), whereas practically all of your own contributions revolve around François Asselineau. Who's an SPA now?
Beyond that, I am a bit tired to see that everytime a thread on a talk page develops into a consensus against your opinion, you resort to administrators: as far as I am concerned, I can assure you that I have plenty of other interests beyond François Asselineau, and would be glad to leave the matter, were it not for the sustained edit-war raging around "his" articles (edit-war in which I have no part, as evidenced by my recent contributions to these articles, which have been extremely limited, or even non existent). --Azurfrog (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right, here is another thing. You have no interest for Asselineau topic, and you would like to move on. I guess that is the same motive that pushed you to go on the Lombard Wikipedia, not even respecting the users there since you do not speak "lombard" by requesting in English to suppress the page of Asselineau. Same thing on the Esperanto page or on the old English page. Do I need to list more to show your non-interest for the topic?

Now, when you and your crew have [nominated for the 4th time (!?!) the suppression of the Asselineau article], would you like me to remind the words of undoubtedly neutral English native users?

# Silverseren^C: "oppose French Wikipedia control AGAIN? Are you serious? The previous two AfDs ended in Keep and now people from French Wikipedia are, yet again, trying to control English Wikipedia." or "This is just French Wikipedia editors and administrators' trying to control content on other Wikipedias for subjects that they dislike and these actions are appalling."

# S Marshall T/C: "Keep per my detailed reasoning at the many previous AfDs and DRVs at which French users tried to get this article deleted on various spurious grounds. Also, while I'm doing the thing where you summarise your opinion using words in bold, I need to add surely not this AGAIN and this is not fr.wiki."

# Carrite (talk): "This entire nomination seems to me a POV-driven exercise and is highly disruptive."

In addition, note that that your WP:OWN and POV have discouraged the only undoubtedly neutral English contributors to the article, Ravenswing , quoting his word when invited to share his opinion here " given that this kind of nonsense is going to go on barring a big change, I don't have the mental energy to spare to play permanent watchdog for them."

And the cherry on the cake for the conclusion, here is the evidence that one member of your crew gathered people on the admin noticeboard to rule Wiki:en. Quoting the words of your friend LPLT: "Un courageux pour aller porter le fer sur cette wiki ? / Is there any courageous person to start a war on en:wiki?" I guess, that close the case regarding your neutrality. D0kkaebi (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aller porter le fer (lit. "go and carry the iron [sword]") is not "start a war" but "go to fight", here in the interest of neutrality against your well-known POV, a noble task for an admin but which unfortunately needs much "mental energy to spare to play permanent watchdog" indeed. Oliv0 (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, aller porter le fer does mean wage a war (and your explanation shows it perfectly clearly, by the way). You are wasting your/everybody's time here. The only issue discussed in this thread is: Did the users in question threaten to out D0kkaebi (on this Wikipedia)? The answer is obvious. It's a blatant yes. (Some of you even had the nerve to do it again in this very thread!).--Wr. Sr. (t) 09:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "Wage" (Oxford compact: "Carry on (a war or campaign)"), not "start".

I certainly did not threaten to "out", only warned about a user's WP:COI and "affiliation" (WP:DISCLOSEPAY: "Terms of Use prohibit (...) misrepresentation of affiliation", "Affiliation refers to other connections that might be relevant" which is not very clear, I am not sure it applies to the local leader of a party if he is not paid). Oliv0 (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's amazing to realize that I am now accused of being a single purpose by someone who has devoted a substantial part of his time on WP(en) to contribute to the articles François Asselineau and/or UPR. Just to get facts clear I am on WP(en) since November 2006 where I have 1144 contributions on 484 different pages. I don't think this is a shows the behavior of a single purpose account.

He is now telling that I would have threatened him but is unable to provide any evidence for this allegation. Unfortunately this is a recurring behavior with this contributor. Once he cannot enforce his POV in the articles he tries by any other mean to get his contradictors out of his way. During the last months/weeks he has started

• started a sockpuppet investigation against Francis Le français
• started a request for mediation on Popular_Republican_Union_(2007)
• looked for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aya_Laglare&diff=prev&oldid=678241295 support for other procedures against Francis Le français
• started an [edit warring procedure on the administrators noticeboard about Popular_Republican_Union_(2007)]]
• started an other procedure on the administrators noticeboard against Francis Le français
• and, last but not least, started yesterday this new procedure with unsubstantiated allegations.

