Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Toxic Editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChamithN[edit]

Being handled elsewhere. Dennis - 22:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If you look at the talks of this editor... I would suggest that he will be disbanded from his role as an editor. He is unreceptive, proud, and he seems to be so busy to ask a talk but delete the talk and could not get a reply from him... He is immature and toxic and loves to design his user page as if to show his abilities but he is toxic and James don't like that (a part of his speech in London's wikimania- I read it). Better remove him from the administrative board, - it's not worth paying him from the people's donation because of his character and let him sulk in his pride in his own country where he can vent out his anger unconstructively not in wikipedia.124.104.182.35 (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. You need to notify editors when you bring them up here or at ANI.
  2. You need to give specific links to specific comments made by the editor, and also show that you've made any sort of effort to solve your problem yourself.
  3. He's not an admin.
  4. I don't exactly see the problem. What policies is he breaking? What is he doing that warrants a block at all, let alone an indefinite one? Sergecross73 msg me 21:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hi, few points need clarifying,
  1. What exactly is the problem this editor has caused I can't see anything actionable here.
  2. You need to provide diffs to back up your claims.
  3. Their not an administrator.
  4. Administrators arent paid.

Amortias (T)(C) 22:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

On a side note [1] this report at WP:AN is very close to being a personal attack. Theres a risk of a self-returning block stick coming into play here. Amortias (T)(C) 22:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 3) This report is baseless. The IP made an unconstructive edit which the "toxic editor" reverted on vandalism patrol. ChamithN's page is already semiprotected because of IP vandalism, which continues on the user's talk page, and which this IP is no doubt involved in. I suggest our anonymous user should find something better to do. Ivanvector (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
So what this IP user trying to say is this edit is constructive?. He hasn't even realized that his edits won't be display even if I didn't revert it.--Chamith (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bgwhite refuses to acknowledge issue, is uncommunicative[edit]

On Sunday, I attempted twice to add paragraph (<p>) tags inside a list item per Help:List#Paragraphs inside list items 'cause the text was too long. I was reverted both times by Bgwhite, for doing it 'incorrectly', apparently. I've tried again and again to explain what was wrong with his fix, only to be brushed off and accused of trying to own the article on his talk page (which I think is very silly -- I did not even revert him a third time). A little while ago he said he'd stop answering to me. Would someone perhaps be able to mediate? Thank you. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Um, you were reverted because the <p> tag works differently in Wikipedia (it is tantamount to pressing the Enter key twice, which is a paragraph break, and besides, it's unnecessary even if they worked as expected). You also did not break up the paragraphs; instead you put them ahead of each list entry. <p> tags are only to be used if it's the same entry with multiple parapraphs, not multiple one-paragraph entries as is the case here. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Epicgenius, but I think you should take a closer look. Firstly, I added p tags inside a list item; we can't have blank lines inside a list item. Secondly, the 2nd list item did have multiple paragraphs. I've explained why I added p tags to all of them on Bgwhite's talk page. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I think I see the problem. You do not need <p> tags on all the list entries, just those that need breaking. Epicgenius (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes, technically, I don't. I wouldn't have protested if they hadn't been also removed from the item that needed them. (But for the reason that there's no margin between list items, I think they should've been kept....which is one reason why I ultimately suggested we create a template.) 31.153.72.171 (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
<br> could also be used, if <p> is too big. – Diverse genius (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
To be frank, what bothered me the most was that he basically refused to listen to anything I said. It's not the end of the world if it's not semantic or if the margins aren't quite right. Granted, I was a little blunt the first couple of times, but I don't see what it is I did to deserve to be treated this way. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Next time, if you need opinions, you can ask for help at village pump (assistance) or reference desk. – Infinite genius (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
These types don't have time to listen because they're too busy making sure everything project-wide has semantic pushdown context-free cleanliness depth or whatever it is they care about. If you use {{paragraph break}} instead of < p>, they'll leave you alone. EEng (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: WP:VPA was closed 6 years ago... though I can't quite bring to mind what the alternative would be for opinion-asking... *is also a tad confused because refdesk is supposed to reject opinion questions...* (Is this a joke I'm not getting?) - Purplewowies (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's now been reverted a 3rd time (after Epicgenius put it back), for "breaking accessibly guidelines". [2] Where are these guidelines? Why does the Help page suggest we do something that's not accessible? I also like his spin on it: "You were told at ANI not to do this". Where was that? 31.153.72.171 (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

<p> are not allowed in "ul" elements per w3c recommendations. See [3] for informal explanation. If you run a test page with "p" in the "ul" through w3c validator it will tell you it's an error. NE Ent 09:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Paragraph tags are allowed inside li's and the validator won't complain about it. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
And for proof: [4]. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Weird, my very similar test page appeared to fail the first time I tested -- I blame a cache somewhere. Anyway, Talk:Larnaca_International_Airport, not Bgwhite's talk page, is the place to discuss the content of Larnaca_International_Airport. NE Ent 10:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Right, but there isn't a disagreement over any of the content of the page. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Just in case it muddles the discussion, in regard with this edit, I wanna make clear that that wasn't my doing. There weren't blank lines there on Sunday, and I'd have taken them out if I noticed they'd been added. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I did these. If they are not correct, I apologize. <br> should be used instead. Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
IMO, the {{paragraph break}} suggestion above was actually probably the best, as it takes both appearance and accessibility into account. (Unless I've confused the issue at hand here and/or the the template's purpose.) - Purplewowies (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Improper talk page reversions[edit]

I followed-up on a request at Editor Assistance/Requests [5], and found that user:Charlesdrakew had deleted three talk page posts by user:Astbam. See [6] [7] [8]. I asked Charlesdrakew about this, and he claimed that the posts he deleted were WP:soapboxing, and stood by his reverts.[9]

Astbam's talkpage posts were clearly a legitimate attempt to resolve an article content dispute.(See the editor assistance request at [10].) WP has a well developed set of dispute resolution processes, but they do not include deleting other editor's talk page comments when you disagree with them (claims of soapboxing notwithstanding.) (See WP:TPO.)

Per ArbCom, "Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable."[11]

Charlesdrakew is a prolific and well-known WP editor, whose contributions appear to be very valuable to the project. This does not let him off the hook for hostile conduct.

As a matter of background, the only involvement I have in this matter is discussing it with Charlesdrakew, and bringing it here. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


The posts he removed don't meet Wikipedia's definition of soapboxing, and the OP is not violating any other guideline or rule that would allow his posts to be removed, so Charelsdrakew is violating TPO guidelines by removing the post. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe that soapboxing should ever be removed. While a careful reading of the talk page guidelines mentions that some things can be removed such as personal attacks, and soap boxing arguably falls into the category of items allowed to be removed, I do not think this is a good idea primarily because the borderline between soap boxing and legitimate discussion is gray.
I accept that personal attacks should be removed even though there can be some question of definition. However if someone is soap boxing I think it would be best to simply have to discussion. If someone doesn't persistently they should be warned and eventually blocked or band but I see no value in attempting to remove any soapboxing from the talk page as opposed to simply hatting it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Along the lines of what I said on Charles's talk page: Odd that Charles should supposedly be in trouble for reverting edits that other editors have completely agreed do not belong on the site. Strange also that arbitration on the highly politicized topic of gun control is being applied to a rather non-political topic of housekeeping. If both the letter and the spirit of that arbcom ruling (derived from WP:NOTBATTLE) was being followed there, it's not about winning arguments so much as keeping the site working. The site is not helped by talk pages cluttered by people reposting paragraphs from policy pages without no real discussion of relevance, with little to nothing to do with article improvement. It is helped by focusing the talk pages to article improvement only.
Multiple editors had explained to Astbam why his changes were not needed. Instead, he tried a disruptive wikilawyering equivalent of filibustering and went forum shopping when he didn't get his way. There is a disruptive editor here, and it's not Charles. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I fully stand behind Charles's removal - IMHO Astbam warred and warred on the article and when he didn't get what he wanted he simply went to cause disruption on the talkpage instead. –Davey2010(talk) 14:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Astbam's request for an explanation should not have been waved off, however that doesn't justify the new user's repeatedly adding the information back to the article without discussion, and that in turn does not justify the experienced users' hostility. All of this could likely have been avoided with proper discussion.
Charles and Davey should read the "arguments to avoid" essays, particularly WP:UNENCYC, WP:BELONG and WP:VAGUEWAVE, as well as WP:BITE. All three users should read and be sure to clearly understand WP:BRD. Ivanvector (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore with respect to Ian.thomson's comments, the "multiple other editors" were just Charles and Davey. With respect to Davey's comment and the Fearofreprisal's reason for opening the thread, it was probably unnecessary for Astbam to cut-and-paste the guidelines onto the talk page but we give new users a pretty wide latitude to make mistakes, but it was not soapboxing and calling it that was hostile. Even if it was soapboxing, that doesn't justify refactoring another user's talk page comments. Hatting with an explanation would have been better. Actually discussing with the new user would have been best. Ivanvector (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There is something strange going on when an editor I never heard of comes trawling through my old edits looking for something, anything, to attack me over. Strange too that only three reverts are being complained of here when the original complaint at my talkpage was of six reverts; [12] [13] [14], [15] [16], [17]

I suspect the motivation behind this has more to do with the latter three in the area of evolution. The creation, by creationists of course, of walls of text and circular arguments designed to drive out bonafide editors is an ongoing problem there and has to be controlled to maintain any sanity. It was mainly those posts I was referring to as soapboxing. They were.

