There is a group of users who seem to be insistent on creating their own versions of "Lists of oldest whoever" as their main contributions here. So far, I've found User:Bensonfood (see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Bensonfood), User:Deaths in 2013(Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Deaths_in_2013/My_OR_stuff), and now User_talk:Pascar, User:Tanough/SC_Portal, User:Tanough/SC_Portal/Table_B, User:Tanough/SC Portal/Oldest people/Spain (blanked by anonymous users), User:Tanough/Top_10 and I'm sure there's more. There is a small amount of editing in mainspace for these individuals but I'd like to see if someone here can beat a cluestick into all of them about forking before I just block them all under WP:NOTHERE (although any other admin is welcome to do so). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Deaths in 2013, I'm just gonna leave this here. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is curious how widespread this is, check out the fun I'm creating at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#December_18.2C_2014. Already found four more users. Let's see how far this rabbit hole goes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the Yahoo World's Oldest People group and/or the 110 Club fanboys again. The area of human longevity ended up at arbitration about 4 years ago, and while some of the nastiness is gone from the area there's still a strong undercurrent of people who view longevity-related material as their own private fiefdom. Accordingly, they treat Wikipedia as the Gerontology Research Group's official output and insist on keeping massive walled gardens of content. See the history of User:NickOrnstein for an old example, just to show how longstanding this problem is. This sort of thing should be met with swift warnings and blocks, because if not immediately stopped the cleanup gets to be overwhelmingly large. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it, there's at least a half dozen others out there. Note that I just deleted User:Deaths_in_2013/Sandbox as a copy-paste recreation of the one from the MFD. I hope that's not a concern. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I joined Wikipedia around a year ago. I don't who was the first to create these kind of user pages but I imagine that like myself, many other people with an interest in longevity saw other people keep longevity-related lists in their userspace, and so presumed that this was okay. I now understand that the guidelines do not allow for such things so am attempting to merge some of the content on my user page to existing articles.

But you know what, I see the comments that you lot have made above and I think: "Sod it, why should I bother?". Ricky, did you not bother to read the recent discussions on my talk page about this? If you had, then you would realise that I am trying to work towards a positive solution. But instead, you say that you'd "like to see if someone here can beat a cluestick into all of them about forking before I just block them all". Brilliant.

Maybe one of the reasons that others do not make more contributions to the main Wikipedia is because they do not wish to collaborate with "bullies". That is, people who show no appreciation of the fact that newer users are less experienced and do not seem to take in to account the intentions of the users.

Oh, and the Yahoo World's Oldest People Group is not for "fanboys". It's a place to post news/research about longevity claimants and is used by a number of experts in the field.

Ollie231213 23:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the members of the 110 club as fanboys, although in my experience the label does fit many of the participants at the Yahoo group as well. he What in the world is the utility of lists like those linked above? Setting aside the horrific formatting and blatant WP:FLAGBIO violations, which was one of the more bizarre and rancorous disputes I had to help force a solution to in the topic area, there is no possible way that anyone besides those referred to above would seriously want these as Wikipedia articles. Allowing them to indefinitely languish in peoples' userspace is therefore an obvious violation of WP:UPNOT, and encourages more such violations, so they should be deleted. Some of them, such as User:Tanough/SC Portal/Table B, are also blatant attempts to keep a preferred format (one that contravenes WP:FLAGBIO) and should accordingly be deleted on those grounds. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have another idea -- perhaps an editor concerned about other editors failure to follow policy could follow the recommendation at the top of the page:

• Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.

As Ollie points out, the most likely explanation for the behavior is observing it going unchecked on other editor's pages; I understand it's a hassle to post the same message to multiple folks -- if there's not a standard twinkle message perhaps one could be added. NE Ent 23:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having visited (in one fashion or another) a few of these accounts I can tell you that they are resistant to sugestion... sometimes downright hostile. This is not a matter of a few slightly errant editors that just need a friendly little twinkle message to nudge in the right direction. This is an entrenched dysfunction that requires the very real threat of deletion to even get a serious acknowledgement. And even then there is perpetual resistance. In the end, the wall surrounding this group has to come down and either they participate constructively... or they don't. – JBarta (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at [1] and [2], I'm not seeing any evidence there was any attempt to engage that particular editor. Although the page is obviously not compliant, it's unclear what possible harm it's doing? It's not affecting mainspace, it's not affecting any other editor... why the rush? Of course we're going to get resistance if our first engagement is hostile WP:FAKEARTICLE wiki-ese. (It's also not following policy -- WP:AGF is a code of conduct, not a probability assessment. NE Ent 00:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the experts/correspondents on the WOP Group are also members of the 110 Club. The latter was in fact created with the intention of making a forum to have semi-formal discussions about the topic of longevity. It has a wide range of members, from those involved in research to those who just have an interest. So, let's not start some petty name-calling.

