Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

IP 202.67.40.28 and its IP ranges violating WP:BLP, especially WP:BLPCAT

See IP 202.67.40.28's contributions, the IP's talk page, this report about the IP at the WP:BLP noticeboard and this section on my talk page about the IP. This user has been warned multiple times about WP:Verifiability and WP:BLP violations; the IP has also been violating the aforementioned policies as IP 202.67.40.24, one of its IP ranges. I have not checked to see if this user is doing this with other IP ranges as well. I also have not been eagerly keeping up with this user's edits. These latest two times I came across him or her have simply been due to my being at an article he or she recently edited, and my having checked the edit history.

Linking FreeRangeFrog's username here so that FreeRangeFrog will be alerted to this section. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend a preventive block, to see if that will prompt them to communicate with us. I believe the IPs contributions are meant in good faith, however they are definitely in violation of BLPCAT. The spread and number of edits also makes it hard to deal with this by protecting pages. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Any administrator willing to help with this matter? Mark Arsten, perhaps? I'm not sure if Mark does IP range blocks; I don't remember on that front. Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that great at rangeblocks, but I try. Just blocked 202.67.40.0/24 for one week. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive, non-collaborative, edit warring by User:Tiller54

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

---

User:Tiller54 is a prolific editor who focuses almost exclusively on U.S. political topics. See here. However, this editor has repeatedly demonstrated an inability and/or refusal to edit collaboratively and constructively. Just recently, he/she has been warned by at least two editors that he/she is guilty of violating WP:OWN: here, here.

User:Tiller54 has a long history of engaging in endless edit wars with numerous editors: here,here, here, here, here, here, here, here, this laundry list of scrubbed complaints here, here, here, the laundry list of scrubbed complaints here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, this laundry list of scrubbed complaints here, here,here, here, and here.

User:Tiller54 has been warned by administrators: here, been warned for various violations of WP policies & practices: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,and here,

Also User:Tiller54 has been repeatedly warned about the need to use edit summaries, especially when reverting: here, and here. This is because s/he makes wholesale reverts without discussion or consensus. Another tactic is to make those same large reverts with only a minor, passing mention of their extensive nature in summary. Several recent examples of this, on just one article, may be seen here, here, here, here.

This is also not User:Tiller54's first ANI. This was just a few months ago: See here. The editor was blocked. At the time, sound advice was given to the editor about what to do "Instead of reverting back and forth": here, but obviously the message didn't sink in, because here we are again, just a few short months later for the same thing. But instead of learning from the experience, s/he and another editor found humor. Other editors have also noticed and complained about this collaboration before: here.

These two editors regularly work in tandem, without identifying their long-time collaboration: to impose their will on editors and articles and give the appearance of "consensus" where none actually exists. Thus preemptively placing a chill on real efforts to obtain consensus from legitimately unengaged 3rd parties. Obviously this comes perilously close to a vio of WP:TAGTEAM, if it doesn't actually already cross that line. But the most recent responses are instructive: see here and here. Or here.

Further, User:Tiller54 was also blocked again, barely 2 months later, for even more edit warring here.

Most recently, User:Tiller54 is currently attempting to engage in yet another editor war with me here, and rather than discussing individual edits, which I intentionally made one-at-a-time to facilitate discussion, and ignoring my talk page warnings to follow policy and edit collaboratively see here; this is the response I get: One wholesale revert with an intentionally understated edit summary, followed by two innocuous subsequent edits here and here, to further impose his/her will on the article. This is also part of a predictable pattern by this editor: Huge reverts, followed by minor ones, so the larger ones cannot easily be undone. The same can be seen here, followed by here - with even the most basic request that User:Tiller54 follow WP policies, guidelines and properly quote official and reliable sources, getting answered like this.

User:Tiller54's edit pattern is clear. Persistent, argumentative, frequently combative, disruptive edit-warring, rather than collaboration; and when warned, the warnings have no effect. Even when twice blocked for periods of 48 and 72 hours respectively, User:Tiller54's actions indicate no change, and once unblocked, s/he simply commences the same disruptive behavior.

User:Tiller54 has also been warned more than once, as the edit logs reflect, of what appears to be aggressive POV pushing on several political articles. Instead of collaborating with opposing viewpoints, User:Tiller54 simply pushes back until the other editor, risking incivility, simply gives up or gets sucked into an edit war - which User:Tiller54 then uses to his/her advantage. This behavior harms the project and outweighs any positive contributions this editor may make.

Therefore, there remains no choice but to recommend a block of significant duration for User:Tiller54. As the record is clear that blocks of just days, as has recently been proven on 2 separate occasions, have had no effect in changing User:Tiller54's behavior. Bear in mind, this would be the 3rd block in just the past few months for User:Tiller54. All for the identical behavior. But since User:Tiller54 has demonstrated no interest in proactively changing his/her behavior, there is no choice but for the community to act decisively.

Especially since it would be very difficult to reasonably expect that another short term block would succeed - when two others have just so recently failed. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of those 'complaints' you cited are automated messages warning about missing brackets from BracketBot (talk · contribs); I tried to read through this complaint but it's so rambling and long that I don't even know what the complaint is, along with the 'complaints' being made by low edit IP's, including your IP which have been immediately answered by Tiller54. Please tell us what you're trying to say, in fewer words. Nate • (chatter) 04:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your quotation marks - twice - around "complaints", reveal more than your question. The first three paragraphs link to over 30 examples of edit-warring and other policy vios. After those, the automated messages are listed: to show an editor who makes the same policy/format mistakes over and over, without ever learning to correct them. But you ignored all the disruptive editing to focus on the bot messages? As to "low edit IP's" - what edit number makes IPs eligible to address legitimate concerns here - in your view? Given your long tenure and the WP rights you are entrusted with, you already know your bias is not supported by WP policy. While you may be dismissive after a partial reading, editors reading the full complaint will understand that the record shows that User:Tiller54 was disruptive with all editors, not just "low edit IPs". 107.214.30.15 (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Generally going for bot notices from BracketBot or DPL bot in a notice like this cries out desperation to me; there should be no need to heckle an editor just because they missed a bracket here or there, or redirected to a redirect, and again, I don't know what you're wanting us to do. Asking for a long-term block of Tiller54 for only two short duration blocks for 3RR which ended up with both reporter and defendant being blocked that they learned from? That's not going to happen. Also, 3RR noticeboard≠ANI. The user has not previously been taken to ANI, and that difference needs to be made clear here. Again, re-state the action you want, in fewer words, because as I'm the only respondent it's clear everyone else has been unable to make sense of what you're trying to say. Nate • (chatter) 18:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

My intent here is to bring the record of Tiller54's non-collaborative and tendentious editing to the attention of admins to be addressed. If I've done so inartfully, feel free to fault the messenger, but not at the expense of the message. I've never used, nor felt the need to use, this forum before; as most disagreements with editors are generally resolved by dialogue and compromise. But when an editor refuses compromise, but only engages in dialogue: then ignores WP policies and guidelines; removes reliable sources; removes official sources; reverts all contributions by other editors; and fails to disclose the nature of his own edits in the edit summaries? What then? How about when the editor is addressed with these concerns? And in response, the editor simply doubles down and persists in the behavior and in refusing to collaborate? What then? How about when said editor then calls in another editor to "backup" his methods and edits - and you discover that the two regularly tagteam in this manner? What then? Please tell me what options are left beyond addressing the matter on a Noticeboard? So if all you see are BracketBot notices? They are not the real issue here, and I regret including them, as you've become distracted by them. But you asked what I want. I'm requesting some kind of mentoring, monitoring, warning, block or other mechanism that will compel Tiller54 to act collaboratively and less disruptively moving forward. How that is accomplished is a call best left for admins reviewing his edit history and some of the history I've provided. Because the history is also that short blocks haven't worked. I hope that I am clearer now. But if you still find my concerns indecipherable: at your request or others, I'll pull from the original, specific examples of each complaint I've just detailed. Also, it does not appear that both parties were blocked in both cases: See here and here. Only the reporter - Tiller54 - was blocked for 72 hours for edit warring.. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

When you add incorrect information to a page and I and another editor remove it because it's incorrect, that is not "refusing to compromise". As I've said now several times, I tried to explain why the edits were incorrect, both in my edit summaries and on the talk page, where I left a lengthy and still unreplied-to post that explained in detail what the inaccuracies were. You carried on adding them anyway, so I asked another editor to weigh in. Your claims that I "revert all contributions by other editors" are patently ludicrous and as for your allegation that Muboshgu and I "regularly tagteam", never mind the fact that we don't, but to what end? To ensure that pages are ordered properly and don't contain inaccurate information? Tiller54 (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. You've just explained and demonstrated the case against you. I'll use just a few examples to disprove your claim that I added "incorrect information" that you "and another editor" were forced to remove "because it's incorrect": See here: Where the only official source is apparently "incorrect". Here: Where quoting the official source is apparently also "incorrect". Here: Where the WP style guide on WP:JOBTITLES, which states they are common nouns, is apparently "incorrect." And... - Here: Because although the link with the abbreviation of "US" in Democratic Party clearly works (and is used throughout this project) "it is incorrect!" - and must immediately be replaced with Democratic Party with "United States" fully spelled out! So, in one single edit, you reverted: an official source (twice), a WP style guideline, a wikilink and more that wasn't to your liking - because they were all - in your view - "incorrect". Because, as you explain below in your 2nd response: "removing inaccurate information is not the same as refusing to collaborate." I could rest this case right now. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I never claimed that the official sources were inaccurate or that the quote you added was inaccurate. You know perfectly well that I was referring to the version of the lead that you tried to push which was full of inaccuracies, as was detailed on the talk page (which you ignored). Secondly, I didn't revert or remove any official sources or quotes from the official source. The "official source" is right there on the page, under the ref name "Results". The quote about the recount you added was also not removed but just changed from being a blockquote to being part of the single paragraph detailing the possible recount. Yes, job titles are capitalised when referring to a specific person. As I tried to show you on the talk page. The most baffling thing though was the inconsistency in your removal of the capital letters. Half of the instances of "State Senator" you changed to "state Senator" and the other half you changed to "state senator". Almost as if you didn't know what you were doing. And yes, I corrected a link. You knew what the correct link was, so why go and use the other one in the first place? Very odd. Tiller54 (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me make this very simple for you. You began your lengthy defense with: "When you add incorrect information to a page and I and another editor remove it because it's incorrect, that is not "refusing to compromise"." So understand, your equivocations aside - you reverted those edits. Try as mightily as you will to explain away what I supposedly "know perfectly well", that is what I "know perfectly well". You reverted them. And others. I also "know perfectly well" your tactics, not just with me, but with other editors as well. That is why we're here. By the way, in common usage, as the WP style guide and I both have tried to tell you, "State Senator" is not a title. "Senator" is. In State "X", the senators are not referred to as "State Senator X", but simply as "Senator X". So I knew very well what I was doing. Just as I knew what I was doing by not capitalizing the phrase: "While the statewide elections for governor and lieutenant governor garnered more national attention, the race for attorney general was the most competitive." I was following the style guide - which at WP:JOBTITLES says: "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically." That's exactly what I was doing - as I repeatedly explained. Meanwhile, what were you doing persistently? Reverting the style guide, and by your own admission, refusing to collaborate - because my edits were "incorrect". So the only thing "odd" there, was your behavior. While the only thing "odd" here, is your continued attempt to defend it. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be confused here. You accuse me of refusing to compromise, then when I point out that the edits you were making were simply incorrect and that I left unreplied-to talk page messages explaining why your edits were incorrect, you change tack. You then claim that the inaccuracies I was referring to were your most recent edits and you claimed that I removed official sources and then accused me of correcting links (?!?). When I point out that I didn't remove the official source and asked what was wrong with correcting a link, you say that I use "tactics" with you and "other editors". I don't blame the editor above for having no idea what your complaint is because it changes every single time you post. Now, to clarify, the inaccuracies that another editor and I removed from the page were these ones. You and another IP (Special:Contributions/2602:306:BD61:E0F0:2897:4163:FED4:A4A7, whose entire edit history is 6 edits to the page on a single day and who has since vanished) ignored requests to stop and also ignored the lengthy post I left on the talk page, so I invited another editor to contribute. Do you actually get why they were inaccurate? You claimed, among other things, that the deadline for counties to report to the State Board was November 13. It wasn't, it was November 12, as the references clearly stated.

As for your more recent edits claiming that ""State Senator" is not a title", then why did you change half the instances to "state Senator" and half to "state senator"? Like I said, your inconsistencies aside, you are incorrect. Take a look at this page, for example. Or this one. If you'd prefer a non-election page, how about this one? On all of those pages, when referring to a specific person, "State Senator" is used and not "state senator" or even "state Senator". Why? Because the term isn't being used generically. It's referring to a specific person. Still not convinced? This category of "Virginia State Senators", which is a list of specific members of the Virginia Senate, hence the capitalisation as "State Senators". Tiller54 (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your flailing, sadly, is transparent. And desperate. Now, I must be "confused" - apparently. Why? Because I quoted you. Let's be clear: Not only have I accused you of failing to compromise - you have already admitted here. Several times. So that issue is done. You have repeatedly claimed my edits were "incorrect." Your only response when confronted with removing official sources, reliable sources and ignoring policies and guidelines, was to outright lie and say: "I didn't remove the official source." Luckily the edit log easily exposes that lie for what it is: See here. Note your removal of the official source, the Commonwealth of Virgina State Board of Elections, in the paragraph just above Line 44. Also to be clear, your "lengthy post was nothing but your latest redundant and false argument. Also, it was a response to my answer - requesting that finally stop your nonsense and collaborate and follow policy. In fact, I had asked 6 times on the talk page for you to follow policy, edit collaboratively and stop reverting reliable sources. I even asked on your talk page - only to have you scrub it and request that I confine my responses to the article's talk page. So for you to pretend that I never responded to your efforts to collaborate on the talk page is as ludicrous as it is, just another provable lie. So that issue is done. You made no effort to collaborate. Instead, you just responded with more empty repetition. By your own admission, all you said in that last response was, "As I said", "As I have pointed out", etc. So you were saying nothing new. Rather than collaborating and following policy, as you had repeatedly been asked to do, you offered neither. Regarding the November date? If you felt it was wrong, did it never occur to you to simply fix the date, rather than reverting the entire edit, THREE reliable sources and all, as you did here? Or did you revert, not only out of spite - but because those THREE reliable sources: Time Magazine, the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Washington Post, all called the race - which ran contrary to your false narrative and repeated nonsense that: "However, your claim that "Media outlets do [call the race], as many have done already." is patently untrue. They have not called the race, which is why that point is mentioned in the lead." That editing behavior is inexcusable. Rewriting a page to suit your own narrative and removing reliable sources because they disprove your false narrative violates more WP policies than I need to name. Now that issue is done.

Finally, as to your arguments about "State Senator", I saved the best for last. You provided 4 links. All just from Wikipedia: 2 you yourself had edited on (hardly definitive) and 2 that were simply WP lists. First, let's examine just one of the 2 that you edited on. The Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013 article was created on February 15, 2011 by - Muboshgu. The article read: "The incumbent governor, Republican Bob McDonnell." And so it remained, for 2 years, 8 months, 9 days, or 982 days: enduring 22 edits from Muboshgu during that time... and approximately 135 edits from: Tiller54! In that entire time, the edit remained. UNTIL Tiller54 began a months-long edit battle with User:Reallibertyforall and finally on October 13, 2013 - Tiller54 decided to do this. Suddenly - and with nothing else changing in the sentence - it absolutely had to be: "The incumbent Governor, Republican Bob McDonnell." Wow. What a coincidence! What changed after 135+ of your own edits?! Can't wait to hear your excuse for that one. Just as your original response to my use of "state Senator" was: "The most baffling thing though was the inconsistency in your removal of the capital letters. Half of the instances of "State Senator" you changed to "state Senator" and the other half you changed to "state senator". Almost as if you didn't know what you were doing." The WP style guide aside, have you seriously no experience with Google? I wonder if you also question did the Washington Post know what they were doing. Or ABC. Or CNN. Or the Chicago Tribune Or the Los Angeles Times. Or the New York Times. Or the Charlotte Observer, etc. How about The Guardian, or USA Today. Or more importantly, how about the official Senate of Virginia? So that issue is done. You failed to follow the WP style guide, or any style guide; just as you presumed I was wrong, when in fact, you were. But again, this is not about these specific cases alone. It's about what you do regularly and consistently on this project. Not just with me, but with several other editors as well. That's why you're on this Noticeboard. From the complaints on your talk page, that you have scrubbed, several editors have found dealing with you a less than constructive or pleasant experience. I'm simply one of the latest - and was willing to take the time to compile a collection of your disruptive actions and behavior. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Your accusations and ramblings are getting longer and more ridiculous, so I'll be as brief as possible. You accused me of removing the official source, the link to the State Board of Elections, and then lying about it. It's still on the page, here and here. As I've said several times, my long and unreplied-to post on the talk page was not "redundant and false argument". Had you actually bothered to read it, you would have understood why I said your edits were incorrect. Because, for example, you claimed that the deadline for counties to report results to the state was November 13. It was not, as this official source shows: "November 12th, 2013 Deadline for local electoral boards...". If someone includes something that is clearly incorrect on an article and someone else corrects it, are they guilty of "refusing to compromise"? No, they're just following policy. As for what else was wrong with that edit apart from the incorrect deadline date? Well there's the incorrect links, the presumption that Herring has already won the election regardless of the potential recount, the mentioning of a hypothetical situation dependent upon the results before even mentioning the result, the repetition of the recount, and various badly-phrased sentences (eg: "The results were expected to be certified on November 25", which should read "The results are expected..." because the recount hasn't happened yet). Finally, three reliable sources called the race? No, the only one to have actually done so out of the three you mentioned is Time. One source calling the race and the rest not doing so is not a "false narrative", it's called cherry picking.