Astbam is just one of a never-ending supply of transport obsessives who want to turn Wikipedia into a travel directory. The information he kept adding is not innocuous. It is original research compiled from ever changing primary sources, contrary to WP:NOT. It is not stable or of encyclopedic interest to anyone outside an immediate area. A policy titled WP:NOTTRAVEL surely speaks for itself. Trying to claim immunity from it on the grounds that something is not speciffically mentioned by the policy is just wikilayering.Charles (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Adding my support, for what it's worth, to Ivanvector's observations. I'm sure it wouldn't have been that hard for one of the more experienced editors to explain to the newbie exactly how the information being added violated WP:NOTTRAVEL, rather than blowing the newbie off with "add the info to another site IE Wikia." Also, I'm fairly certain neither "Give it a rest" nor "Rv unencyclopedic" is a valid reason to remove a talk page comment, especially a fairly innocuous (if overly long and copy-pasted) comment from a newcomer. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Another thing: If listing bus routes is verboten because it violates WP:OR and WP:NOTTRAVEL then we have a LOT of pages to get rid of. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes we do.Charles (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment
ArbCom's statement of principles on standards of editor behavior:
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of his or her own.[18] (Emphasis added)
ArbCom's statement of principles on consistent standards:
All Wikipedia editors, regardless of the length of their service or any positions they may hold, are expected to abide by at least our basic standards for user conduct. Experienced administrators are expected to adhere, at a minimum, to at least the same standards of behavior that they are responsible for enforcing. In the same vein, editors who see part of their role here as making constructive criticism of other users must strive to live up to the same standards to which they would hold others. Double standards, actual or perceived, can be seriously demoralizing.[19] (Emphasis added)
The clear community consensus here is that Charlesdrakew's reversions of Astbam's talk page comments were inappropriate conduct. Charlesdrakew has not denied this, nor has he shown remorse or recognition that what he did was inappropriate. All he has done is attempt to blame other editors for the situation - Astbam for being "just one of a never-ending supply of transport obsessives who want to turn Wikipedia into a travel directory," and me, for raising this ANI.
My suggestion is that the minimum remedy appropriate to prevent further disruption is for Charlesdrakew to be indefinitely restricted from reverting talk pages. Alternatively, if he's willing to accept that his behavior has been inappropriately hostile, and agree to lighten the fuck up, possibly a better solution would be to make him an administrator. Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

More WP:OR immediately following a block[edit]

This thread seems to have exhausted itself. So:
  • Kkm010 given a final warning re the unsourced addition of religion and ethnicity in infoboxes and (again) reminded of the relevant parts of WP:BLP. As a formal notification, Kkm010 is reminded that Discretionary Sanctions apply to BLPs.
  • Kkm010 is (again) warned not to mislabel material obtained from web services as "annual reports" or similar, and not to suggest this material has status as a company document. The issue is not the reliability of google finance or other services - it is the presentation of this data as something it is not.
Overall, it's disappointing that the above has recurred immediately after the previous block. More positively, neither has occurred since the above warnings were issued so perhaps we can finally move forward. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kkm010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Following this discussion only two weeks ago, Kkm was blocked for edit-warring and for unapologetically adding his own original research and "analysis" to various corporate articles. Even while the discussion was ongoing, Kkm continued to make the same sort of edits. He was blocked for that and for edit-warring to keep his original research in various articles.

Immediately following his return to editing, he added exactly the same type of original research (raw financial data, disingenuously cited with his own interpretations) to two different articles. I reverted both edits and warned him for those. My reverts were reverted, but with the addition of slightly better sources. But Kkm is at it again, adding the same Google Finance data, calling it an "annual report" and using the raw data to extrapolate year-on-year financial results.

There was a commitment from Kkm during the last ANI discussion that he would discontinue his OR spree. That commitment was obviously as disingenuous as his sourcing. I really don't know what else to do - I've tried warning, discussing, reverting, discussing again, discussing here (for which he was blocked) and more warning. What is it going to take for this disruptive behaviour to be stopped? Stlwart111 10:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty well established that adding (or subtracting ) numbers together isn't OR. He can show where he got the numbers from, and unless the contention is that google's unreliable, he's doing nothing more that basic addition or subtraction. This doesn't appear to be OR. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
You've lost me. It was established that what he was adding was original research in the last ANI discussion and he agreed to stop doing it. The block was for original research. But he's back at it. It's not simply a matter of "adding (or subtracting) numbers". He's posting raw financial data, extrapolating results and claiming the data is in fact an annual report from the company in question. Completely false. The reliability of Google isn't in question - it's not a source published by Google at all; it's the raw search results Kkm got when he plugged the stock exchange code into Google. The issue here is not the acceptability of the edits themselves (it was established they were completely unacceptable and even Kkm agreed as much while at the same time pleading ignorance). The issue is that the IDHT attitude has continued beyond the original block. Stlwart111 11:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Stalwart111, looking at the page he linked to shows the numbers he says are there, and where he says increase or decrease, it's obvious that that indeed is what it is. He's not making up numbers, nor is he comparing source a to source b and coming up with C. He's reporting the numbers on the website (which is google finance) and stating if it's an increase or a decrease. That portion is not OR. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
────────────
  • Perhaps this shouldn't be qualifies as the "Annual Report" which is an actual document likely produced by the company and Google Finance does not (as far as I saw) claim to be directly reproducing that report. There may be an issue of if Google Finance is an RS for this type of thing, but assuming it is, the increase/decrease stuff clearly falls within WP:CALC Gaijin42 (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As Gaijin42 said, it is also disingenuous to call the Google finance search an Annual Report. Anyone who is familiar with financial parlance would know that an Annual Report is released by the company and includes far more than just the numerical data for cash flow, etc. As it is now, the labeling is misleading to the reader as to the true provenance of that source. Blackmane (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As I said on Kosh's talk page - I have no real interest in re-prosecuting the case against Kkm. That was well established in the last thread about exactly the same behaviour. There is no "annual report" - that's an invention of Kkm's who is trying to pass his interpretation (or calculation) of financial results off as the work of the company itself or Google Finance. The sources in question are not either of those things. The issue here is an editor returning after a block and thumbing his nose at the community by immediately re-starting the same sort of editing that got him blocked in the first place. If consensus has changed in the last two weeks and Kkm's actions are no longer a blockable offence (which seems strange without considerable community discussion) then I'll move on and stop putting effort into stopping what is obviously disruptive behaviour. Stlwart111 22:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Err, "There is no annual report...." What's the link he's referring to ? The link shows a report on google finance for that company. It's not an invention by Kkm , unless you want to claim that he put together an OR report, then somehow got google finance to carry it ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
What? Where is the report? Annual report means something specific - something a long way away from that which Kkm calls, "2014 Annual Report". ZTE. Retrieved 2014-03-19. Besides the obviously wrong date and wrong attribution, the link isn't to an "Annual Report" at all - it's to a set of google search results - a raw Google Finance data sheet for the company that you get by plugging the relevant stock exchange code into google and hitting "search". It's not an "Annual Report" by any stretch of the imagination (it's not even a published "report" in any sense of the word) and includes specific disclaimers (from Google) that it's not what Kkm claims it to be. You'd get the same data by walking into a stock exchange and copying down the numbers from the board. There is not a single part of that citation which is honest and genuine - every part of it is false. Kkm knows this, has been warned about this and has edit-warred to keep this sort of thing in article to the point where he was blocked. And he's at it again. Stlwart111 12:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
That link actually has the quarterly and annual data for that particular company, and he's accurately reporting what the numbers say in that annual report without any calculations. Time to drop it Stalwart, there's no OR here. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 13:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
As with his editing, your calling it a "report" doesn't make it one and search results with not hint of WP:RS doesn't qualify as a "source". As on your talk page, I genuinely can't work out whether you're just trolling to get a rise out of people or whether you don't understand what's going on. Right now, your are the ONLY person suggesting these are acceptable sources and edits (even Kkm has given up on that ridiculous line). Do you actually think Kkm's conduct (which even he has vowed to discontinue) and editing (which even he has reverted) is acceptable? Stlwart111 00:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
As with his editing, your calling it a "report" doesn't make it one and search results with not hint of WP:RS doesn't qualify as a "source" ' Stalwart, I'm hardly trolling. On the page in question I see a link to google finance, which is not some fringe blog, nor is it a forum, nor is it a user-supplied reference, it appears to be reliable as well. I also see KKM reporting what the page says, without attempting to combine source and with source b to create c, nor do I see him attempting to analyze data, he accurately reports what the annual numbers are (they're actually there on google finance ) , whether it's advancing or declining is obvious, so no, there is no OR. You've offered no evidence of such, so , once again, time to drop it and move on, it's not OR KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Just. Plain. Wrong. Nobody suggested it was a "blog" or a "forum" and that's a pointless straw-man. Calling it a "link to Google Finance" is disingenuous - they are just raw search results. Of course its user-generated - you get the same by plugging any stock exchange code into Google or any other word into Google and copy-pasting the URL after hitting "search". It's not even a "source", let alone a reliable one. Google didn't "publish" the content - a search engine tool automatically extracts the data and presents it in that format. If I type "Harry Potter" into Amazon's search engine, the results wouldn't constitute a "report" or a "source, published by Amazon". And again, you're the only person here who thinks its a legitimate source - you're still digging; alone in your hole. Even Google warns against using the results in the way you're advocating. Stlwart111 12:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Stalwart, that corpse is beginning to stink, please back away from it. |google finance is not user-contributed data, it's the financial data available in any 8K report (I work in the fiance industry ). It's not a search engine, it's a report. Yes it's reliable , if you believe otherwise prove it otherwise stop beating the horse, it died a long time ago. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not even... you just don't... Facepalm Facepalm. Your capacity and willingness to argue in the face of overwhelming (like... 0% support for your position) consensus is astonishing. I don't know what you're trying to achieve here but I'm starting to gain an understanding of how the extensive note on the top of your talk page came about. Stlwart111 21:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As with the last thread, Kkm has refused to explain himself either here or on his talk page (last time we got broken English contributions demanding we explain what he had done wrong, even while he undid his own edits). Nothing here at all. But again, Kkm has quietly acknowledged the issue, reverting himself and replacing the "source". Surely fortnightly ANI reports is an inefficient way of preventing disruption? Can we get some admin action here? Dare I ping DP whose warnings Kkm is ignoring? Stlwart111 13:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As I said earlier I will use original company source it could be either annual report or fourth quarter results where financial results are mentioned.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 04:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you made that commitment "earlier" and then you were blocked. And you've done it 3 times since your block. We obviously shouldn't have believed you last time. Why should we believe you now? Stlwart111 04:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
That is why I need your help. Just remind me where I have failed to put original source I will immediately replace it. Don't worry to much about it, just relax take it easy brother.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 06:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem is, nobody should need to remind you. You've been blocked for it before, isn't that reminder enough? (I don't have firsthand experience, though, so maybe not...) ansh666 06:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Stalwart, you appear to be the only person arguing that his postings are OR. You further claim (up a bit higher in this same area) that Google finance is somehow unreliable and is user-generated. You mentioned the disclaimer - and you're right to do so, google doesn't verify the numbers. However, did you see the first part Data is provided by financial exchanges . It's not user generated, and thus reliable. You claim it isn't, I am stating that it is reliable and that no OR is being done on this , he's posting what the numbers say and the "increase " and "decrease" is obvious, and not OR per WP:CALC. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Financial data and analysis for annual reports most definitely do not fall under WP:CALC. Google results are not reliable sources, annual reports are either from the company or from a 3rd party financial reliable source. Perhaps there should be a discussion on the article Talk pages on how best to update corporate financial numbers. Dave Dial (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • KoshVorlon, his block was for original research so your claim is patently false. He returned after his block to do the same thing. You're free to call it something else (believing that it falls within the confined of CALC, though it clearly doesn't) but that doesn't make it any less disruptive, unrepentant, and blatant. Stlwart111 02:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course, what is being overlooked here, amidst Kosh's rather strange and insistent assertions, is that it was already established this was unacceptable, and that's why kkm was blocked for it. The instant recidivism is the issue, not some odd relitigation.
Let's leave that to one side, however, and consider something else: Read this diff, from Ponyo: "Religion" and "ethnicity" in infoboxes. Here, on his talkpage, at the time of the block, it was made clear that according to BLP, "religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources".
Here are some examples of ignoring this, after the block, and after the extensive advice: [20],[21],[22],[23],[24]. Every one unsourced. Every one unexplained. There are more.
This is not a user here to edit collaboratively, or abide by our policies. I'm pretty much gone from here these days, but I couldn't leave this without comment. This, along with the above, is blatant flouting of rules in favour of POV unsourced trash, even after good faith warnings and a block. It's a user who wants to edit as they alone see fit, and damn the rules and everyone else. I said that in the last ANI. Do with it as you will. Begoontalk 13:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I've left a final warning with regard to the infobox issue on Kkm010's talk page. The instances of this editor's "forgetfulness" wherein they agree to address concerns and then continue on as they were are problematic and will only lead to additional blocks under the "fool me once" clause.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know about all the diffs but I believe that Google Finance is a reliable source of date and calculating from the information distributed is perfectly logical and should never fall under WP:OR. Google Finance pulls its data from HKG. I am referring to the ZTE article. The edits are sensible and factually correct. He's not under a TBAN or anything such, so I believe what you call recidivism might just be constructive edits. However, please note. I am yet to see the other differences. --Ankit Maity «T § C» 17:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I scanned through the diffs ([25],[26],[27],[28],[29]) and trust me, they are fine. I mean by that - factually correct. For example, Malala Yousafzai - is marked as a follower of Islam. Is it sourced? No. Why do we accept it? Common sense. Come on, you don't need citations for this kind of basic infobox information. Do we question Michael Jackson's religion, do we question Assad's religion? Does Farooq Abdullah sound in anyway Christian or such? The surname Abdullah clearly specifies the fact that's he's a follower of Islam. --Ankit Maity «T § C» 18:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Here, on his talkpage, at the time of the block, it was made clear that according to BLP, "religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources".
— User:Begoon