I might have forgotten or not noticed other procedures started by this user but for those who got the misfortune to cross him on the French WP it is very obvious that he is using the same kind of tricks he used end of 2011 early 2012 where he was making much noise in order to try to impose his POV about Asselineau (this must be a mere coincidence). I have the feeling that the only purpose of this new procedure is to avoid to answer to the question we have raised, i.e. his blatant conflict of interest on the pages François Asselineau and Popular_Republican_Union_(2007). --Lebob (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my previous message I also noticed that when writing "Lebob (talk) saying my I get approval from UPR party to participate in Wikipedia", D0kkaebi is misquoting what I have really written, which is also not acceptable. I have in fact written that D0kkaebi has a POV that makes him disagree with any comment about the PRU or Asselineau that would not have been duly approved by the RPU of fall within the official position of the PRU, which means that he fully endorses the view of the party where he has official responsibilities and tries to impose them on the articles relating to the party and his chairman. Again there is no wonder here as he has a strong conflict of interest and should refrain himself from contributing to the articles François Asselineau and PRU. I have however never written, as he wrongly (as I assume good faith here I will not write "falsely") alleges that he got approval from UPR to participate in WP. --Lebob (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Says a freshly created WP:SPA obviously from UPR as well… I guess it is with good reason that UPR activists are well known in France for their entryism strategies. Schlum (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, reading your last comments, looks like your barrel is empty. Lebob, it is true that you did not threat of outing me like the 2 others, you did personal attacks. If you have missed the evidence that I brought, you just need to scroll-up to the beginning of this topic. Then you try to qualify me as a harasser of Francis le Francais. Well, you might have missed those I guess:

1. [edit war on page with some IPs], I invite them to discuss but my request is ignored that leaded to [page protection by admin against IP contributors].
2. [After forcing them to explain their motive on the talk page, except first topic, all discussions are to explain to the other party the reasons the changes are not proper]. Sometimes, their request were justified and I integrated the change in the article.
3. [Discussions went on my talk page from this topic and all following]
4. Due to their persistence, I filled a request for 3rd party opinion. But it was declined.
5. [At the same time, I had a strong doubt on socketpuppet usage], since several IPs and Francis le Francais had same complains, and same style of contribution half in French, half in Frenglish which was concluded with an advice on behavioral monitoring
6. [RFC opened] but the other party refuse the comments brought by experienced user "focusandlearn"
7. [RFM, but refused] due to lack of French understanding of the board
8. [DRN opened but refused] because the proper place to solve the issue should be admin board according to Jaaron95

Then all my warnings to Francis le Francais:

1. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (You need to read accurately the sources and not interpret as you want WP:POV. You need to respect the consensus before changing things as you feel like)
2. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Change upon RFC result, thank you to respect consensus)
3. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (If no consensus then it should return to the state before the claim happens and until decision is taken)
4. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Since there is dispute, until resolution is done, basic principle is to stick to version before the claims. Edit war is useless and time consuming)
5. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (You have been warned by another user, Aya, one more, on your non-collaborative behavior)
6. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 678312643 by Francis Le français (talk) last warning)
7. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Reporting to Edit war page and admin noticeboard)
8. Still he reverted again after Francis Le français (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 679332880 by D0kkaebi (talk) war edit by you)

And then you are again accusing me to get approval of UPR for any changes I provide to the article. Do you have any evidence for that? None, right, that's a personal attack. I have here just some example of revert I made against "suspected UPR militants" who try to update the number of membership:

1. (UPR website can't be a reliable source)
2. (Please use independent sources)
3. (Please provide valid source)
4. (Unknown personae and unsourced information)
5. (Please find a reliable source for this info)
6. {Please find a reliable source for this info)
7. (Removed the facebook source (!?))
8. (Reverted source not independent of subject not allowed) and more ...
   

I guess everything is now on the table, admins can judge the outing threat and personal attacks. D0kkaebi (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And still no comment about your blatant conflict of interest, dear? As a matter of fact raising the CoI question is not a personal attack as you wrongly allege. Beside, you are repeating the false accusation that I would be you "to get approval of UPR for any changes I provide to the article", which is not what I have said. The first time I could think this was a reading mistake, this time it is clear that you dishonestly put under my keyboard things I did not write. I have said that what you do on the concerned articles is to make sure that their content matches which the official position of the PRU and that critical comment about the party or its chairman are not quoted in the corresponding articles. Finally I have never written that you were harassing Francis Le français, you came to that conclusion alone. I wonder why... --Lebob (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D0kkaebi why do not you express yourself on a conflict of interest? Why you write the wrong things (eg ip opened subjects talk page which you do not answer or very late - historic demonstrate that - % 29 # 2970 _-_ 5000 _-_ 7000 opened February 1, 2015 by an IP, you answer that on May 29, four months after !)? Why you mix editorial disagreements with this procedure ? Why not say that some informations (aka your old username or mail of the upr's officials) are public and accessible to all on the internet ?--Francis Le français (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from an uninvolved user:

I've been reading up on this saga; it's quite a tale, years in the making, with some fascinating subplots: an article subject who partially derives Wikipedia notability from making a stink about not being notable enough for Wikipedia; a spamming campaign met with an equally rabid "cross-wiki anti-spam spamming" campaign (a lovely expression I borrowed from the German AFD); frwiki AFD's that include pie charts and trend-line graphs of !votes; small armies of the same cast of canvassed and/or coi editors throwing bombs at each other through Google Translate and various degrees of linguistic ability on a number of wikis; endless charges and counter-charges; 4 AFDs, a DRV, RFC, ANI, COIN and who knows what else in enwiki alone... the only thing missing for me is an AFD in Catalan, that really would have made my day (although it was speedy-deleted twice from cawiki so I'm not too disappointed, gotta show cawiki a little love...). It would take weeks if not months to unravel it all. In the interest of sparing us a massive migraine, I suggest everyone drop the stick and go back to their home wikis where they can safely attack each other in the relative comfort of their native language. (Not that I think there is any realistic chance of that happening, heck it's only been going on for five years, and the article still exists in Occitan, quick send it to AFD!). Vrac (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather a good summary of this ridiculous and overlong saga ;-). "Dropping the stick" would be the reasonable way out, starting with closing the current request, which was rather a big stick to raise, unlikely to bring Wikipedian love to the subject. But this wouldn't solve the main practical issue, namely the acute conflict of interest at the basis of the recurring edit wars on the two English articles. --Azurfrog (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping the stick(s) would necessarily require the participation of both parties in order to be successful as both are exporting disruption across the Wikiverse. Threatening to out someone is a big stick as well. I find it unlikely that getting one user blocked or restricted for COI will solve the problem given the number of pawns in this game. I don't see you or your companions acknowledging the dodgy aspects of your own behavior, behavior which strikes me as decidedly unhealthy. Another brilliant term from the German AFD is "Wiki Jagdfieber" (what we might call a WP:WITCHHUNT). My suggestion is that you all find a way to come to an understanding at home, in a place where you can best comprehend each other, rather than trying to make enwiki or some other wiki decide it for you, or continuing the dispute endlessly to the detriment of the Wikiverse. Of course that would require a healthy dose of WP:COOL. Vrac (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My my! "Dodgy and unhealthy", nothing less :-)...
I'll leave it at that, just regretting that en:WP has de facto accepted to be used as some sort of fallback soapbox, in spite of such an obvious case of COI. --Azurfrog (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that I am not opposed to looking at COI in this case, what I am trying to do is suggest that some attention be paid to the war and its collateral damage instead of just concentrating on this specific battle. Vrac (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vrac (talk), thank you for your comment. I think all the discussions have shown that English native users who had to take a look at this saga are a bit amazed by the level of stupidity this whole had reached so far. My hope would be that someone like Ravenswing or you (or anybody else, not French native) would be the one to edit the article and that French natives (including me and the crew of French Admins and related) would be de-facto banished from editing. We could provide the new sources via the talk page. So that we could contain any conflict of interest. I am not sure if that reflect what you mean by dropping the stick.
By the way, I think someone can judge the case since everything was said, even one of the party accused, seeing that his logic of attack did not help at all for his defense, is admitting "his errance" and even though a very experienced user, he did not know the process of COI (needs violin with this sentence). D0kkaebi (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that is a good place to start. Yes, that is more or less what I meant by "dropping the stick". It actually has a translation in frwiki: fr:WP:CHEVALMORT which is true to the English version but we also use it as a general euphemism for stopping fighting, like "bury the hatchet" (an expression which has a very close cousin in French). I don't want to sound patronizing, but, to be specific, I mean not making strong accusations (even if you think you are right), not threatening, and not pointing out the mistakes and foibles of others in an aggressive manner, etc.... doing so naturally has a tendency to start the war all over again; basically following WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS and the whole alphabet soup of guidelines. If everyone was limited to the talk page, could you agree to that? Vrac (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was sleepy and not thinking clearly when I wrote the above. Never mind. Vrac (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if this proposal has to translate into an indefinitely protected page against modification except for a native admin who will be in charge of completing the article with the sources brought by each party on the talk, I would agree. D0kkaebi (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that if you don't stop your (collective) incessant squabbling, no one is going to want to deal with it. I can see from the history that a number of editors tried but gave up. Who can blame them. Vrac (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the proposal above is not enough? Let me know any other suggestion. I see that Ravenswing and Aya Laglare gave up participating, but I do not feel like it is due to me. Seeing at the discussion with Ravenswing regarding his change on the political positioning, I gave my point of view explaining why I disagreed, and since he didnt buy my explanation, then I stick to his version of the article, end of story on my side. Note that is the other side who endorsed the changes of Ravenswing to me and then taxed me of POV. I don't know what I could have done better. D0kkaebi (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestion other than stopping the fight? You (collectively) don't seem to be getting the point of what I have been saying. Some capacity for self-examination would be helpful in this situation. Vrac (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: I am back and I see this is going the same way as the absence of decision on WP:AN/3RR, so let me summarize. The articles about François Asselineau and his party PRU are subject to PRU's activism on all Wikipedias (at one time the article about Asselineau existed in 102 Wikipedias), keeping them neutral needs more time than these little-known party and party leader are worth (this was one of the main points in the French AfD). Now

