Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive901

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Eyes needed for BLPN thread[edit]

Admins please see Please see WP:BLPN threads: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Boxingmojo_at_Ahmed_Mohamed_clock_incident, and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Weasel_Zippers_source_and_others.2C_at_page_with_controversial_claims_about_14-year-old-boy. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. TheRedPenOfDoom, Aquillion and MarkBernstein have edited a number of articles together making similar arguments, supporting/opposing the same edits, etc. The fundamental issue here appears to be WP:TAGTEAM not WP:BLP. 168.1.99.198 (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:EVADE much? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith. It's not unusual to find people with similar outlooks and interests editing the same articles on high-profile incidents; as far as I know, I've never communicated with any of those people off-wiki, and even on-wiki my contact with them has mostly been limited to being on the same talk pages. The fact that there are WP:BLP issues on this particular article, meanwhile, seems pretty clear-cut to me -- a lot of the controversial stuff in the article deals with fairly WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories about a living subject who's currently in the news, many of which are sourced to blogs, tabloids, and similar low-quality sources, or which involve giving heavy weight to individual editorials. I mean, we can argue about individual sources, claims, theories, and so on, and which ones it's WP:DUE to cover in the article, but I think it's silly to suggest that there's no BLP issues at all. --Aquillion (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It's confusing because there are requests for comment on this situation on the article talk page, on AN, on ANI, BLPN and FTN. Could this debate over sources and possible sanctions be centralized in one forum? It makes it difficult to follow the threads of discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The article is only 46k--surely we can do better than that. At least the "Reactions" section is twice as long as the section describing the events. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Blocked them earlier. Before I saw this. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Repeated failure to assume good faith[edit]

For several weeks now, Twirlypen has been accusing me of having some ulterior motive in my editing practices. He appears to be basing this on nothing more than my disagreeing with him, and his inability to convince me of the merits of his position when we do disagree. Rather than assuming good faith in my edits, he has come to the conclusion that I am being deliberately disruptive because I am not getting my way, and he assumes that because of my block history, he is free to disregard any contribution that I make. This has come to a head in the past hour when I made a series of edits to 2016 Formula One season. In this edit, I clearly explained the reasoning behind my edits: that the sport's highest authority recognised certain competitors in a particular way. Within minutes, Twirlypen had reverted it with this edit, and his edit summary makes it clear that he thinks that I am up to something. His subsequent edits then restored that content on the grounds that he had checked the entry list and came to the conclusion that those original edits were correct after all. His edit summary made it pretty clear that he reverted those edits on the grounds that I had some ulterior motive, rather than based on the interests of the page, and he further assumed that I did not check the source (of which many are provided), despite my raising the issue in a related merger discussion.

This has been going on for weeks—since my last block expired. Twirlypen has clearly failed to assume good faith on multiple occasions, and he has let that assumption dictate his editing practices. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the edit I reverted contained the edit summary which amounted to "I saw it on TV", without citing the actual entry list. I only restored it once I did the fact-checking for myself. PM then reverted another, unrelated edit I made based on COMMONNAME, seemingly erroneously, as it had nothing to do with what the user saw on TV. Let it also be known that this user has also had other AGF issues with other editors. I never seem to have this problem continually with anyone else on Wikipedia. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 08:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I have since provided solid reasoning for my edits—a standard that Twirlypen has not expected or demanded of anyone else; had anyone else made them, he would have accepted them at face value. If other editors have AGF issues, it is because Twirlypen has vehemently campaigned against me simply because I disagree with him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Well those are baseless accusations if I ever heard of one and you're on the verge of violating AGF yourself with them. Campaigned against you? And that discussion you just linked proved enough that we can get along just fine from one discussion to the next - once you do explain your edits beyond "I saw it on TV". If I had a campaign against you, I'd have opposed it simply because it was your idea. Believe it or not, I do agree with you sometimes. I have revised plenty of other editors' contributions if their UNSOURCED changes have an edit summary of "I saw it on TV" or whatever else that doesn't substatiate anything. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 08:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Like I said to you, ignoring AGF is a slippery slope: you assume that I have an agenda; I assume that you're looking to discredit my edits at every opportunity. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Which my contribution history clearly proves I don't do. This pretty much makes this whole case a mulligan as you've just openly admitted to not AGF with me while simultaneously accusing me. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 08:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much every discussion we have sees you accusing me of having an ulterior motive at some point—usually around the time you feel that you have made your case, but have failed to convince me. And, as evidenced by the example I gave above, you openly reverted edits on the grounds that I made them, insinuating said ulterior motive in the process, rather than judging the merits of the edits themselves. If I have failed to assume good faith, it is only because you have repeatedly accused me of deliberately trying to disrupt articles because I am not getting my way. And given your tendency to drag up previous, unrelated discussions and present them as evidence of my supposed wrongdoing in this "ulterior motive", I would say that this is far from moot. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
My edit summaries clearly state that the reverts were made because they were based off what you claimed to see on TV, not because you made them. These accusations are baseless and are premeditated that I don't follow AGF, which in itself violates AGF. Dragging up previous, unrelated discussions... huh... sounds a heck of a lot like what you are doing right now. If this gets me a time-out, it will almost certainly earn you one as well. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 10:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

───────────────── In the interest of not turning this section alone into another 100kb+ thread (which tends to happen between this user and I) where nothing gets solved, I'll abstain from any non-constructive edits here with Prisonermonkeys and will only respond if addressed by someone else. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 10:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Next time (if there is a next time), I recommend not responding at all until reviewers have commented on the original posting. NE Ent 11:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing reasonable discussions at both Talk:2016_Formula_One_season#Consistency_in_wlink_titles and corresponding project page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Red_Bull.2FRed_Bull_Racing and encouraged both editors to focus on the topic and not each other Comment on content, not on the contributor. Recommend close with no action. NE Ent 11:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I"ll suggest a trout for both. Tvx1 12:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent, I hate to be a pain, but with this edit, Twirlypen has failed to assume good faith yet again. In particular, this comment:

"the discussion gets dragged out to the point of ridiculousness and the article/project grinds to a halt [...] the only breaks or periods of calmness we have around here are when they're blocked."

In the context of the discussion, this edit was intended to discredit me in the eyes of another editor who agreed with Twirlypen after Twirlypen became frustrated that I had not accepted his argument—something that he clearly denied yesterday in this very discussion:

"those are baseless accusations if I ever heard of one and you're on the verge of violating AGF yourself with them. Campaigned against you?"

And such is the kind of experience that I have with Twirlypen: if I do not accept his arguments when he feels that I should have, he immediately attacks me by accusing me of trying to be disruptive for the sake of a vendetta because I am not getting my own way, and using my block history as a means of undermining me in the eyes of other editors. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I must say that the disputes these two get themselves embroiled in every other day over the past few weeks are highly disruptive and seriously harming the reputation of the F1 WikiProject. I fear that If they cannot manage to discuss with each other in a constructive manner, the only option remaining would be a topic ban for both or at the very least an interaction ban. Tvx1 12:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Bates College[edit]

I'm requesting help here for several reasons. Perhaps the most obvious is that a user who appears to have conflict of interest persists in adding promotional content and removing maintenance templates. The second is that I've reverted some of their edits and attempted to copy edit using two IPs--that's not an attempt to be sly, but a frustrating by-product of my internet connection. I don't want to be targeted for doing this to avoid an edit warring charge. The overarching concern is with general promotional tone, and a history section that was largely copied from the college's website and publications; most of that section has to go, though parsing just what remains will take some patience. My estimate is that 75% is a copyvio. For all these reasons, any and all help will be appreciated. Thanks, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I really do not approve of "any and all", but that's just me I suppose. I see that ElKevbo is on the case too. Tell me, please, what the URL is that you think content was copied from. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Never mind, I saw it in the history. Last question, and I hope you can answer it before I do, what is the first edit in the history that contains copied/copyvioed material? Drmies (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    Okay, so not 'any and all.' But you're awfully picky. By my reckoning the first copyvio sentence is "Cheney assembled a six-person faculty...." and much, though not all, that follows is downhill from there, and was taken from [1], which dates from 2002-2003. Sorry again for the jumping IP. And I won't turn down payment from Jimbo. Believe it or not, simultaneous with playing here I've finished a gripping essay on 20th century art for publication. Well, at least my immediate loved ones will find it gripping. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Apart from the blatant copyvio identified by the OP/IP, I found copy-pasting from three other web-pages of the school. The whole article needs to be checked; I've blanked it and listed it at WP:CP for processing. 73.159.24.89, for another time: if you find hard evidence of copyright violation as you did here, please either remove the copyvio material or blank it and list the article. Good catch here! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • If either (or any) of you can give me a diff for the first edit where this happens I can take some action. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Corus Entertainment[edit]