You really should read your sources before you post them as "proof". Half the links are inconsistent, referring specifically to Deeds as a "state Senator" or a "State Senator". And the link to the Senate of Virginia? Doesn't even use the words "State Senator", capitalised or otherwise. But it doesn't matter what various newspapers' style guides are. Wikipedia doesn't use them, it uses its own, which states that titles "should be in lower case when used generically". Where this is not the case, as various articles and categories show, when referring to President Nixon or State Senator Deeds, they are capitalised. And you still haven't explained why your edits were completely inconsistent, changing half to "state Senator" and the other half to "state senator". The policy is quite clear, as are the articles and categories. You and your edits are not. Tiller54 (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Anyone actually reviewing the evidence and your responses, would be forced to come to the same conclusion that I have. You will lie to the last breathe - even in the face of overwhelming evidence - to try to save your own skin. Nor will you ever apologize or admit your errors, even when confronted by a mountain of evidence proving them. No wonder so many editors have complained about you on your talk page that you have to regularly scrub their comments! That is telling! Even here, on this ANI, you cannot keep yourself from lying, even in the face of the edit log, which is absolute and cannot be contorted to suit your false narrative. For example, the question was not whether the State Board of Elections link was in the article now. The question was whether or not you removed it originally as you clearly did - just above Line 44. So your attempt at deflecting from that action to know is as pathetic as it is transparent. Since you couldn't dispute the FACT of your actions you tried to change the subject. But the record cannot be changed. And the only reason the source is back in the article now is because I PUT IT THERE!. So your lie is provably false. Also, I don't understand what you hope to gain by lying about the sources calling the race, when they clearly do. Perhaps you're counting on people not reading the links. But in the interest of brevity, I'll leave it to the admins to read the sources, then decide. In fact, I'm perfectly prepared to stake my credibility, and the credibility of this complaint, on that outcome. Will you? In addition, your claim is a reversal of your previous comments, both here and on the TP, that no reliable sources had ever called the race. Oops! Guess in the face of evidence, now you were forced to change your story! As regards the "state Senator" issue, my point was simple, and try as you did, you can't sidestep it. The fact is, you were supplied with abundant links from reliable sources that used both "state senator" and/or "state Senator". So your claim that they had to be inherently wrong was proven false again. The only thing you managed to get correctly, is that the WP style guide prevails. Yes it does. But you only give lip service to it on a Noticeboard. Not in practice. This, despite my repeated requests: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 - you refused to abide by it. But it's fine. You're done here. You've been exposed. All that's left here is for the admins to review the record here and on your scrubbed talk page for more complaints about you. This record has admittedly been made tedious by your never-ending excuses, deflections, misdirections, and lies - but I am confident that review will compel admins to do what is in the best interests of the community and this project. That is to - for the 3rd time and hopefully more permanently this time - finally, rein you in. Contrary to your clear desire for this to go on ad nauseum, there really is nothing more that needs to be said. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm lying? What evidence have you offered for this? An edit where I supposedly removed "the only official source". If you actually look at the edit you posted, there's clearly a link to the State Board of Elections still there. How can I have removed it from the article when in the edit you post as "proof", it's still in the article?!?
• "I don't understand what you hope to gain by lying about the sources calling the race, when they clearly do." Like I said, look at the sources! Of the 3 you just claimed had called the race, Time Magazine, the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Washington Post, only Time actually called the race. The Washington Post said that Herring held a lead, a recount was coming and the result wouldn't likely be known until December. And The Richmond Times-Dispatch wasn't actually a link to that paper, but a mislabeled Washington Post story which said, "Herring, Obenshain in dead heat in Virginia attorney general’s race; recount expected." So, only 1 of the 3 called the race. And plenty of others didn't call it either. So how exactly was I creating a "false narrative" by stating that the race hadn't been called yet?
• "you were supplied with abundant links from reliable sources that used both "state senator" and/or "state Senator"" Like I said in my previous post, it doesn't matter what everyone else's inconsistent naming procedure is because Wikipedia has its own. Which you completely ignored. It says, quite specifically that when a title is used to refer to a specific person, it's capitalised, as in "President Nixon" and "State Senator Deeds". And you still haven't explained why you changed half the instances of person-specific titles to "state senator" and the other half to "state Senator".
• So, you misrepresent my edits completely; you make inaccurate edits and then complain when they are corrected that other editors are not "compromising"; you claim that I "lie" and remove the "only official source" when it's clearly still in the article; you claim that at least 3 sources called the race when in reality only 1 of the 3 had done so and many, many more had not; you ignore the wikipedia policy on jobtitles by posting outside articles that are inconsistent and have nothing to do with what the wikipedia policy says; you ignore talk page posts because they explain how your edits are simply incorrect and you baselessly accuse Muboshgu and I of "tag-teaming". Did I miss anything? Tiller54 (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually you missed everything. Or should I just say, once again you misrepresented everything. (sighs). Where have I heard this tired tune before?! But I'll make it incredibly easy for you and the admins. I stand by everything I've posted. My story - unlike yours - has never changed. Not once. I'll continue to answer any admin questions. But I shall no longer feed the troll. You may certainly have the last word. But as you may also soon learn - the last word - is rarely the best one. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You have refused to answer questions and you've offered no evidence for half your claims and with the other half, it's been complete nonsense ("these 3 sources called the race!" - only 1 of them did, plenty of others didn't; "this news source uses "state Senator" and "state senator" interchangeably, therefore Wikipedia should too!"). Your "complaint" has changed in every post you've made, when I've pointed out the inaccuracy of your claims or questioned why you made incorrect edits, you've ignored me and changed the subject. Tiller54 (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

107.214.30.15 has some kind of issue with me. A couple of weeks ago he tried to attribute others' edits to me. When I pointed out that none of those edits were made by me, he admitted doing so only to "bait me" into replying. In that same comment, he then falsely accused me of "edit warring" because I removed the same inaccurate and misleading phrase from several different pages (this, which implies that states without gubernatorial term limits actually have them). He then followed me to Virginia Attorney General election, 2013 and began trying to push a version of the page that contained numerous inaccuracies. After asking him not to revert and explaining on the talk page why his version was inaccurate, another IP reverted anyway. I did not revert again, instead asking User:Muboshgu to step in, and he did. This has apparently annoyed 107.214.30.15 because he's now accusing Muboshgu and I of "collaborating" for some reason. Tiller54 (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Predictably, your self-defense excludes several material facts, Tiller54. But I have no interest in debating with you, especially not on your terms. That's what you want. But if you or another editor would really like a complete recounting of the issues you've addressed - including the many points you've conveniently excluded from your edited narrative - I will provide them here. But I don't think the real nature of this forum is just more back and forth between the two of us. That's counterproductive - and that's the point. The time for solution-based dialogue between us was on the talk pages - where you consistently showed no interest in it. Your refusal to offer anything more than argument - i.e. zero collaboration - is precisely what brought us here. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You have no interest in debate? Well that's obviously why my explanation of what was wrong with your edits was completely ignored on the article's talk page. As I said above, removing inaccurate information is not the same as refusing to collaborate, particularly when my explanation and another editor's edits go apparently ignored. Tiller54 (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I had no interest in debate - because you had no interest in dispute resolution. Without the latter, the former is just a futile exercise. Debate is also futile when you have no interest in collaboration. Which you have also, quite effectively, admitted here. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"no interest in dispute resolution"? That's obviously why I didn't continually revert you but instead invited another editor to contribute and left lengthy messages on the talk page that went completely ignored. Tiller54 (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you're only digging a deeper hole. Bringing in someone whom you regularly work together with, against other editors, is not "dispute resolution", since the "dispute" was not with that editor - it was with me. So where is the "resolution?" What you call "dispute resolution" in that case, is the textbook definition of what WP calls a violation of WP:TAGTEAM. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Muboshgu and I do not "regularly work together" but we are active on the same topic, so we do edit the same kinds of articles. And no, we absolutely do not work "against other editors". Furthermore, as I've already said, I tried to resolve the dispute on the talk page, but my lengthy post went completely unanswered. That's why I invited another editor to join, because you were making edits that were obviously inaccurate and did not respond when I explained why they were inaccurate. Accusing us of "tag-teaming" without evidence is very uncivil. Tiller54 (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Since my name has been brought up here, I feel like I should say something, but this thread is entering "TL;DR" territory, especially since I'm at work. I can simply say that Tiller54 and I do not "regularly work in tandem" or have a "long-time collaboration" that I know of. Simply editing within the same realm of subject matter does not make us "collaborators". I do not "impose [my] will on editors" over anything, I only insist on following the standard operating procedures here of GNG, V, RS, NPOV, CRYSTAL, etc. To suggest that we're conspiring together is laughable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

To feign offense at clear evidence of regular collaboration and cases of working together against other editors is disingenuous. While you are not the subject of this Noticeboard, you risk your own credibility, when evidence to the contrary is so easy to pull from the edit logs. Working in the same areas is not a problem. But tagteaming, or even the recurrent appearance of tagteaming against other editors obviously is. I'm certainly aware of my own experience: here. Not to mention the number of times here that Tiller54 has referenced the "other editor" as though that 2nd person was a completely unknown 3rd party. As for examples where other editors have expressed a similar concern? See here. And isn't this an odd exchange between two people who only casually cross paths working in the same areas, but share no collaborative bond? Also, given the focus of this Noticeboard and what has already been documented - and conceded - here, to have Tiller54 accuse me of incivility, is what is truly laughable. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that we both agreed that third-party candidates who are not included in public opinion polling should not be in the infobox is not controversial. It's standard policy, in fact. And then there's the fact that the editor you're quoting, Reallibertyforall, later asked if said third-party candidate should be included in the infobox because he was then being included in polls and was over the threshold of 5%. I agreed with him. Muboshgu did not. How exactly is that "tagteaming", when we don't even agree with each other on the question in hand!?! And yes, we both found something funny. So what? Tiller54 (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• "So what?" has been your response to every complaint here: Tiller54, you edit uncollabortively. "So what?" Tiller54, you edit disruptively. "So what?" Tiller54, you repeatedly violate WP policy & guidelines. "So what?" Tiller54, you delete sources - both reliable and even official, that don't conform to your POV. "So what?" Tiller54, you and another editor go beyond mere collaboration, and more than one editor have noticed it - and complained about it. "So what?" Tiller54, editor after editor has complained about you on your own talk page, and all you do is scrub their complaints without changing your behavior. "So what?" Tiller54, you've already been blocked TWICE for this behavior, but yet here you are again - for that same thing - showing that nothing has changed. "So what?". Well, we're done. Left to you, this would go on forever. I refer admins and others to my latest response above. As to the litany of all your other "responses", e.g. "excuses", there's only one appropriate answer: "So what?" 107.214.30.15 (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• "So what?" has been your response to every complaint here." Have you read anything I've written? It's not "uncollabortive" to correct something that is wrong and leave a long post on the talk page explaining why it was corrected. It is "uncollabortive" to ignore said talk post completely, as you did. Violate WP policy? You've completely ignored the policy on jobtitles, offering not the policy itself or any articles or categories as evidence but instead posting links to news articles that are completely inconsistent and have nothing to do with the wikipedia style guide as "proof" that your bizarrely inconsistent edits are correct. As I've said over and over again, I have not deleted sources because I don't agree with them. You on the other hand claim that 3 sources on the page "called" the race when only 1 of the 3 did so and countless others refused to do so. You've made baseless accusations about Muboshgu and I and offered as proof that we "tag-team" us talking about something that amused us. You're clearly pursuing some kind of vendetta against me which began when you tried to attribute others' edits to me and then, when I pointed out that none of those edits were made by me, you admitted to doing so only to "bait me" into replying. That you've tried to drag another editor into it as well is ridiculous. Tiller54 (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

See my comment above about troll feeding. But I'll happily answer questions any admins may have. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah I see, you lie about my edits, lie about what sources say, make baseless allegations about me and another editor and have admitted to trying to "bait" me, but I'm the one who's trolling. Utter nonsense. Tiller54 (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Admin please shut this down. This is going nowhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

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

HCPUNXKID

Not sure if this is the correct avenue to go down. HCPUNXKID has been making repeated implications that i am a both a "fascist", have an "ultra ideology" and the numerals "88" in my user name signifies "heil hitler" (see diffs) [[1]] [[2]]. These comments started happening after i attempted to help the user by pointing out that the user boxes on his USER profile were potentially at odds with his edits on politically sensitive articles ( Battle of Aleppo (2012–13) - syria ) and that this could be construed as NPOV. Was genuinely trying to help out and after these attacks were made i have attempted a few times to both clarify my original position with HCPUNXKID and asked that he remove these comments (which he will not) [[3]] Johnsy88 (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I would be curious to know how having a particular userbox on one's userpage has anything to do with whether or not a particular edit is POV? John from Idegon (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think he means COI. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 21:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

my mistake yes it is WP:COI but this isn't the point im getting at. the unnecessary insults are my main concern. Johnsy88 (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: I had tried to explain this user above that I have not called him fascist, and that can be confirmed in his talk page. His manipulations and exaggerations of my writings are clear, as he states here that I had call him "fascist" repeatedly (false, not a single time), that I had assured that the 88 in his nick means "Heil Hitler" (false again, I simply stated that in right-wing circles that number is used to mean that, wich is something well-known). I had only made the same thing he had done to me earlier, suggesting that part of his personal page info could be perceived by other users as he has an extreme or ultra ideological position, with the difference that I had never declared that having any type of userbox on your personal page disqualify you to making edits on articles related to that userboxes, as that user above has done (or thats what I & more users -John from Idegon, for example- had perceived). And what is the cherry on the cake is when he says that he was trying to help me!!! If engaging in discussions with users wich had not even talked with you (all this came because this user had a previous argument -one more- with User:Tienouchou (see my talk page), wich posted on my talk page asking for my opinion, wich finally did not give. Despite that, this user posted on my talk page a response to Tienouchou. Then, I post in this user talk page asking him not to engage in discussions with Tienouchou in my talk page, as they have theirs to do that. And it seems that he dont like that, as the next day I found that surprising post about NPOV and my userboxes, when anyone who reads carefully WP rules will learn that NPOV applies to edits on articles, not to personal user pages, something that this user seems to not understand) and denouncing them in the administrators noticeboard is helping someone, I wouldnt like to know what this user would do with people he dont want to help...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I have never even looked at HCPUNXKID's userpage. I simply asked a question based on the previous comment. I have not "perceived" anything. I simply asked a question for clarification. John from Idegon (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I didnt want to engage you in this ridiculous mess, I simply pointed that you have get the sore point: How could the personal page userboxes disqualify someone to edit an article? Sorry if you felt that I was trying to use you against that user, that wasnt my intention in any case.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for administrator action here, however...

HCPUNXKID - Reviewing those two edits, I would have interpreted those comments in exactly the same manner as Johnsy88 did. The terminology and emphasis strongly suggested that was your intention. If intentional, that would not be OK - if there are editors pushing extremist views we take it seriously, but throwing unsupported accusations around is considered highly abusive.

You seem to be honestly surprised at that interpretation, so I will assume good faith that this was accidental. You indicate on your userpage that your native language is another one than English; please take this feedback as to the interpretation of those speech / writing patterns as constructive advice so you can avoid doing this again.

Again, I don't think there's any cause for admin action here. If the two of you can step back and avoid each other for a while it might help. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input guys. I agree that your suggestions of a step back will be the best course of action. Johnsy88 (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I was not the one starting the argument, so I have no problem not to talk again with that user (that would be marvellous). Furthermore, I would ask that user to abstain next time to "help" me or other users wich had not requested his alleged "help", to avoid this type of confrontations and loss of time, with no gain to no one. Still, I'm sure that I can only been accused of aggresive behaviour, I recognize it, but I never, repeat, never had called that user "fascist", and thats something easily demonstrable reviewing my comments. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User:AfricaTanz

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

---

I am seeking help with User:AfricaTanz for soapboxing, loading articles with content only tangentially pertinent to them (and then in a prescriptive, agenda-laden way), and for refusing categorically to engage with anyone who tries to speak with him.