I don't know why I am saying this. But don't tell me that common sense and logic qualify under WP:OR too. And Kkm010 could have sourced all of them but he/she preferred not to. -_- --Ankit Maity «T § C» 18:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That has to be among the most ridiculous rubbish I've ever seen posted to ANI. Someone should "logically" have particular religious beliefs attributed to them because their name "sounds" Muslim? Are you kidding me? That's the worst kind of original research. And by the way, the claim that Malala Yousafzai was, "born into a Sunni Muslim family" is most definitely sourced. It just doesn't need to be sourced again when included in the infobox. Stlwart111 21:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Ankit Maity, you are very much on the wrong side of policy. If you want to include a BLP subject's religion in an article it needs to be supported by reliable sources, there needs to be evidence of self-identification, and it needs to be relevant. I'm sorry, I don't "trust you" that the information "is fine". You may be a wonderful person, but I don't know you from a hole in the ground and Wikipedia readers need to be able to verify the information included in articles. I'm not sure how you can say that "you don't need citations for this kind of basic infobox information" when every single permutation of BLP policy states that you indeed do. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • After edit-warring and OR, a block, some disingenuous apologies, more edit-warring and OR, more disingenuous apologies, more pleading ignorance, final warnings, some off-topic and non-policy blather and some final, final warnings, Kkm has spent the time this thread was open edit-warring in a new area and again feigning ignorance. The lack of administrator attention and action has allowed this thread to degenerate into a string of contributions like the one above from editors seemingly keen to defend Kkm's nonsense on entirely non-policy grounds. Do we need to formally put this to a vote to get some action? I hate having to watch another editor's contributions and I'm sure the other 3-4 people watching Kkm's feel the same. Stlwart111 02:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

False accusations of vandalism[edit]

These are, I hope you would agree, a grievous personal attack, and are highly damaging to the encyclopaedia. You are probably not aware that anonymous editors will always be accused of vandalism, and the time it will take for someone to slander them in this way is usually very short. For this IP address, it's taken less than two days.

  • Edits with very clear summaries: [30], [31]
  • Reverts with false accusations: [32], [33]
  • Threatening message left: [34]
  • Further spread of false allegations: [35]