"User:Spshu, you have repeatedly been edit warring against the IP edits, which are clearly in line with my edits – and more importantly, the actual sourcing, since your own sources do not support almost any of your changes (with the singular exception of the Nelvana change, which does not make sense for this template anyways). You are now fighting against two levels of consensus. Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)"

What he said. But he won't stop. Ban him. MarcoPolo250 (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)MarcoPolo250

One MarcoPolo, you have not even joined the discussion. Two, you indicate that you don't care one whit about sources with this edit summary: "...'Sources' be damned.)" Mdrnpndr was block indefinitely for lying that his source were automatically valid no matter what they are. Consensus is developed on the talk page, not like your quote of Mdrnpndr does above by inflating IP edits to the level of discussion consensus. So basic, you do not want me to use reliable sources. Spshu (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring and personal attacks at Turkey by a user who was recently blocked for it[edit]

OK--the immediate cause for this thread is handled: prolific and abusive socker is blocked. The fallout is on WP:AN, where Nyttend's administrative actions are being discussed. Having two discussions at the same time is not productive, and I think we're done here. Speaking personally, my apologies to Dr. K. and Athenean on behalf of (at least part of) the admin corps: I do not know the two of you as hoaxers. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2015 (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.

Heimdallr of Æsir has been blocked by admin Nyttend for edit-warring and personal attacks just last week (see ANI report here). Nevertheless, Heimdallr of Æsir hasn't stopped the disruption since. Even when told to participate in the ongoing talk page discussion, the user continues to repeatedly edit-war ([2][3][4][5][6]). The user then proceeds attacking those he engages with:

I used to consider myself a Hellenophile (listening to Dalaras, etc.) but thanks to Greeks like Dr.K and Athenean, I can't help but wish for the complete economic collapse and starvation of Greece.

Even with a block, the user just does not seem to stop. Étienne Dolet (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

He did the right thing: the source image, a US Government work, clearly describes this as being merely Kurdish-inhabited. I fully protected the article and then reverted the hoaxing, but instead I came quite close to blocking all involved except for Heimdallr of Æsir. [This was written before an edit-conflict. I'm going to ask Black Kite for an unblock.] Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Nyttend and Black Kite Are were really going to tolerate a user who just said "I can't help but wish for the complete economic collapse and starvation of Greece." towards his fellow Wikipedia users? Let alone the fact that he was blocked for similar threats at the very same article just a week ago. I'd also argue that the article doesn't need protection since the problems at Turkey was a result of a single user. Also, the caption to the photograph of which you just changed wasn't ever discussed. Kurds not only inhabit that part of the world, but they also inhabit Istanbul, Izmir, Ankara, and virtually every other city in Turkey. But of course this was never discussed because of continuing edit-warring. Besides, the map is known at "Kurdish lands" and not Kurdish inhabited areas by its very source [7]. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Let me turn your question around: are we really going to tolerate several users actively hoaxing in an article? Please look at the source image, which specifically says "Kurdish-inhabited area". Personal attacks are unhelpful because they hurt the community atmosphere, but they don't directly affect what readers see. Hoaxing, however, directly affects what readers see; it will not be tolerated. Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Personal attacks are not just "unhelpful", they're prohibited within this project. Especially when the mentioned user has been blocked for doing just that a week ago. What makes this time around so different? Kurds inhabit not only that part of Turkey, but all over the country. It's very vague to simply point out that Kurds inhabited areas. And it's unfortunate to discuss this at an ANI board due to constant edit-warring by this user. This has resulted in a much bigger mess than it should have been. A simple continuation of the ongoing discussion at the talk page would have been suffice. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Let me be very clear and simple, then. You and several other editors added a statement to this article claiming that the map represented Kurdish-majority areas of the country. This idea was not represented by the source image. You and others claimed that the source said something that it didn't: this is hoaxing, a much more fundamental problem than personal attacks. Another editor reverted the hoaxing and returned the article to a correct representation of the source. You then attempted to get an administrator to block the editor who reverted the hoaxing, and when the article was protected instead of you and the other hoaxers getting blocked, you objected. People who revert hoaxes, like people who revert vandalism, are helping and warrant thanks, not sanctions, while people who add hoaxes, like people who add vandalism, are harming and warrant sanctions, not thanks; we show them the door. If you want to avoid that happening, let me suggest that you stop asking for sanctions to be handed out. Nyttend (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Nyttend, I can't force you to have sanctions carried out. At this point, I just want to clarify my position. The talk page is used to discuss matters you mention here. And since it wasn't properly utilized by a user who would much rather edit-war, the problems became much worse. Calling this a hoax, without proper discussion at the talk page shouldn't be recommended either. Especially when there's a consensus by Greek, Turkish, and Armenian interested users alike. Kurds inhabit areas outside of the shaded area of the map too. But why aren't those parts shaded? Does inhabited mean plurality? Kurdish 'inhabited', for example, can also mean majority and there's secondary sources to prove that. Who's to say it isn't and why? Questions like this need to be discussed. All of these terminologies and their significations could and should be easily misleading unless clarified. I think that should be done at a more appropriate forum than this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
No. The source distinctly did not say "Kurdish majority", but you made it look like it. If you continue attempting to introduce hoaxes, or you continue arguing for their inclusion, you will be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait a moment. Sorry Nyttend, I've undone your closure here. First, please don't keep using the term "hoaxing", that's not what we're dealing with here. The person who first added the map, Athenean, [8] had just previously also added a sourced textual description [9] that said that "Kurds make up a majority in the provinces of Dersim, Bingol, Mus, Agri, Igdir, Elazig, Diyarbakir, Batman, Sirnak, Bitlis, Van, Mardin, Siirt and Hakkari, a near majority in Sanliurfa province (47%), and a large minority in Kars province (20%)." I haven't seen anybody challenging the correctness of the sourcing for this sentence. I assume that Athenean believed in good faith that the textual description enumerating those provinces matched the area described in the map, in which case his use of the map with the "majority" caption would have been legitimate. If he was mistaken in this assumption, overlooking that there might have been some factual differences between the two areas, that would make it a case of inadvertent source misuse, but not "hoaxing", which by definition would have to be deliberate. Certainly this should have been hacked out on the talkpage. In any case, I find the SPI on the "Heimdallr of Æsir" account convincing, having been familiar with the "Shuppiluliuma" sock drawer for years, so I intend to close that with an indef block on the sock, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of this particular edit war. Fut.Perf. 16:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with this. Was surprised the close referred to hoaxing in such a strong manner. --NeilN talk to me 16:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
When I started the original SPI for the Lord of Rivendell back in April 2014, I thought I had found the master. It turns out that the master was even older from 2007 numbering close to one hundred socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuppiluliuma. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agree. I undid my block for edit-warring because I did think the SPI was convincing, as mentioned above. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Black Kite. Also for your warning the sock-farmer about his personal attacks. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Like I said at the parallel WP:AN#Possible abuse of admin tools by User:Nyttend discussion, I've unprotected the page. Nyttend, if you would block anyone over this (or use your admin tools in another way in this incident), it is very likely that your action will very swiftly be overturned based on WP:INVOLVED and that your behaviour will seriously be scrutinized. Please take a step back and instead discuss this at Talk:Turkey in a collaborative, non-confrontational manner. Fram (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Using the word "hoaxing" once to mean "editing which I think was not supported by the sources, but for which I offer no evidence of bad faith", might be just a careless slip, and we are all careless at times. However, to repeat the same use of the word, so emphatically, cannot be seen as a slip: it is calculated and intentional. When that is done by an administrator, who also at the same time dismisses apparently without any thought genuine concerns about other editing problems, there is, I think, reason for concern. If, as Fram seems to be suggesting, that administrator has also taken administrative action while being involved, then that becomes reason for very serious concern. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • the only "administrative action" I've seen is reverting the page to his preferred version after protecting it, i.e. editing through (self-imposed) full-protection to get the result you want. He has made threats above to make further admin actions (i.e. blocks) on this issue against anyone who makes the offending edit again. Oh, and closing a thread about you isn't an abuse of admin tools, but very poor form in any case. Fram (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Fram and JamesBWatson for looking into this matter. And if Nyttend continues the same refrains towards me and other users, what do you suggest be the proper way of handling it? Étienne Dolet (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Any further admin action by Nyttend (protection, blocking, editing through protection...) on this issue should be reverted and reported here. A lapse in a (for him or her) heated situation is not a major problem (it is a problem, but nothing to take further action on besides immediate repair), but continuing to act like that after having been adviced by multiple uninvolved people that he should stop is a real issue which should be handled at ANI and/or ArbCom. But let's not get ahead of ourselves, chances are that things will return to normal now. Fram (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:AN preferred, as a pattern of misuse isn't really an "incident." But hopefully as Fram says this is a moot point.NE Ent 14:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
He is continuing his attacks on Fram's talkpage with edit-summary Your actions will long be remembered. I don't think he is getting any message at all. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I also think misusing the protection log edit-summary to attack other editors for "hoaxing" is a serious abuse of admin tools. Normal editors cannot respond to such attacks because they do not have access to protection tools. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
His abuse included calling my replies to his attacks "agitation" on my talkpage and concluding Further agitation will be ignored.. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Also baiting me with an edit-for-block combo: If you wish, I can unprotect the page to enable you to restore the hoax to the article, but such will result in an immediate reversion and block. These were some rather brutal attacks which are unprecedented in my almost ten-year presence on this project. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:19, 1 October 2015 (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.