He has persisted in using articles on LGBT rights in a set of at least thirteen African nations as a forum for soapboxing. The user has dropped large blocks of identical text into these articles, almost entirely addressing international agreements that often don't even mention the country in question at all, with the implication being that each country in question is supposed to be abiding by these agreements. This intent is made manifest by such section headings as "Ghana's obligations under international law and treaties".

Over time (this has now been going on for over a year), several of us have removed this content and attempted numerous times to reason with AfricaTanz. I suggested, for example, that the material could go in one place and that each of the articles could make reference to it to the extent it could be given relevance to each country. His response has been to ban us from his Talk page, to refuse to respond to any of the points we make, and to attack us in edit summaries.

The issue went to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_53#LGBT_rights dispute resolution and AfricaTanz declined to participate in any way. At the time, User:TransporterMan suggested we could go to Rfc/U or here. Since AfricaTanz declines to participate and won't listen to anybody, and since Rfc/U has no enforcement power, I didn't see any value in seeking help there. Therefore, I've come here.

Most of the pertinent facts and links to related discussions are at the DR Noticeboard archive linked above. Recent activities can be seen in the histories of LGBT rights in Senegal and LGBT rights in Ghana (example diffs: [4] and [5]).

I see that User:AfricaTanz, who until the last time I looked had an "on vacation" notice that ended earlier this month, now has one that started yesterday and ends in May. Yet he's editing today. For what it's worth. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history for LGBT rights in Ghana, it seems that AfricaTanz is edit-warring to include this material. I'd suggest this, together with the contributors apparent refusal to discuss the matter in the past, may well be grounds for a block, at least until AfricaTanz agrees to participate in discussions over the issue. Engaging appropriately in discussions over disputed material is a necessary part of being a Wikipedia contributor, and AfricaTanz needs to show willing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The material AfricaTanz is reinserting into LGBT rights in Ghana and other articles was already the subject of an RFC at Talk:LGBT rights under international law#Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law. The consensus was that the material is original research, a novel synthesis, and/or not directly relevant to country-specific articles. To date all attempts to engage AfricaTanz in discussion about this material have been unsuccessful: messages posted on his user talk page are immediately removed, sometimes followed by a statement that the poster is now "banned" from his page, and discussions on project or article talk pages are likewise either ignored or boycotted. I'm at a loss as to what else can be done to get this user to start editing collaboratively rather than combatively. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue may be a little more complex. Back in August 2013, AfricaTanz was removing lots of stuff like this: [6] - which had previously been edit-warred into many articles by a (dynamic) IP editor. What's going on here? bobrayner (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP accounts almost certainly are User:AfricaTanz, before he created an account. The accounts got blocked for the same sort of edit warring (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive199#User:70.253.75.84 reported by User:Jenova20 (Result: 1 week)), and IIRC the pages also got semi-protected. This forced whoever was operating the IP accounts to create a named account, and they've continued ever since. The removals in question were apparently precipitated by the RFC; almost immediately after the RFC page got accidentally deleted he started reposting the material. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up! I agree that the material should go... bobrayner (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of duplication, here are the search results for AfricaTanz on admin noticeboards. Two ANIs and two AN3 reports. Blocked once for a week as an IP in November 2012 and then once for 48 hours in June 2013 as a registered account. A complaint about AfricaTanz's edits on LGBT rights was filed at DRN in November 2012 but he chose not to respond. In my opinion we're getting close to an indef block if the editor has no intention of joining in discussions. Communication isn't negotiable. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed some problematic content from many of the LGBT-rigts-in-Africa articles. These articles often seem to have other problems - IE. lengthy quotes from legislation and standardised exerpts from country-by-country reposts on human rights &c - which would probably need to be fixed, but we can deal with that later. Now is not the time for scope creep. bobrayner (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

So what's the remedy here? I just had another read through all the old links posted upthread, which contain reports of the same behaviour posted by many other users. Despite all these reports, the attempts at personal engagement, an RFC, and several blocks, there's been no change in AfricaTanz's behaviour. I'm led to believe that his editing privileges should be suspended until he demonstrates an understanding of why his behaviour has been disruptive, and agrees to start communicating and working collaboratively. Are we agreed? —Psychonaut (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's my feeling. (I'm realizing I wasn't explicit in my intro about the remedy I was seeking, but that was it.) I feel quite confident in what appears to the mutual consensus that has developed among a greater group here and elsewhere that AfricaTanz makes a lot of questionable contributions, that we have been correct in challenging and reverting them, that he has subjected us to bouts of incivility, and that we are frustrated by our failure thus far to prevent repetition of this cycle or get any cooperation from AfricaTanz in our attempts to do so. I believe that through a variety of channels we've more than amply justified an indefinite block at least until AfricaTanz joins us for constructive discussions leading to a mutually satisfactory understanding of the parameters. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(crickets) —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Has AfricaTanz done any worthwhile editing in other areas? If so, and if AfricaTanz can start communicating (obviously they've used their talkpage for other stuff in the past), I would suggest a topic ban first. I realise we've all got our pitchforks and torches ready, but if there's potential for productive work on other topics, I'd like to offer that chance. Of course, if they don't even comment, or if a topic ban were broken, go directly to Jail and do not pass Go. bobrayner (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea. He's gotten into edit wars regarding non-LGBT African topics before, which he persisted in prosecuting until multiple dispute resolution measures showed unanimous opposition to his edits. Looking at his recent contributions, I see some further minor revert battles and incivility regarding articles for airports and for the Indian subcontinent, though without further investigation I can't say who's in the right. Any topic ban would need to cover at the very least both African and LGBT topics. Psychonaut (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of references by User:AfricaTanz

The user is constantly removing references from the article Chittagong. In this edit he removed two references from the article after which I left a note in his talk page. But the user continues to do so with the latest one being this where he removed 3 references. --Zayeem ^(talk) 06:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No time to check it all now, but I see we have a complaint about him at the top of this page, there is [7] and a few others at [8]. Loads of stuff at this talk page. I also note that when he was given this templated warning in May, AfricaTanz changed the section heading to accuse the editor of posing as an Administrator.[9] He doesn't seem to like warnings, he's banned several editors from his talk page. He's had one block in June for edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is pretty clear disruptive editing. I think the community should consider the topic ban as noted above and get stricter from there. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In the early-November thread about AfricaTanz there was a proposal for indefinite block until the user will join in discussions. Trying to impose an LGBT topic ban on somebody who won't talk about anything may not be worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Propose indefinite block

Per the two discussions above. Indefinite of course means until it is clear that the editor's behavior is going to change, so an indefinite block can be removed quickly. Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support; I had hoped that a topic ban could be a good compromise but that does not look viable now. bobrayner (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Given the complete refusal by AfricaTanz to even respond here, I don't see we have any choice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support – Due to the communication issue. If the editor seems willing to talk, we can reconsider this. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per my report above. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per the discussions above. --Zayeem ^(talk) 19:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikihounding from אומנות

I would like to raise an issue of possible wikihounding from the above named user. This behavioural pattern has been ongoing for a lengthy period of time. And despite efforts to try and resolve the matter peacefully and mutually, without the need to raise the issue with administrators sooner, it is with deepest regret that I feel the issue has reached the stage that only admin intervention may be required. I sincerely apologies in advance that this one is written in extreme length, however I feel that the more information that I provide, the better it may be for administrator's to complete the investigation as swiftly as possible.

Brief history

A year or so ago, Project Eurovision opened up a RfC regarding layout proposals on articles such as Eurovision Song Contest 2012. For a while now, I have noticed the project itself to be somewhat on the quiet side, with members rarely engaging in team discussions, especialy via the project talk page. I personally see myself as a very active member and will eagerly participate in discussions in order to bring the project alive again, so to speak. As you may notice, I was the main contributor in that particular RfC with many suggestions put forward by myself. During the RfC I offered to do a test on some of the proposals that had been made, so that participating members had something to compare against and thus able to see how something may look and perhaps tweak the ideas further. This resulted in a layout style being used on the ESC 2012 article. On 15 June 2012, I decided to nominate the aforementioned article for a GA review, something which these type of articles for the project had never had before. On the 16 July 2012 the article was awarded GA status, and this provided the project its first ever GA on such annual Eurovision articles, in the project's entire history. Please note that I also thanked the reviewer for their time taken to do the review.

Since that review the above named user started to make accusations that the suggestions put forward at the RfC had no connections to the article gaining the project its first GA. And so I decided that the only way to see if this was fact or fiction, was to initiate a bit of research (which naturally would take time). To do this, I decided that I would need to have multiple article examples in order to compare differences and see if the RfC suggestions were or were not resulting in such GA success. ABU Radio Song Festival 2012 and ABU TV Song Festival 2012 were then written using the same layout suggestions from that said RfC. On On 24 November 2012 I nominated those respective articles for GA review, and on the 11 February 2013 the Radio Festival was awarded GA (again, please note that I took the time to thank the reviewer). On 24 March 2013 the TV Festival article also gained GA. This gave Project Eurovision, 3 consecutive GA's on annual articles, using a layout style that was discussed at the RfC. The above named user, still continued to harass and cast assumptions of bad faith towards myself for no apparent reason.

The same layout style was then used on Eurovision Song Contest 2013 and on 27 June 2013 I nominated the article for GA review. At the time I then decided that it would be a good idea to also nominate one of the older articles that did not use the layout as per RfC, and on 7 July 2013 I nominated Eurovision Song Contest 2011 for GA, whilst keeping that article in its older layout format. At the time of nominating both these articles I had anticipated them both being reviewed at the same time, but also understood that the likelihood of that happening also being 50/50. However, as I had plenty of spare time at that time of year, then I was prepared to deal with both reviewers in the event they were to be done at the same time. On 14 November 2013 the 2013 article passed its GA review. And I thanked the reviewer on the same day. The 2011 review was also started at the same time, and I had informed Khazar2 the day prior of my unexpected busy schedule. As I'm sure most of you would appreciate, nobody ever knows when their partner decides to pick the moment to make a proposal of marriage. As I had accepted the proposal, I then realised that my real-life time and my Wikipedia time would be come a lot more hectic, and trying to find an equal balance would be difficult but one that I was prepared to work around.

Wikihounding

Anyhow, the GA review for ESC 2011 failed, and with that then provided comparison evidence in regards to the research that I had initiated in 2012. The layout style from the RfC had successfully gained 4 GA articles, whereas an old layout style failed to produce a single GA. As my real-life time has now become more hectic trying to organise a wedding, I had not noticed the 2011 GA closure, but the minute that I had, I took the time to thank the reviewer (Khazar2) and also thank for the clean-up checklist which they provided.

What I did not expect afterwards was our Israeli friend to also post a comment. This struck me as rather odd, considering that they were not the nominating editor. However, I assumed good faith in their comments, and felt that it may be polite to provide an explanation into the research that I was compiling. I did not expect to get an essay-sized hurl of abuse, which can be seen for yourselves. What gives someone the right to blatantly accuse me of "claiming GA credit for self-promotion", when I have always shared the GA accolades on team-contributions by means of a teamwork barnstar which I publish to all Project Members via the newsletter (as that is easier than spamming 50 or so to each individual member).

And not only that, the user continues to assume bad faith in my work, accuse me of copying their wording that they posted via another user's talk page, which basically implies that I am stalking them. Which I didn't even know they had made such posts until they mentioned it to me in their essay. And then twist out of context the phrase "unwise", a phrase which I had made on my own talk page, which actually proves that they had stalked my movements, especially to have picked up on the phrase "unwise" which was only posted on my own talk page. They then pick up on phrases that I had made on another discussion board, which they had not even participated in, again clear evidence of them stalking my movements in order to purposely single me out and cause distress.

And not only that, the editor than uses a dispute that involved myself and someone else and had nothing to do with them, as their own personal arsenal to cause further distress and attack me with it. This is clear evidence of singling out an editor to cause them distress. I wouldn't mind, but the dispute involving myself and a different editor has since been resolved and we've even buried it in the past and moved on. So why has אומנות decided upon themselves to use that dispute as their own personal prodding tool? If one is going to start poking at wasp nests, then one needs to expect to be stung sooner or later.

These behavioural patterns clearly demonstrates hounding and tendentious editing by the simple fact they are singling me out, for whatever personal gain of their own. Therefore I would appreciate if an administrator were to conduct an investigation into this matter, and if there are scenarios in which an administrator may feel as though I have stepped out of line, then I would accept that on the chin. But this behaviour from the user needs to stop, as it is not helpful to myself, to the project, or to the greater Wikipedia community. Sincere regards, Wesley Mᴥuse 17:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I can't judge the complaint easily (since relevant evidence via diffs is not given for hounding, for instance), though it's clear to me that the battlefield shenanigans between these two editors are disruptive enough: in the case of Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2011/GA1, they are initiated by אומנות but they predate the GA--and Wesley returns as much as he's given. (As a side note, though, I have to say that I don't see how that GA failure proves that Wesley's "new" format is successful and the old one is not: I don't see how the reviewer failed the article because of layout issues.) But I'm almost afraid to ask for diffs, since that will no doubt be a laundry list. I've been asked before by Wesley to look into אומנות's attitude, and found it difficult to blame one side more than another. It's a pity that both work in the same, relatively narrow, area. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I had provided the evidence via means of linking. However, if diffs are preferable, then I am happy to provide them although as there are that many then would it be possible to allocate time for me to do this? Especially with the current real-life situation that I had mentioned above. Wesley Mᴥuse 18:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I see links for the thanking of reviewers (not a relevant matter here) and GA reviews and a busy schedule. But you're asking us to investigate and possibly confirm your charge of hounding by the other user. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Ah yes I see what you mean. I thought the link to the Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2011/GA1 which contained the essay-like comments from אומנות, may have been sufficient. I'd happily accept if one sees my responses to the user following their essay, as being harsh, but when one receives multiple directly worded attacks and false allegations in essay-like statement, then how is one suppose to shrug it away under the carpet? It is like I said, if one pokes a wasp nest, then one should expect to be stung sooner or later.
• Examples of what I see as blatant hounding; "Quality is based on team work with various users making changes and improving, which you don't correctly comprehend, and therefore alongside your work and improvement of articles, you also result in more hold backs and discussions that get stuck for improving. Your very comment above actually battles with others credit and acknowledgement right to those who you claim to be your colleagues, which ironically repeats the same ignoring from others opinions to improve at the last RFC you "helped" with.". Which implies that I am purposely hoarding all the credit and glory of GA's for some sort of personal gain. However, I easily disproven their assumption in the fact that in 2012 I issued a teamwork barnstar to the entire project. Issuing this via the newsletter was by far easier than it would have been to visit each and every project member's talk page and post one individually. I'm sure one would apprecaite time efficiency. Also the 2013 review has only taken place a couple of days ago, and the next edition of the newsletter has yet to be published, but when it does there is yet another teamwork barnstar attached to the newsletter. What project members choose to do with the barnstar afterwards is their personal choice. I cannot force them to display it if they do not wish. Other examples include:

1. "You nominated this article which was not only still different with layout of style but also lacks fundamental sources and still written in future-tense..." - The user even acknowldges the difference in layout styles and the fact that it does not follow the layout style of previously awarded GA ones.
2. ...and you further copied my words from Khazar2 talk page to justify the nomination and ironically trying to show that you are the sole responsible for 2012 and 2013 articles... - The user accuses me of "following them around talk pages", when I had never done so, and was not even aware of their conversation. I was under the impression that we're suppose to assume good faith, even if we may personally think otherwise? So why come out with that remark like they did, which is openly assuming bad faith.
3. Thats after earlier you said you were "unwise" to nominate 2 articles together, and now you say that you knowingly nominated this article as differently written to verify for yourself that the 2012 and 2013 are good, which also shows no thinking for the reviewer's time... - This remark from the user actually contradicts their own allegations that I am following them. They have openly admitted to be following me around in a stalking manner. Especially when they quote phrases that I had made on my own talk page. For them to have known what I had said, then they had to have purposely visited my talk page.
4. ...all this only speaks volumes of how much you focus on the “GA” as a kind of self-promotion and being in competition, rather than improve articles patiently and thoroughly. And says volumes on your perception of "quality". - I found this to be a perplexed allegation to make. And I disproven their allegation by providing evidence that I do not look for GA glorifying and selfishly snatch the credit. I share the efforts by means of teamwork barnstars distributed via the project newsletter.
5. Anyway, this is really your problem and I only clarify as you should know by now, that I will fully and gladly express mine and others work on the ESC articles and enjoy this, and nobody will be eliminated by you from doing so. Try and learn to overcome yourself and share others good will and work. - Why would any user end their supposedly "innocent" comment with a clearly personalised and negative comment like that?