• D0kkaebi's accusations of "outing" when showing his COI, made here and at WP:COI/N, are probably groundless, else admins would already have removed the corresponding descriptions and links, but anyway if the limits of "outing" have been reached when saying he is a local party leader and using Google links that may lead to his legal name (interviews and social network accounts which he of course willingly published), then the solution is easy: remove and oversight these words (including mine now) and send them to functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org, which would not mean any change in the reasons for the COI.
• If admins are willing to go deeper to the root of the problem, after determining D0kkaebi's COI will have clarified things about his predominant role on the corresponding talk pages, now keeping the two articles neutral against the predictable arrival of new PRU activists will suppose keeping constant watch that new accounts or endless digressions on the talk pages do not impede the neutralising/trimming work made by native English speakers in good standing, like recently Drmies (talk · contribs) and Aya Laglare (talk · contribs). Oliv0 (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I merely restored then improved on another editor's improvements. SEE Green Cardamom here [25] Your complaint is not an ANI (administrator's incident). Also supported by a third editor from Canada. [26] Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Smear?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

forum shopping

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

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

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

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

Reasons to close this discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit-warring during this ANI

nb sub heading added retrospectively by PincretePincrete (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

2) AND AGAIN !, virtually the same edit, on a topic already covered later in the article, … … 3)AND AGAIN !, virtually the same edit, same objections, … … 5) meanwhile we have WP:Canvassing over on an unconnected article and yet another article. Talk page shows there is widespread opposition to these edits, and no rationale for including these edits, nor in 'Ugandan' nor in an edit war over the spelling of 'spelt/spelled', (which I was not part of). Pincrete (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC) … … 6) the same edit … reinserted again since my post (note source says 'claim' the edit states 'fact'). Pincrete (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC) ... 7) and AGAIN, a shorter version of the same text, (based on withdrawn claims in out-of-date sources, yet presented as fact).Pincrete (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC) … 8)AND AGAIN, shortened (scroll down), version of same withdrawn accusation, presented as fact. Accompanied by another 'pet issue', the number of wounded, which is at best Synth, since this number is not supported by any source and is the subject of a seperate slow edit war. Pincrete (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious problem is a content dispute and many the participants are behaving substandardly. Best to protect the article for a time; and advise no changes additions/deletions unless consensus for them. This has devolved to absurdity, with edits like this [27], where one editor reversed the addition of the year in the lede, with an edit summary that it is in dispute. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:NPA Personal attack – "arguing on behalf of organizations with an ethnic cleansing programme" and after I continuously asked him to delete. [28] [29] [30] [31] His answer was "it is impersonal, and does not name you" which I find more insulting then the original. Who was it directed to then??? It hasn't been deleted yet!

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

Repeating violations of WP:NEUTRAL (WP:POVPUSH)

• Morally wrong POVPUSH – [32] [33] [34] [35] The assailant is presented as the victim. How about this – Two brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi were shot dead after (allegedly???) killing 11 people at Charlie Hebdo.
• Severe POVPUSH – "Regavim (רגבים) is an Israeli NGO, one that, according to its critics, is described as a 'settler-colonial NGO'.[1"] - I believe it speaks for itself. Completely off of any imaginable line.
• In editorials on Jpost two NGO members falsified Yaakov Havakook book. While the Regavim person was 'demonstrating the unreliability of Regavim', B'tselem person was found to have 'impressions of reading Havakook's book'. I can see no reason but PPOV.

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

• Demands other editors to quote policy for removal of material[36][37] but himself support removal removal based on lengthy explanations not based on policy.[38][39][40]
• On Susya#WP:OR again.Settleman for example I asked Nishidani help build consensus ("You are a big boy. Make a constructive suggestion") instead of removing material. Then again started a whole conversation about Regavim which was discussed on the talk page and RSN.
• Havakook's book (Hebrew), quoted by the UN, scientific publications and NGOs on both sides, was questioned again with some allegations of no oversight etc'. (This is from an editor who uses all kind of NGO material published on their site). At the end I had to translate for him an additional part of the book.
• In regards for Havakook (again in Hebrew which he doesn't read), He pushed me again and again on whether the chapter talk about Susya, which I had to answer several times. Then here he just drops in text that doesn't even mention the subject of the question (status quo on Temple Mount) and when asked about it give some lengthy explanations[41][42].
• Oppose 'pro-Settlers' info b/c it is 'generic'/'political statements' and edit-in 'anti-settlers' info b/c it 'has also been mentioned'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just note the "policies" Settleman links to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed WP:BOOMERANG for User:Settleman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This whole procedure is like a reverse of case of

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

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

When you wrote above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Sean.hoyland: If they stick to neutrality and give the facts as they are, I think it is moral. Not sure it fits WP, but moral - no question. I haven't participated in such articles deletion requests that were open since I joined wikipedia [43][44] though I saw E.M.Gregory was involved because I wasn't sure it fits. Now, picturing terrorist as victims? What do you think? Until now, everybody simply deflected the question and preferred to examine my edits with a magnifying glass. Settleman (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of the user's edits relating to Islam have had the singular purpose of making the religion look like a religion of terrorism, particularly in trying to portray Muhammad as a bloodthirsty warlord, usually using WP:PRIMARY-based WP:OR instead of mainstream academic sources. This included starting off with an edit war at Depictions of Muhammad ([45], [46], [47]).