Is anyone bothered by this, and if so, what are you prepared to do about it? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware that this user is the so-called Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP user, as has been noted by a statement on this user's talk page by someone else. I would suggest having a look at the edit history of BBC Canada and CBC News Network, which both show a history of edit-warring on this particular point by this user. I would argue that the vandalism designation is now appropriate given that vandalism is a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia, which is exactly what I would argue this user has now been doing. I would suggest a lengthy block of this IP address (definitely for the edit warring regardless of the validity of the vandalism designation), given that this user has previously been blocked for 3 months after doing exactly the same thing (see User:187.17.57.15). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Also note that the IP is operating whilst his block under another IP [36] is still in force. Not entirely unusual for this individual. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". It is obvious that my edits were an attempt to improve the articles. Even if you considered making necessary edits with clear summaries to be disruptive, that is specifically described as not being vandalism. Your ignorance of the policy is troubling. False accusations of vandalism are highly damaging to the project, and in my opinion they should be met with a block if made and not retracted. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
You mean a block that one can ignore, and just pop up immediately under a different IP? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess you think false accusations of vandalism are not a problem then. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
They are a problem, and admins will decide how to call this, bearing in mind both sides of the story. Is it a "grievous personal attack"? Biggest laugh I've had all day, considering what you've called me in the past, let alone others. Do I think you're in a good position to decide what's "damaging to the project", "troubling" or "slander"? No. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
If you like to see a particular person attacked, that's up to you. It doesn't mean that the attack is not an attack. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't like to see anyone attacked, which is why I find your behaviour over the years so obnoxious. Do I feel this is an "attack"? No. He's criticising your editing, as far as I can see, and it's up to the admins whether or not he's accurately doing so or not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Haha, "criticising"? No. He's making an obviously untrue claim. One could, conceivably, use the word "vandalism" as criticism. Journalistic reviews of works of architecture and such have certainly done that. But that would not be accompanied by a "final warning" and the reporting of the architect to the authorities, would it? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The IP apparently wants the "offending" editor to stop using their user name an edit as an ever-changing IP. Brilliant. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I've got absolutely no idea what you mean by this. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The primary remedy here is blocking editors. In your world, that means the editor is supposed to continue editing, changing their IP every time they are blocked for evading their block. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
You're not making any sense.186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much. The IP is editing in direct defiance of a block. Again. Repeated claims of being the victim based on wikilawyering ("It's not socking because I've never had an account", "How dare you undo my edits made in defiance of a block", "No, I'm not 'banned', I'm merely ignoring every block ever placed on me", "It's not 'vandalism', it's just more of the edit-warring that I've been blocked for", "Calling my edit-warring 'vandalism' is a 'grievous personal attack', which I won't stand for"). I'd suggest a nice boomerang, but I'm just a "fucking retarded little cunt", so what do I know?
Let's try this: Start with the earliest block evasion we can find for this editor. For each evasion after that, make the next block longer and extend the previous block. Then, if the editor waits out the block, we can let them try again in 2020 or so. Or let them continue to edit war, make personal attacks and ignore all blocks and edit all of our policies and guidelines to reflect their special status. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of sock puppetry again? It does amuse me how a complaint about false claims just leads to more false claims. And indeed, I've been blocked several times in the past for no reason other than having complained about false claims being made. Sock puppetry is the act of pretending to be more than one person. A puppet has to be animated by a puppeteer. Perhaps you can point out where I ever pretended to be more than one person. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I am accusing you of block evasion. You have been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring, personal attacks and block evasion. Hell, you were blocked yesterday for a personal attack. You have also falsely claimed to not be the same editor.[37]
And obviously, you have to trot out yet more false claims. Nowhere in the diff you provide did I claim to be or not to be anyone. I never attempted in any way to conceal my identity. The diff you post is an interesting case, in which you undid a swathe of my edits for no good reason, with no explanation, and clearly to the detriment of the encyclopaedia (for example, restoring peacock words and undefined acronyms). I complained, obviously. I got blocked because of who I am. here. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
You claimed you were not evading a block: "...the block log it claims block evasion. Neither of these are true." As you were blocked at the time, the only reasonable way to read that is as a claim that you are not who you are. You might wikilawyer this into some other explanation, but the obvious intended meaning is as I read it. It is also the reading the declining admin had.[38][39] I did not undo a swathe of your edits "for no good reason". WP:EVADE, as has been repeatedly explained to you, allows any editor to undo any or all of your edits, without giving any further reason. You were blocked because of who you are: a disruptive, edit-warring, block evading editor who is unable and/or unwilling to control their tendency to make vile personal attacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I was not blocked at the time. You posted a diff showing that the administrator said on 5 September that I was "obviously the same user as 190.162.219.249". That IP address had indeed been blocked, and the block had expired on 2 August. You did indeed undo a swathe of my edits for no good reason. There is no policy that allows you to undo any or all of someone's edits simply because you've developed a grudge against them. 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Poor you. You've been blocked so many times that you can't even keep track of the blocks. You were still blocked at the time.[40] I undid your edits because you were evading a block. Boo hoo. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • We can always let positive edits stand, and not revert them for no good reason besides either desire for righteousness or bureaucratic adherence to a guideline that does not itself require we follow it. Or, we can go ahead and indef-block their current IP address, and feel much better about ourselves. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
In effect, you are saying the editor in question is untouchable. They can make personal attacks, edit war and ignore any blocks, so long as they are willing to restart their modem. (They have repeatedly stated that they have repeatedly done so to avoid the numerous blocks.) Thus, they were blocked for 3 hours yesterday for calling me an idiot, but only because they chose to ride it out. They were not blocked for any of their other repeated personal attacks (including "fucking retarded little cunt"), edit warring and block evasion. Would you care to clarify Wikipedia:Blocking policy? It seems it should read, "Blocked users can continue to access Wikipedia, but cannot edit any page (including their own user pages), except (in most cases) their own user talk pages or if they are willing to restart their modem and make edits Drmies feels are an improvement. In that case, do whatever the fuck you want at all times." - SummerPhD (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
It would be useful to find out if the IP's sockmaster is a banned user. If so, all edits by that user are revertible on-sight, regardless of their alleged quality. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah great, another ridiculous false accusation of sock puppetry. You think you're being helpful? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
If you want to be helpful, you could give us a list of other IP's and/or registered users you've edited under. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
You're calling for the revert of all my edits, based on a claim you've decided to make on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. And this despite us never, to the best of my knowledge, having ever interacted in any way. Again I'll ask: you think you're being helpful? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Where did I unequivocally call for your edits to be revoked? Or did you just confess to being a banned user? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Obviously not. 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) IP has been blocked for 6 months for block evasion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Well done OhNoitsJamie. I don't know why we waste so much hot air on trolls, vandals etc. Just nail them down and move on. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Jamie, Jim, for reasons noted above this is not going to achieve anything (and we are not dealing with a "troll, vandal, etc."). Note that the editor is not banned--a discussion on AN did not deliver the result some were hoping for. Note also that "LTA" is not some admin- or community-approved page: that they "have" an LTA file does not mean they are a longterm abuser, it means that someone wrote it up. The choice term the IP slung at SummerPhD, that was in March. That doesn't mean it's nothing, of course, but I am not the first one to notice that their abuse follows being reverted time and time and time again. (This does not mean I think it's OK for them to have said that--note that I blocked them for saying "idiot".) The way I see it, we have two options.
    • We block every IP we run into, and revert every one of their edits we run into. The effect of that is that we block a lot of IPs, and revert a lot of good edits in main space; the other effect is that this just keeps going on and on. (I don't see how it can escalate much further; it's pretty much out of control already.)
    • We do not revert their mainspace edits on sight, just because an IP made them, just because this IP editor made them. The effect of that is that many articles will improve; another effect is that a lot of editors will have to swallow their pride and not revert. I don't know if this can be done, but not reverting edits on sight, not reverting their edits with "rv banned ip" (incorrect since they're not banned) or "rvv" (incorrect since not vandalism), well, that would stave off many an edit war, wouldn't it, and many an insult back and forth ("vandal" is an insult, if the person addressed is not a vandal).
    • There is a third option: if the IP got an account, I doubt they'd be reverted as often and as quickly as they are. Of course they're riding hard on this point of principle, which is both admirable and foolish. If they could swallow their pride, though, on this point, well, we could make progress.
  • But option two and three can't happen now, and Jamie, I assume you knew that that would be the effect of a six-month block: every time they edit they're block evading in the next six months, and every single time they do simply adds to the notion that the IP editor is a longterm abuser and block evader. I do not believe this is a good thing to do, and if you look into the history here you may realize this too. Basically, the IP keeps getting blocked and reverted because they've been getting blocked and reverted. It's a crazy situation, exacerbated by both sides' increasing antagonism, with a schmuck like me in the middle. What to do? We have chosen the easiest and worst solution: an LTA file, a series of blocks and now a really long one, and an adherence to procedure. And yes, the recurring problem of IP editing where, in this case, an IP editor has too frequently gotten reverted because they didn't have an account. And don't tell me "I reverted them because they're the abusive IP"--the way I see it, they became the abusive IP because they kept getting reverted. But I rest my case: it's hopeless given the intransigence on both sides. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest this to the IP: find an IP address that you haven't used before; create a named account, and resist the temptation to undo your own undone edits so as not to raise red flags. Continue making constructive edits, and avoid incivility and edit-warring. If the IP user does this, I'm fairly certain they could continue editing Wikipedia without incident. The "avoiding incivility and edit-warring" is going to be the biggest challenge for this user, given their history. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Jamie, I certainly appreciate the spirit with which you are making this suggestion, but of course a. it remains block evasion for the next six months (unless you lower the block) and b. they're going to have to...what's the word...pretend they're not them, so to speak. I don't know if they're willing to do that. It would be the easiest way out of this mess, no doubt--and yeah, of course they're going to have to keep the cussing down. But I don't know if you've ever been slumming as an IP: the speed with which one gets reverted (and blocked!) sometimes is very disheartening. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't doubt that IPs (and redlink named accounts) are sometimes wrongly "profiled"; that's why I suggested that the user create a named account from a non-blocked IP. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
So the solution to being falsely accused of disruption, vandalism and sock puppetry is to start sock puppeting. Hilarious.
  • find an IP address that you haven't used before - easy enough
  • create a named account - no
  • resist the temptation to undo your own undone edits so as not to raise red flags - if reinstating edits that have been reverted for absolutely no reason raises "red flags" for you or anyone else, you should consider what your intentions are here. It does not appear that improving the encyclopaedia is among them if reverting for no reason is fine, but re-reverting raises "red flags" for you.
  • Continue making constructive edits - as if I ever did anything else.
  • avoid incivility and edit-warring - impossible to avoid them - people who love them both are too numerous. I edited for a matter of a couple of hours on the previous IP address before someone reverted an edit of mine for no reason, and it wasn't much longer before someone falsely accused me of vandalism. Just up above here someone entirely unrelated to the conversation blundered in and described me as a vandal and a troll. These are vile personal attacks. If I could be bothered, I could very easily find you 50 editors who've falsely accused me of vandalism. Not one of them was ever blocked. I don't need all the fingers on one hand to count the number who were even warned. Many of them have been explicitly praised by other editors.
  • If the IP user does this, I'm fairly certain they could continue editing Wikipedia without incident - you have been enthusiastically blocking me for months, whenever anyone runs to you requesting that you do so. You've blocked leaving dishonest messages every single time, and you've improperly judged my unblock requests for your own blocks. When pressed to give a reason other than the false one you always begin with, you link to the attack page that was created some months ago, the existence of which obviously does not justify a block. You've almost invariably followed that up by removing my talk page access. You've made edits whose only possible intentions could be either or both of a) provoking me, and b) harming the encyclopaedia. And after all this you have the gall to come up with this, having just blocked me for no less than six months. Try to be less ridiculous with your next suggestion.
Here's a simpler way of avoiding problems. Don't revert for no reason. Don't lie about me. And don't ever, ever accuse me of vandalism. Pretty simple, isn't it? But people, including you, prefer harassing and attacking anonymous editors, and they have the explicit encouragement of the community. It's been repeatedly demonstrated that calling someone a liar for making a false accusation of vandalism is considered worth blocking for, but making a false accusation of vandalism isn't. Until people take serious steps to counteract the poisonously discriminatory culture that's developed, you'll continue to see hard working contributors getting angry when repeatedly, endlessly provoked. You yourself have enjoyed taking part in the provocation. I'm sure you got just the result you were looking for. 186.37.203.15 (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You are evading a block right now. Until you take that fact seriously, nothing you say here will have any merit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, you and your helpful comments. Where would we be without you? And with this, you demonstrate that you have no real idea what vandalism is. My new empirical rule of Wikipedia which you have amply confirmed here is that any complaint about a false accusation of vandalism will trigger at least three further false claims of vandalism. 186.37.203.120 (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's called "Administrator intervention against vandalism". However, it is routinely used to enforce blocks in cases of block evasion, such as yours. It is also used in cases of clear personal attacks, such as ones you have made. It is sometimes used in cases of edit-warring, such as yours, but that normally goes to 3RR. Hope this clears up the ambiguity. Do you dispute that you have made numerous personal attacks against numerous editors? Do you dispute that you have edit warred? Do you dispute that you have edited in direct defiance of several blocks? If you can answer yes to all three of these, you are deluding yourself. Otherwise, you have been given the instructions for requesting an unblock. Failing that, you will need to ride out six months or deal with occasionally being uncovered, having your block extended and, boo hoo, having edits reverted without need for explanation by anyone who cares to do so. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
There was no "ambiguity" to clear up. The page itself is extremely clear: "This page is intended for reports about obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only". There's even a guide to using the page, which says "Administrator intervention against vandalism is for reporting users currently engaging in persistent, clear vandalism". User:Baseball Bugs's report was a clear and unambiguous accusation of "obvious and persistent" vandalism. 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The ambiguity here is that you seem to think there is a meaningful difference between your repeated vile personal attacks, edit warring, and block evasion and "vandalism". Your behavior is not acceptable. Blocking you and reverting your edits without giving any further reason while you are evading the blocks that you can't keep track of is perfectly acceptable. It is soooooooooo sad that a gentle soul such as yourself can't get their way every time and has someone hurt their feelings by not labeling your edit warring, personal attacks and block evasion with exactly the right terms. I realize you find that more offensive than being called a "cunt".[41] Too bad. I'd suggest you take a break, curl up with your blankie and cry about it for a bit. After a good 6 months of crying, maybe we'll see the error of our ways and my signature will read "fucking retarded little cunt", "idiot", "retard", "twat", "fucking idiot", etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals. KonveyorBelt 16:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that the solution suggested by Drmies, making a regular account is the best one. WP is not a bureaucracy, and if our circular process of blocking and ip editing give a poor result, it should not be continued. The easiest way to avoid it without relying on the knowledge of any admin who may happen to come across the account without knowing the history or the discussion here, it is to remove the existing block(s), and I am prepared to do so if Drmies will help identify them. if the editor will commit themselves to making and using one single named account, and not continue editing as an ip. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to create an account. 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course not. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm also prepared to unblock, but I have a different condition in mind. The editor is right: we don't forbid IP editing, and nor should we. We need to remain open to people who may wish to try editing here before they register, or may have their own personal reasons for not registering. Rather, I propose the IP undertake to remain civil. (Which includes recognising that even the best editor occasionally makes a mistake, or runs into something on which reasonable people can disagree.) This is the standard we're all supposed to at least aspire to, and his uncivil remarks have contributed greatly to putting him in this mess. I see improvement in that respect but this is the second time I've seen SummerPhD refer on one of these noticeboards to a really nasty epithet that he flung at her. I'd like to help cut this Gordian knot, but that's my requirement. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I always undertake to remain civil. I never set out to initiate or exacerbate any unpleasant situation. I am, however, under constant attack. The reason I started this discussion was that I was falsely accused of vandalism, but of course that got quickly forgotten, a single comment from the accuser failed to explain why he made false claims, and the discussion degenerated into snide attacks on me and several further accusations of vandalism. If you expect me to remain friendly at all times in the face of this kind of behaviour, you expect too much.
If someone repeatedly pokes me in the eye, and I eventually stab them in the chest, then a reasonable person would surely say I overreacted. They would also surely say that the person shouldn't have poked me in the eye. People like User:SummerPhD and a number of others (User:Wee Curry Monster and User:AlanS spring to mind) specifically set out to poke me in the eye, stalking my edits and reverting them for no reason. If that kind of behaviour were to be actually frowned upon, actually dealt with and actually considered harmful, we would never have had any problems at all. But it's been repeatedly established that their actions are condoned and encouraged by the community. If deliberate and constant provocations are permitted and encouraged, you have to expect that people will either a) leave or b) react. I am certain that most people simply leave. I've been contributing for more than ten years and I have no plans to stop. Every time I randomly browse a few articles I find very basic problems that need correcting. If User:SummerPhD wishes to continue stalking and reverting my edits to the obvious detriment of the encyclopaedia, while leaving immature taunting comments as above, then what is a tireless contributor who isn't going to leave expected to do? 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Note the latest series of destructive and provocative edits by User:SummerPhD: [42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55]; and two other unexplained reverts: [56], [57]. 186.37.203.204 (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Note the latest IP to inexplicably pop up after the first hundred were blocked. Epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
IP, I'm aware of why you opened this section, but this is AN/I, where things often boomerang, and we have an intractable problem here. I do think you need to realise that occasionally your edit may not be 100% obviously an improvement - the "best known for" thing, for example, clearly evokes differing responses partly depending on whether there are sources actually saying that. However, I do agree that this situation needs to end. Unfortunately your incivility has given you a bad reputation. DGG and Drmies have proposed one solution. If you are willing to take that one, splendid, and I will watchlist your talk page. I'm proposing an alternative and if you will make a declaration here that rather than strike back with incivility, you will do your utmost instead to (a) step back and consider whether part of your edit was indeed based on a misunderstanding or is a matter of taste and (b) if you still believe you are being reverted unjustly, instead of being rude right back, leave a message at my talk page, I will see about unblocking your various IPs so long as you keep your promise to stay civil. That would have to include trying your best not to refer to people or their messages as immature and taunting. I can't promise to be online and editing 24/7 (I have not yet joined the great mobile revolution), but I have talk page stalkers some of whom would also probably be willing to help out. And you could vent on my talk page a bit. It's a bit more private than AN/I, but of course one of the disadvantages to not registering a user name is that you can't use the e-mail function. Perhaps you or someone else can suggest a third way of fixing this? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Poking chests in response to having eyes poked is understandable, maybe, but not helpful. Tit for tat never solves anything--I should know; I'm only slowly learning this. IP, you have seen that your opponents (it's fair to say we're on a battlefield) are not really willing to budge, in part because you're not giving them much reason to. I've stuck my neck out for you more than once, as you know, and now one of my long-time collaborators is no doubt incredibly pissed at me for trying to work with you and, yes, arguing here and elsewhere that you have a point. I understand you're not willing to create an account--well, "understand", no, not really, but OK.