• I hope this helps. Wesley Mᴥuse 18:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'd also like to add that this isn't the first time that the user has also cast personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. The first such case was back in February this year, when the user assumed a discussion between myself and an administrator we're solely about them, when the discussion had nothing in connection with the user. Here are the diffs for that incident - [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Wesley Mᴥuse 19:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Fellow admins, I hope some of you can drag your attention away from your ArbCom run long enough to have a look at this. I've been somewhat involved with these two in the past and my doctor told me I have to stop doing that. So please. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I see no evidence of this.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I provided evidence above. Firstly in February, I was having a discussion with another editor that had nothing to do with אומנות. Yet the user barged onto the talk page, accused myself and the administrator of talking nastily about them behind their back. And then went on to attack both the admin and myself. (string of diffs attached above). Then there are other areas where אומנות has in black and white written that they "followed me to other areas". Please bear with me though as there have been that many discussion, that it is like trying to search for a needle in a haystack. And then there are the wording of bad faith accusations that אומנות made in the long essay at ESC2011/GA. Even in that they admitted to following me around various talk pages and following my actions. אומנות brought up a phrase "unwise". That phrase was something which I said to a different user on my talk page, a discussion that אומנות was not even involved it. The only way would אומנות have known that I used that phrase, is if he visited my page to "monitor" my discussions. Also אומנות has this habit of using as their own personal attacking device, a debate that myself and one uninvolved editor had months ago. אומנות was not involved in the dispute between myself and that editor. So why would אומנות even need to use an issue that is of no business of their, as a weapon to attack me with?

The problem as I see it, is אומנות too easily jumps to wrong conclusions and assumes that when two editors are talking to each other, that they are secretly talking about אומנות behind their back. Many a time the user has misinterpreted context and then twist it around and uses it to cast false allegations not to mention assumptions of bad faith. If the user is not sure what someone is talking about, or what their intentions/ideas may actually be, then ask to clarify, don't just jump to a potentially wrong conclusion and result in poking a wasp nest. Wesley Mᴥuse 22:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, אומנות has clearly singled me out. All this behaviour stemmed off shortly after the RfC which took place at WP:ESC in 2012. If אומנות appears to have qualms with what was said in that RfC, and this is evident in the fact s/he keeps referring back to it at any given opportunity. If אומנות isn't singling anyone out, then please explain why אומנות only targeted myself from that RfC, and hasn't even conversed with others who also took part in that RfC. Wesley Mᴥuse 22:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

1. I nominated the GA for Eurovision Song Contest 2011, review talk page is Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2011/GA1.
2. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but primary discussions for a GA review are between the nominator and the reviewer, right?
3. Why did אומנות (talk · contribs) post comments directly to the reviewer's talk page (time-stamped 00:58), when he was not the nominator?
4. Considering the length of the reviewer's closing comments, it took me quite some time to read through them all thoroughly, whilst also cross-referencing against the areas that were pointed out. It was at 01:25 when I finally got chance to reply to the closing comments. Yet I got accused of "copying text from another page". An allegation that I proved to be false.
5. I assumed good faith when אומנות (talk · contribs) posted a comment thanking the reviewer, despite him not being the nominator.
6. But why did אומנות (talk · contribs) use a talk page that is suppose to be about discussing article improvement, post a personalised and unprovoked attack aimed directly at myself? The user joined the talk page, posted a rather lengthy attack on me. That clearly demonstrates WP:HOUNDING - "the singling out of one or more editors..." (in this case myself) "...joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute..." (in this case the GA review which they were not the nominator, I was the sole nominator) "...in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." Something which has been ongoing for several months, and they even admit this in the way they address specific scenarios.
7. He then continues by posting this perdsonalised attack on the same GA review page.
8. And finally, a different editor has even noticed that the user should not have took the opportunity of the GA review page to voice any personal grudges which they hold against me. There is a place called the users talk page, where such discussions should take place. The same user even notes that אומנות (talk · contribs) clearly demonstrates the holding of some kind of grudge with myself.

And this doesn't constitue hounding? That's ironic, considering all of the above behavioural patterns are exactly what have been describe in the WP:HOUNDING policy. The evidence is there, in diff format, and in black and white. Wesley Mᴥuse 00:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well. I'll try to go point by point and tell you what I see. 1. is not a point, just a pointer. 2. yes, sure, though there are certainly GA reviews where others join in; I don't have a problem with it in my reviews or in my articles (I welcome it); 3. I know what you're getting it: you see another editor undermining your GA review but, more importantly, the previous ones with the "new" format; I think most editors here might be inclined to take it as a good-faith question asked by an interested party of an experienced reviewer; 4. I don't know how this point relates to possible hounding (no diff is provided for your quote or who says it or why or what it means), but (as a side note) I see in that comment (esp. "raw format") an indication that this wasn't really a good-faith effort to get the article nominated, especially since the history points out you haven't done a lot of work recently on that article, and many of your edits there are simply to revert; 5. good: you should; 6. in the post before your opponents (cited also in the diff) you actually ping them, so small wonder that they show up; 7. I don't see a personal attack, though your opponent could do with some paragraphing; I do see, however, a snarky "I await your apology", to which they respond in possibly snarky manner but no worse; 8. I don't completely agree with BabbaQ's remarks, but either way, they don't confirm a charge of hounding.

  Summarizingly, that GA review was an opportunity for you to try one format against another, but I don't see the editorial investment on your part to convince me that this was a fair comparison. And given that you and your opponent have been duking this out in various places, I'm not surprised that they would want to weigh in there as well: one might call your putting that format to the test pointy, and their response is to be expected. Sorry Wesley, but that's what I see based on the evidence you've given. Frankly, I don't think that you'll gain much traction here with your complaint, and it's only in part because of the word-to-evidence ratio of this complaint, which falls down heavily on the word side. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hi again Drmies, yes I'm still awake at this ungodly hour a bit busy trying to organise a few things (off-topic: anyone know of reasonable priced hotels in Hawaii, for a honeymoon? if so ping me, thanks.) Now back to the topic at hand. In regards to point 4, you mentioned about no diffs being provided for my quote or who said it etc. It was this one from point 4. In the diff itself, look at the fourth paragraph down, seventh line which reads "and you further copied my words from Khazar2 talk page to justify the nomination". The user basically implies that my comments in response to the GA closure where a word-for-word copy of their own from a different talk page. But there are no similarities whatsoever. My rationale for nominating the 2011 article was purely for comparison sake to put my own mind at ease. The same discussion about whether or not GA's were as a result of the improved way of writing these articles was starting to get monotonous. So I thought for the sake of putting the whole issue to bed, that I would see if this was the case or not. If the article gained GA despite it not being written in the new style, then I would have agreed that what I had originally thought was irrelevant. However, as it failed, it provided something to work on, and by that I mean a style which had been changed via a RfC was showing evidence that it was producing better quality articles, compared to how they were being written previously (if that makes sense). All of this research was to assist myself to write an essay-type guidance for the project, which would provide some sort of rouge editors guide on how to write Eurovision-related articles to a good standard, and hopefully reduce number of factual errors, reduce edit reversions, and help the standard of writing flow easier. So my intentions were of a good nature. If people thought that my nomination was of a bad nature, then I do apologise, but that was not my intentions at all.

• In regards to point 6, I didn't exactly ping him purposely. I read his previous comment (as quoted in point 5) and the way it came across was as if there were some confusion as to why the article had been nominated; which is why I took the time to explain as simple as possible, in case there might have been confusion. However, I never expected to get the long-winded reply that followed it, especially with some rather harsh and attacking phrases. For example "The above doesn't make sense in the presentation that clearly comes from angst to hog everything while trying to eliminate others" I was not saying anything in angst in my prior comment, nor was I trying to hog everything. And I found that to be rather uncalled for, to be honest. What is the meaning behind "So I will try to make logic for you, which may clear (and probably not) your comprehension or deliberate twists, choose the best of the 2 options."? I have noticed that the editor uses quotation marks as a way of adding sarcastic emphasis on certain words too. In the third paragraph, the editor raises examples of cases from discussion that he was not even involved in. So why use those for himself in a combative manner? Also in the paragraph 4, line 3; the editors writes "Your very comment above actually battles with others credit and acknowledgement right to those who you claim to be your colleagues" How can a comment that was trying to explain something in a simplified manner be twisted into a "battle" to take credit away from others? I have never taken credit away from other, on the contrary I share the credit. And why come out with a remark like "all this only speaks volumes of how much you focus on the “GA” as a kind of self-promotion and being in competition". I have never focused on GA's as self-promotion. Although if he wishes to look at the competition side of things, then perhaps he should be aware of WP:WIKICUP, which in one aspect is a competition between editors to see who can get the most GA's and FA's. If working towards improving an article for GA/FA is going to be twisted into some sort of personal "promotion" then I think the wikicup should be abolished, as that is basically promoting such combative competition between editors.
• There's a plethora of places that the editor has very tongue-in-cheek cast attacks at me first, and then expects me to just sit back and take the blows! [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. The main issue is the casting of what I see as personalised attacks, the usage of other conversations between myself and other users, in a combative and attacking manner, despite the fact that he had no involvement in those discussion whatsoever and thus has no right to be using them for his own personal gain. If the editors wishes to receive civility, then he needs to understand that it also needs to be issued by himself in return. One cannot just cast false assumptions to others and not allow them to defend what has been said, and clarify any misconstruing areas. I'd be happy for that editor to just back off from me for a period of time. And to stop twisting my comments out of context, and then twisting them negatively. Something which he even did to one of your fellow administrators back in February. Wesley Mᴥuse 05:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Look, I'm not trying to argue that your opponent has clean hands, I hope that's clear. And if you like I'll reword "this wasn't really a good-faith effort to get the article nominated" to "it wasn't a good effort etc." I'm sure it was a good-faith experiment, but I just don't see enough investment; you did a lot more for the other articles (this wasn't really "your" article in the sense that many others are, so to speak). I see plenty of bad blood between you two, but I don't believe that the charge of hounding or of unacceptable personal attacks (that require intervention) has been proven. The best you can ask for, I think, is a mutual interaction ban, but that's hardly a positive thing given y'all's mutual interest. I still hope, by the way, that some other admins will give their opinion. Happy trails, Drmies (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oh gosh no, I never thought you were trying to argue of the sort. I truly appreciate that you're being helpful and trying to resolve this peacefully with advice etc. It's just the way everything has gone about, especially the fact specific phrases that I used on my own talk page, in which the editor was not even a participant of that discussion, where being quoted by himself. That to me is showing that he had to have been checking up on my talk page to see what I had said. How else would he have known I used the phrase "unwise" in a discussion, and then use the word against me? That to me feels borderline hounding. I'm not sure if it is because the user's English is poor that they word things irrationally, so that it comes across as attacking. But in my eyes, a lot of the stuff he has said has been directed at myself, and negatively at that. Every time he makes a bad assumption against my actions, then I try my best to explain in more simple terms. But I do not expect to receive more abuse after my explanations. If you may recall, there was one incident where you even said some of his words were clear attacking, and I asked the editor to kindly remove them, to which they refused. So I followed the guidance and place the RPA template. He quoted a comment that I made at a TfD when I referred to someone as being "bitchy". If he took the time to read the entire comment itself, he will have noticed that I struck-through the negative comment and then posted an apology to the editor. Yet our Israeli friend (and I'm only referring in that way as I get myself confused with Hebrew text going from right-to-left when typing) concentrated more on the context of the word "bitchy" in a bad faith manner and not notice that I had retracted my comment and apologised to the user. There was just no need for that. I'm happy to move on, and work amicably. But is it not too much to ask for the editor to show some decency and avoid making remarks like he does? Keep his personal grudges about me to himself, no need to be airing them publicly which end up offending and distressing me. C'mon even you know how tough I've had it this past 18 months, what with bereavements and whatnot. Naturally I've had to thicken my skin, but I am still human and still feel the pain of suffering a loss. I don't need one editor to start being nasty with me for no reason. Wesley Mᴥuse 06:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• OK so we're not dealing with hounding as such. Please bear with me in regards to terminology here. How many times would one find the defendant (in this case אומנות), thank the plaintiff (myself) for reporting them to ANI? It comes across as illicit behaviour. And then to condescend another editor in this remark where they also come out with a surreptitiously comment that he "had a feeling to take a look" at the editor's talk page. The only reason a person would want to do such action is if they have a clandestine motive in order to stir-up disruption. The phrase "sly as a fox" springs to mind. What one person may perceive as a threat may not be seen as such to another. This is what makes each of us unique. No two persons are alike. The fact that I personally find the behaviour to be of a surreptitious manner, should not be discredited. If people feel both parties are to blame, then I hand-on-heart accept that we both get a grilling of some sort. But to be showing signs of defending one's actions over another is rather unfair. Wesley Mᴥuse 17:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrative findings

The nature of WP:HOUND requires that the user be literally involving themselves in matters they weren't already involved in, for the sole purpose of (essentially) trolling another user. As your mutual discussions have occurred only in areas of topical relevance, I see no evidence here that אומנות's actions could be construed as such. However, both אומנות and yourself have engaged in throwing needless and unhelpful accusations at each other... coupled with, and most likely caused by, miscommunication on several different occasions. This of course does not mean that since there are two sides they are both even, nor does it mean one is inherently correct. Indeed, in this case it appears that a lot of this was caused by your actions and not the other way around.

At the foundation, this started because of a rather pointy GA nomination on your part (to tie this to the situation in February is simply disingenuous), afterwhich you almost insisted on crediting yourself for your cleverness:

"...the fact that I chose to nominate it for GA in its raw format, proves that the layout styles (as suggested by myself) on both 2012 and 2013 appear to be working..." 1 (Emphasis added.)

And again:

"These findings now provide sufficient evidence to show that the method (most of which was suggested by myself at the RfC) has achieved four GA-quality articles, whereas a method that some editors prefer to use has failed to even achieve a single GA-quality rating. I think you know where this is heading... it is clear that one method (that which has scored 4 GA's) is working far better than another method (which has scored no GA's). So which method would one say is best to stick with? I think quality speaks volumes." 2 (Emphasis added.)

This last comment, contrary to your statement above ("I didn't exactly ping him purposely"), was obviously directed at אומנות. It also was worded, as shown, in such a way that could be interpreted as though you were talking down to אומנות while lifting yourself up simultaneously. Which easily brings into clarity the nature of his response. Disappointingly, you then went on to attack that response, calling it "blabbering", and continuing to use a tone that would easily anger anyone ("Although I kind of expected it, especially from yourself."). Then, you quoted the following statement made by אומנות, and called it a "blatant attack": "Anyway, this is really your problem and I only clarify as you should know by now, that I will fully and gladly express mine and others work on the ESC articles and enjoy this, and nobody will be eliminated by you from doing so. Try and learn to overcome yourself and share others good will and work". There is absolutely no way that comment could be taken as an attack, let alone a blatant attack. It may have had a touch of condescension, but one could hardly find fault in that once the full context is applied. But most troubling to me, is how you point to BabbaQ (in point 8) to validate your perceptions here. When he was not only not an impartial editor, but you specifically recruited him to make a response. I personally feel this seems reasonable to you purely because you've kept yourself in a bubble in regards to your opinion building of אומנות. Many people do this, (I'm not trying to accuse you of being a terrible person), but it is a sign that you're not thinking completely clearly about your actions.

Therefore, (after several hours of deliberation on this dispute), I recommend you rethink this whole situation from אומנות's perspective, and perhaps try to mend the issues that stand between you two (which are not in the least irreparable). I would also recommend that אומנות do the same, as there are certainly ways he could have conducted himself in a more professional manner. Additionally, it would be best if the both of you tried to not read into the other's actions constantly, and re-booted your working relationship in good faith. If you find that this is not possible or that you can't discuss article creation/modification without talking about each other, I would also recommend that you mutually back away from direct communication as it is preventing your time (and nearby editors' time) from being spent on productive editing. I understand that you've been through a lot over the past 18 months (believe me, I've had my own share of tragedies), but there are still ways that we expect editors to act. If you still feel that you cannot work towards these recommendations, I suggest that you take a brief hiatus and come back with a clear head when you feel you can. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely understand your point of view on this, and appreciate the sentiment that you've put into it. A lot of it does make sense too, which surprised me personally. I suppose I am a rather overly-sensitive person at heart. I am passionate about the work that I do on here, and I'm not sure if that is evident or not. But it can be seen in the number of ways I try and get involved in project activities, including the re-boot of the project newsletter which has become a success yet again. I'm one that hates failure, and when I noticed the project was on a downhill slide, I looked into way to boost project moral. RfC's have been launched many a time on the project, but nobody on the project seems to care about joining in the discussion - which is a shame really. It is only when things change that people then start to moan about the changes, and at that point do they then realise there was a RfC that had closed down weeks/months prior.