Why do these kind of pages exist? They were probably created because Wikipedia has an auto-update function, so all ages change automatically. The tables are also neat, so user pages were considered to be a good place to keep these informal lists which were designed to be looked at by only the user and other users with an interest in longevity.

Now I'm not saying that this is okay. Clearly, these violate guidelines. Fine. I know that now, but I did not before, and I imagine that many others did not either. What I object to, however, is the way that this issue is being dealt with. We have a load of experienced users (who know the guidelines inside out) who just come along, like a stampede of rhinoceros, and accuse the lesser-experienced users of this that and the other (such as not wanting to help contribute to the main Wikipedia) and threaten to delete their pages outright.

These accusations may or may not be valid for individual users, but don't paint everyone with the same brush. I'm sure most people will be happy to cooperate with the administrators if they are polite and and explain why they are in the wrong.

However, when you see some say: "check out the fun I'm creating at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#December_18.2C_2014", it sounds as if they are getting a rush from having power over others. People are NOT going to be willing to cooperate with people like that.

Ollie231213 23:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, sorry about that. Unfortunately Wikipedia has very few administrators for the amount of work to be done, so sometimes they can get a bit cranky. Might I suggest using one of the Wiki hosting services? Some are free (advertising supported), and should support most of the same functionality. Once you've got your stuff copied over, we'd appreciate if you'd place a {{Db-userreq}} on your user page so a passing administrator can clean up the page. NE Ent 23:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your helpful suggestion, NE Ent. I appreciate it.

Ollie231213 23:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that needs to be borne in mind is that some of these lists are entirely unsourced, and accordingly violation of WP:BLP policy - they make specific claims regarding longevity, which is obviously potentially contentious, and clearly should be sourced. They also give precise dates of birth, which may possibly violate WP:BLPPRIVACY. If there was any evidence that these lists were actually intended for article content, there might be scope for some leeway, but given the pointless duplication, the clear unwillingness to comply with sourcing requirements, and the disregard for multiple other policies, I can't think of a good reason why we shouldn't give them say a week to copy the lists elsewhere, and then summarily delete the lot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another is that to these people, keeping track of the world's oldest people seems so obviously encyclopedic - as in the most appropriate data anyone could have in an encyclopedia, ever - that all the admins trying to get rid of it seem like irrational meanies. The prominence of the world's oldest person records in the Guinness books likely exacerbates that. --NellieBly (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopaedia doesn't normally have multiple incomplete versions of similar content scattered all over the place - and per established Wikipedia policy, we require sources for content referring to living persons. If the contributors responsible for these lists wish to contribute sourced content to articles, there is nothing stopping them. That doesn't appear to be their objective however. AndyTheGrump (talk)

I found this to be a fairly accurate summary of the problem (for the now-removed section being linked to, see this and the associated edit summary). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:NE Ent, you seem to acting like I'm WP:BITEing these editors because I won't simply let them continue with their userspace lists that they've created and used for years. In partiuclar, User:Tanough hasn't edited since 2012 but the history at User:Tanough/SC Portal is continuous until today. I came here following the close of Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Bensonfood. The editor has been here for six months, and when told it's inappropriate, copy the contents to two other places for me to hunt down for deletion. User:Deaths_in_2013 has a similar AFD, I deleted that page, the sandbox page he copied the contents to and yet there's still this and this movement which shows little intent to actually deal with these issues. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when told at places like Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#List_of_supercentenarians_who_died_in_2014 is not going anywhere fast. Besides, under hte BLP policy, they should all be deleted immediately and the editors can try at deletion review or wherever to get them restored. Listing them for AFD is being extra-ordinarily nice in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just follow the evidence. Bensonfood may have been here for six months, but the first talk page message I'm seeing indicating anything is amiss with his edits is this correct but less than warm and fuzzy message two days ago [3], followed 11 minutes later by a notification of this ANI thread [4], and I've already addressed the Ollie situation. Of course BLP violating content must be deleted expeditiously but it should be addressed in a manner consistent with the rest of Wikipedia policies. The first step should be a polite user talk page explaining why it's inappropriate, and a request for them to copy the material off-wiki and then CSD U1 it. Way less fuss than Mfd's and ANI threads.