Yngvadottir, for whom I have the utmost respect, has offered you another way, and I offer my talk page as well. You've used that talk page before so you know the way, and you know also that I have reinstated a great many of your positive edits, using my personal judgment about whether it improves the article or not--as we should all do, it bears repeating. Doing that gives you a kind of high ground, or at least equal status. It may not be all that you want, but I don't see how the present situation is much fun for you. It's certainly no fun for me, and I don't enjoy these periodical flare-ups; there comes a time when I will no longer care who's right and who's wrong and I'll just walk away--I can't go on infinitely arguing that your edits are good so those insults should be forgotten. This may well be the time to give up on arguing the morality and righteousness of the various positions and figure out a way forward; I had not realized, until Yngvadottir (and DGG) came along, that there were other options besides the ones I laid out. Really, pragmatism, not idealism. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I must say that, while I'm astonished this IP still has any support at all, it's to the credit of Drmies and Yngvadottir that they are still willing to look for a compromise. It's an insult to them that the IP clearly has, and has always had, no intention of compromising even slightly – even to the point of accepting that sometimes their edits really aren't all that great. I've never seen such peacockery about such run-of-the-mill gnome edits. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This is getting decidedly dull and tedious. In October 2011, I reverted this edit [58] in which the IP editor managed to strangle a sentence so badly he stated that Prince Andrew travelled to the Falklands War as part of the press rather than as a serving officer in the Royal Navy. I gave an informative edit summary but he simply reverted [59] to once again strangle that sentence's meaning. This is fundamentally the problem, he'll revert every single edit to impose his version on an article whether it improves it or not, whether its a matter of editor choice and in most cases fundamentally its down to the fact he just doesn't like it. I have never stalked his edits, systematically reverting them, I have gone to extra lengths to explain myself to him and I am getting heartily sick of him coming to these boards claiming I stalked him; it never happened. I reverted one edit of his with the edit summary "rv IP edits" in 2011 and over 3 years later he is still whining about it. Really does this guy improve the encyclopedia? His content contributions are not going to set the world alight, he tweaks a bit of poor grammar here and there. So what, the heat and light he generates isn't worth the hassle. Drmies do you think we could at least put an end to the persecution complex, its really a broken record and one that more and more people are tiring of. WCMemail 21:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
It is dull and tedious, with intransigence on both sides. That sentence doesn't say what you say it says: the IP's comma usage is quite correct. And if they're still complaining about that edit--well, pot, meet kettle. That an LTA was started (to which you contributed--and yes, I did too) simply means that this is still ongoing. It was never over. Yngvadottir, DGG, and I are trying to find a way out. Unsuccessfully, it seems. You've been upset with me for quite some time over this, as was Bretonbanquet, and my good friend Ritchie333 is on the opposite side, and so is Summer--all editors with whom I'd much rather collaborate than argue. But I am still unwilling to put it all down on one side. I guess that makes me intransigent as well. Still, I hope you know that I never held the IP editor blameless. Ah well. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Drmies, if I've given the impression I'm upset with you, let me be the first to apologise and let you know that isn't the case. You're actually one of the few admins I have any respect for, which sadly does your street cred no good whatsoever. I happen to disagree with you whether this guy is worth the hassle and life would be dull if we all agreed, all the time. But seriously, this guy's persecution complex is getting beyond a joke. WCMemail 22:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate that, and right back at you. We both have been short with each other over this, though that's a while ago now. Let's agree to disagree, and let's hope that in the long run I'm right, that this is not (another) waste of time. :) Drmies (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
(Update) The user is leaving personal attacks, trolling, and now edit warring even though he is already blocked. Can we revoke TP access for this user now? He is doing at least 3 things now that would lead to a blockable offense, if he wasn't already blocked. Epicgenius (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@SummerPhD, Wee Curry Monster, AlanS, and Lippolop: The IP also mentioned you guys in their tirade, FYI. Epicgenius (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping but I intend to ignore him. I set out my response to his false claims here 2 years ago and see no need to add to it further. I would suggest leaving him to rant away to himelf, its simply not worth getting stressed about. WCMemail 09:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The IP can rant on all they like. Me an others appear to be on the right side of history in regards to this debate. Likely they will rant about us again in the future and we will still of been on the right side of history. AlanStalk 12:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on ISIL by User:Gregkaye[edit]

Long version:-
  • At its heart a content dispute, which cannot be resolved at ANI. Instead, the use or removal of the word "jihadist" should be raised as a neutrally-worded RfC on the article talkpage. An RfC might also assist in determining consensus on inclusion of any specific criticism of ISIL by Muslim leaders. Editors repeatedly opposing either RfC consensus would justifably be referred to ANI. Editors might also consider raising the issue at the extraordinarily quiet Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.
  • There is a continued to-and-fro of new article edits, many of which reflect differing points of view on the above. Some of this is mildly disruptive, but not enough to presently justify the use of admin tools.
  • Both Technophant and Gregkaye have offered olive branches during the course of the debate, and Gregkaye has agreed to be careful of soapboxing. This seems a fair acknowledgement of present issues.
  • There is no consensus on a topic ban. Please note this conclusion is not reached solely through counting !votes, but also via an assessment of the strength of the various arguments. As with any ANI outcome, this can be revisited at any time.
  • Lastly, this is a long and complex thread. If I have missed any specific point that anyone would like addressed, please let me know on my talk page.

Short version:-

  • Most people here are good-faith contributors to this article. It is likely that outstanding issue(s) can be resolved via goodwill, talkpage discussion and formal RfCs, rather than via the blunt instrument of admin tools. This can be revisited if it doesn't succeed.
  • After ten days of discussion, there is no consensus on a topic ban.
Happy to discuss if required. - Euryalus (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violate NPOV and talk page consensus. He has been notified of the Syrian Civil War/ISIL sanctions. I warned him on the article talk page the he should not continue to revert, then warned him level on his talk page of 3 for disruptive editing, then level 4 when he did it again. He seems not to get the wp:point. I suggest a block to prevent further disruption.~Technophant (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for what he has "repeatedly" inserted? I can only see one large insertion. Also, a link to the talk page discussion re the material in question is needed. Thanks, Number 57 17:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Unsubstantiated warnings have been placed on my talk page as at User talk:Gregkaye#October 2014. Gregkaye 17:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The editor has ferventaly argued against the use of the word "jihadist" in this thread then continued the same to the point of disruption on this more recent thread. The editor has also reinserted previously reverted criticism section which he original inserted here in the lead. I'll continue to look for more diffs. Keep in mind that this article has a strict 1RR policy.~Technophant (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Summary:
  1. [60] 16:13, 19 October 2014 - inserted paragraph into lead
  2. [61] 22:49, 19 October 2014 - reverted by User:Felino123
  3. [62] 08:19, 20 October 2014 - User warned on talk page and on user page of disruptive behavior level-3
  4. [63] 16:15, 20 October 2014 - material reinserted without edit summary (2 minutes! after 24-hour limit)
  5. [64] 16:21, 20 October 2014 - reverted by myself, user warned level-4