Harassment by user Iryna Harpy[edit]

NAC Iryna Harpy recommended to be more careful in future with regards TPO. Reporting IP blocked by Drmies. Blackmane (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2015 (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.

Wanted to let you know that I've been harassed by the user Iryna Harpy (IH).

User IH [10] has made a personal attack against me on another user's talk page [11] after I posted that other user a comment.

In their personal attack on me, IH has accused me of being "disruptive". I have read the Wikipedia definition of a disruptive user [12], and none of that definition applies to my activity. Falsely accusing someone of being "disruptive" is; however, a form of harassment.

I have also noticed that item (5), which is "Leaving hostile messages on a user's talk page, or attacking a user for items discussed with a third party on their talk page" does in fact closely match the behavior of IH. So ironically, while IH has accused me of being disruptive, it is actually them who is disruptive.

Since IH addressed me on that page, I replied to them, and also provided additional information to the talk page owner, explaining my rationale behind my first comment, and also informed IH that their accusatory and adversarial tone is not appreciated. Also raised my suspicions regarding their emotional involvement and true motives regarding article neutrality. IH reverted my comment from the other user's talk page [13] and accused me of making personal attacks on them [14].

The reason IH gave in their revert of my comment was "Using another user's talk page to engage with me." I do not believe this is proper reasoning, since it was them who engaged me, and I was just replying, defending myself from their accusations, and also providing additional information to the talk page owner. Therefore, their revert of my edit was not reasonable, and a form of harassment.

Nevertheless, if there is indeed a Wikipedia editing guideline that prohibits users from engaging other users on talk pages that the recipient users are not owners of, then it would be IH who knowingly and deliberately violated that guideline [15]. So if they knew it was prohibited, but did it anyway, that's deliberate harassment, and if it is not actually prohibited, but they falsely claimed it is, then that's harassment too.

In an attempt to end their harassment, I reverted their initial harassing comment [16] and also warned them to stop making personal attacks against me [17].

IH then accused me of vandalising a talk page [18] and [19], I presume in response to me giving them warning against personal attacks. This indicates that IH was not remorseful for their actions. And falsely accusing someone of vandalism in response to a warning against personal attacks is also harassment.

IH then restored back their harassing comment [20], and posted a new warning on my talk page, accusing me of "refactoring others' talk page comments" and removing their "legitimate talk page comments" [21]. I did not refactor their harassing comments, I reverted them. And their comments were not legitimate. Seems to me that it is IH that's engaged in illegitimate attacks and harassment.

User IH must be prevented from engaging in these attacks and harassment, and in addition to that, should be sanctioned accordingly, to be discouraged from such behavior in the future and / or with other users, and to serve as an example for others who might also want to engage in such behavior and promote such negative culture, as such culture and behavior is contrary to the Wikipedia's stated mission of empowering and engaging people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.75.223 (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User IH has been notified of this report [22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.75.223 (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As the article in question is Sabra (company) and the dispute revolves around Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, I'm actually curious if the page falls under discretionary sanctions. GABHello! 22:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
It's already stated as much in the big yellow header on the talk page. The article falls under WP:ARBPIA. Blackmane (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions" carries the ARBPIA notification. The Sabra (company) article has no such no such template in place. In fact, there isn't even one comment on it... and no eyes on it other than a couple of regular editors (myself included), both of whom have been accused of 'harassment' by an IP who's made it clear that s/he is WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant Sabra. GABHello! 19:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, nobody acquitted themselves admirably here. Yes, as an experienced editor, Iryna Harpy knows that it is against policy to edit or remove another editor's post on a talk page other than her own, except in the case of obvious vandalism or trolling. And since she had initiated the contact, it was doubly wrong. Had someone dialed back the escalation at this point all would have been well. What she initially said to you (accusing you of being deliberately disruptive) was not in my mind a personal attack per se (and I'll let others determine whether it was warranted or not), and you were well within your rights to respond to her comment/accusation there. It's sad when IPs get treated this way, on the understanding that they don't know their way enough around Wikipedia to object or to defend themselves. It's sad that you have to bring this sort of behavior to ANI. I say Iryna needs a stern warning and a review of WP:TPO, and a direction to leave the IP and its talk-page edits alone on talk pages other than her own. As far as the Sabra article and any other Israeli-related articles, you need to discuss your views on the talk pages of the articles themselves and establish WP:CONSENSUS before repeatedly reverting or adding material. Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Softlavender, have you actually looked at the history of both the article in question (no, I was not the only editor to revert this IP for OR and POV content changes), or the context in which I removed the 'comment' on Euphoria42's talk page? Have you even looked at the IP's contributions? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Iryna, I have. None of them excuse (in fact nothing would ever excuse) your repeatedly violating WP:TPO, especially when you had addressed the IP first on that talk page thread. Softlavender (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
"It's sad when IPs get treated this way" (sic), and, "I say Iryna Harpy needs a stern warning and a review of WP:TPO" (sic)? It's reassuring to know that you're such a committed Wikipedian that you are so outraged by my behaviour. Naturally, there is nothing dishonest or misleading about the IP's missive on Euphoria42's stating that "... you reverted undisputed content along with disputed content at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabra_%28company%29&type=revision&diff=677379819&oldid=677379551". Was this an honest statement on behalf of the IP, or was was it a big fib? Aside from the WP:POV WP:SYNTH reverted, there was pure op-ed reverted in the form of "... though calls for boycotts at a number of colleges and universities, as at Bowdoin College and Wesleyan University, have failed." Added to that, it is I who suggested that the IP take this to the ANI if they are unhappy with my editing practices. Nevertheless, it is obviously undesirable and un-Wikipedian to for me to act so shamelessly as to understand this to be 'trolling' behaviour by such an obvious candidate for neutral, quality editing with a view to improving the project. I consider my hand smacked, and fully understand why you should encourage other regulars to demand that I be flogged for being such a nasty piece of work. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
If you want to institute a possible boomerang for the filer, or scrutiny of their edits/behavior, that's one thing. But that's not what the OP or my post was about -- it's about you violating WP:TPO, which is very straightforward and does not deserve the parody or dramatization you are giving it. Another editor's behavior does not warrant violating WP:TPO unless it involves talk-page vandalism, and in fact violating WP:TPO only escalates problems (rather than resolving them). If you don't like a conversation on someone else's talk page, either respond further, or just abandon it; don't remove or edit other users' posts on a talk page other than your own. Softlavender (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Based on contributions by the IP, such as here, and edit history [23], this IP is indeed a "disruption only" account and should be blocked. In addition, their behavior (quickly coming with complaints to ANI) indicates a potential WP:SOCK problem. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The problematic edit directed at IH was here: it appears to be casting vague WP:ASPERSIONS -- "...Your accusatory and adversarial tone is not appreciated. Your apparent emotional involvement with this issue, to the point of stalking my conversation with this other person, raises my suspicions that your true motives are not really all about keeping that article neutral and not biased as you claim." This seems to be a result of edit warring: [24] [25] [26] GABHello! 19:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
My edit "...Your accusatory and adversarial tone is not appreciated. Your apparent emotional involvement with this issue, to the point of stalking my conversation with this other person, raises my suspicions that your true motives are not really all about keeping that article neutral and not biased as you claim." was not in response to an edit warning, but in response to [27]. User GAB, can you specify which part of my original statement constitutes WP:ASPERSIONS ? 96.24.75.223 (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You do not look like a new user. Did you edit from other account(s)? My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
"An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence." The comment hints that IH has an ulterior motive in the article and is trying to slant it away from neutrality. Yes, I meant to write "edit-warring" -- i.e., this has arisen from a dispute over wording on the Sabra article in relation to BSM. MVBW: I don't want to cry "sock" at once, and I don't really want to get into that. GABHello! 22:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
User "My very best wishes", can you specify how my edits fall under the definition of disruptive editing as defined at [28] ? Are you saying that my edits also fall under WP:SOCK, or just that my complaint to the ANI falls under WP:SOCK ? 96.24.75.223 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I do not really know if WP:SOCK was relevant. That's why I asked you a simple question: did you previously edit from other accounts? And what is your answer? My very best wishes (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Irina Harpy was wrong in removing the IP's comment from Euphoria's talk page. Don't do that again, please. Also, the IP was making a blatantly non-neutral edit when they did this (and the ones before, obviously), and then continue by harassing someone by means of a false harassment charge on ANI, taking up more bytes than they ever contributed to the project--at least from this IP. Yes, it's odd how a new IP editor can be so familiar with Wikipedia. What's clear is that they brought their agenda to the table, and what's also clear is that we need to protect our bona fide editors from such harassment. Block. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I do (grudgingly) accept that I overstepped the line between distinguishing between trolling and TPO, for which I apologise. I'll certainly make a concerted effort to not jump the gun in future. Levity and ego aside, I realise that I made a bad call. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy, thank you. Note that my comments were made also to ensure the viewer back home that we are fair and balanced here at ANI, and with my apologies: I am sorry that this abuser put you through the wringer. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2015 (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.