As can be seen on his userpage, he does plenty of work relating to Mormonism and some to Christianity, and is generally able to ignore sectarian differences there. When it comes to Islam? His only book is titled "Islamic terrorism." Do I deny that that's a thing? Obviously not. But I am no more under the delusion that it represents Islam any more than polygamy represents Mormonism.

Recently, in the article Muhammad in Islam, Broter has taken to trying to add a cherry-picked quote to present Muhammad as forcing the conversion of Abu Sufyan, next to a bunch of sourced text describing Muhammad as sparing Abu Sufyan's life. He initially tried using a primary source, at which point I explained that we require non-primary modern academic sources. He then tried citing a obviously unacceptably sectarian work. When I explained that sectarianism of any form is not allowed here, he tried citing a Muslim source, as if that was the issue.

Here's the kicker: the secondary source cited, The Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography, does not contain the quote it's being cited for. Search for "apostle of God" (in quotes), and none of the entries that come up begin to match the quote. It's not that the section isn't available to view. Page 227 (the cited page) is available, but doesn't even contain the words "apostle of God." The phrase "before your neck is cut off by the sword" appears no where in the book. Even the individual words 'neck' and 'sword' do not appear together in the book. I don't know whether this is because Broter is only getting his info from sectarian sources that would lie about their sources, or if it's because he's just decided to use any means necessary to present WP:THETRUTH about "the enemy," or if he doesn't understand that the quote actually has to be somewhere in the book for the citation to be valid, but the quote in question is not in that book at all. He has also added this false quotation to other articles. I'd've gone through the usual WP:DR if it wasn't for the witting or unwitting misrepresentation of sources.

Now, if someone who doesn't have a history of an Islamophobic bias wants to add modern, mainstream academic sources that discuss warfare and forced conversions carried out by Muhammad, fine by me. If Broter wants to keep working on LDS related articles, cool. But sectarianism of any sort has no place here. Broter has undeniable POV issues when it comes to Islam and/or Muhammad, and needs to back off from articles relating to either. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. The same quote is on our Abu Sufyan ibn Harb page, and appears to come from [ http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/ ]. That site is used a lot on Wikipedia.[48] I suggest for someone with more knowledge about Islam and the Quran than I have to bring this to WP:RSNB. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is on page 277 of The Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography, according to the sources, which I provided. You Ian.thomson, do not quote my sources correctly. I can not view the page 277 of this book on google books.--Broter (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page you wrongly quoted Page 227 (not the cited page) is also not availabe on google books. So much for your search. Anyway the quote is on page 277 of this book.--Broter (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's page 277, which is quite visible in that link. Where's the quote? Oh, not there, either. Probably because you got it from a sectarian source. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is in the book [49], there they quote the work by Dr. Buti. I changed my source only because you ,Ian.thomson, wanted a modern muslim source. A modern non-muslim source is equally valuable! If the quote is not in the muslim source in the english translation, the non-muslim source is as valuable. The first modern source called Behind the Veil: Unmasking Islam was written by a nativ arab speaker. He translated from the original arab version of The Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography. Probably you know the Middle East Media Research Institute, they report about speeches in the arab world which are not shown on western TV.--Broter (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said "cite a Muslim source," I repeatedly told you to cite a modern academic source. That you can only think in terms of "Muslim vs non-Muslim," don't seem to understand that Behind the Veil is a sectarian source, and don't seem to understand that it is sectarianism that is the problem (no matter how many times it is explained to you) are signs that you should not be editing articles relating to Islam. As I have asked you before, do you want us to start basing our articles on Mormonism on the opinions of imams? Do you want us to write the article on Joseph Smith from the perspective that he was an advocate of occultism, pedophilia, and polygamy? If not, then quit acting out the same behavior in articles on Islam. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that my only source was [50] and hope that I will not be punished. The said quote is anyway removed everywhere.--Broter (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My work on Islam was generally well received with the exception of this instance. So please do not punish me for this mistake.--Broter (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Overlooked" =/= "well received." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this editor, Broter, is clearly using Wikipedia to advance extremist views in violation of WP:POVPUSH and WP:NPOV. The misuse of sources and the denial of such misuse is astounding. The inclusion of hate speech from non-reliable sources is worrying. AusLondonder (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will grant that his work on Mormonism seems to be in line with policy. A topic ban (even if just an informal voluntary one) from articles concerning Islam or Muhammad seems more in order than a WP:NOTHERE block. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I urge the administrator who deals with this section to show mercy. This is the only incident, I am involved with. I have learned my lesson and I promise you all to behave better in the future.--Broter (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

user:Springee has been disruptively editing and wikihounding individuals over the past few weeks. Springee has wikihounded user:HughD by following him to multiple articles and reverting his edits in part or in whole, as well as disruptively tagging his edits. [[51]][[52]][[53]][[54]][[55]][[56]][[57]][[58]]. In all of these articles, you can extend the list to 500 edits and see that Springee only became involved immediately after an edit by HughD and Springee's involvement was either to revert HughD's edit, or tag them under the guise of "undue" or "notability". You can do a simple Ctrl+F search for "springee" to see exactly where the user became involved in the article and see what their first few edits were. Springee had no previous involvement on these articles and it's clear he only became involved to disrupt the edits of another user.