All of this scenario however, has stemmed off a lot longer ago, and not just from the GA discussion last week. Which if people understood the timeline of events, would then problem understand the context of comments such as "blabbering" and "Although I kind of expected it, especially from yourself." Everything kicked off back in February, when myself and an administrator were discussing an issue unrelated to אומנות. However, the user wandered by to the admin's talk page, read the conversation and immediately assumed we were bad-mouthing him. He accused the admin of all sorts of devious plotting, as well has attacking myself back then. Ultimately in the end, the user did admit that he purposely took our words out of context in order to cause disruption, because he was upset that he thought 2 editor's were talking behind his back. Now I'm not sure if that event has played on his mind ever since, and has resulted in the way that he has conducted his manner over the months that followed. But no matter where discussions have taken place, אומנות has used the same tone as he did at the unrelated discussion in February. And the same tone which was again used at the GA, which was also noted above as being instigated by אומנות first.

אומנות had no reason to question about the GA, considering he was not the nominator. I was not even aware at the time that he also contacted the reviewer via their talk page. Ideally אומנות should have left the enquiry at that talk page and not filter it over into the GA one. And if it did need a broader look then he could have carried it forward to the project talk page. But when I noticed his first comments on GA talk page, I just assumed he was being polite, but the tone seemed as though he was confused with something. Which is why I responded to his comment by briefly explaining what I had done, and why it had been done. So why didn't אומנות keep to the discussion? Why did he then reply back with a very long essay-like comment and use negative and surreptitiousness tones? He already knows from past conversations how I react. So to make the lengthy remark that he did, he knew full well how I would have responded back. And I did respond back in the way he expected me to do. It's like I keep saying, if one (אומנות) wishes to poke at wasps nests (me), then they will get stung. I'm the kind of person who says things as they are, I never sugar-coat my words. And people even in real-life respect me for that, as they know that I speak with honesty, even if at times the words come out rather harshly.

I would like if both אומנות and I were able to work on a clean slate. But it would need אומנות to drop the stick and stop with the picking and twisting my comments out of context. And as you pointed out, to stop reading too much into my actions and assuming they are of bad faith, when in fact they may be just simple mistakes or good faith "test" ideas etc in order to try and improve the project for the greater good. I have already revamped the project which members have noted how easier it now is to navigate around the project space. The newsletter re-boot has done its job and helps to notify members of articles that require clean-ups (and I have noticed that articles which do appear in a newsletter, do get worked upon during the month). I have asked members for assistance on some areas, but none seemed to care and leave me to struggle with work on my own. And that is a shame, yet I get accused of not playing "team work". I do call for team work, but they never offer to help. So where is the team spirit from others in that? It is like most recently, I noticed a couple of articles did not have the {{EurovisionNotice}} assessment banner on talk pages. I had a rough idea that this would be a mammoth task and posted on the project talk page for help. But nobody has offered, and I've been left on my own to try and deal with the task of finding missing articles. I started this task in July and only got 10% of the way through. Going at that rate, it will take me another 45 months (approx until August 2017) to complete the task. That is just too much work for anyone to do single-handedly. But the project do not want to help, so there is nothing else I can do. If I started to demand for help, then I'd get accused of being a bully. What is one suppose to do? Wesley Mᴥuse 09:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Besides you, there's one more editor who appears to be interested in the subject... Drmies (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me for sounding blond here, but who? Wesley Mᴥuse 03:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Wesley - I suggest you drop this. Several editors have assured you that the other editor is not hounding you. Regarding your disagreements with the other editor, you have been politely told that you are as much as fault as he/she is. I have noticed both here and elsewhere that you have a bad habit of talking far too much; it diminishes the impact of your message.

You asked the question, "What is one suppose to do?". The answer - take a break - do not over-stress yourself with this. When you are over-stressed, everything gets worse. The more you try to solve your problems, the worse they get. This is because, when you are over-stressed, you make mistakes, both in your technical work and in your relationships with other people.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for those who took time to investigate and for understanding from my view as well.
I didn't manage to comment until now and tried to keep track of the continuous comments here as well. I want to comment mainly in regards to communication and personal ongoing additional concerns, from my side:

2012 RFC - I was never involved in this

This was at the summer of 2012 and Wesley Mouse claims on his earlier comments above that I argued only with him and not with others on this 2012 RFC. I became active only in February-2013 + few edits back in 2009-2010. There was another user named Tony who argued with Wesley during 2012 (as I saw later on when Wesley himself reffered me to look at this already closed RFC in 2013 and I saw this user popping later on 2014 esc talk page). So no attachment between me and this RFC.....

February argument

Wesley opened that thread on the admin's talk page on the grounds of “Doubts and Suspicions about a user that suddenly came to ESC articles and reminds him of someone else (perhaps Tony) - an admin that I had an argument with on 2013 Eurovision talk page. That was few minutes after Wesley also commented over there after the argument. Afterwards Wesley said he wasn't talking about me and I said I want to work peacefully but also still clarified its not okay to use wikipedia's talk pages that anyone can see, for spreading empty-suspicions just because he had fights with a previous user. Eventually I gave up and just said again I'm sorry. The admin started to see my frustration and later I emailed the admin with offering my regrets and explaining how I felt, and the admin offered his regrets with saying he understand my good intentions and why I felt threatened. We kept touch on email for months afterwards.

This argument was almost a year ago, and since then until an RFC closed one month ago, me and Wesley maintained mostly relatively civil and professional discussions which is proof I didn’t hold any grudge to him. There were some discussions namely on 2014-Eurovision where again he made the hints of his “GA”s when he deviated a bit from manual of style – and yet, after few combative comments comments from him I just told him that I think now he did a good edit as he implemented another user's and mine similar view and explanation. I realy made big efforts. Anyway, this whole February-story is well observed as indigenous, and now you also with a faithful explanation. Furthermore, Wesley’s personal stories he told on February actually increased my patience and tolerance. With that, I never said that I purposely twisted his and the admins words and certainly not admitted that "I wanted to be disruptive". And if according to him I fully understood I was wrong and he was innocent, then I have no reason to hold a grudge anyway. * I was especially angst in regards to another user who had even bigger-longer arguments with Wesley. And even then I never interfered in their fights, but the opposite – I was waiting for things to calm down with showing this other user my appreciation for him/her and also supporting some of Wesley's views when I agreed with him to some extent in content issues. So after that to accuse me of grudge really falls flat.

Recent RFC

The RFC that I referred to in my arguments, is from a month ago – about his conduct. I proposed mentioning and shaping certain content briefly in prose-without tiny tables and without repeating flags, which also appropriate to guidelines and was eventually supported by two editors that initially objected to include this content even as prose: [31] and [32], and Wesley's support, only for it to be dismissed later by his opposite summary. After an argument started he changed the outcome – yet for a claim that every project-member needs to say his opinion, after he already extended that RFC for 3 months and contrary to previous discussions that were based on very few people. (Such example is a "Location" discussion with Drmies + Wesley + another user + me - and was agreed to be changed). At this stage I turned to the two former involved editors with an ad-hock message, and with writing I may have misunderstood to do my best to give benefit of doubt of any misinterpretation. Wesley then took it for accusing me of Forum Shopping, and redundantly posted on their talk pages – which shows who follows others: [33] [34] At this stage I got blunt about his behavior on my talk page and on the project page, from which he then deleted 2 whole paragraphs from my comment on the RFC. I simply felt suffocated. At this point I thought of posting here on ANI myself. However… I was afraid my complaints still won’t be sufficient to be addressed here and to get profitable answers, I knew I was also blunt as I already lost my patience and I also never came here before and so it looks intimidating.

I brought this RFC ongoing for 3 main reasons: First - show the lack of communication and collaboration issues, which was addressed at the investigation above (for all parties involved though, I understand that). Second: Take this chance to show and ask about this RFC outcome already. Third: As another reason why I was eager to talk to the 2011 article reviewer as finally I had a chance to hear someone elses opinions and of professional-policies insights + as some of the reviewer's marks were in connection to fields I’m interested at and that needs to be improved further. And I waited until the review was over, though in this case of Wesley's nomination it was already widely agreed I could have even jumped to this nomination in the middle. In any case, I tried to catch the reviewer before he will put the subject back away from his attention. I initially even wanted to post my comment to the 2011-review page with adding directly my proposals to the reviewer (again - after he failed the article, not during the review). But then I noticed the reviewer started backing away from this to leave it for now, so eventually I only addressed with his reply that indeed he already decided to leave it to someone else.

General

Wesley's diffs above either rely mostly on the chain of comments from that same February-argument, either on the chain of comments on the RFC/my talk page, when I already admittedly lost my patience. On the other hand he doesn't understand who his ongoing involvement in fights with others is others buisness. Which emphasise this desperate milking of my argument with the admin from almost a year ago for all its worth. I precisely didn’t get involved in Wesley's fights with others because I didn’t want it to be used later as if I’m hounding him, which ironically I was eventually percieved by him as doing so here, and thankfully that was discarded… Naturally, arguments with few users who work on the same field of articles, bare great negativity. So fights has to do with a community and I need to show some things that may help express the concerns I still have and may especially help Wesley see more clearly how and in what areas he can be more accomodating and pleasent to talk to: Remarks as this proposals were brought up before and gave us all a headache, which me and others commented few times that it’s not helpful as clearly another editor thinks there is something to improve or to fix. During that same RFC and in regards to that same prose/tables debate, became totally combative to another user that simply said he doesn't think this content is notable to be included, which is one example of misinterpreting someone disagreement as a kind of a personal attack on him or his work.
Here are some as such: [35][36][37][38] [39]. Here again in reference to his GA: [40] Here another claim that someone has done something “stupid on the higest level possible”: [41]And this Project Newsletter remarks: May we all please remember to create the talk pages at the time we create new articles. Don't be lazy and expect others to finish off for you. This is not encouraging people... But flat ordering-complaining. There is a kind saying: “One can catch more flies with honey”. And finally - speaking about total twisting: Ironically I decided at the last minute to add a simple swift "thank you" for the ANI-notification on my talk page - that also included a "thank you" - so now this was also tried as a tool to claim as an illicit behavior... Come on...

Sorry for the such long comment, but that was the situation ant the enormous catching up I had to do here with yet much things to explain the other user and to others. Now, after waking from the anxious feeling I had few days ago when I first saw this discussion here - I myself will take at least few days break, and later on simply keep working on articles in regards to mere content developes and will try to discuss if I see more participants in the future, and especially hope for more potential administrators in future discussions. Thanks again for the support and understanding of how I felt also from my side and of course I will do my best to moderate my tone if I get upset, to have more professional wording and to stay cool in the future.
Thank you for your attention. אומנות (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to respond to this, as I was adhering to dropping the stick. But in light of seeing some of my comments been misinterpreted, I felt that it be courteous to clarify some areas, to the other editor. I never implied in my opening statement that you were involved in the 2012 RfC. In fact I never mentioned any editor's in that part. If you read it carefully the only reason I mentioned the 2012 RfC was to shed light onto something else, as I was later mentioned about other RfC's and the GA nomination issue. This was so people would get a clearer picture of subsequent highlights that I mentioned thereafter.

In regards to the February argument. Once again you have read too much into an issue and wrongly assumed that I was referring to Tony. This is actually incorrect. If you must know, the user I was referring to as being relatively new is Mrluke485, who's editing pattern and manner of posting comments reminded me of another user Bleubeatle, who had caused several disruptions in a similar manner between myself and the admin who I was talking to. Bleubeatle was placed on a short-term mutual interaction ban between myself and 2 other editors. As for the points numbers 35 to 41, plus the newsletter. I would like to know how and why you can use something to slander me, when you were not even involved in those matters and do not know the full story behind them, which if you did then you'd know that I was not being uncivil. This is when one editor was enquiring why an article included runner-ups, and despite the fact that 2 editors explained why such information was included on the article, they still went ahead and removed the aforementioned content - and thus was going against a consensus. In this diff I used my usual tongue-in-cheek humour, which if you notice on previous discussions I hold with people that I have used similar, and 99% of the time people have taken what I've said with a pinch of salt. What one needs to remember is we are dealing with written conversation here, which has no facial expression. So how you read something, compared to how you would have heard the tone in a person's voice had they spoken the same context would be different.

When I use the term "d'oh!" it's like how Homer Simpson uses the expression when he has done something stupid to himself. Points 37 to 40 have no relevance with yourself, and I fail to see how you can use them for the sake of your argument. If you were involved in those then I could understand. But as you were not, then they are not your right to use for whatever advantageous purpose you may be intending. In regards to the newsletter, I always use slightly blunt tones when things depending on the nature. In fact this is something which has been done by previous newsletter coordinators prior to myself joining the editorial team. If I use somewhat stern tone, it is probably because I'm stressing across on an area of idleness that has been repeated time after time. Creating talk pages after an editor's created a new article is commonsensical and something which is set out at WP:TPL. It is an issue that has been raised in the past on monthly newsletters, even before I joined Wikipedia. So when editor's are, well basically being lazy and not creating them, then a harsh tone sometimes needs to be used to get the message across. You're the only editor to have taken offence to the phrase, whilst a few others raised their angst at talk pages being constantly left to them to create, even when they have not created the article. So one needs to understand this from everyone's point of view. In future, if you're not sure how my tone is meant to have been portrayed, then why don't you contact me on my talk page, then we avoid getting into these situations? 9 times out of 10 you'll find that you may have misinterpreted a meaning or taking something out of context by reading too much and reaching false assumptions. Even if we think someone's actions may be wrong, we should also assume they were done in good faith, if in doubt - ask the editor. Wesley Mᴥuse 03:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ivan Volodin

There is a normal discussion over a certain matter at WT:FOOTY; Ivan Volodin (talk · contribs) insists on adding this to the bottom of the discussion, it is basically his own personal summary of what he feels are the pros and cons of various possible arguments i.e. pure OR/SYNTH. Rather than helping, I feel it hinders. I have tried to discuss the matter with him but he is having none of it - I have already removed it twice and he has restored it every time. Further input appreciated. GiantSnowman 22:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Brief comment: 1) The discussion was started by myself, so there had been no "normal discussion" prior to that. 2) It is not what I feel are pros and cons, but a fair summary of four discussions that had been held elsewhere, as I explained when starting the new discussion. This is purely for the purpose of not repeating the same arguments but trying to build on previous discussions. 3) GiantSnowman may feel that it hinders, and if this feeling is shared by others - fine. But deleting the content straight away (and not after trying to discuss it) is clearly wrong. 4) The way GiantSnowman " tried to discuss the matter" can be seen on the page in question and on my talk page - this is not "discussion", in my opinion, it is an attempt to impose an opinion on the basis of alleged better understanding of how WP functions. My understanding had been that anyone who knows well enough how WP functions would not behave in that way. Ivan Volodin (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

So there has been no "normal discussion" but there have been (at least!) four previous discussions you took your info from? Mmkay. Who states that it is a "fair summary" of said previous discussions? You? Mmkay. I removed the content per WP:BOLD; you should not have restored it per WP:BRD. Forgive me for thinking I know a bit more about how discussions should operate than an editor with less than 500 edits... GiantSnowman 22:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC

Have no idea what mmkay means, but yes, there were discussions last year, which brought no result, and I see no problem with summing them up. The way you put it gives an impression as if I joined a pre-existing discussion and disrupted it with my additions, which is simply against the truth. Ivan Volodin (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If you challenge the fairness of the summary, feel free to edit particular passages. Ivan Volodin (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL. First, these rules are intended to apply to articles, not discussion pages (unlike articles, on talk pages each user signs his contribution and owns it, unless it is abusive, insulting etc). Second, BOLD, as described at WP:BRD says No editor is more welcome to make a positive contribution than you are, and mine was at least a genuine attempt to a positive contribution. The same rule says Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement.. Your edit was not an improvement (from the point of view of my intention to start a reasoned debate not from scratch, but from where it ended last time), but I tried to accomodate your concern on "not a vote", rather than revert it, as I would be entitled to under WP:BRD. The same rule encourages to discuss things, something that you started only after you had deleted my content. P.S. I have been mostly active in the Russian Wikipedia where I started about the same time as you started here, and where I have 5000+ edits and ca.600 new articles, and a good experience of participating in policy discussions. Your comments alluding to your vast experience vs. my small experience border on violating WP:PERSONAL. Ivan Volodin (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not quite see the problem. I would suggest that Ivan Volodin adds his personal edit summary in a hidden block. Would it be a soultion acceptable for all parties?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to provide such a summary, especially as he has !voted in the discussion, as the summary is clearly baised. It also assumes the other participants are idiots who cannot think things through for themselves. If IV wants to provide that information then add it to his sandbox and link there - do not include it in the discussion itself. You will note the content has since been removed by another editor. GiantSnowman 12:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As GS said, there is no need for that summary and the summary can in no way be "proven" to be unbiased. Just take a look at his first post were he states "a strong numerical majority in favour of scenarios" which I failed to see in those discussions and the current voting is 8-2 in favour of not including these scenarios, so he is clearly biased (so am I). If he wanted to he could have made a bulleted list to the earlier discussion to let people know where they are and then let the other editors read them themselves if they wanted to. QED237 (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I just saw he mentioned three discussions in the prose, so he has mentioned them, and editors could read them on their own and build their own mind after that.QED237 (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are so many biased things posted at the talk pages around Wikipedia, that I do not see how this one, coming from a relatively new editor, would be sanctionable. He mentioned that he is mainly active in the Russian Wikipedia, and I just know from my own experience (I have 80K edits there) that the notion of consensus is interpreted there completely differently than in the English Wikipedia, and the Russian Wikipedia is just one big battlefield. I just suggest that we close this for the time being. If problems persist, we can always return to the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ymblanter, please feel free to discuss with the matter and explain that ru.wiki and en.wiki work differently. I doubt he will listen to me anymore. GiantSnowman 20:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure. However, from what I see, he stopped adding the piece and went to more constructive discussions. If problems reappear, feel free to ping me.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Quick note- OR and SYNTH are article contents policy, not talk page or project page policy. Whether the summary was appropriate or not and responses are a separate matter. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

OwenX

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

---

I want to report an incident with OwenX. I was attempting to make some changes to page for 1.800.Vending to take care of some misinformation and clarify some things. I am not a Wikipedia editor and I was mistaken in my approach to doing this. However, OwenX was altogether unhelpful, rude and accusatory, assuming from the start that I was trying to edit the page with negative intent. You can see the exchange here, User talk:23.30.60.249, in which he accuses me of several misdeeds including "corporate cronyism", "vandalism" and others. I would like to request that a formal complaint be filed against him. I'm a firm believer in Wikipedia's mission, which I understand to be to provide correct information to the public. This can't be done with users like OwenX refusing to help make clearly logical changes to pages that need them because of some sort of vendetta. 23.30.60.249 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I see plenty of COI, possible group use of an account and definite POV on the talk page referenced. Here I see bad faith. Can anyone say boomerang? John from Idegon (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Boomerang! The talk page is pretty clear that COI editing is going on. The ip editor needs to read WP:COI. The sourcing could be cleaned up a little but if think OwenX is on the right path. JodyB _talk 23:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think OwenX did a great job on that talk page. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like User:Mpratt10 is a sock for this account as well. CombatWombat42 (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

CombatWombat42, I'm inclined to assume good faith on this one. Ms. Pratt is an inexperienced editor, and has likely forgotten to log in, or may not realize that logging in makes any difference. Her choice of name and pattern of editing do not exhibit any attempt to obfuscate her identity, nor has she denied that the two users are one and the same. I think education, along the line Drmies is doing, is called for in this case, rather than admonition. Owen× ☎ 17:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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

GERAC

I'm currently engaged in a big dispute with User:Alexbrn and User:QuackGuru as they try to take the German Acupuncture Trials article apart. The argument mainly centers around whether the Federal Joint Committee (Germany) can be considered a reliable source, and whether the GERAC are notable at all (I think they are, since they were one of the main reasons why the Federal Joint Committee decided that acupuncture is reimbursable by the statutory health insurances, for low back pain and knee pain). But these questions are already being discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard and at AfD (since Alexbrn has already started a case there).
The reason I ask for input here is the way these two users are going at it. Even though discussion is ongoing, QuackGuru has been tagging the article excessively [42] and deleting sources he doesn't like [43], while Alexbrn just nukeandpaved almost the entire article when he came to join the discussion today [44]. After reducing the article to a stub, he nominated it for deletion [45] On my objection, I was simply told I obviously don't understand WP policy regarding secondary sources [46]. When I reverted his nukeandpave, he threatened me to be blocked because of edit warring [47].
As laudable as the works of QG and Alexbrn are in clearing WP of pseudoscience and bogus alt med content, they're overshooting the mark here. Could someone please look into this? Of course I'm willing to discuss anything regarding content and sources, but I feel a little helpless against their rapid actions. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Poorly sourced text does not belong in mainspace. I explained this on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, we don't agree on this being poorly sourced, do we? But your rationale why the (secondary) Fed. Joint Comm. source shouldn't be used is bogus. And as I pointed out before, WP:MEDRS states very clearly, that in some cases primary sources can be used - to give descriptive information about how the GERAC where done is one of these cases. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• A content dispute, other than Mallexikon saying I threatened him/her. My posting an edit-warring notice on their Talk page and warning about 3RR does not constitute a "threat", I think. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well how about your nukeanpave of sourced material, and then presenting the remaining stub at AfD? (Which has so far be rejected, by the way) --Mallexikon (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

At the AfD page, a user conduct discussion regarding Alexbrn was recommended [48]... Is this the right place or do I have to take it to a special AN? --Mallexikon (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean "of poorly-sourced material" - good stuff eh? We're here to improve Wikipedia, after all ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's poorly sourced... We have a very good secondary source here: a review of acupuncture studies, by an independent medical organization (Federal Joint Committee (Germany)). But you won't even listen to me, or wait for consensus. Instead, you revert me, and delete sourced material at will, and then carry the remaining stub to AfD... --Mallexikon (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a FYI, the article is German Acupuncture Trials not the currently redlinked German Acupuncture trials. If it survives AFD (including if it's merged or redirected), either create a redirect or move depending on how it's decided to handle the capitalisation. Nil Einne (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. The only administrator's comment. After 12 hours. Focussing on redirect of the article. Thanks a lot, guys... --Mallexikon (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

To allow a proper study of the matter at AfD, I recommend that the article content that was previously removed by User:Alexbrn and User:Quackguru be left in place until the deletion discussion is over. One of their removals was here. I am a bit surprised that WP:MEDRS is being interpreted so broadly as to require immediate removal, even during the period that a time-limited discussion is in progress. We expect to see immediate removal of badly-sourced material in cases of libel or slander, but citations to the Archives of Internal Medicine (whether or not the material published there is ultimately found to be quackish) won't cause immediate harm. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually you've missed my main point (noting I'm not an administrator and there's no need for an administrator to create the redirect). Your original comment previously linked to the redlinked German Acupuncture trials. This was fairly confusing since people may assume (I did at first) that the article has already been deleted. I did not modify your comment, as you or someone else has now done, because there sometimes is a lot of controversy over modifying comments. So even in a clear cut case like this I felt it best not to open that can of worms.

Instead I thought it best to point out the actual article is German Acupuncture Trials, which isn't currently redlinked, for the benefit of anyone else reading this discussion.

I also recognised that ideally there should be a German Acupuncture trials redirect presuming German Acupuncture Trials exists, either as a redirect to German Acupuncture Trials or a redirect to wherever German Acupuncture Trials points to. When I see an accidental redlink to something which should be a redirect anyway, I normally simply create a redirectk, perhaps mentioning I have done (to reduce confusion if people saw the redlink). However because of the uncertainty due to the AFD over whether German Acupuncture Trials will exist, I decided creating a redirect at this time would be silly. So instead I simply reminded those involved they should do so in the future and used the opportunity to also explained why I did not just fix the problem myself.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

SPA, POV-pushing IP being disruptive at Bukharan Jews

Special:Contributions/24.12.209.241

A POV-pushing IP has refused to heed the relevant discussions on the article Talk page, ignored WP:RS and WP:NOR in repeatedly reposting unsourced or unreliably sourced material to the article. The IP is also an SPA.

Here is a link to the trimmed version of the Background section at issue.

To start with, contrasting the following two sub-standard paragraphs is informative. This completely WP:OR unsourced paragraph (current)

The Bukharan Jews of Central Asia were essentially cut off from the rest of the Jewish worldfor more than 2,500 years but somehow managed to survive and preserve their Israeliteidentity and heritage in the face of tremendous odds. They are considered one of the oldestethno-religious groups of Central Asia and over the years they have developed their own distinct culture. Throughout the years, Jews from other Eastern countries such as Iraq, Iran,Yemen, Syria, and Morocco migrated into Central Asia (usually by taking the Silk Road).

used to replace the following paragraph (obviously, also also WP:OR that contains the above paragraph) that I had removed:

The Bukharan Jews of Central Asia were essentially cut off from the rest of the Jewish worldfor more than 2,500 years but somehow managed to survive and preserve their Israeliteidentity and heritage in the face of tremendous odds. They are considered one of the oldestethno-religious groups of Central Asia and over the years they have developed their own distinct culture. Throughout the years, Jews from other Eastern countries such as Iraq, Iran,Yemen, Syria, and Morocco migrated into Central Asia (usually by taking the Silk Road), as did Jews who were exiled from Spain during the expulsion[citation needed]; all these joined the Central Asian Jewish community and were later collectively known as Bukharan Jews. In Central Asia, the Bukharan Jewish community survived for centuries, despite being subject to many conquering influences and much persecution.

Amotz Asa-El does not seem to be a reliable source for history of this sort, having apparently had to self-publish a book on the topic of the essay he wrote that is included in the encyclopedia in question. The essay, “The Lost Tribes of Israel”, starts on p. 78, with the following sentence on p.84: “The Jews of Bukhara, in today’s Uzbekistan, have been speculated as hailing from the tribe of Issachar because the name Issachcaroff is common among them”.

Even in that sentence there is no mention of a “tradition”, let alone and “ancient tradition”, only on mere speculation regarding a name.

This website is an even more patently unreliable source [49].

Note that whereas the IP has attempted to distinguish Ashkenazi from Bukharian Jews on my Talk page User_talk:Ubikwit#Bukharan_Jews so as to exclude the former from the later on a rationale apparently based on ethnicity, the earlier paragraph states that all the Jews in Central Asia were “collectively known as Bukharan Jews”. That is to say, the IP removed the content tagged "citation needed 2009" and the content that corresponded to the inclusive version of Bukharan Jews:

all these joined the Central Asian Jewish community and were later collectively known as Bukharan Jews

One apparently reliable source for demographics and background material contains a short section that touches on Bukharan Jews, which I used in the revised text I posted: p. 75 (a total of 3 paragraphs). The IP refuted that data (see edit summar here) on the basis of his personal convictions, apparently.

Relevant sections of the article Talk page include: Talk:Bukharan_Jews#.22Bukharan.22_vs_.22Bukharian.22 Talk:Bukharan_Jews#Not_lost_tribes. Talk:Bukharan_Jews#Bukharan_vs._Bukharian_again Talk:Bukharan_Jews#Sourcing
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

One further statement by the IP should be presented, another one from an edit summary[50]

Please don't rewrite our history. Thanks.The 30k includes Russian Ashkenazi Jews, irrelevant.

The sections of the Talk page where the related issue of "Bukharian vs Bukharan" has been discussed, but there is another section with a discussion of Ashkenazi vs Bukharian Talk:Bukharan_Jews#Surnames_of_alleg.C3.A8dly_Bukhar.5Bi.5Dan_Jews.

So aside from the blatant unsourced WP:OR POV-pushing text composed by the IP, there may be a content issue related to demographics, but that would seem to have been settled in a manner such as to treat Jews in Central Asia inclusively, using the name Bukharan to refer to all. As defined in the lead, Bukharan Jews are Jews from Central Asia who speak Bukhori, a dialect of the Tajik-Persian language. And the last paragraph (also unsourced) of the Background section names places outside of Bukhara as well. In other words, not only does the IP's exclusion of Ashkenazi Jews that have moved to Central Asia contradict the reliably-sourced statement regarding a population of "30-70,000", it also appears to contradict the content of text of the lead and text added in his own edit. Moreover, if one were to exclude the "Ashkenazi Jews from Russia" included in the reliably published figure of 30-70,000, the number would be less, not more. I don't think one could ask for a clearer example of unsourced POV-pushing.

In any case, according to the above-quoted edit summary, it is clear that the IP identifies as 'Bukharian', and is advocating a POV aligned with their personal convictions, not on the basis of statement from reliably published sources.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid this sounds like a content dispute, and you have to use appropriate dispute resolution venues.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, at the very least the IP is at 4RR and I left a tacit warning on their Talk page.  ::Wouldn't policies like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:SOAPBOX, IDIDNTHEARTHAT apply?

1. The IP, based on their personal convictions, has explicitly refuted and deleted the information from what appears to be the most reliable source for demographics[51].
2. The IP has misrepresented the statement from another source of questionable reliability in relation to speculation of a connection to lost tribes. I've read one academic study of the topic and am awaiting delivery of another. I have seen no indications of a "tradition", so the term "speculated" in the source in question would be the most one could say if it were attributed. I could raise the issue of that article and statement at RS/N, but the IP doesn't engage on the Talk page and appears not to have read it.

I would assume that a content dispute would involve disagreement regarding sources, but the IP has added paragraphs of text that aren't sourced, while deleting sourced material at the same time. Am I missing something where that doesn't cross the line into a behavioral issue? The IP has clearly indicated an antipathy toward Jewish immigrants from Russia, but reliable sources treat them inclusively as 'Bukharan Jews'. Such editing behavior seems to clearly indicate that the IP is pushing a POV and advocating a political agenda.

I think that the IP doesn't understand some policies, and therefore a short block or topic ban might provide impetus to the IP to study policy and come up with some sources (in English), would be in order to maintain NPOV in the article.

To sum up, I don't see how posting unsourced POV content while deleting sourced material can be reduced solely to a content dispute, because such editing does not conform to the core policies of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:NOR. It therefore seems that this should be handled as an administrative task at this board, with the simple aim of ensuring that the IP (new SPA account) follows those policies, and not a matter for endless haranguing about elsewhere to no effect. I m here to produce a little content, not engage in administrative tasks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

On more easy to present WP:TE misrepresentation of sources by the IP is as follows. The sentence of the source reads

Some ancient Jewish texts claim that during the reign of King David, in the 10th century B.C., Jews were already travelling to Central Asia as traders.

I edited the sentence to include the underlined terms "Jewish" and "Jews", as it is a POV-pushing misrepresentation of the source otherwise. No texts other than Jewish texts are mentioned in the source, and the Jews making their way to Central Asia are described as "Jews", not "Israelites". There are no other ancient texts, such as Greek, Roman or Assyrian mentioned that would add credence to the tradition; moreover, once Israel was destroyed and conquered, Jews were no longer Israelites (which appears to be misleading and perhaps anachronistic here). On articles related to "lost tribes" there is a pattern trying to misrepresent a religious POV as historical reality through misrepresenting sources in this manner. The source authored by a professor at Columbia is accurate, and should not be misappropriated to misrepresent what it says in order to advocate a religious POV on Wikipedia.

Combined with the opposite trajectory of a source (less reliable) in a manner that potrays "speculated" as an "anncient tradition", the POV pushing agenda is obvious and cannot be ignored.

I believe that such editing conduct falls under WP:TE, and is a conduct issue, not a content dispute.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

3RR does not apply, since the reverts were not done in one day. I agree though that the behavior of the IP was not constructive, and that they should have been engaged in the talk page discussion. However, given that the page is protected, the IP was warned by several users and has no possibility to edit the page, I do not think any administrative actions are necessary. ANI is clearly not a place to discuss whether the added paragraph is POV or OR or whatever. If the reverts continue after the page gets unblocked, please come here and just mention that the reverts continue. I am sure swift action will be undertaken.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've opened a thread at RS/N requesting input on two of the statements at issue.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Just as an aside, Ubikwit, I just wanted to echo what you are seeing. I was working with categories based on descent and discovered that there were several instances where a category like X Jews (X being a people of a country) was changed to Ashkenazi Jews in Y or Sephardic Jews in Z, basically claiming that all people of Jewish descent in a specific country were of the same ethnicity. In a modern, mobile, migratory world of the 21st century, one can no longer assume that all individuals of Jewish descent living within a country's borders have ancestry from the same part of the world. So, this seems to be an occurrence for a number of Jewish-related categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting, thanks for the info, Liz. There would seem to be a little irony in the scenario of an individual that has apparently migrated to the USA making such strident remarks. The relationship of ethnicity to Judaism also seems to be an issue with some issues for some people. Here, though, I think that since Russian Jews are reported to have been migrating to the area in question since the late 19th century, if they speak the language referred to in the lead of the article and don't sequester themselves as a separate community, there would seem to be no grounds to treat them as such (and no RS seems to do so). That is not to say that the history needs to obfuscated, but it is somewhat difficult to ascertain the crux of some of the claims being made. It may have an anti-colonial (anti-Russian?) aspect, aside from genetics, etc.