Deforestation in India[edit]

Deforestation in India was a redirect to Forestry in India and as per request made at WikiProject India, Requested articles on 20th August, 2015 I started the fresh article but unfortunately I forget to nominated the existing redirect under CSD G6 (or alternatives) and saved the article.

Recently, I noticed that the article was not listed under my contributed articles and I nominated it under CSD G6 after moving the article to Draft:Deforestation in India so that it can be moved back to the mainspace article once the existing one get deleted. The CSD was reviewed by Spinningspark and he declined it as per Declining speedy. Sorry, you don't get to delete articles just so you can get your name as author. Besides which the draft page you intend to move here has other, irrelevant drafts embedded in its history.

His decline reason was unclear including the views on the draft about its embedded history which has various alternative option to remove those "embedded history". For the same I left a message on his talk page but he have not yet answered even after his recent contributions shows that he is/was online.

We all on Wikipedia spend a lot of time in thinking the topic, deciding the contents, writing it and finding the reliable sources. But, such responses and that's from experienced editors is really discouraging. — Sanskari Hangout 15:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sanskari: Just an idea, and I don't want to poke in my nose unnecessarily, but why don't you move the article to a temporary title like India deforestation and then request a histmerge with the new redirect, Deforestation in India? It looks like the current article "Deforestation in India" was only a redirect before you expanded it.
(Also, now you have two articles: the draft and the mainspace article. You may want to ask for a histmerge for these, too.) Epic Genius (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

User:87.6.191.219 disruptive editing (Italian names)[edit]

User 87.6.191.219 (dynamic IP, previously he was 87.1.112.159 and 87.1.25.216) is keeping vandalizing pages with Italian names: he is an Italian (he wrote "torna a fare i compiti..." which means "return to do your homework..." in Italian) and he changes the correct IPA pronounciation of Italian names making it uncorrect.
A few examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cesare_Prandelli&diff=prev&oldid=683030468 (the symbol "ː" was added according to Help:IPA for Italian); https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gigliola_Cinquetti&diff=prev&oldid=683321479 (the symbol "ˑ" is wrong, and yet he says to the Registered User who corrected it "return to do your homework..."); https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giosu%C3%A8_Carducci&diff=prev&oldid=683321843 (here he reverted an edit I had done without changing any IPA or Italian name, but just because "I" did that edit, the same "I" who had made another edit he did not like about Cesare Beccaria).
His IP is from Southern Italy, and he is behaving exactly like a virtual "Boss" who says: "These pages are MY STUFF ("Cosa Nostra") and nobody can touch them!"; this is going on since months, because each time someone edits one of "his" pages, pages he edited for example in MAY, he reverts the edit just after a few hours, according to his own and uncorrect way to pronunce Italian.
I am asking you Administrators to make him stop, blocking his IP (or IP range) or sending him a message to his current IP, even if I do not think that he would listen to anyone and eventually he will have to be blocked.
Now I am going to rollback all of his disruptive edits once again, please act as soon as possible, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.6.76 (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

the real vandal is the guy above (who ignore, among other things, what is syntactic gemination): I had to correct all his crape. He's also a racist, as you can see, and changes IP at every edit because of his bad faith! Please contact an user acquainted with italian language so that he will judge the whole thing. --87.6.191.219 (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Everyone, just watch these 2 last edits of mine (the vandal's rollbacking) and tell me that I am the one who is doing wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agostino_Masucci&type=revision&diff=683334327&oldid=683328655 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claudio&type=revision&diff=683334338&oldid=683326733
I did not revert correct (rare) edits like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matteo_Salvini&diff=prev&oldid=683322523
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.41.17 (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

He changed IP address again! However, in standard italian it's [matˈtɛo] and not [maˈteo] (a dialectal and incorrect form). As for "Agostino", it's [aɡoˈstiːno] in isolation but [aɡoˈstiˑno] in a compound. --87.6.191.219 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I notified User:87.6.191.219 that they were mentioned here. If you want to correct the situation, it would be a good idea for you to create an account. One IP-hopper ( User:151.20.6.76 ) doing mass rollbacks of another IP-hopper is unlikely to win sympathy for either side. You could post at some relevant WikiProject to get advice on which pronunciation is more likely to be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The above IP's are presenting personal opinions, not sources. Generally speaking, what reliable sources are used to validate the IPA's used in Wikipedia articles? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Sources are this and this. Also you are free to contact italian users who used to edit subjets like that. --87.6.191.219 (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Mr. 87.6.191.219
1st: I did not contest the edit about Matteo Salvini, I said it was correct (however, speaks about dialect the one who speaks it as mother language).
2nd: Agostino a compound? Of what? Ago and Stino? And even if it was, THIS ˌ is the seconday accent used for the first element of a compound, NOT THIS ˑ which has nothing to do with stress.
Return to do your homework, AKA "study". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.48.15 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

What sources can you link to which define the correct IPA pronunciation? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Nope! Compound is clearly Agostino+Masucci! But this is a minor concern, while the most important thing is, again syntactic gemination and also open and closed vowels. Check a dictionary. --87.6.191.219 (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "Nope! Compound is clearly Agostino+Masucci!" FACEPALM
Baseball_Bugs: Are we talking about symbols such as ː ˈ ˑ ˌ ect? See: Help:IPA for Italian will you!
Have to go. See us tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.62.87 (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

We are especially talking about open and closed vowels and syntactic gemination, as I said. And relax. --87.6.191.219 (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm talking about sourcing for IPA stuff. "See a dictionary" is not a source. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Repeat: Help:IPA for Italian >>> Suprasegmentals (ˈ ˌ ː and NO ˑ) I hope it is a source for you.
Well, I suppose we can close here. I was interested in writing correct information, so all wrong edits made by "Don 87" just have to stay reverted and I shall come back here only if he continues restoring them (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claudio&diff=prev&oldid=683357188), while if I have done any uncorrect edit I will not insist in making them, obviously. We must understand that IP is from one of the most backward regions in Italy, it is not his fault, both for his lack of knowledge and for his bossy behaviour, he was grown up like that amid people grown up like that, we can just hope he has learnt something from this, both new notions and a little humbleness. I suggest someone of you keeps an eye on him for a while, you never know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.121.170 (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Reign it in a little, mate. Doing the patronizing routine in this kind of venue is rarely a good move even if the issue is much more clear-cut. Humbleness, eh?-- Elmidae (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Mmm... I have also tried with Google Translate, but... That was not useful at all, either... :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.81.1 (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

'Rowspan' vandal[edit]

Nyttend blocked the IP (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:04, 2 October 2015 (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.