Springee has also tendentiously reverted edits under the premise of "no consensus", which is a direct example of WP:TEND. As per wp:TEND "You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first. There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article." It's one thing to object to material for RS, weight, or NPOV purposes, but to remove reliably sourced additions because "they didn't discuss it first and get consensus" is a direct example of tendentious editing. Here are multiple instances of these types of reverts by Springee [59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66]. What's even more concerning is that Springee applies his "no consensus" reasoning selectively. It appears that edits he/she agrees with don't get reverted for reasons of "no consensus" and Springee even goes out of the way, in some cases, to thank and welcome the addition of material added without consensus [67]. On top of that, the user protects information added without consensus by citing "no consensus" for removal. This inconsistnecy and selective application shows that this isn't just a matter of not understanding Wikipedia policy, but a matter of selectively disrupting disagreeable edits. I have discussed this matter with Springee here [68], yet the user persists in this type of behavior. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. [69] This is an edit in which I reverted a removal of content by Scoobydunk. Another editor had added the material and I agreed with its inclusion. The related talk section is here[70]. Note the discussion regarding the edits in question began before the Scoobydunk reverted Rjensen's edits which I added back to the article.
2. [71] This edit, like many relate to the changes HughD made to the Chicago-style politics page. On Aug 26th, 2015 an IP editor tried to return the article to the subject it had from its creation in 2011 through April of 2014 when HughD changed the topic to concentrate on a POV fork. The IP's initial edit is here[72]. I noticed HughD's involvement with this topic because this was during the same time period when he was attempting to insert a controversial Mother Jones article into a number of global warming related pages. In edits below I explain(ed) why I was involved in the MJ related content dispute. Since I am from near Chicago I decided to investigate the changes. That is when I saw that HughD had turned the article into a POV fork with no justifications on the talk page. The tag claiming the article was about a meme was simply not true historically and was added to justify removing other content. Thus I did have a reason for removing it that was related to the topic, not the editor. The topic shift was questioned in April of this year with no reply from HughD. The tag in question was only added after the IP editor tried to restore the earlier article topic sentence.
3. [73] Removal of the same tag as above. This time HughD added it back in without responding to questions about the topic redirection on the talk page. Here is my question regarding the article redirect[74]. The tag was restored by HughD at the same time [75]. Restoring a questionable tag when other editors have made it clear that the existence of the tag should be discussed is not constructive editing.
4. [76] This one is laughable. The editor in question was an "undercover" diarist at the Daily Kos. He was indefinately blocked shortly after this exchange [77]. The editor had added ~8k worth of content in a mass addition. Several editors, myself included objected to such a large and not well balanced addition. Several of us engaged in a discussion with the editor regarding the edit he was trying to make [78]. Prior to getting consensus and over the objections of the consensus of the talk page VVUSA/KochTruths added the content. I reverted it. For my trouble I was accused of being on the Koch brother's payroll on the Daily Kos.
5. [79] This was disputed content which had already been added by HughD then removed by Capitalismojo then restored by HughD before he even joined in the talk page discussion regarding the content. I was following the edit history of Capitalismojo (not HughD) when I saw this content dispute. I agreed with the reasons for removal and hence joined in the editing. Note that this Mother Jones content was added to nearly a dozen article and thus what seem to be a range of unrelated articles are all part of the same content disagreement in which several editors were involved.
6. [80] In this case, while there is an active AFD discussing both the Chicago-style politics and Chicago-style politics (meme) (the later a POV fork article created when HughD couldn't get consensus to keep the older article focused on the POV subtopic) pages with a likely outcome that the articles (the parent and the POV fork) will be merged, HughD adds a tag from the parent to the likely to be removed via merger POV fork. For the sake of article stability this sort of editing should be avoided hence I removed the tag. Note this was done after Fyddlestyx did a great job of restoring not only the older content that HughD had removed (see the article's recent edit history) but also did a good job of including mention of the meme content Hugh wanted to focus on. I don't think it was unreasonable to ask that we not put such edits into the article until the AFD and article mergers are complete.
7. [81] This tag (no material was removed) is related to the Chicago-style politics and associated CSP meme article. Another editor tagged the newly created meme page as an orphan. Hugh then proceeded to add questionable "chicago-style politics" references to several articles including this one. The additions were questionable and I put both questions on the talk pages and in the article each time the content was added. As an example, in the Halftime talk edit list you will see I am the second editor [82]. Thus the article tag was an invitation to justify a questionable content addition. The tags were not stand alone.
8. [83] This is an article which was discussing the Southern Strategy. An editor made a large 2.1K removal of sourced content. I reverted that removal and added a discussion page comment asking for justification for such a large removal [84].