I think the key word in Ricky's post is "these editors." They are individuals, and unless there is evidence they are sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or part of an intentional conspiracy, should be treated as such. I understand the frustration -- when I volunteered at WP:WQA there are days when I wanted to scream when the N + 1th new editor complained that an established editor had "rudely" just removed a message left on the veteran editors talk page -- but I forced myself to remember than the one was a different potential new editor than the N who came before. And when I just couldn't stand it anymore I logged off for a month ... or two ... NE Ent 23:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My experience in the longevity articles is that most of these people are meatpuppets in all but name, and frequently in name as well (see WP:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts (2nd nomination) for a demonstrative example). Certainly not all, but most. There's little point in trying the approach above (an approach I highly endorse in most cases) because their presence results in things like what I linked to above being spread across literally hundreds of pages, and getting it down to a more reasonable size gets resistance at every turn. It's much easier and more efficient to head it off at the pass. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"MOST of these people are meatpuppets"? And how exactly did you come to that conclusion?

Ollie231213 12:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I was looking at random "List of supercentarian" articles and the selection of articles I looked at appear to rely heavily on Gerontology Research Group, a non-reliable an essentially primary source, to determine information and age about these people. There are also a significant number of non-sourced entries in the articles. Am I right in thinking that these are BLP violations, at least for the recently deceased and/or still living? If so, what is the best course of action for dealing with them? Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The GRG is a useful source for this sort of thing, it's about the best you're going to get in most cases, so that's not so much of a problem. Basically, the best way to deal with these is through AfD; if the only non-trivial coverage is in GRG records, they're not notable enough for articles here. As to how I came to the conclusion above, look through the two Jan Goossenaerts AfDs and the discussion here for demonstrative, but by no means exhaustive, examples. I am expressly not saying that everyone in the area is a meatpuppet, there are several editors who do excellent work in the area, but there are a disproportionate number of one-off and longer-term editors who habitually display the traits of the participants in these discussions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear why you think the GRG is a non-reliable source, James. Ollie231213 21:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie231213, please indent your replies by adding one more ":" than the previous reply to the beginning of each paragraph. I thought that the GRG wasn't a reliable source because the Wikipedia:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Databases says that No article should be based solely or primarily on any of these databases, and no article should rely on any one of them alone in order to make assertions about subjects' history of records broken, rank-order placement in longevity-related lists, or current status as alive or dead. I see now that this isn't exactly the same thing as not reliable - it's more like it's a primary source. I've struck out and changed my text above. Thanks for pointing this out. Ca2james (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to User_talk:Pascar, WP:FAKEARTICLE states that articles under construction are allowed if they include : "Short-term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template can be added to the top of the page to identify these)". The page even states that it is intended to become a full article. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SiameseTurtle, it's a user talk page. It's not for creating drafts. I just blanked it, the history is still there. If someone actually wants to create the article, any editor can move the page. As annoying as it is, I'm willing to split up the talk page contents with the drafting editing and move it to Draftspace as long as all the unsourced names are removed (and kept out). Just ask me. The actual articles here have no sources and these ridiculous userspace drafts are what everyone is working on instead. There must be almost 30 pages listed all over MFD right now. The WikiProject was advised of this almost three years ago. Frankly the WikiProject people should be the ones wanting everything centralized so that they can create more robust articles rather than supporting this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userpages are most definitely allowed to include draft articles, which you can learn more about at WP:UP. A constructive change would have been for you to suggest moving it to a more suitable page than the talk page - not taking actions against WP:POINT by deleting an article under construction. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't it just be moved to a sandbox? Afterall, it is a work in progress. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the problem; almost none of these are intended to become actual articles, they're here to languish in userspace. It'd be the equivalent of people keeping detailed track of baseball/hockey/[insert your sport here] stats throughout their userpages, those sorts of stats pages are regularly deleted through MfD. These present an even larger problem because many of them aren't sourced at all or have dubious sourcing, and given that we're talking about mostly private individuals it's a serious BLP violation to have these floating all over the place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true though - many of the drafts have been moved to create articles. In fact, the page in question even explicitly states "It is a work in progress! In the future we could create a Wikipage article." , and was still being edited a matter of days before the deletion nomination. It seems to me that what is being enforced here is the deletion of all userspace draft articles - which goes against WP:SUB which states that userspace subpages can be used to develop articles. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why they can't. Equally, I also think we should add a notice at the top of these subpages to denote that they are not articles. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even though this might be unrelated, I know this "Deaths in 2013" person. Under a different username, he was a (Personal attack removed) over on wikiHow. (He is currently blocked for six months.) --Biblioworm 16:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is unrelated, and without English Wikipedia diffs supporting the accusation, it's an unwarranted personal attack. NE Ent 15:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