I'm reporting the above IP for disruptive editing. After repeated warnings (see: Talk page), and repeated reversions by myself and others, this IP has continued to add 'rowspan' elements to WP:FILMOGRAPHY tables at various BLP's. (There's a whole background on this that no one at ANI probably wants to hear the details about – suffice it to say that use of 'rowspan' in Filmography tables is controversial...)

Now, why am I bringing this to ANI, rather than WP:AIV? Because I also suspect that this IP is the same as IP 73.29.184.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that recently got blocked by Spencer for exactly the same offense. And same MO – multiple warnings about 'rowspan' use, with no communication from IP about it. (So why am I here rather than WP:SPI – because I know SPI can't do much about IP's...)

Anyway, so ANI is where I brought this – I'm requesting a block of this (new) IP for disruptive editing. TIA. --IJBall (contribstalk) 01:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously this kind of edit isn't a blockable situation if it doesn't go against consensus; it's not blatant vandalism or otherwise fundamentally problematic. Looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, I get the impression that there's an exception for first-column years, i.e. this edit is fine, and I don't see edits that add rowspan elsewhere in the tables. Can you show me edits by this address that do involve adding it elsewhere, or otherwise demonstrate some sort of policy violation or demonstrate intentional going against consensus? I don't think any sanctions are appropriate unless you can show some of those. Nyttend (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, there this one: diff – it's subtle, and you have to go down a ways, but they 'rowspanned' "Television movie" in the fourth column. There are some other ones like that in the most recent batch of edits (e.g. this diff – same thing: 'rowspaning' "Television movie"; and they did the very same thing in the Lauren Holly diff you provided above)... Anyway, you're right, Nyttend that there's probably sort of a "truce" on 'rowspanning' the 'Year' column (provided it's the first column in the 'Filmography' table). But my wider concern in this instance is that, 1) the IP has continued to use 'rowspan' in the 'Year' column and elsewhere after being both warned and reverted doing that, and 2) that it looks to me to be very likely Block evasion by IP 73.29.184.78 after their very long block for the very same infractions. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the diffs; I'll block momentarily. Unless there are other, clearer, problems, I'm just not willing to block for what's at best ambiguous. And thanks for the pointer on the diff I linked; I completely missed the Television movie part. Nyttend (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2015 (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:Oshwah[edit]

Re-closing discussion. Added a diff for the record. Original Closure: "OP blocked indef as sock. Everymorning (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)" (non-admin closure) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 14:40, 3 October 2015 (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.

While I applaud Oshwah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) in their quest to pad out their edit count by mindlessly clicking buttons on Huggle, I (and other readers of the encyclopedia, I believe) would appreciate it if they would spend five seconds reading the content they're reverting before clicking that shiny "revert" button, as off-wiki links to commercial retailers' samples (several of which are deadlinks due to Barnes & Nobles redoing their site) are not an acceptable method of demonstrating the sounds of the Fairlight CMI - no matter how uncivil the edit summaries may be (apologies for the first couple, I thought I was dealing with Cluebot). Now, I will readily admit I haven't been keeping a close eye on the evolving of Wikipedia policies - if policy has changed in this regard, let me know and I will be only too happy to add links to photography/travel book previews on Amazon to better illustrate the landscape of various cities and villages, or Youtube trailers to highlight the techniques of various actors. Jframda (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You are required to notify anyone who you mention on AN/I, which I have done. Amaury (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Beat me to it. Thanks! Jframda (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
In any case, I don't have any clue what the article in question talks about, but as two editors have both challenged you on your removal of content, it is important to follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle to reach a consensus. You have not done so and instead have engaged in edit warring. Your summary comments were also uncivil and edged dangerously close to being personal attacks; however, I'm glad you realized your mistake there. (Although ClueBot has feelings, too, and you shouldn't call them names.) Please stop edit warring and discuss why you believe what you removed shouldn't be there on the article's talk page. Amaury (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Boomerang strikes. OP blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on Fairlight CMI.  Philg88 talk 14:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I was notified on my talk page that this ANI was created - thank you for doing that, Amaury :-). I just want to weigh in on this discussion (even though this matter looks to be resolved), so we can (hopefully) close the discussion off completely and Jframda can move on from this positively and look back on this as a good learning experience. The first reversion that I made to Jframda's edit on Fairlight CMI was due to the lack of an edit summary explaining the removal of the content. I also noticed that other editors were challenging Jframda's removal and that no discussion was started on the article's talk page. My last reversion here expressed my concerns (edit warring and without a talk page discussion).
Jframda - Please know that meaningful edit summaries are very important when making contributions to Wikipedia. Leaving uncivil edit summaries, such as those made recently by you, will only make things worse; other editors read these edit summaries and gain a perception of the situation using them. This situation could have been avoided if you had just explained your reasoning behind your removal of content, and started a discussion on the article's talk page when politely asked by multiple editors to do so. Please also know that I am 100% open and willing to discuss any concerns or disagreements on my talk page; you didn't need to create an ANI thread here. Had you left a message on my talk page instead, I would have happily assisted you and worked with you to make sure that the article was within Wikipedia's policies. Mistakes do happen, and I am not perfect :-) -- Please feel free to reach out to me on my talk page if you want to discuss this matter further. I'm also more than willing to assist you with the article and the talk page discussion. Wikipedia is about collaboration and community; instead of starting edit wars and making edits alone, let's make it better together.
Unless anybody has additional concerns that have not already been mentioned, I think we can resolve this thread. I'll let someone uninvolved do that. Happy editing, everyone! ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Update: Jframda's block has been changed to an indefinite block ({{checkuserblock-account}}). This thread can definitely be closed now. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I am re-opening this discussion to add this diff to it, for the record. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 3 October 2015 (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:Jugdev reverting all contributions and blanking Talk page[edit]

User blocked for 48 hours by Kuru. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 20:33, 2 October 2015 (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.

User:Jugdev is acting as though he owns Programmatic media. I have tried to improve the article in a variety of ways, from changing the lead to respect WP:REFERS (my edit; his revert), to copyediting to improve wording, to minor punctuation corrections, to removing overlinking, and Jugdev has systematically reverted every change to return the article to the form it was in before I started contributing (diff showing no change).

I have engaged Jugdev on his Talk page as well as on Talk:Programmatic media, with both substantive and procedural comments (including links to WP policies). He systematically replies that he is right and ignores my suggestions. On Talk:Programmatic media, he has now blanked the page three times. Time 1, Time 2, Time 3 (he characterized the third blanking as "removing vandalism").

He has also made 241 redirects to the Programmatic media page (SEO?), which seems inappropriate; again, he ignores my comment with "The redirects are relevant and within guidelines."

If you look at his Talk page, you'll see that this is a pattern of behavior, and that he has previously been blocked for similar behavior on other pages. --Macrakis (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The blanking of the article talk page is the issue that is most clearly within the scope of this noticeboard; I don't know how to call that anything but willful disruption of the discussion. The ownership issues with the article are also problematic. Normally that would get labelled a content dispute—but the first remedy for that is discussion on the article talk page, and how can you do that when the article talk page is blanked by the other party?
I've restored the talk page content and cautioned the user that removing it is disruptive. I've also added the article to my watchlist to see how the user proceeds. It's been over an hour since his last edit, so I'm reluctant to act until I see how he reacts to this thread and my comment. —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
C.Fred, Seems like you and I edit conflicted, I got the article talk page and you got to post on the user talk page, and have said what I wanted to over here. —SpacemanSpiff 18:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The page indeed needs work and it would be helpful if Jugdev were to let other editors take a decent crack at it - JohnInDC (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Jugdev has now reverted changes made by three (four?) separate editors without meaningful discussion and in the face of a 3RR warning. JohnInDC (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
He's been blocked for 48 hours. I have a feeling that we're going to be back here in a couple days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2015 (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.