• While I can see Scoobydunk doesn't agree with my POVs on various subjects I think he was looking for a reason to claim WP:TEND and thus when he found posts that appeared to fit the pattern he went with it and we are here. I would question how he can claim this isn't about the content when it appears he isn't actually following the content discussions. I will also reiterate my claim from below that I believe Scoobydunk has an axle to grind. Consider this accusation of dishonesty on my part that he posted in reply to my comments [85]. Springee (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd also like to note that Springee's edit above is another example of tendentious behavior since he clearly disregards proper threading, as I've previously mentioned on this notice. Springee is clearly trying to justify the fact that he was wikihounding and reverting editors' comments for the reason of "no consensus" which is an explicit example of tendentious editing. I'd also like to point out that Springee regards this ANI notice and the over 16 examples of his wikihounding/tendentious editing as "jokes" [86]. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? It seems like you are trying to attack me because of a content disagreement on the Southern Strategy article and perhaps left over resentment because I disagreed with you and argued against your claims on the Americans For Prosperity RfC that recently didn't go your way (RfC[87] and your frustration that it was not decided as you had wished [88]). You have disagreed with myself and a few other editors on the Southern Strategy talk page recently. Today I proposed making some changes here [89], the first edit on the talk page since Aug 30th. You personally haven't edited that page since Aug 27th. I proposed adding to a section that you have strongly opposed since it's inception. So today when I proposed additional changes, changes you oppose, you quickly reply (your first content related reply to any article/talk page since Aug 27th). Note that your only edits between the 27th and today were to attack me attack me on Sept 3rd/4th. In that case you were siding with a blogger who initially joined here under the name "KochTruths" and filed an ANI accusing myself and three other editors of being paid stooges of Koch Industries[90]. It seems odd that as soon as I propose some changes to an article you appear to be watching, changes you wouldn't agree with, an ANI pops up, an ANI almost exclusively about edits to articles that you aren't involved with. It seems to me you are trying to game the system by using a ANI to block edits you don't agree with. Springee (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The evidence of your wikihounding and tendentious editing is plainly clear. Please focus on the actual merit of the complaint instead of raising red herring arguments in the form of argumentum ad hominem. To address those concerns, I've raised these issues with you over the course of our discussions, and they've gone ignored. Now that the weekend is done and I have time to dedicate to addressing this issue, so I've raised a complaint here. It was specifically this edit [91] that prompted me to raise this issue. Again, you listed "no consensus" as part of the reason for removal, even after you were aware that removing material for that reason was tendentious behavior. Upon further review, I noticed "no consensus" in many other reverts of your's that I was unaware of before. This is continuing and prolonged behavior that needs to be addressed. I suggest you speak to the accusations levied against you, instead of trying to "shoot the messenger".Scoobydunk (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I mentioned this in a previous edit below but I will add it here for better clarity. There are two recent topics in which I and others engaged with HughD. The first related to the edit warring report I created related to a series of edits by HughD [92]. The pages in question were: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,American Petroleum Institute,ExxonMobil,American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity,Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley,The Heartland Institute, and FreedomWorks. You will see there were multiple discussions related to the attempt add a single Mother Jones article to all of those articles. As I said in the ANI there were at least three other editors who disagreed with the insertion as HughD had made it and as he reinserted it. One characteristic of HughD's editing is repeated insertions even as people are discussing the topic. That and the fact that he undid multiple reverts, not just by myself but by other editors who objected to the same article.

The second set of articles relating to HughD's edits all involve the Chicago-style politics article. This article got my attention as I was reviewing HughD's recent edits associated with the then active dispute over the Mother Jones article. Given the range of articles HughD was attempting to put the MJ article into and simply trying to keep up with all the various edits it was natural to check to see what edits he made recently. That is when I noticed the revert of an IP edit to the Chicago-style article (I'm from near Chicago originally so that also caught my eye). Then I discovered the history of the article. April of 2014 you will see that HughD totally changed the nature of the article without a single comment on the talk page [93]. The IP editor was attempting to undo that change. DaltonCastle also noted the change but his talk comment was not answered by HughD [94]. With the support of DaltonCastle I started to revert the article to it's earlier form. The result was HughD creating a second article as well as flooding the original one with edit tags. When an unrelated editor noted that HughD's newly created article was an orphan[95]. TO address this HughD added questionable references to other articles. Those articles include the ones I added "weight" tags to. The articles in question were Halftime in America [96], David Axelrod [97], Mit Romney [98], and Karl Rove [99]. Again these were all related to the same Chicago-style politics content dispute and were added simply to address the article orphan issue related to a newly created POV fork from the older article.