The editor also won't "drop the stick" and has continued to argue on the talk page despite being warned to drop it. I think this is enough to warrant some action.~Technophant (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Like me? I suddenly have a host of "Technophant mentioned you" messages in my notifications. Maybe so. Gregkaye 19:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC) sorry to have placed this out of sequence.
Gregkaye I do value and respect your contributions. If you can just agree to stop the discussed behaviors perhaps this whole thing can be closed without any further unpleasantries.~Technophant (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You stick with your values and I'll stick with mine. You made very very blunt interventions on my talk page and when I raised query you could not be bothered to reply. I have not found you to be too consistent with your pleasantries. Gregkaye 21:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
On the face of it, this editor seems to be doing exactly what editors are supposed to do. You and he are both very active on both the article page and the talk page, making countless positive contributions to the article and discussions. You appear to have an issue over two things he has done: a single 1RR >24+ hours of a summary of some article material in the lede, and his strong argumentation on the talk page that "jihadist" is an inappropriate label for this group. His reversion without an edit summary is indeed not optimal, but it was after discussion on the talk page. If he is engaging in a non-technical violation of 1RR then so are you by jumping into a revert. It appears that you and some other editors considered the original insertion (which would seem to be simple BRD editing) to be a problem. Am I missing something? The material appears harmless and appropriately sourced, although if consensus is to keep it out of the lead then so be it. As for arguing that "jihadist" is an inappropriate term, again, on the face of that it looks like a reasonable and perhaps correct opinion — I certainly hope the Arabic Wikipedia doesn't use a similarly loaded word, "crusaders", to label every religiously-tinged issue coming from the West. Consensus and sources may fall otherwise, but unless you can show that this has gotten to the point of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and disrupting the orderly flow of discussion I see nothing wrong with discussing the matter on the talk page. If you think that simply continuing the discussion of the point has gotten disruptive, how is that so? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear it's more like 1RR=24 hours with a +0.14% margin. Also, Felino123 (an editor whom I've no previous interaction) made the first revert and I made the second so I'm not in violation of the 1RR rule. Also the second insertion (#4) was done after he was given a warning not to reinsert both on tha article talk page and user talk page (#3). It show a certain degree of stubborness an unwillingness to respect consensus. Also, it's BRD, not "BRDRD". ~Technophant (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, technically neither of you violated 1RR, which is why I called it a non-technical violation, meaning the spirit of things. I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing out that it's not really clear what the problem is. BR-DDDDDD-RD is probably an acceptable editing pattern even if BRDRR is not: if the intervening discussion establishes either that the revert is for an unexplained or clearly bad reason, or there's consensus for inclusion, then it's fine to re-insert. In this case Felino123 had a well-explained and appropriate reason for rejecting this material in the lede, but I just don't see why Gregkaye was warned against reinserting it, or why any warning not to re-insert it would have any force. Reverting again with the summary "repeted insertion of controversial material" isn't really a good reason, that's saying that BRDRR is preferable BRDR; a second removal based on it being weak content, or against consensus, seems more reasonable. But back to the issue, is Gregkaye really being disruptive here? If so would they agree to take it easy, or is administrative counsel or intervention necessary? I'm not an admin, just passing by. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The material inserted into the in the lead isn't controversial as I stated. It's a summary of information in the Critism section. The reason for removal (clean precise lead) I agree with. This is more of an issue with "technical" 1RR (presumed intent to keep reinserting every 24 hours despite objections). Another user recently received a 3 month topic ban from an univolved admin for just DDDD with no R's without much (if any) warning.~Technophant (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Another clear hypocrisy in this AN/I is shown in that nothing was done in response to the following noted and flagrant violation of 1RR [65][66] Gregkaye 12:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC) this edit was moved: Gregkaye 16:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't see a problem of a WP:DEADHORSE. Amongst the dead are numbered Iraqis, Syrians, Sunnis, Shias and a whole host of other people who have either lost life, loved ones or liberty. Horses however aren't among the dead. Problems with jihadist terminologies have also been independently raised by other Wikipedians. See: Category talk:Jihadist organizations Gregkaye 20:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I have actually not been involved in the "jihadist debate" at all. I'm on the top contributors on this page however I am mostly involved with gnomish technical issues and participating in discussions. I was just informed of a user problem and did my best to try to deal with it.~Technophant (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You have recently been the primary mover in the pushing of the use of "Islamic State" terminology which flies in the face of the example set by great swathes of the Islamic community and world governments. Gregkaye 21:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
That's a completely different topic and isn't relevant to this discussion.~Technophant (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Neither was there any relevance in your preceding comment nor the surprising gush of the self justifying pleasantries above. Gregkaye 05:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye: That was uncalled for. You are just making yourself look bad.~Technophant (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
In trying to understand your active campaign here mention of "Islamic State" becomes relevant. Jihadism was never your issue. This was.
All of my comments are justified. Here is a link to the talk page at the time of the AN/I. I am more than happy for editors to take any look they like. Gregkaye 03:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This is looking more like a dispute resolution issue. Perhaps that is a better way of dealing with a content dispute. Still, the edit warring must stop.~Technophant (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I have been a regular and active editor on the ISIS page since June this year and have become so concerned about this editor who joined the page recently that I even went to the WP:HD about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2014_October_14#Editing_problem. This outlines my concerns. You will see another request on the Help Desk two above mine from another editor on the ISIS page about this editor and one other, expressing the same concerns. Before I say anything else, let me stress that the specific problems I raise there aside, this is a good editor who has contributed much of value to the page. I haven't had time to sort out any diffs yet, and will confine myself to one issue for the time being, which has caused more grief than any other on the Talk page. The debate over the word "jihadist" has been going on for what seems like weeks, getting nowhere, it has taken up an enormous amount of editorial time, and there are at least four editors who consistently do not agree with the editor that "jihadist" should be kept out of the Lead. The editor rejects WP:RS completely, which WP is supposed to reflect. He disputes the use of the word by Reliable Sources to describe ISIL and sets his own views above theirs, which sounds like WP:OR to me. I have lost count of the number of times he has removed the word from the Lead, against consensus, and warnings lately about editing against consensus have been ignored. My basic objection is that the editor ignores WP:NPOV, which I will give some diffs for tomorrow. I am not very happy about this ANI, but something had to be done to stop the edit-warring and editing against consensus. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The only edit warring, disruption, and ganging up is by Technophant and his (very) small local consensus, including P123ct1, most likely via secret e-mails against Gregkaye. Gregkaye is extremely knowledgeable, is doing what is supposed to do, and has tolerated them more than he should. To be fair, this should have a Boomerang effect on them. I no longer edit the article because of the same (very) small consensus that act as if they own the article and drive away editors, but I could not remain silent in the face of this injustice. I will also not get sucked in into this again. All I had to say, I already said it!. Worldedixor (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: Worldedixor has an open (stale) RFC/U with a strong consensus for topic ban on Syrian Civil War/ISIL and a strong dislike for P123ct1 and myself for opening it. It has not yet been formally put in place however.~Technophant (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Check the link - I fail to see a "strong consensus for a topic ban" - which goes to the OPs credibility in this action. Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I cannot let that biased comment from Worldedixor go unanswered. Please refer to RFC/U and the Talk page in particular. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment The RfC/U has been closed because of inactivity (although I think everything that could have been said had been said, so I'm not sure why that was the reason). Worldedixor has been trying to get several editors sanctions/blocked for some time without IMHO grounds. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - this looks like a thorny question. I see some pages of discussion (which to be honest I didn't read carefully) but I don't see any clear vote where consensus was firmly established. Stronger enforcement is not a good substitute for a better consensus. Put ANI away for at least a week or two and get some third opinions; my thought though is you just say sources X Y Z call them jihadist and I J K disagree, and move on. Sometimes it really is better not to peek at the pig in the poke (not to argue the underlying philosophical point) when making this sort of decision. Wnt (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I essentially agree with P123ct1's description above regarding POV and OR. Gregkaye has removed jihadist calling it "terminology as bastardised by western media" in his edit summary. Many of us have shown that reliable sources in all newspapers use this word in a particular sense. He insists that Western sources are wrong and his particular Islamic sources should veto our usage. Stats show that jihadist and extremist are the most used terms. He rejects the former and says he can not "morally" allow its usage. As he has just said above "You stick with your values and I'll stick with mine" when it is a question of applying our common standards and not our personal values. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I am more than satisfied with that description: http://www.minhaj.org/english/tid/12708/Shaykh-ul-Islam-Dr-Tahir-ul-Qadri-speaks-at-Global-PeaceUnity-Event-gpu-2010-Jihad-The-perception-and-the-reality.html Gregkaye 16:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Jason from nyc What else is it? You mention a few sound bites and bypass any of the reasoning behind it. Jihad, according to Islamic sources, is a struggle for the ideals of Islam which may cover a has a wide range of meanings but not wide enough to cover many of the activities of a wide range of Islamic extremist groups. The word has deep religious connotations and yet many political and other commentators from around the world have taken up usage of the word to apply it largely to more extreme situations of abuse and violence. One of my comments was: "A further radicalisation of Islam that results from the false endorsement of murderers as being "jihadists" will result in a perpetuation of needless death. Its unqualified and needless use of this westernised wording is not something that I can support. I will not have blood on my hands." One of your comments was, "Jihadists do not follow Wikipedia" which completely misses the point and what "stats show" regarding the reach of this encyclopaedia. Wikipedia cannot be a soapbox for a the misrepresentative western interpretation of jihad. The "personal values" that I am presenting in reference to this murderous group are seemingly shared by the majority of the Islamic world. They want nothing to do with it. It's also worth comment that Worldedixor is one of the few Arabic users that we have. Gregkaye 05:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The reasoning is (a) theological and (b) activist. You have an agenda to change the usage of the word jihadist as in jihadism when used in the English language in a restricted sense of armed struggle. We discussed this over and over: words have many meanings, jihad is not jihadism as Islam is not Islamism, etc. After long discussions you remind us of what you just said above, that in your opinion the common usage in English of jihadism leads to the ISIL's violence and it is your "jihad" to fight this usage even if you lose your editing rights.[67] Jason from nyc (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I have an agenda for the requirement of qualification for an unjustified justification of unjustified death. My arguments are valid and the cause is just. Gregkaye 03:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Proposal - I propose to drop my complaint here if Gregkaye takes his issues to Dispute resolution noticeboard and agrees not to make potentially controversial edits (including furthering talk page disputes) until the DRN is closed.~Technophant (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
How in the world did this become "your complaint"? You were never involved in the discussion. At most there is a technical 1RR and that wasn't intended. Discussions took place in the context of the talk page. Gregkaye 16:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Jason from nyc's comment. He nails it. RS dictate what we write, not a particular POV favored in some region of the world. We use the terms used in RS, mostly English ones (because this is the English Wikipedia), and English language sources use "jihadist" all the time, and document that these groups use the term themselves, when they encourage jihad. They identify with the term as their prime motive. Gregkaye may need a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
In deciding the relevance of the use of Islamic wording in relation to an Islam related topic then Islamic sources may be considered to have some level of reliability - or would you prefer journalists etc. known as they are for the use of a wide variety of sensationalist spins to help them achieve their goals. Gregkaye 05:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
If Gregkaye is to be banned from editing then I would prefer it be a ban on editing the article directly; limited to making suggested edits on the Talk page. This may not stop his POV pushing (which is problematic), however it will prevent disruptive editing of the article.~Technophant (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for editing back from "he".[68]
Very politic. Technophant's edit came not long after this constructive edit which somehow wasn't mentioned. Despite misrepresentation above I have not rejected the use of reference to "jihadism" but have stated that it needs qualification and that we cannot speak in Wikipedia's voice to sanction them in this way. I am honestly trying to find routes to resolution and, at any stage, would appreciate help. Gregkaye 07:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Please drop the battleground tactics and consider my proposal above.~Technophant (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
If you dispute anything I have said then feel free to say what. For my part I dispute your claim of "edits that violate NPOV". All I am saying is that the questionable terminology "jihadist" should be given qualification. Above you claimed that a statement with basis was uncalled for and then added "You are just making yourself look bad". Meanwhile this thread is based on weak evidence with regard to which Wikidemon commented, "neither of you violated 1RR, which is why I called it a non-technical violation, meaning the spirit of things." Despite this my notifications indicator began blinking with rapid and prolonged regularity with "Technophant mentioned you" messages. You failed to mention my last edit. Absolutely I think by now I have every right to be wary but no, I don't bear a grudge. Gregkaye 08:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no grudge against you. Have you read the comments from other editors here? There's a problem with your approach to editing and resolving disputes and unless you offer up a solution (and quickly) you will most likely face sanctions. I don't want to see you topic banned but that's what may need to happen.~Technophant (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
In that case I really have to question your motivation: when your last claim talks of need of a topic ban despite the context, as presented just three edits up the page in my 07:46, 21 October entry, you saw a link to a constructive and extremely unobtrusive edit for the page; when you have gone into a mass canvassing mode so as to promote this AN/I; when you have refused to answer my personal questions; when you placed content on my talk page that another editor independently highlighted as badgering which, despite repeated opportunities, you failed to remove; when you have placed prejudging links in connection to this page and when this isn't even your issue. Gregkaye 17:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I am editing this article since two weeks ago approximately, and I don't know the editors, but I have seen what is happening. It is very clear that Gregkaye is disrupting this article removing the words he doesn't like to read, and messing it up by puting criticism on the Lead, just because of his subjective personal opinion (Jason from nyc nailed it). This is an encyclopedic article and should not be an opinion piece, as Wikipedia is not a platform for expressing personal opinions. Gregkaye has been warned several times, and he keeps disrupting this article. So I think something should be done to prevent disruptions. Felino123 (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Gregkaye has made positive contributions to the article, which makes it unfortunate that it has come to this, however we have discussed the Jihadist issue at great length and the consensus of other editors is clearly against his stance. Ideally we could all WP:MOVEON, however Gregkaye seems to be taking a very strong POV stance on this word usage which is not appropriate. Gazkthul (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Gazkthul, Its difficult to "get over" the blatant fact that a supposedly "jihadist" group is actively slaughtering Muslims. This is NOT jihad. Gregkaye 02:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Gregkaye, I don't know how many times we can go around in circles, it is not the role of Wikipedia to decide what Jihad is or isn't, we simply reflect what WP:RS use. Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram and the Taliban overwhelmingly kill Muslims too, as did Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's predecessor al-Zarqawi a decade ago. BTW, have you heard of Usman dan Fodio, Tamerlane, Yaqub Beg or Muhammad Ahmad? There are countless famous Muslim Kings and Emperors throughout history who waged Jihad against fellow Muslims. Gazkthul (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose While Gregkaye and I have disagreed on content, in my experience around ISIL articles he has been quite a positive contributor who works to reach consensus. Technophant on the other hand has been pushing the use of "Islamic State" even after consensus decided to use ISIL for the title and the article. I requested he stop so he put me on the Syria Civil War sanctions warning list in retaliation. The users here trying to keep an mention of criticisms out of the lead are just misguided. Darn near the entire world is upset with ISIL - a huge part of the story. Legacypac (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment Legacypac's criticism is based on a false premise. The ISIL/ISIS consensus had nothing to do with the use of "Islamic State". The discussion was over a move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the ISIS article's text and nothing more. Secondly, editors have not been against criticisms being in the Lead. The dispute was over what weight to give them and how to present them in the Lead. Sorry to keep chipping in, but there has been some serious misrepresentation in this AN/I. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Quick observation This edit [69] shows that P123ct1 has changed their ANI comment after I, another editor, commented on it below, something that is not permitted by policy. This is not an attack. I am presenting to the closing admin a verifiable pattern of conduct. Worldedixor (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Keeping a dossier on me again, Worldedixor? Lol! --P123ct1 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Both of these editors have made valued and verifiable contributions to Wikipedia as its dossier records clearly show. Gregkaye 03:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I am here since only two weeks ago, so I don't what contributions has Gregkaye done to this topic overall. If these contributions are important, then I appreciate them. But unfortunately we can not ignore his continuous disruptions of this article. When I criticized him for this, he answered that the opinion of imams about IS has much more value than the facts stated by the UN and Amnesty on their human rights reports on Iraq and Syria, because "Islamic criticisms" are "of more relevance than anything [...]". After this bizarre response, along with the info stated here by Jason from nyc, I can't believe he's editing objectively and in good faith. He's been warned several times, and he keeps disrupting this article. I think something should be done to prevent disruptions, given the fact that warnings and talking to him doesn't work. Felino123 (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Persistent POV-pushing, editing against consensus and disrupting the collaborative work of editors are having a bad effect on this article. all jeopardise the Wikipedia project. I have changed my mind about dispute resolution. I don't think it would work and support a topic ban, in order to protect all Syrian War-related articles. However, I am not at all sure what the best solution is here. I now think a topic ban would be too swingeing, as it would stop Gregkaye from making his otherwise valuable contributions to Syrian War-related articles. Some editors on the Help Desk (see my very first comment in this AN/I for the background) thought AN/I may not be the best approach and that some form of dispute resolution should be tried (no details given). --P123ct1 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Could we have some guidelines and advice on other ways of settling this dispute, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has nothing to support his claims that the islamic state "isn't jihadist" and "isn't caliphate", his only argument about how "the muslims are against the islamic state" (the only point of his "arguments") are wrong from its core from few reasons:
1. religions like islam has no absolute leadership that can renounce the islamic state in the name of the entire muslims world and islam itself.
2. there is no islamic text(from the quran and other similar islamic texts) that can seperate the islamic state from other jihadists and caliphates.
3. the islamic state has its own muslim and muslim scholars supporters.
he choose which muslim is "authority" and gives him the authority only in what he himself agree about(like al qaradawi renouncing of shia, alawites and the islamic state), gregkaye relies on "authority" which relies on gregkaye himself.
this is POV, period. and nobody can't deny it even if he ignore other of gregkaye's "arguments" about the islamic state's "morality" as it has anything to do with being jihadist or caliphate.
gregkaye also have obvious hard feelings about them and i already told him on the argument of me with him that he has too much hate for them and that he can't see them in a neutral way.
there is nothing that can serve as an excuse for his aggressive pushing of his POV, even if it wasn't aggressive at all cause wikipedia should be neutral at all cost. so what about the ridiculous accusations of "secret e-mails against Gregkaye" and the pointless talking about how much gregkaye has contributed to wikipedia?, do you get points that give you the right to push your POV? even if there was some "secret e-mails against gregkaye" that still doesn't gives him the right to force his POV.
and by the way i began editing articles only when i joined the discussion(you can see my ip on my first comments to him) and i know gregkaye's opposers as much as i know gregkaye himself, so you can forget from the "secret e-mails" consipracy.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
You say: "1. religions like islam has no absolute leadership..." Thank-you, but when a significant section of Islam worldwide reject this murderous (non-jihad), Muslim killing (non-Jihad), territory hungry (non-jihad) group as being un-Islamic, then that has got to say something.
You say: "2. there is no islamic text(from the quran and other similar islamic texts) that can seperate the islamic state from other jihadists and caliphates." Thank you. They say you "can prove anything with the Bible". The parallel phrase seems to be given a more limited use with the Quran but this does not necessarily place limits on the "interpretation of the quran". Show me a text that says that a Jihadist can be a murderer, a Muslim killer and territorially ambitious.
You say: "3. the islamic state has its own muslim and muslim scholars supporters." Agreed. ISIL has its Islamic supporters and yet their view are very far from being contested within the Islamic world. Please look up Islamic interpretations of Jihad in a variety of sources and hopefully you will see the point.
My conclusion has long been that we can't speak in an unqualified way in Wikipedia's voice and sanction this murderous group as being "jihadist". Wikipedia, as a neutral source of information, can say that the group is described as being jihadist. We might also put the word in quotes or add a footnote to the text so as to present religiously legitimised alternate views on jihad. The footnote is not intrusive and this is now quite literally a case of "to [b] or not to be" which would be mind meltingly laughable were it not for the fact that, without some form of qualification, we will endorse this most extreme of extremist groups by use of the religious, Islamic terminology "jihadist". We will be unwitting participants in the further illegitimate radicalisation of Islam and people will die. You can claim such a statement as "aggressive pushing" if you like but, please, get some perspective. Gregkaye 08:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye stop writing random mumblings as a comment for what i am saying in order to make it look like you had some argument or anything serious to say:
1.significant section of islam also consider shia and alawites as "heretics", it doesn't mean that you can use it to rewrite the defenition for jihad and caliphate and add new terms according to your own will. almost every caliphate and jihadist group has fought against other muslim groups and each one of them sought to expand their territory as much as they can.
2.show me a text about any kind of jihadist/caliphate that didn't commited murder and wasn't "territorially ambitious". you should also show me the text that appoints you to be the supreme authority in islam and gives you the ability to rewrite and add new stuff to islam as you wish.
3.you already provided an defenition of "jihad" but it has nothing to do with the difference between the islamic state and other caliphates and jihadistic groups, the only "point" in your comments is the new terms that you shove into islam in order to make it fit to your personal feelings on the islamic state organization.
so how you talk about "conclusion" and "qualified"? who qualified you to rewrite islam? who qualified you to dictate the authority of every muslim over islam? you even rewrites history with the way you ignores some parts of it.
that line defines gregkaye real point behind his senseless rhetoric: "We will be unwitting participants in the further illegitimate radicalisation of Islam and people will die", he think that wikipedia should join the fight against this organization or else more people will die, and this is obviously not the way wikipedia works and we shouldn't let people to push their POV just cause they think they are helping people by making wikipedia an un-neutral propaganda tool against the IS organization.