Suspicion of multiple IPs operating on behalf of blocked IP[edit]

I admit to not knowing whether an SPI has already run regarding this user, nor if they're even opened for disruptive IPs. I came across the 82 IP some weeks ago, and see that they've continued unabated with hundreds of unsourced edits since being warned in August. That's often a tell for a user who's been through this before, and chooses to sidestep blocks and just keep going. Looking at the edit patterns, I think this is the same user who was blocked for a year, and suspect they've used several or many other IPs in these ranges. More eyes would be appreciated. Thanks, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't done anything why did I get a message saying I have — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.11.240 (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Merging this question into the related thread. --Kinu t/c 01:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Ponyo, you're being pinged here. (By me.) Drmies (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Drmies. My handiwork--shrewd on finding these users, not always sharp on noticeboard procedures. Cheers from 99, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    • No, you're fine--I just saw that Ponyo had blocked and smelled previous history. Thanks again for helping to keep the place clean; Jimbo should put you on payroll. Or pay you for a portrait--one not painted with your John Hancock, of course.

      OK, I blocked for obvious block evasion and otherwise problematic edits--Ponyo, surely there's an SPI or some other report here, no? Drmies (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The 86.5 IP has popped up repeatedly at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harry (singer)/Archive.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I've expressed to Drmies[29], that there probably needs to be some more WP:DIFFs sufficient to justify a WP:SPI before this type of thing gets escalated or actioned in the future. As noted to Drmies, I can't see why an 82.24/14 (NTL/Nottingham) cable-modem editing mostly Nottingham-ish articles would have much to do with an editor from an 86.5/16 block. I hope that diffs can be provided to allow others to follow along. —Sladen (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Opposing editors refuse to WP:dropthestick over Gun show loophole title NPOV tag[edit]

The recent POV issue began here [30], about 24-48 hrs after the GA review began after 4 months of waiting, if I'm not mistaken (end of Aug beginning of Sept). Godsy is the one that tagged the article after QuilaBird brought the issue to the TP. Mudwater had stated/argued repeatedly that the title needs to be changed to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". The title was temporarily changed to "Gun show loophole controversy", but reverted after later discussion. About the time I obtained photos for the article, and there was a consensus on which image to use, the article was submitted for GA review. Zwerg Nase and Winner 42 responded to our GA request. Here is the current state [31]. There was an impartial consensus to keep the original title (edit - consensus at NPOVN including two impartial comments on the article TP after the placement at NPOVN, then Markbassett commented there today, after it was "resolved" [32]. I mistakenly asked an involved editor to close ([33] Darknipples (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)) and they have changed their mind from (essentially) agreeing with the consensus, to saying the issue is not resolved. The issue has been brought up several time in the past year, especially by editor Mudwater. Each time the result was to keep the title as is. Other involved editors include @Etamni, Faceless Enemy, Godsy, Capitalismojo, and Altenmann:. I'm hoping someone can make sense of this and I'm not sure where else to go. Thanks for the help. Darknipples (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC) I seem to have forgotten a few editors QuilaBird & Scourge of Trumpton...Darknipples (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC) (Recent edit [34]) Darknipples

I am pinging DES and Markbassett from NPOVN just in case. Darknipples Darknipples (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, a consensus has never been reached on keeping the article title "Gun show loophole". A number of editors, myself included, feel quite strongly that the title of the article violates WP:NPOV, and that the article should be renamed per WP:NDESC. Others disagree. But the question of the article title keeps being brought up by different editors, not the same ones, which is an indication that there's a genuine issue here. Mudwater (Talk) 21:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Mudwater I was referring to the multiple impartial consensus' with regard to the current and previous discussions, RFC's, Name Change Request's, and Move Requests, etc..etc.... Darknipples (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If I were to close that discussion, it would read:

While arguments can be made for both sides, in the end, policy dictates. First we look at the controlling policy on titles, WP:TITLE, which clearly states "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." Under this rule, the current title seems to be unquestionably the proper title. As we dig close into the policy at section WP:NPOVNAME, we see "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal).". There are exceptions for trendy names or colloquialisms, but this wouldn't fall under that. If we have two equally common names to choose from, then we would choose the most neutral but we do not here. As it has been pointed out, we have to follow reliable sources and in effect, they choose the name for us, so while there is a good argument that "loophole" is an inaccurate description of the issue, "loophole" is still what the sources use. Any discrepancy in the neutrality of the title can be cleared up within the article, assuming there are reliable sources that are supporting those claims. With all this in mind, it seems very clear that while there are varying opinions, policy clearly dictates that the neutrality of the title isn't at stake as choosing any other title would instead by violating WP:TITLE by not using the common name. As such, the NPOV tag should be removed. Dennis Brown - 21:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

And please note that WP:TITLE takes precedence over WP:NPOV here since it covers both concepts. If you read NPOV, it flatly says "See article titling policy for more on choosing an appropriate title for an article." We aren't here to right wrongs or be politically correct. The media uses "loophole", so we do. Dennis Brown - 21:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Would it be prudent to involve/ping related WikiProject editors (Firearms, Law, and Politics/American)? Darknipples (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I suppose if a neutral notice was given, but as I said above, policy seems to be very clear on this so I'm not sure how more people arguing is necessarily better, as there has been lots of discussion already. My close above was after reading through it and weighing it against the actual policy that guides us here. Of course, I'm open to counterviews, but it seems obvious in this case. Dennis Brown - 21:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not sure what to expect, as I've never dealt with this kind of thing before on my own. Will an administrator close this on the article's TP when this discussion is finished, or should I ask someone like yourself to do it? I don't know if I'm allowed to close it or not since I'm an "involved editor". Sorry for all the questions, you've been most helpful. Darknipples (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