break

Humans learn intrinsically from imitation -- no kid ever read a How to walk or How to talk manual. That, along with bold, means that the WP:AGF explanation for these inappropriate user pages is new editors finding existing pages and therefore inferring it must be okay. Rather than repeatedly trying to deal with it ad hoc (which may lead to bitey behavior out of frustration), let's address the problem systematically.

• Clarify The reasons for deletion are not crisp; they're varying back and forth between WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:BLP. Although both are valid reasons for removal, the urgency and process involved differs. We should come to some consensus as to where they fall (scope). Personally, I don't seem them as a huge BLP issue, but obviously will support whatever the community consensus turns out to be.
• Identify To address the problem once, efficiently, we should enlist the technically adroit Wikipedia community -- I'm thinking either WP:VPT or WP:BOTREQ to scan userspace finding the problematic pages. Presumably there are certain keyword / names that could be used to flag these. The number of pages found -- 10? 100? 1000? will inform the next steps (extent).
• Engage As a first step, polite engagement of the creators should be undertaken. Depending on the extent (~10) manually copy pasting a message to each is reasonable; if it's larger someone could do a User:MediaWiki_message_delivery. Editors can be informed of why the content isn't appropriate, possible alternatives (e.g. wikia, et. al.) and asked to revert edits or CSD separate pages.
• Follow up After an appropriate period of time, content that hasn't been removed by the editors can be dealt with. Again the scope and extent will inform how to execute this step.
• Monitor Once the immediate issue is dealt with, we should monitor userspace for future pages to nip the problem in the bud. Perhaps a bot could make a list once a week or something of pages to evaluate.NE Ent 15:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, I'd only add two things. One, given the length of time this has been an issue, the follow-up is going to be over a very extended period of time and in some instances will almost certainly require very firm handling. Secondly, reorganize the World's Oldest People project so it has a more coherent structure so people familiar with the area can handle these problems going forward (might require a name change, the discussion for which which would definitely need some extra monitoring). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think the name change is a good idea -- see [5]. (And yes, I was just kidding.) EEng (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC) P.S. Hi, The Blade of the Northern Lights![reply]

That comment made my day. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a systematic approach would be best given the breadth of these pages. I think there's a broader issue here that isn't just confined to pages in userspace since there are issues in the mainspace articles, too. If the wikiproject is being examined, it might be good to add some kind of guideline and subsequent monitoring for what is and isn't acceptable for a mainspace or userspace page. As well, I think some guidelines and mentoring to help editors understand WP guidelines and policies is needed. I'm thinking not just of the sourcing and BLP issues but of Accessibility issues as well, since often only colour is used to determine whether an entry is pending or verified (see this article, for example). Should Wikipedia even be listing pending or unverified entries from the GRG tables when there are no other sources for those entries? Ca2james (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to start these discussions would likely be WT:WikiProject World's Oldest People, and given the very insular nature of this area I'd recommend an RfC to get broader community input. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just discovered this discussion and must say that I am very glad that this project has become the subject of scrutiny. It's one of the most problematic projects that I know, trying to impose its own rules on WP. And because there are a number of highly motivated SPAs active in that area, any attempt at cleanup (such as AfDs of trivial articles) runs into vehement opposition. I have been avoiding this area for a while now, but will now start monitoring WT:WikiProject World's Oldest People. --Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

In order to keep bludgeoning the process, he started to accuse me of personal attacks and copy pasted the same discussions two times in two different sections.[6][7]