I am an expat living in Japan where I have encountered strange stories about lost tribes and Nestorianism, and there is a colonial dimension to the deployment of lost tribes claims of descent. There is a definite political dimension (even subversive) to the promulgation of such blatant fabrications, but the parameters are somewhat reversed in this case. Here, it seems that the IP is attempting to use the lost tribes' claim to anchor one aspect of a distinct identity separate from the Russian Jews, whom he may consider to be colonizers.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to add, Ubikwit, because someone might archive this discussion at any moment, it's fascinating how many different religious groups claim ancestry to the lost tribes, particularly when Christian groups try to anchor their lineage in some, uh, "creative" understanding of the Jewish diaspora. Sounds like a great idea for a book.

Not sure if you want to jump into this but right now, at WP:JUDAISM, there's an active debate about whether 21st century Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi Jews can be classified as being "Asian" because hundreds (or a thousand?) years ago, their ancestors lived in the Middle East. Ethnicity is a hot button issue because for some folks, it's almost ideological and involves the identity of an individual or group which can be seen to define them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

BANNED

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

---

Block user:GreekAlphabeta it is banned sock, see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Greek_Alphabeta 5.157.80.91 (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked; thank you. Why would an admin say "this is definitely a sock of a banned user" without blocking the sock? Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, the IP starting the previous thread (165.254.183.37) was blocked as a proxy. The plot thickens. Favonian (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hm, maybe I was the one who misunderstood. Future Perfect at Sunrise, did I misunderstand what you meant in the previous thread? Please feel free to unblock GreekAlphabeta immediately if I misinterpreted your words. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, GreekAlphabeta was almost certainly not a sock of the banned user (Wikinger). They just happpened to raise an issue again that Wikinger used to obsess about some years ago. But the IPs, both in that other thread and here, are the banned user. It's an old favourite game of his, trying to incriminate other people and getting them blocked as allegedly his own socks. Next thing he'll probably start creating spoof lookalike accounts with variations of the GreekAlphabeta name, trying to cheat us into blocking GreekAlphabeta as a sockmaster. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, Nyttend, you are free of blame for misunderstanding that old thread; that little shit faked my posting [52]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Eritrea- Possible conflict of interest

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

---

• Eritrea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Skypernow1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi,

I have recently discovered activities that could be potential conflict of interest (COI).

There is specifically one user named user:Middayexpress who have been engaged in various reverts of articles. The most obvious one is the country article of Eritrea. This user has too much influence on this page. The user Middayexpress is the user (active user) with most edits on the Eritrea page. [53]

It seems to me that contributions cannot be made on the “Eritrea” article without this users permission, it all depends on wheatear this user likes the contribution or not. I don’t know if this user has personal interest of this particular page. At first tried to edit the article without an account which I discovered to be problematic and almost impossible for a period of time.

There seems to exist a systematic approach from this user to revert contributions, not always talking about them in the articles talk page. The user Middayexpress also seem to neglect many contributors’ sources too primarily use own sources, in some cases also not using sources to his/her claims.

Users with no experience of Wikipedia fall in the trap of this kind of approach, since they try to change the article but being stopped at the door by this user. Experienced users can have a lot of power and use their advantage, by letting new users fall in the trap of the 3rr rule etc.

I have noticed that this user seems to have a relation to an administrator with username: CambridgeBayWeather. Recently this administrator semi-protected the Eritrea page, removing contributions, sources and reverted article to the version of Middayexpress by request from Middayexpress [54].

After a while users continued to contribute to the Eritrea article. But, Once again they where reverted by Middayexpress nor where they motivated by this user. On the 20 November Eritrea article was fully-protected by the same adminstrator "CambridgeBayWeather" and the article was once again reverted to a week old version of Middayexpress by the request of Middayexpress. Leading to all contributions being removed (-2,579)‎ bytes. [55] Here there seems to be exist a lack of neutrality with this both users behavior.

I would want to suggest to unlock the Eritrea article [56], and that more administrator with a neutral approach can be involved in securing to protect the page. I would also suggest that Wikipedia should try to come up with a mechanism to stop users becoming too powerful.

I have notified both users regarding this. I urge admins and experienced users to look at this matter, since this is not an ordinary page but a country page which affects a lot people.

Regards, Skypernow1 (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think Middayexpress has an interest in the article, and as Wikipedia editors we all should. To suppose a COI is odd--I doubt that Eritrea has the editor on payroll. I don't see any reason to suspect collusion between Middayexpress and CambridgeBayWeather; the protection was done justifiably to prevent edit warring, particularly with the insertion of unsourced information. As it happens, just a few hours ago I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hiyob346, on something more than just a hunch.

  Oh, you didn't notify Cambridge correctly: you put something on his user page hours ago, which I removed; I notified them on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You linked to this revert but did you notice the edit summary? I removed a copy/paste that had been taken from here. Today I just reverted back to before all this started and protected. @Middayexpress: did ask me to look at the page but he didn't ask for protection on their version. Thanks @Drmies: for the sockpuppet investigation you beat me to it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Eritrea article is a priority page on WikiProject Eritrea. I'm a participant there [57], and project members are encouraged to build it. CambridgeBayWeather got involved after I asked him to have a look at the Eritrea page following some disruptive activity there by a new user/Hiyob346 [58]. Middayexpress (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Any particular reason for making the same report twice, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Eritrea- Possible conflict of interest. You also forgot to notify either of us about that report. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

As per the above linked sockpuppet report they have Skypernow1 has been blocked by User:Rschen7754. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Someone not using his real name personal attacks

• Someone not using his real name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been personally attacking me. I have asked this user two times to stop using personal attacks against me here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Reich (2nd nomination) the attacks are here: [59], here: [60] and here: [61]. I shouldn't have to ask someone three times to stop doing something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Those aren't civil but they don't rise to the occasion of a full on attack. Example of an attack, "you are so dumb you should be locked in the kid room", "You are the dumbest contributor here" I am not claiming either of those things just examples. I'd say ignore it and move on leave your comments and that deflates the whole situation. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Questioning ones intellect to me is a personal attack and comparing it to those who read manga. Maybe it isn't for you but Wikipedia should not have editors who go around doing this to others when they know it is wrong. At the very least the statements should be retracted after the links I provided as it does not help the deletion discussion but focuses in on me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There is an actual reason we have the competence is required essay. Grow a thicker skin, it will help you in the long run cause these are very minor attacks. It's annoying but it doesn't exactly shout block worthy. That's just my opinion so obviously i can be completely off base Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There are different types of comments, the comments made by Someone not using their real name were meant to get a rise out of someone and into a heated argument, the only way the user found I was interested in manga was to look at my profile status as a way to get to me, I will retract my comments but I hope that Someone not using their real name can do the same. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

These comments certainly look like personal attacks to me. Something doesn't have to be name-calling to be a personal attack, and "maybe I should AGF that you are just extremely incompetent" certainly qualifies, especially when made in direct response to a request not to make personal attacks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

These are clear personal attacks, per what Prototime said. GregJackP Boomer! 15:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• I apologize for perhaps being to too aggressive in tone in that discussion. But enough is enough if BLP is supposed to have any teeth. So my tone aside, I stand by what I said about me seeing only two plausible explanations for this post of Knowledgekid87--presenting various passing mentions in 2013 of the 2006 false confession as rationale for keeping Karr/Reich's separate bio page. An attempt to hoodwink or a (temporary, hopefully) lack of competence with respect to WP:BLP1E. If some of you angel admins can come up with a third plausible explanation, I'd like to hear it. I have to go offline now, but I'll check back tomorrow. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, but you shouldn't base your arguments ad hominem, about what the user is, what he reads, rather than about the content of its comments. I see you can rationally explain your opinion, and there is no reason for labeling user competent, incompetent, manga reader etc, especially calling them names (even by using "<censored>"). You may be frustrated by someone's actions on Wikipedia now and then, but it's not worth it. Just be calm and civil, argue about the content, not the person, and your comments will be appreciated. Alex ^{discussion ★} 07:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The content is a person's post/points in this case. The view presented by some above is that calling someone's arguments nonsense is a ultimately a personal attack. Then so be it. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that Knowledgekid steer clear of any remotely controversial subject as they learn about wikipedia, then I discovered they'd been here since 2008. I suggest that a thick skin is developed real soon now. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Enough. @Someone not using his real name, Hell in a Bucket, and Roxy the dog: you all know what the fourth of the five pillars is. For those who came it late, it's "editors should treat each other with respect and civility". Please don't weasel around with words: saying someone should grow a thicker skin may or may not a "personal attack", but it sure as hell isn't treating them with the respect. My "Civility Police" uniform is still in the box it came in. I've put on a few kilograms since then, so I really don't want to put it on now. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Shirt58 that pillar is pretty well broken often and it never hurts to remind people to that "sticks and stones may break their bones but words will never hurt them" It takes the willy out of any bully if people actually practice it. The guidelines to personal attacks actually agree with that point of view. Sometimes the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all. Wikipedia and its debates can become stressful for some editors, who may occasionally overreact. Additionally, Wikipedia discussions are in a text-only medium that conveys nuances and emotions poorly; this can easily lead to misunderstanding. While personal attacks are not excused because of these factors, editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of others when it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

So let me clarify this. Since you are advising KK87 to not respond, it appears that you agree that the posts (a) were in fact personal attacks, and (b) were in fact "angry and ill-mannered." While that is good advice, it is also clear that whoever has not been civil should be admonished. GregJackP Boomer! 15:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia doesn't automatically entitle one to respect, Shirt58. Not from me anyway. How much respect have admins shown to the bazillion editors they've blocked anyway? Say, how much respect did Bonkers the Clown get on ANI? He was contributing similarly titillating articles (to the one in question here) not so long ago and has a DYK awards list a mile long. Still seems to be indef blocked. How's that for respect? As for Knowledgekid87, he seems to have had the moral fortitude to change his opinion in that discussion [62] [63] so he has my respect for that. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You may have noticed that Bonkers was blocked a few times already, and indefinitely only after significant community discussion, not by one or a few wayward abusive admins. Note also that they were deemed guilty of some really egregious violations in regard to the BLP policy. You're shooting from the hip. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me respond to Hell in a Bucket and Someone not using his real name...

The single most excellent reason to be civil is that quite regularly, when you're not civil to other editors, it blows small arguments up into medium ones, and medium ones up into large ones. If you piss people off, they are less likely to come to consensus with you on something.

It's counterproductive. It increases the odds you end up at AN or ANI, it makes people confront you harder. Those reactions have nothing to do with whether you're right or wrong on point.

If you like being brought up to ANI, then be rude, by all means. But that's not building the encyclopedia. It's exactly the other thing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

All right, point taken. To repeat myself, I apologize for the unparliamentary language (if I may borrow the expression from another thread here). 02:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Red_and_black_partisan

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

Articles

• Green Resistance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2012 Tripoli airport clashes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Post-civil war violence in Libya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2013 Benghazi conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Siege of Bani Walid (2012) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zawiya, Libya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brak, Libya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has been vandalizing Libya-related pages for some time. I have no idea why no one tried to stop him but his edits include distributive vandalism as making up the non-existent organization of Gaddafi insurgents, than adding it without any sources to load of articles fe

[64]
[65] (too many edits to point out)
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]

without any sources at all. His addition of dead people as commanders is more of a hilarity. At that notice I´d like to point out the Green Resistance page where I already raged enough about the "issues" of the page on the talk. The whole page is composed of sources such as YouTube videos, blogs, unreliable sources and twisting of WP:RS for its means. WP:NPOV is thrown out of the window. The editor who set up the page admitted on talk page that he made up the name and he has no sources to prove any such organization exists (with his original plan being just to set up page about remnants of Gaddafi loyalists what is all good and well but it was hijacked by above-mentioned Partisan). As such I don´t see anything salvageable on that page, its just a monument of how far can go undisturbed vandalism of one user go if remains unchecked. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, upon further digging this particular user was involved in several edit-wars in other articles. Naturally, because he was either adding content or changing content without any source. See [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75].

This is This is ludicrous. The idea that adding to a page on world war 2 that Hitler murdered other groups as well as the Jews, Is vandalism, shows not only an ignorance of history but the weakness of your whole approach. How is 1939-1940 added to the same page vandalism? Red and black partisan (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This user was warned time and again on his talk page [76] [77] [78]. This proves that this user was well warned before about his distributive and vandalistic behavior and have chosen to ignore it. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Vandalism is not what I see here, although there are some disruptive editing tendencies. Some edits look OK to me, but others are wholly unreferenced. Also, why are you accusing him of fabricating the existence of the Green Resistance? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If I may ask, which one of those edits I linked here looks ok to you? EllsworthSK (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, part of the edits are OK in some cases. The diffs you provided show him linking to both reliable sources (e.g., BBC, Al-Arabiya) and non-reliable ones. In any case, it's obvious the editor is means well, so vandalism is not his problem. The problem is being able to discriminate between sources. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-usage of WP:RS was only one of my critique. Another being that he twists RS stories to for his own means. As an example I can use Benghazi prison break - BBC article stated that many POWs who served in Gaddafi forces were held there and that they rioted. Source also mentions that prison was attacked during the riot (or to be more precise the warden said that to BBC). Partisan made from it nice article about how some Green Resistance mounted an assault on Benghazi prison, overpowered the guards and made out with prisoners. That is something completely different than what source says. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not add that, if you check you will find it was another editor, Not for the first time, you are accusing me of something I did not do. You made a similar false accusation about the Zintan brigade, which again was not me. I did not add in the source for the green resistance claiming ninety thousand soldiers;again, if you check, you will find it was put in by someone else. However, I have added sources to a journalist claiming the group exists and claiming to report an interview with one of its members as well as sources from Amnesty International and Russia Today news, both alleging that the Libyan Government is committing crimes. Have you considered checking what you present as facts.Red and black partisan (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

So Libyan gov (or rather militias) committing crimes against POWs = existence of 90,000 strong Gaddafi remnant militia (what would make it by far the strongest militia in Libya or in whole Sahel region)? K, bye, thanks. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not add that. Red and black partisan (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Also thanks for demonstration of your sources. First - random YouTube video (once again, not reliable source). Second - AI report which says nothing about any Green Resistance. Third one is private video that I can´t watch. Also for the AI report - AI report claims no where that executions are taking place, but that they may and that they are against it. Read the source. Enemies of the regime is another thing you made out of thin air as report is very specific that government exercise limited authority over detention centers, while other reports are highly critical of militias. This is beautiful example of WP:NPOV violation. And list goes on. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The first source is a journalist. The second is Amnesty International. The third is from RT news. Hardly vandalism which confirms my view that your problem is fear that people will become aware of opposition to the present regime. You quoted the creator of the page as saying that he made up the name Green Resistance, but he said "The name Green Resistance was taken from the few articles I was able to find at the time the article was created. It also seems to be the name that supportive blogs use.--Green Resistance is the name that I saw being used for Gaddafi-inspired anti-government fighters by various journalists and supportive blogs". He also wrote"There are enough reliable (or at least notable) sources on this page to establish that a pro-Gaddafi movement does indeed exist in Libya." I would have been happy to go over all points on the page, in a calm and rational manner, but you have been abusive and threatening from your first contact, and have often attacked me for points I did not put there. Asking me for clarification, and offering information and suggestions, rather than going straight to denigration, would have improved the page. Red and black partisan (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

With the Brak clashes, a government militia was clearly ambushed by Gaddafi loyalists. I gave the source. You should not have removed the information on the ambush. My source. Red and black partisan (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I added a source to the green page from the Voice of Detroit newspaper, which acknowledges the existence of the movement, but also says the rebels may have control of areas of Libya. That is not vandalism. Red and black partisan (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I hate repeating myself. So for the last time - YouTube is NOT reliable source. Blog is NOT reliable source. And private video (which original author, nor the video itself cannot be watched) is useless. Making out things of sources that aren't there is pure WP:OR. I will not discuss it. You want to change wiki rules? Take it to administrators. And good luck with that. And with taht voiceofdetroit.net you must be kidding me. Right? I'm done with this discussion unless you bring some relevant sources. Let admins sort it out. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to withdraw from a debate that you are clearly losing then that is fine by me You do not consider anything a real source unless it confirms your prejudices. I added a source on the Green Resistance page that claimed a pro government militia was ambushed by Gaddafi loyalists in Bani Walid. Red and black partisan (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) - Just a quick glance at the Green Resistance article and I noticed that out of 49 refs, 13 are youtube, another 6 or 7 are blogs, and few others appear questionable. The article definitely needs to be cleaned up and anybody would be within their rights to WP:BOLDly remove those sources and all associated (unreliably supported) content, as per WP:RS and WP:OR. But that said, it certainly is a worthwhile (and notable) subject for an article, and there are plenty of reliable sources to cite content from. If the effort that has gone into arguing had instead been put into improving the article, it would be in much better shape right now. Anyways, since this is a content dispute, have you two tried any other means of dispute resolution? EllsworthSK, have tried bringing this to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Libya, for help? What is it you're hoping an admin will do for you here? - ^theWOLFchild 03:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Poking a COI hive

Editors

• User:MeatloafLovah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Createlex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:John Elisington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Articles

• Thane Koi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ProStudioApp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Joshua Kissi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Okay, so this is a complicated web to untangle but I think it needs some admin attention. The first editor arrived to publish Thane Koi (promptly deleted), an individual with links (in the first page of source search results) to Joshua Kissi and his relative who created the products ProStudioApp (article currently at AFD) and CreateLex. User:Createlex created the articles here for ProStudioApp and Joshua Kissi. User:John Elisington has edited Kissi's article and nothing else. User:MeatloafLovah uploaded images for both articles, promptly added by Createlex to both articles. A basic search for sources (required by the AFD) brings up self-published material linking each to the other.