───────@Dennis Brown: As you probably know, gun law in the U.S. is a highly controversial and polarizing topic. Pro-gun-control and pro-gun-rights advocates often hold strongly opposing views on this topic. Are you aware that the term "gun show loophole" is often used by pro-gun-control advocates, but almost never used by pro-gun-rights advocates? The latter tend to think that the term is very misleading, and have written many times about how, in their view, "there is no gun show loophole". Therefore the term, while often used, is biased towards one side of the argument. So, it's the "common name" only for one half of the people debating the issue. Know what I mean? Mudwater (Talk) 22:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm ex-military, from a military family, had an FFL, CTC for years, etc., etc. I'm familiar with the politics, but what I do is set aside my own beliefs and focus on policy. The title should use "loophole" because policy says it should, but to keep it neutral, it makes sense to discuss how it very often/never/always/whatever really is/isn't a loophole, and how that is the term that is most often used to describe it only/sometimes/etc. I'm betting there are plenty of sources for this, and a short blurb in the lede plus a paragraph down lower should be more than sufficient to offset any concern about NPOV. What is at stake is policy, and policy says that most of the time, you use a non-neutral title if that is what the sources use. This situation doesn't fit into any listed exception, and WP:TITLE is the primary policy, everything else takes a back seat to it. When we use the word "terrorist" or dozens of other terms, there is the issue of bias as well, but in all cases, our job isn't to correct the sources or take sides, it is to document them. That is why we follow their usage, even if we don't like it personally. Dennis Brown - 23:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: I'm in favor of passing a new federal law requiring background checks for all private firearm sales. So, I'm not taking this personally. I just think you're off-base on what the policy is here. NPOV is extremely important. Just because a lot of people use a term, doesn't mean it should be the title of an article, especially when the term is as biased as this one. As far as "terrorism", I haven't done an exhaustive search, but so far I'm definitely not seeing it. For example, Palestinian terrorism is a redirect to Palestinian political violence. Analogously, "Gun show loophole" should be a redirect to "Background checks for firearms sales in the United States", or something along those lines. Mudwater (Talk) 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Is Talk:Gun_show_loophole/Archive_3#Requested_move_29_January_2015 the last requested move discussion? NE Ent 23:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think WP:NPOV is important also, but as I've already stated, NPOV clearly says to refer to WP:TITLE when it comes to titles. The issue of POV is covered in WP:TITLE quite deeply, including listing exceptions. This is why, again, I say that WP:TITLE trumps WP:NPOV here, the policies themselves say so. If you can't argue it based on WP:TITLE's wording, then there is no argument. Dennis Brown - 23:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
As HighInBC points out, "This is a content dispute pure and simple. ... Administrators cannot solve content disputes" Someone should wrap this in a close tag and request the parties start a move request if last January's is the most recent. NE Ent 23:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Ent and NE Ent:..."HighInBC" is seems to be referring to "an image" or something like that... [35]. Not GSL's TP discussions or ARTICLE EDITS... I think the diff you supplied may be unrelated...? Darknipples Darknipples (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes that quote seems out of context, I never commented on this issue. HighInBC 15:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@NE Ent: As far as actual requested moves, I could be wrong but I believe that's the only one. But there have been a number of other, later discussions about the article title, on the article talk page and also in other forums such as this one. @Dennis Brown: I appreciate that you're trying to apply Wikipedia policy to this question, but I think that preserving WP:NPOV is more important than the exact wording of WP:TITLE. Common sense should prevail over Wikilawyering. But I acknowledge that there's significant disagreement about what's common sense here. Mudwater (Talk) 23:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@NE Ent: January isn't the most recent according to the logs. April of this year just before we requested the GA review [36] as far as "recent" (Darknipples (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)), with EXCEPTION to the current discussion, as far as I understand THE TITLE is concerned. Darknipples (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm commenting as an uninvolved party and experienced admin, I've never edited in or around that article. I think to call my direct quoting of a primary policy "Wikilawyering" is a uncivil. Someone came for unbiased interpretation of policy and got it. You appear to be saying NPOV is more important because YOU think it is. I'm saying that very policy defers to TITLE clearly and without question, in the very wording of the policy. You are an interested party, I'm not. Dennis Brown - 00:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: You said, "If you can't argue it based on WP:TITLE's wording, then there is no argument." I think that's going too far, and it strikes me as being in the general direction of Wikilawyering. But, I would say it's not a full-fledged case. If that sounds like I'm only half-way apologizing, it should. But, you're right that I'm an interested party and you're not. I do appreciate your taking the time to contribute to the resolution of this dispute, so, thanks for that. Mudwater (Talk) 00:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I suspect (without, honestly, looking in great detail) there have been too many conversations. There's this fantasy if we all discuss enough we'll come to a point we all agree with ... the other 99% of the time if you good back and forth on an opinion more than maybe three times you're spinning your wheels, and it's best to get help before tempers start to flare. Help = more people. I think this is one of those times where WP:Process is important and the burden would be one the folks desiring a move to file another move request, with focus on what has changed since the January one. Then everyone votes, an uninvolved editor closes it, everyone moves one while respecting the other point of view. NE Ent 01:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • To echo Ent comment and good judgement, admin (including myself) don't settle content issues. My quasi close comment and comments since were to point to the right policy and offer an opinion about policy, not a judgement. I stayed off that page on purpose, but that is where it should be settled. Dennis Brown - 00:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Current discussion between Mudwater and myself on the GSL article's TP [37]. Darknipples (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC) FYI I'm referring to this (edit) particular "suggestion" from Mudwater " P.S. I'd be okay with "Gun show loophole" being a redirect to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". — Mudwater (Talk) 20:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)"(/edit) . (edit) AND previously to the one in charge of THE GA REVIEW Zwerg Nase [38](recent edit) (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC) , among other times I do not feel need mention at this point. Darknipples (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I suppose this [39] is relevant in a certain regard... Darknipples (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC). So Mudwater and (QuilaBird, the one that hasn't said a "anything new" (see TP) about the matter in almost two weeks), are reason enough to ignore WP:POLICY?. Nevermind...I digress. Mudwater and I simply don't agree. -- Darknipples (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I suppose Notifying (ping) Fuhghettaboutit and Bus stop is in order now...Darknipples (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC) To reiterate, unless GSL's title changes to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" - Mudwater and "future editors" will continue to tag according to "said WP guidelines/rules/???" Darknipples (talk) (recent edit - [40] - Darknipples (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)) I forgot to ping Checkingfax from my TeaHouse edit. Darknipples (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I have never edited the GSL article. I was alerted to the debate by the Teahouse thread linked above, and posted on the notice board and IIRC on the article talk page, once each. While I came to them independently, my view is pretty much the same as the one expressed by Dennis Brown, above -- the only policy based outcome is to use the common name, which is the current name. I reviewed the article at the time of the Teahouse thread not long ago. At that time it included a well-sourced discussion of the controversy over the terminology as well as the controversy over the policy issue. It also included sourced statements showing that many of the "pro-gun-rights" did use the "loophole" term, even as they protested that it was misleading or biased. If those sources are accurate, it is NOT correct that this term is used only by one side of the controversy. Rather it is frequently used, albeit sometimes under protest, by people on both sides, and overwhelmingly by the (at least ostensibly) neutral media. Hence IMO it is the common name for this topic and should be used as such. I have seen no consensus to move this article, and no policy=based reason to retain a POV tag on it, as the article itself clearly explains the various points of viw and who holds them. DES (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Now that I look at the records, I never actually asked Etamni "to close" the discussion [41], just asked if they had any experience etc... Darknipples (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Did someone say my name? As I noted at the relevant talk page, our policy, WP:TITLE has a specific section, at shortcut WP:NDESC which explicitly states, In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. (Emphasis mine, internal link omitted.) It would appear that this policy was specifically written for circumstances, such as this one, where the most common name is problematic. I also note that WP:TITLECHANGES is contradictory, in that it suggests not changing a name in this circumstance. I believe that the contradictory nature of these two policies means that we need to use common sense to resolve this issue. In this case, the article is about the fact that private sales of firearms, particularly at gun shows, do not require background checks in the majority of states. This is a political issue, with those favoring more controls on firearms ownership calling it a "loophole," while those who are against expanded laws finding the term "loophole" offensive because the term is pejorative and suggests that people are somehow getting around a law that was intended to apply to them, when, in this case, the legislative history suggests that such an intent was never part of the laws that were established to require licensed firearms dealers to conduct background checks; indeed, private parties are prohibited from accessing the system. Thus the term "loophole" is not factually correct. There is no neutral alternative term used consistently through the RS. In the discussion, several terms were suggested, but none found consensus. One of the suggested terms was Background checks for firearm sales in the United States but this was rejected. I believe that it is not a good title because it does not represent the subject of the article, which is the fact that certain sales are not subject to background checks. Another suggested term, and one that I supported, was Private party exemption but this was also rejected, apparently due to the lack of RS to support it (although I believe that WP:NDESC would allow it). Just during the past year, this issue has been raised several times, ad nauseam. I give credit to the editors involved for not engaging in an edit war within the article itself, but even the repeated discussions on the talk page are disruptive, so the issue needs to be put to bed. Closing the discussion with no consensus will simply lead to the same issue being raised again, perhaps by someone unfamiliar with the prior discussions (as has also happened before), and then the issues will be rehashed by the same parties again, who, understandably, don't want their opinions left out of the discussion. So either a title needs to be agreed upon that will satisfy everyone, or a decision needs to be made that the current title will stay in place, with a prohibition on raising the issue again for some set period of time, unless there is clear evidence that consensus has changed. Etamni | ✉   08:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that wasn't intended to be a wall of text. Etamni | ✉   08:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Etamni please re-read WP:NDESC. Specifically the second paragraph, which reads..."However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Since "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title "Political impact of the Boston Massacre" would also be acceptable.)" You, yourself stated on the TALK PAGE (just before changing your mind, oddly enough) "I'm fine with dropping this. I think a better summary of the discussion is that there is no consensus on a specific better name, even where it may be apparent that the current name is not perfect. I would suggest that, as we occasionally see on other articles, the talk page needs an advisory message box at the top with links to the discussion(s) in the archives. This may help prevent such a drawn-out discussion from being restarted, again, in the future. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 15:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)". Did someone else talk you into changing your mind? Also, to be clear I never "asked you to summarize the discussion" or anyone else for that matter. Darknipples (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
(late reply)> Nobody said anything to me other than what was posted in the public comments, which have not been removed. I found additional information (in the form of a policy that had not already been discussed). To be 100% clear, I am fine with dropping the entire thing, and I am fine with changing the name. What I am not fine with is having the issue raised over and over again. That is disruptive. That disruption interferes with ongoing improvements to the encyclopedia. I have made suggestions that I think are in the best interest of the encyclopedia, but am fine with whatever consensus emerges. I also understand that you (DN) do not consider your previous question to me to have been an invitation to summarize the discussion, and hope you understand how the question might have been interpreted as such a request (and I don't see how it matters now, anyway). Finally, (everyone) PLEASE stop pinging me for issues related to this discussion. I don't need my phone beeping while I am working, just to see that there is a new message that might interest me on Wikipedia. There is a real-life reason I have listed my status on my user page as attempting to take a WikiBreak of indeterminate length. I know where this page is and can look at it when I have time. Etamni | ✉   00:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the response Etamni (no ping) Darknipples (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone just host an RFC on "what should the article be titled" and let's move on? Make subheadings with different options and a single one-section discussion area (and keep discussion contained there). The talk page could use some outside viewers. Disagreeing with an article title isn't a conduct issue per se. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    We posted this issue at NPOVN two weeks ago and all the impartial comments were a consensus to keep the original title. Opposing editors (mostly UN-impartial) are seeking a LOOPHOLE in Policy over a title that has the word LOOPHOLE in it. Irony abounds...And that's why it's here now. I think WP:POLICY is clear, as @Dennis Brown: put it in the beginning. Darknipples (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    Well, I'd say the noticeboard is different than a formal RFC but didn't this section have only three commenters? You may be right but the argument is whether there's been a clear consensus and it seems like each discussion has basically five or six editors arguing over each other again and again. Either way, this is subject to discretionary sanctions so is that what you're suggesting? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
    Ricky81682 For NPOVN, one comment, originally. During that time we had only a few other impartial commenters, all in favor of keeping the title as is on the article TP. After I had already closed ("resolved") at NPOVN (only one comment at the time after about 2 weeks), Markbassett recently stated that "The WP:NPOV concerns seem reasonable, as a well-known partisan label and POV concern of editors here. Since this is neutrality board, and since NPOV is a core item, I will suggest the NPOV section WP:POVNAMING is the one to apply, not the naming convention article of WP:POVNAME." and recently that the issue is "Doing better thru the article TALK pages". So, in answer to your question, I do feel sanctions may indeed be necessary, for the sake of the article. I sincerely do not wish Mudwater any ill-will, and it's in no way personal, but I feel they have essentially forced the issue to this point. Darknipples (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Current GSL TP discussion between Mudwater and myself. [42]. Darknipples (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I believe Mudwater's behavior to be reminiscent of, if not blatantly in line with, WP:CRUSH. Darknipples (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)...Now that I think of it, it is also WP:CHERRYPICKING with regard to holding WP:NDESC as a priority over WP:TITLE policy, WP:NOCONSENSUS, and WP:CONEXCEPT. Especially after the recent impartial consensus and past RFC's. I'd also like to note I was not ALONE in my arguments to retain the original title on the GSL talk page.