One user hatted his conversation, and was told to whether change or remove the same copy pasted text. He has reverted that move at least three times.[8] [9][10] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@EdJohnston: Yes, a few weeks ago he was reminded of DS. I agree with above comments that there is issue with nationalistic editing and competence with English. On Battle of Chawinda, he is trying to prove that the battle resulted in Pakistan victory, by labeling words such as "blood bath" as "victory".[11] On Talk:Siachen conflict, he had discarded a reliable source published by Stanford University as an "Indian source which may also be subject to bias".[12] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Nawabmalhi

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

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

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

You have copied and pasted the same WP:SYNTH over and over, when each of my reply was differently written. You actually want "evidence" for your source misrepresentation? Here it is,[13] no where these sources[14][15] state that there was any "Major Pakistani victory" or even victory for that matter. Obviously you are not going to consider it at all, and continue to misrepresent sources, cast aspersions and edit war. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

They must be same because they reject your WP:SYNTH and misrepresentation? Yet you are copying and pasting the same thing. You are still doing it and even here[16] now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Nawabmalhi you are actually wrong because I have edited before RFC, see this from 2 December [17] VandVictory (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 Cavalry is just a cavalry regiment that fought another regiment, but that is not about the whole battle or both nations. "Blood bath" does not mean victory or defeat either, neither he says that it made "Indians go to UN". Obviously you are misrepresenting sources. I didn't referred results as stalemate, and some other editors did [18][19] as globalsecurity[20] states that. "Inconclusive"[21] is supported by a reliable source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban on Nawabmalhi and TheSawTooth

They cannot understand English,(WP:CIR) they have rapidly removed the issue tags[22][23][24][25][26] from the article without ever replacing with a reliable reference or solving the issue. Repetitive and repulsive argument as seen above can be seen in these diffs where Nawabmalhi makes counter allegations.[27] TheSawTooth has made an emotional response with some false accusations and incorrect acknowledgement of arbitration enforcement proceedings, he seeks for a topic ban on other user,[28] while forgetting that he was blocked 2 days ago for pretending to be an admin on the same page.[29] Their continued misjudgement of these references[30] [31][32] for promoting a 'Major' victory of Pakistan, is nationalistic and disruptive. An indefinite topic ban from the military pages about India and Pakistan would be the best choice. VandVictory (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose You have already topic banned TopGun. It is not fair to ban every one who disagrees. It is WP:BATTLEGROUND thinking. VandVictory revised the page 17 times deleting tags he should not talk of others editwar. I have not broken any rule. I do not wish to discuss or edit this page more due to these users they are acting so aggressive. Admin should read my argument and close discussion after 30days time. It does not need topic ban. Same users who give statement on TopGun case [33] have come here to ban us. Involved users can not ban other users. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• My note I was misunderstood when I was blocked. I did not misrepresent to be admin every one knows I am not admin. I was talking of admin action of Nyttend. I have not edited chawinda after I got unblock because I know this topic is under disruption. I should not be ban without breaking any rule. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose:
  • I have not made any edits to Chawinda for two days now seems like an attempt o discredit support side
  • I have already shown that I have not editwarred in any form and have given a detailed explanation above. Nor have I attempted bludgeoning the process but infact VandVictory and OccultZone have by stating nonsensical statements such as 'A calvary does not represent a country' not understanding that it was the small Pakistani 25th Cavalry that stopped the Indian 1st division(Bassically all the Indian Units) etc.
  • The proposer, VandVictory, is the only one on the page who has been blatantly edit warring from Dec 17 along with an IP address see page history he seems to be either a sock Puppet or POV pusher contacted by OccultZone as he has no association with the Battle of Chawinda and Indo-Pak 1965 war.
  • The only time I minutely came close to edit warring was when VandVictory kept adding a Collapse with the title: Misrepresenting the source which was blatantly misrepresenting with what I was saying and was tampering with what I wrote. And I thought, that editor at best could only do such thing and did not even know was before I came to the ANI.
  • Although these editor accuse me of repetitive arguements, they do it themselves, I had already answered all their allegations above and for a while they kept silent but now they have after a little while they raise same allegations again. All they're doing muckraking and doing personal attacks(OccultZone has stopped) but VandVictory is on a role
  • I am not even making any edits on the talkpage recently, and realistically neither will these 3, I think, they want a topic ban for me and now for TheSawTooth as well as, so they can discount the support side and freely Bludgeon article and successfully and wrongfully force the RFC to a Stalemate viewpoint.
  • This is a clear case of muckraking(see above) and canvassing (OccultZone was even advise not to go to the ANI) by them atlease 3 random Users ,who for some reason happen to be Indian and POV pushers with no prior conection to article, show up to the article Talk page. I just cannot see this as coincidental, through any form of logic.
  • If anything is still unclear please refer to the Nawabmalhi section where I answered these False allegations with more detail and is more comprehensive in general--Thank YouNawabmalhi (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Evident that they are unable to restrain themselves. After reading the statement of NawabMalhi and Thesawtooth, I would say that they are blaming others to hide their disruptive behavior. They are desperate to oppose own topic ban, while making the situation worse for the rest of the editors. Problematic language skills that are combined with POV-pushing and edit warring is still going to discourage editors from contributing on as many pages where they are contributing. Noteswork (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just unarchived this thread for a formal closure.[34] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)re-signed[reply]