--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Quick Observation: I cannot tolerate injustice especially when I see a pattern of "selective" notification to influence a process. I, for example, was never notified of this ANI even though I was just 'one of the many' witnesses of Gregkaye's insightful contributions and his passionate dedication to the ISIS article. For the record, I am still not convinced of his Jihadist argument, yet I don't have sufficient knowledge or better arguments to convince him otherwise, but I won't just ban editors when I run out of logical arguments or because I don't like their approach to editing, or because he is in the way of my local consensus club of pals. If we want to address perceived disruption, we need to treat all disruptive behavior by all editors equally without any bias, let alone flagrant bias (especially those who bring forth any type of ANI with unclean hands, questionable credibility and a verifiable pattern of falsely asserting consensus and misleading well-meaning admins and editors with half truths).
Most importantly, I just observed something worrisome that is also compromising the normal consensus decision of this ANI process. As per WP:CANVAS, "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." P123ct1 is one of Technopant's (very small) "Local tagteam consensus" club at the ISIS article, and they clearly intend to influence the outcome of this ANI in order to ban Gregkaye and get him out of their way. One example of her intent is her unsolicited and inappropriate attempt to dismiss Legacypac's comment above. So, I am reporting what I saw which can independntly be verified at [70] (Specific Ref: WP:Votestacking), and I ask the closing admin to take it into consideration objectively. Worldedixor (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
returning edit, which had been moved without explanatory comment, to its original position.
  • Comment Worldedixor should have not been selective in his link. The full link to the exchange between Wheels of Steel0 and I shows that this is not canvassing but a continuation of an attempt made by both us, independently and each without knowledge of either having done so, to bring the very matter raised by this AN/I to the WP:Help Desk to get some guidance on the best way to proceed (their answer was inconclusive). Wheels of Steel0 specifically asks me in that exchange how the matter could be dealt with and I told him an ANI had been started. He is an inexperienced editor, as he said in that exchange, and was asking for help. This is really not the place to digress, but I cannot let these WP:PAs by Worldedixor on Technophant and I pass without comment. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Had Worldedixor been editing the page (he hasn't for over a month), he would have seen the notice Technophant put on the Talk page about this AN/I. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Worldedixor, why don't just read gregkaye's "arguments"? he has nothing to say other than giving every muslim he wants an authority that no muslim can have over islam and rewriting islamic terms and islam itself as he wishes. just read our argument her and/or on the talk page in the ISIS article.
that line defines gregkaye real point behind his senseless rhetoric: "We will be unwitting participants in the further illegitimate radicalisation of Islam and people will die", he think that wikipedia should join the fight against this organization or else more people will die, and this is obviously not the way wikipedia works and we shouldn't let people to push their POV just cause they think they are helping people by making wikipedia an un-neutral propaganda tool against the IS organization.
so what about stop attacking his opposers as "small group"?, gregkaye(and his one supporter that didn't participated in the discussion and infact has nothing to say on that matter other than blindly backing up gregkaye as a friend) are much smaller group of aggressive and pationate(as other people her has described him) POV pushers that act as if they own that article.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Response I will gladly assume good faith as I don't have sufficient information to form an opinion of your conduct. I will also correct you. What you stated "gregkaye(and his one supporter that didn't participated in the discussion and infact has nothing to say on that matter other than blindly backing up gregkaye as a friend) are much smaller group of aggressive and pationate(as other people her has described him) POV pushers that act as if they own that article" is non-factual. You cannot lump me as a POV pusher when I clearly oppose his arguments on this particular matter and he has not yet convinced me, just as I oppose this ANI and banning editors who may be more knowledgeable than me in a certain area. I'd rather give them a non-confrontational, comfortable place to think with a clear mind, and give them the chance to improve their arguments, that may or may not influence me to support their contribution.
The ISIL article is a very controversial and heated article, and I am perplexed that we don't have over a 1,000 new editors contributing their diversified and insightful knowledge to the ISIS article. I have my opinion on this but I will keep it to myself for the time being.Worldedixor (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
response Worldedixor i didn't called you a POV pusher, i talked about Legacypac which sided with gregkaye. and why you think that gregkaye know more than you about the subject? he has no special knowledge, he just pushing his POV aggressivly and count on that that people will just let him do whatever he wants.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Response Now, your statement is clearer to me. I stand corrected. Worldedixor (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Quick Comment I remember vividly how clueless I was in my first few weeks on Wikipedia when I was a new inexperienced editor, eight years ago. I am extremely impressed how well versed Wheels of steel0, an inexperienced editor, is in Wikipedia affairs. Kudos.
Also, P123ct1 has changed the order of Gregkaye's comment in an ANI without his permission [71]. This is neither an attack nor a grudge. This is a statement of a verifiable fact of P123ct1's conduct. Worldedixor (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Tangential discussion
Innocent enough. Trying to put three comments in their proper time sequence. Gregkaye informed. Original order restored. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
What's so innocent about your writing "RfC/U - The worm has turned.", PA and WP:CANVAS at [72]? I have shown a verifiable pattern of your conduct in this ANI and, at this point, not only am I no longer interested in contributing my knowledge to the ISIL article, I will also recuse myself from this ANI because I clearly do not see editors sanctioned equally when it comes to policy violations. I am out of here!... Worldedixor (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Important Observation This edit [73] shows a P123ct1's conduct that is inconsistent with policy in this ANI. This is not an attack, this is a verifiable pattern of P123ct1's conduct.Worldedixor (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
(removed my comment not relevant to AN/I) --P123ct1 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Objections