  • Faceless Enemy I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu... We've debated all of this before (see the TP archives), and even though I didn't like the answer I got then, there did seem to be a consensus not to consolidate / rename the pages involved. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Capitalismojo WP:COMMONNAME Lets just use the common name. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Altenmann re: "It can't be a loophole if that's the system operating as intended." and "No background checks on private sales is the current intended policy". -- absence of policy is not a policy. The intent of the policy was to prevent firearms from reaching bad hands, and not making life of firearms businesses harder. Therefore it is called "loophole": something that is not covered by a policy of background checking. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

My main issue with doing, yet another RFC, other than the fact that we just had an impartial consensus on NPOVN, and that we are in the middle of a GA review which we waited 4 months for, is that Mudwater's behavior is such that they will continue WP:STICK and WP:CRUSH. Darknipples (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Also see WP:TITLECHANGES "Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." - "While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." Darknipples (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Mudwater's conduct has been perfectly fine. They didn't revive the discussion, and as far as I know they haven't edit warred over it. You have both been admirably civil about your content disagreement. No need to accuse the other party of anything untoward over a content dispute. As Mudwater pointed out, this is a perennial discussion because the title is inherently loaded. It *is* the common name for the concept, but the loaded quality is going to raise eyebrows. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
As you know, it was not my first choice. As Etamni recently stated here..."What I am not fine with is having the issue raised over and over again. That is disruptive. That disruption interferes with ongoing improvements to the encyclopedia." I realize that MW isn't the one that raised the issue or tagged the article this time, but they only just recently suggested re-tagging the article citing POV concerns over the title...
  • "Well, there have been some interesting recent discussions about the title of the article, here, and also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Opposing editors refuse to WP:dropthestick over Gun show loophole title NPOV tag. But I have to say, my views have not changed. I still think that the article name "Gun show loophole" violates the WP:NPOV policy, and that the article should be renamed per WP:NDESC, to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". But, at this point I'm not sure how to proceed. Someone could resubmit the article as a requested move -- there was one of those already, which can be reviewed at Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 3#Requested move 29 January 2015. Or someone could put the POV tag back on the article -- but that was just taken off, after no one continued the discussion about why it should be left on. So, yeah. What next? Speaking for myself, I'm going to ponder this further. For the moment, I don't have anything further to add, either to this discussion or to the article itself. If and when I have something further to say, I'll post again." — Mudwater (Talk) 00:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
They have consistently held onto the WP:STICK despite every consensus (impartial or not) thus far, and WP:CRUSHed by telling anyone that might listen "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" should be the title [43] since the article's creation. Darknipples (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Since this is the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents, and since Darknipples initiated this discussion and has posted a number of comments about my behavior as an editor, I decided to go back through the article talk page archives and find all the discussions about the title of the article. I found eight of them, of which I started exactly one. While I've been an active participant in a number of these discussions, I think it's fair to say that I don't have a habit of instigating them. Here's the list of the talk page sections, and who started them, when:

Also, I've made relatively few edits to the article itself. And as to the contents of my talk page posts, I invite uninvolved editors to read them for themselves and make up their own minds. Mudwater (Talk) 02:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment I feel I've said my piece and made my point at this time. Mudwater deserves time to make their points, as I feel I have. I will reserve the right to respond to any further statements or questions as necessary (ping me). Darknipples (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Question/Comment I think Mudwater has a pending question. If there were a new RFC, would it be appropriate to do AT THIS TIME, as Mudwater has currently asked/suggested on the article talk page [44]? I'd like to reiterate that while I doubt the issue (NPOV title) can be (forever) resolved with another RFC over the GSL title, & despite WP:NPOV WP:POLICY WP:TITLE WP:NOCONSENSUS WP:COMMONNAME & WP:TITLECHANGES (IMO), I'm not against doing another one if that is what the WP:Administrators feel is necessary. Darknipples (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment FYI the GSL article review has been placed on hold [45] for 7 days, citing among other things, "Reviewing the title controversy, it is my understanding that the issue is still not fully resolved. However, as long as there is no edit-warring, I feel that debates don't stand in the way of this becoming a GA. The case would be different if the title would be a clear NPOV violation, which it is not IMO, referring to WP:POVNAME". Darknipples (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC) As far as WP:LISTEN, the continued discussion over the title, as opposed to taking WP policies at face-value, is a prime example of disruptive editing, IMO. Darknipples (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC) (RE:WP:LISTEN) "Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed." Darknipples (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Commenting since I'm pinged here and discussed over my NPOVN participation: For neutrality question at NPOVN, the WP:NPOV seems the relevant article and section WP:POVNAMING seems the relevant part -- particularly how it differs from the WP:POVNAME content. That difference seems to be guidance that neutrality handling for the article can be done by highlighting the label controversy in due weight and so reconciling as best able all the ideals of NPOV, WEIGHT, and COMMONNAME. Alternative seems to be that POVNAME be the title of a redirect to article with a descriptive title. Since I've seen this topic in January, I added to please record whatever the resolution is into the TALK FAQ so it might come up less often and be handled in shorter time. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Quick block needed for persistent edit tester[edit]

IP blocked for 24 hours by Philg88. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 20:30, 2 October 2015 (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.

Special:Contributions/2602:306:25A5:89D9:8168:1DCE:9F97:F00A is adding the month and year to a dozen articles, with nothing about the date being relevant to the article. The guy is reverting me, too. He needs to be stopped. Binksternet (