• Support disruption after IPA DS notification given to both: TheSawTooth [35], Nawabmalhi [36] Widefox; talk 14:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They don't take it seriously. TST spammed same message to at least 2 admins,[37][38] agreeable that he still don't understand the basics of Wikipedia policies and after so many discussions he still pretends that he know nothing. VandVictory (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Instances of canvassing and campaigning include:

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

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

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

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

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

[numbers added to match comments]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GregKaye 15:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of P-123's Comments section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the second of the references here I replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment:
I've been disappointed to see P-123, an editor I used to really respect, become argumentative and combative, seemingly for the sake of picking arguments, because when pushed there is no substance or objective to the point. P-123 fails to grasp NPOV focussing only on the neutral part to the exclusion of the balanced part. The encouragement of disruptive editors on article talk and personal talk to continue disruptive behavior is quite annoying. It appears to me they have been hounding Gregeye across various pages including my talk page [[39]] and [[40]] I've tried to stay out of this fight, but now that we are here, decided to comment. Seems to me P-123 could benefit from stepping back for a bit to get some useful perspective. Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lor is not an admin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by GraniteSand

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

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

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

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

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

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

[next comment added out of chronological sequence]

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

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

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

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

Further discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response by P-123 to AN/I charges

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

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

Further discussion (continued)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Voluntary Resolution

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

1. No posting to each others talk pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could, but I'd much rather you used the 3 months wisely in reflection. De Nile is not just a river in Egypt. Legacypac above noted them and I did a quick search of your contributions and saw this unsigned edit by you, right? [41]. 69.22.169.73 (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban and Iban for both editors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons for a topic ban on GregKaye

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

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

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

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

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

Legacypac, your "Especially he does not encourage other editors to disrupt the article" and the implication there is your judgment. You are very much parti pris and have been supporting Gregkaye on Talk pages ever since the AN/I began. I would remind you that there not been any judgment on the canvassing/campaigning charge yet. I have suspected for some time, as I said earlier in this AN/I, that you and Gregkaye would like to see me off the ISIS page, as a troublemaker who disagrees too much with both your views on how the page should be edited. There is another editor who was chased off the page for questioning the status quo with a sanction that you secured. I and editors like me are too uncomfortable for you both, and I see a new one has just arrived on the Talk page. This raises the spectre of something that sooner or later is going to have to go to AN/I, but I won't be wanting to take part in that one. By the way, I am not suggesting that in this AN/I Gregkaye is doing anything more than trying to have an editor reprimanded for editorial behaviour he believes infringes WP guidance and policy, but there has been no judgment on this yet (and I am wondering if there will be now). P-123 (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lankiveil, Legacypac, Nabla, and Spirit of Eagle: I think the problem is clear; Some articles and redirects are being created. These pages makes the readers think that there are really some provinces officially belonging to Daesh, or at least there are really some provinces known to be that of Daesh while the fact is that there's not such a thing, is it? You can't find sources backing the self promotional creation of those pages. According to Nabla the pages can be kept if there are sources, but is it really right to attribute legitimate regional government to such a terrorist organization (recognized by many nations as terrorist)? Can we find third party sources verifying this (now and in future)? if the answer is yes, it means that it is possible for third party sources to recognize it as a legitimate governor which will happen only when some countries recognize it as legitimate. How can it be for terrorist organizations? Mhhossein (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]