Scoobydunk did mention a few others that are unrelated to HughD (is original post seems to mix and match things). Some are related to the [Southern Strategy] article. This is part of why I think he is going after me as a way to address a content dispute. This one is Southern Strategy related [100]. I guess I'm wrong in thinking removing that much reliably sourced content without a talk page comment is questionable? Again the BRD cycle says if someone reverts it the next step is discuss. However, as that revert related to an editor other than HughD I'm not sure how this counts as hounding or much of anything other than the BRD cycle. Scoobydunk also listed this edit [101]. Well that is a content dispute with me on the Southern Strategy page. Note that I was reverting a removal of his, not adding/readding content of my own.

This final one is a bad joke [102]. That was my ONE revert of content added to all of the Koch Industires page by an editor who, as people suspected was a troll who was almost instantly blocked for the user name "KochTruths" then came back under a new user name and got blocked about a week later (indefinite block) [103]. The editor made a series of article changes, was reverted by another editor and then engaged in something that pretended to be discussion. When he went ahead and made changes that we had not agreed to in the talk section I reverted them. One of the charges made by Scoobydunk is that I was engaged in tagging edits or reverting edits without discussion or cause. That is far from true. I have extensively used the talk pages to try to discuss changes before editing the actual articles. Hence my edit history is heavy on the talk page end of things. For reasons that it can appear to look bad when one doesn't see how the edits I agree that I will avoid editing interactions with HughD once the Chicago AFD is closed out. But I can't help but question Scoobydunk's motives to get involved in something that in which he isn't at all involved. Why join in this boomerang ANI on the side of a trolling editor if you don't have an ax of your own to grind [104]. Springee (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I think it's quite fair to claim Scoobydunk is attacking me due to a content disagreement. His posting of this ANI and the retort to my Southern Strategy talk comments were back to back. As for following HughD claims, well actually I agreed with Fyddlestix that it was looking questionable and thus once the Chicago article was settled I am planning on cutting back on editing in general for a while. I'm still rather frustrated by the external attack on me related to the Koch Industries page mentioned above. However, the claims of following all over are not quite right. In reality we have just two recent sets of edits. The first was the set of edits related to trying to insert a Mother Jones article into potentially a dozen articles. Those were the mid August edits. They all related to basically the same topic. I did accuse HughD of edit waring related to those edits [[105]]. Since this was a case of trying to insert a questionable citation into several articles it looks like I'm following to a number of articles when in fact it's all part of the same content dispute. I discovered the articles in question by looking at some of the activities of Capitalismojo and Arthur Rubin. I agreed with them that the edits were questionable. The Chicago-style politics article was one that I admit I found via looking through HughD's edit history. However, that is hardly the hounding Scoobydunk wants to claim. HughD was making lots of edits to lots of articles as part of what I saw as edit waring (again see the recent ANI). I noticed that he objected to some IP edits and immediately posted a "don't do that again" type message on the IP's talk page (one of the IP edits in question [106]). What the IP editor objected to was the way HughD had taken an article about the phrase "Chicago-style politics" and turned it into an article that discussed attacks against Obama. This was don't without comments on the talk page and against the muted objections of others. Sorry, that article caught my attention and I agreed with the IP editor as well as the editor who objected on the talk page. The details of that interaction can be seen in the following talk pages but they are on the up and up. After creating a new page of questionable value another editor tagged it as questionable for bing an orphan article. HughD added tags in several articles that were clearly of questionable merit simply to create links to the new article. That's the ugly history of that story. Note that I didn't go around reverting HughD's edits. I tagged them as questionable because I do think they are questionable. If editors have specific article questions I can answer them in more detail. Do note that what seems like a lot of different articles are actually related by just two edit/content disagreements, the inclusion of a Mother Jones article listing "the climate change dirty dozen" and the edits to and related to Chicago-style politics page and the POV fork Chicago-style politics (meme) including the addition of questionable links to the latter at pages like Halftime in America, David Axelrod, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 and Karl Rove.

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

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

(edit conflict with above post) Sorry for breaking this up, I have been getting interrupted while putting these posts together, hence things are not as organized as I would wish. Anyway, to further my claim that this is something related to Scoobydunk using the ANI to attack me please note these WP:BATTLE posts to HughD's talk page. Scoobydunk is trying to coach HughD into feeling hounded: [107][108]. Hugh has filed a number of ANIs against other editors [109], [110],[111]. Why encourage this action against me by a third party unless there is a personal motivation given the third party is more than capable of posting the ANI himself. There was also this out of the blue attack on me in the ANI that had nothing to do with HughD (the KochTruth blogger ANI) [112]. Why make such an unrelated statement in that ANI unless your intent was somehow personal or content dispute related. Again, I think this point to an attempt to bully to resolve the content dispute related to my post earlier today. Springee (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]