In regard to Technophant's summary as presented above, the first edit clearly shows, contrary to the claim, "inserted paragraph into lead", that the edit involved a simple movement of text. The content, which had previously been placed as the second paragraph of the lead, was returned to this position. Technophant's additional claims that I have 'ferventaly argued against the use of the word "jihadist"' are laughable. As he will have read, and as his edit summary shows, this is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. In fact one of the effects of my edit was to take the presentation of Jihadist and to correct the grammar to jihadist,. Technophant also failed to present my actual argument which has always been that a declaration of ISIL as being jihadist should be qualified. The simple fact is that a large portion of the world's Muslim population have a view of Jihad that is far distant from the one held, in or out of Iraq and Syria, by supporters of the ISIL government. As a result I have consistently argued it is in contravention of NPOV to use Wikipedia's voice so as to endorse the group as having a religious validation that is in dispute. I have since suggested an extremely unobtrusive format of footnoting that can be used to create a more balanced overall picture. In all my dealings on the talk page I have treated people with relevant respect. There is nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines against the presentation of opinion on talk pages and certainly not when a reasoned case is presented. I do not object to accusation of pushing POV (hardly an issue on a talk page) but take serious exception when the accusation comes from an editor who uses a variety of spins to promote his. Gregkaye 10:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye why can't you understand that the whole way you treat islam as a group with monolithic leadership and guidance is wrong from its core?, you talk about "view" of jihad but don't understand that the muslims you talk about can't realy seperate the jihad of the islamic state from other groups(like caliphates) who claimed to do jihad, their only objection to the islamic state is cause of non-religios factors like social pressure and arab goverments propaganda which obviously would be against a caliphate without any relation to its "religious validation". and for that "religious validation" you gave NOTHING to disprove their religious legitimacy as jihadist or caliphate but only talked on the opinion of some muslims and gave them special authority according to your will, and the main fact that made your rhetoric useless on that matter is not the fact that you give them authority which they can't have but the fact that you want to use it only when it fits to your opinion and obviously wouldn't agree to use that proposed "muslim majority" on articles about islamic factions like shia and alawites.
i respect your resistance to the islamic state, but you need to understand that you can't use the opinion of some muslims in order to force YOUR opinion on some article. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Wheels of steel0 why can't you respond appropriately and in relevant locations to the actual content of the thread. None of the above comments apply to the content that followed the emboldened title "Objections".
I had stated: "The simple fact is that a large portion of the world's Muslim population have a view of Jihad that is far distant from the one held, in or out of Iraq and Syria, by supporters of the ISIL government." Your non-reply fails to address this point.
Did you place these repetitions of previously mentioned content at this point with intent? Gregkaye 12:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye "Your non-reply fails to address this point" are you even reading my comments to you? like seriously? i commented on your pointless pseudo-arguments over and over and you still don't get it that your rhetoric of mentioning the opinion of some muslims(even as "the majority") as a proof for anything is just stupid and pointless. and it doesn't matter where i comment to you as long as you can see it, now all what you need is to stop with your ridiculous and pointless rhetoric as a defence for your aggressive POV pushing.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course I am. Again: Did you place these repetitions of previously mentioned content at this point with intent? Gregkaye 16:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a very, very limited topic ban: where Gregkaye seems to run into to trouble is with attempting to force prescriptive definitions of words. The same thing happened over at Talk:Antisemitism. According to him Jihad (or whatever other word is the subject) originally meant something, and it can never be reappropriated. This is not how languages work, and it is not our role as compilers of an encyclopedia to second-guess the use of terminology by reliable sources. Since Greg does not seem able to get this particular point, I would support a topic ban on all discussions related to the definition or usage of specific words. This would allow Greg to contribute in all the other areas in which he is generally productive. Oppose a broader topic ban, as the level of disruption does not warrant it. VQuakr (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
VQuakr, you are being disingenuous. As you know there was no "attempting to force prescriptive definitions of words" at Talk:Antisemitism. My interventions were to point out the clear weaknesses of "anti-Semitic" terminologies (based, as they are, on a misnomer) and, for instance, stated that, "Sensible terminologies include: Anti-Jewish, Anti-Jewish sentiment, Anti-Jewish racism, Persecution of Jews, Anti-Judaism and Anti-Zionism". As you know I also clearly stated: "yes the word is in exclusive use for the Jews. So is the word "Jews". Why not use terms like