User:Createlex and User:MeatloafLovah both !voted to keep ProStudioApp at the AFD.

I think a small group of accounts has been established to promote a closely related group of products, friends and family members. I'm not sure if we're dealing with one person with multiple accounts (the editing styles seem similar) or a group of meat-puppets working together. Either way, it's a pretty bad-faith effort and I don't think any of them are here to build an encyclopedia.

Ordinarily I'd take this to WP:SPI but the AFD tag-teaming, image uploads and article creation suggest this needs a more substantive response. Stalwart111 09:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• My two cents is to include User:BrianLovesResearch and User:ThaneKoi to the mix. I figured it was stale but it's clear there is some definte meat/sock puppetry going on. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• Reporting to SPI (first) is always a good idea since it makes cleaning up AfD discussions etc. much easier to clean up. Look at the Eritrea link, above: edit warring, COI claims, forum shopping, need for protection, all easier to deal with after a quick CU, with the kind help of NativeForeigner and others. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• Baby steps: User:Createlex blocked indefinitely for user name violation/spam account (see www.createlex.com). ProStudioApp deleted as irredeemably spammy (G11). Next up: nominate the Kissi article for deletion, start that SPI, and then see how many are left standing. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• I ran a quick check on this as the evidence is rather clear. I'm inclined to say that this is meat. It's  Possible that Createlex and Meatloaf an the same person, as they are in the same region, and there is some similarity. That being said it's clear Elsington is unrelated technically, so that would put him in the Meat or heavy COI camp. It's also not impossible for Create and Meatloaf to be meat and not socks but data is rather ambiguous about it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Courier-Mail

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

---

Any admins awake? Reverting the continuous vandalism today at The Courier-Mail is getting pretty tedious and tiresome - no response at WP:RFPP, hence the need to ask here. For those who don't know, it's outright vandalism being done as a joke, to do with a cricket match. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I've only had one cup of coffee, and one cup of tea this morning. WilyD 10:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm grateful. I can do something better with my life now. Still, it's one way of upping my edit count. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

For that God invented mass rollback. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Think of the people who want to become sysops! A bit of vandalism reversion can't hurt an RfA! 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 18:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No, but wanting to become a sysop can. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on Allegro Development Corporation page

There is repeated Vandalism on Allegro Development Corporation. It started with user Iloveyoupromita blanking the whole page. The user is still trying to change it. Could someone watch it and stop the user from vandalizing the page? --Splin--ter21 (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There hasn't been any vandalism in the last couple of days. Doesn't seem like a pressing issue. If you want request page protection, you can do that here, but I doubt they would bother. You are within your rights to revert Iloveyoupromita's blanking, but the first thing you should do is ask them why they are doing it. They are, in fact, the page's creator. I don't think administrator intervention is necessary yet. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)

• What a puff piece that is/was. Editorial intervention was required. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting revocation of talk page access for User talk:Qlxconsultingservices and hard block

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

---

User talk:Qlxconsultingservices was soft blocked for promo username even though they were promo editing. Now, they are using their talk page for promotion. Also requesting block of User talk:Qualexconsultings which was created by the blocked user. User:Qualexconsultingservices was created after but was blocked for promo editing. Thanks. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Given the unequivocal abuse of the talk page, I've blanked it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hardblocked both accounts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Supercarslover

For Supercarslover (talk · contribs) all edits are either falsification of factual info - episode titles mostly, or additions of content sentences Written In Header Case as was the last edit made. Lots of warnings and instruction about the manual of style. Since writing this way is harder than writing normally, this appears deliberately disruptive - the editor is aware this is incorrect and persists. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. If it continues an indefinite block is probably next. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Legal proceedings

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

---

Coren search bot detects multiple copyright violations and reports them at user talk pages. However, you have a tendency to revdel them, and all of the users have thier IPs cloaked (as they have a username). I would request that you unmask them and reveal the IPs of copyvio editors, to aid in legal proceedings.Prefectlawyer580 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes up. IP addresses don't identify people anyway. In any case, this is the wrong place to pursue this issue. Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, nope. Canterbury Tail talk 17:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What "legal proceedings" would these be? WP:NLT. GiantSnowman 17:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I've removed two legal threats by this editor and warned him. freshacconci talk to me 17:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, suing an Ip is better than suing a random username. Plus, ISPs are required by law to uncloak the user in question; as long as you have a court order.Prefectlawyer580 (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Come back with a Norwich Pharmacal Order then. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 17:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, he'd need something from US court, but even that seems frivolous. He could file DMCA requests... on content that will have already been removed, and therefore moot to begin with. Anyway, this digital ambulance chaser has been blocked, and rightly so. Resolute 17:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup, just an ambulance chaser. Seemed to be looking at who Coren had tagged and warning them. Not representing someone in particular (and I wouldn't hire a lawyer who's spelling and grammar was so bad anyway.) Canterbury Tail talk 17:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock request and removed talk page access, both due to even more legal threats. GiantSnowman 17:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threats

An anon user made a legal threat here claiming my copmments were libellous, then User:James Cantor restored those threats, ie James Cantor has by doing this also made the threats. I dont consider it fair that I should have to put up with legal threats for editing wikipedia♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NLT, alleging libel does not count as a legal threat. Formerip (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a personal attack but not a legal threat. Refactoring others' talk page comments - they should be removed if they are listed on WP:TPO - is not allowed. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 21:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it is a PA either. It is important that people are the subject of articles and feel they have been defamed are able to say so, or else how can it be dealt with? Formerip (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• While he may have gone about it the wrong way in this case, we really should pay close attention when the subjects of articles feel that they're being libeled in our articles. I suggest posting on WP:BLPN. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

A slower and less emotional reading of my edit will reveal that I did not, in fact, include that passage in what I restored. My diff comment was "Restoring O'Carroll post. Nothing in it is reasonably interpreted as a legal threat (but removed the adjective 'libellous.'". It is not clear to me that zero-tolerance for legal threats is a ban on the word "libellous." In the context of that whole post, the author was not at all (IMO) making a legal threat. FWIW, I should note also that the mainpage in question has already been nominated for deletion by the same editor (here).— James Cantor (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The exact quote from WP:NLT: "A discussion of whether material is libelous absent indication of intent to sue is not a legal threat." No indication of an intent to sue was made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe give a warning for the attacks and for refactoring the comment. No blocking should be necessary, it isn't a legal threat. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 21:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Where is the personal attack and the refactor? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The alleged 'legal threat' was actually a personal attack, and the refactor was James Cantor reposting it without the word "libellous". 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 21:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No, as WP:NPA suggests, the IP was "[c]ommenting on content, not on the contributor." And James' action was undertaken in good faith. I doubt anyone is going to "warn" him for that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Two quotes:

"the way Squeakbox did it was patently designed to give headline prominence to the negative aspect of my record" "First of all, I would like to thank those who have opposed the changes proposed by Squeakbox, which seem entirely contrary to the spirit of open access to knowledge in which Wikipedia was founded. Squeakbox seems hellbent on shutting information out. Far from striving for a neutral point of view, what he plainly wants is to obliterate reference to a significant perspective on sexuality (significant as judged by senior academic and other figures mentioned and quoted in the article), or failing that to do everything in his power to put me in a bad light. This is not constructive editing, it is intellectual vandalism."

Aren't those personal attacks? 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 21:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not diplomatic or perhaps polite but according to WP:WIAPA I don't think so. The IP believes (rightly or wrongly) that Squeakbox is censoring information. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP should be blocked per WP:CHILDPROTECT. Its actions appear to violate the policy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

And per that policy "Reports of editors engaging in such conduct should be made to the Arbitration Committee for further action, and should not be the subject of community discussion". I can e-mail them about this if you want, but I haven't gotten a chance to read through all the IP's comments yet. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

IP was blocked by another admin just before I posted this. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You are perfectly correct about contacting ArbCom, and I will do that should a similar situation arise in future. I am not sorry if posting here led to the IP being blocked, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - This is an interesting incident. I'm wondering, Mark, as the admin here, have you made any decisions regarding some of the issues?

1. A (supposed) subject of a BLP states on the talk page that he feels a comment was "untrue and libelous". Was this legal threat?
2. Did User:James Cantor have the right to alter this user's comments to remove the word "libelous"?
3. When User:James Cantor restored the comments, minus that word, did he in fact make a legal threat against User:Squeakbox? (as this user claimed so boldly claimed with their ANI notice on: User talk:James Cantor - "You have made a legal threat against me" )

These are the question we need answers to, right? (btw - my answers are 'no' to all three) - ^theWOLFchild 04:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the answer to the first one was "no", since there was no expressed intent to bring legal action. The answer to number three seems to be "no" as well, since again I haven't seen Dr. Cantor express any intent to bring legal action. The answer to number two is a little more complicated. I understand why he did so in this case and it seems to have been done in good faith, but generally editing another's comment is prohibited. Removing libel is explicitly listed at WP:TPO as an acceptable reason to refactor comments, but removing legal threats or accusations of libel isn't mentioned there. It might be a good idea to have a policy discussion about this on that link's talk page so we're clear in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP and edit-warring issue at Disappearance of Natalee Holloway

I would like some outside eyes on Disappearance of Natalee Holloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article contains an external link to http://scrux.com, which appears to be a personal website containing, among other things, a collection of "unsubstantiated information" about the article subject, a teenager who disappeared and is presumed deceased and possibly murdered. I believe that the inclusion of this link unequivocally violates WP:BLP; living people affected by the article include the parents and family of the article subject, as well as other living individuals named in this collection of "unsubstantiated information".

The link has been removed three times today by three separate editors (including myself), but each time has been restored by Wehwalt (talk · contribs) ([79], [80], [81]). I'm deeply concerned by the spectacle of Wehwalt—an admin and experienced editor—edit-warring up to 3RR in order to restore material which violates WP:BLP. Nor is there any support on the talkpage for Wehwalt's 3 reverts; see this thread). I'm not willing to edit-war, but would like some outside input as I'm very concerned about this material and the fact that it's being edit-warred back into the article by someone who should, in my view, know better. MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have simply urged that the article remain status quo pending further discussion of the point, which has now been brought up at its fourth venue by MastCell and his allies (diffs to follow). I have no intention of reverting further and I urge people to allow the discussion on the talk page. It's only been open a few hours and many of the regular editors have not yet had a chance of weighing in.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Your handling of this issue is completely at odds with the proper approach to a suspected WP:BLP violation. Removing BLP violations trumps "status quo"—that's policy 101. You're also edit-warring against at least 3 other editors to keep the offending material in the article, which would inappropriate even without the BLP issue. MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you are trying to generate as much heat and noise as possible, and provoke some unfortunate action. I already said I won't revert it. The discussion resumes on the talk page, where you are welcome to join in.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the drama boards can be addicting, but not EVERYTHING needs to be brought here. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. However, an admin edit-warring to restore a BLP violation seems to call for immediate attention. MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read everything on the website in question, but I'm a bit skeptical seeing as how some previous claims of "BLP violations" on this article have been shown to be frivolous... Mark Arsten (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the issue is here. Wehwalt restored the link a few times and then stopped doing so to avoid violating the edit warring policy. He has promised to stop reverting, and as long as he keeps his word I don't see any need for action. Coming here to complain Continuing to complain after he stops edit warring seems a bit pointless to me. Note that I've commented on the talk page a couple times, so I'm not really uninvolved here. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Suppose we leave it at this. I'm not going to revert, and if there's a change to be made as a result of the talk page discussion, I'll let someone else handle it. I'll also be more careful with reverts in future. If there is something further to discuss, I assume someone will let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

@Mark Arsten:: "coming here to complain after he stops edit warring"... That's not really fair, Mark. Unless MC is a mindreader, it's not really possible to know ahead of time that Wehwalt was eventually going to say he wouldn't revert again. When this report was filed, Wehwalt had reverted 3 times and his version was current. And I assume "and then stopped doing so to avoid violating the edit warring policy" was a simple mistake, and you didn't mean to imply that it takes 4 reverts to edit war; Wehwalt has already edit warred. It appears the reverting is over, the link is gone pending discussion on the talk page, and Wehwalt has promised to be more careful with reverts, so I guess this can be closed. But the "this isn't a big deal" attitude is disappointing. An admin edit warring to keep an EL that others believe to be a BLP violation until after discussion is a pretty poor example to be setting for others, and gives ammunition to those who say admins get away with things non-admins don't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If you must know, I erred and thought I was only on 2RR, which I keep as a personal limit. So get down off your high horse and your arbcom candidacy by looking tough against a content contributor. I screwed up. It does happen. MastCell's haste to run here (discussing it on my talk page might have been nice) says how eager he was to take advantage of it. I've said I won't do it again and so if there's anyone else who wants to get on a soap box and puff his candidacy, could they do it someplace else? If anyone wants me, I'll be improving an article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL.--Floquenbeam (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Admins, including MastCell, should try to resolve disputes with other users on their talk page before running to dramaboards. Indeed, as the notice on the top of this page instructs "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page". I deal with edit warring on an almost daily basis, and I always try to initiate a discussion with users about edit warring before taking them to a noticeboard to seek sanctions. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried to resolve this issue on the article talkpage before coming here, but Wehwalt persisted in edit-warring despite the lack of support for his viewpoint there. BLP violations need to be dealt with expeditiously. We don't sit on them and wait for Wehwalt to decide he's done reverting. Let's talk perspective for a moment. You have an admin racking up 3RR against 3 different editors to restore a potential BLP violation, in contravention of one of our most basic policies, and your biggest gripe about the situation is that I reported it to WP:AN/I? MastCell ^Talk 23:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I make no apologies for griping about the creation of unnecessary drama, which saps the time of our most valuable users. As someone who patrols a lot of admin boards, I've felt for some time that running to dramaboards about minor situations that could have been handled with talk page notes is a problem. I tend to agree that the link in question isn't worth keeping, but the rhetoric about urgent BLP violations seems a bit misplaced. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• I tend to side with MastCell on the content issue, and I think Wehwalt was mistaken to revert this material repeatedly when the red flag of BLP had been raised. Now that the edit war is over, what admin action is seriously being sought? --John (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • None at this point, given Wehwalt's agreement to cease reverting this material and let someone else handle whatever decision arises from talkpage discussion. MastCell ^Talk 00:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark Arsten's behaviour

This was closed by Bushranger, and I've reopened to make this comment. (I've been asleep.) Feel free to close if no one chooses to respond to me in a few hours, or move this to AN if you feel more comfortable there.

I don't know Mark - or Wehwalt for that matter - from Adam. I'm pretty sure we've never interacted, and if we have I've forgotten. I'm in two discussions with Wehwalt and User:Kww on Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. During the course of one of these I made a derisory comment on another user's talk page about ownership behaviour of Wehwalt, Kww and another (retired apparently) editor.

On the article talk page, I warned Wehwalt that if I uncover more recent evidence of misrepresenting consensus in the talk page archives I would be recommending sanctions. Mark turned up and left this comment:

You're free to propose sanctions if you like, but beware of the WP:BOOMERANG effect, given your self-declaration of bad faith.

Which struck me as odd. I had evinced nothing remotely like bad faith, contempt maybe - but that's my human right. It became clear from the ensuing discussion on his talk page that he hadn't a clue what was going on in that discussion and had just turned up to throw in uninformed knee-jerk support and gratuitous intimidation for a couple of mates.

Now I wake up to this shameful performance.

Perhaps MastCell should have taken this to AN: what was needed here was just the eyes of Wehwalt's peers on his inappropriate behaviour, and a little counselling. Instead, we get more knee-jerk insults and uninformed defensiveness from Mark.

What's going on here? Is there a history of mindless knee-jerk partisanship between these editors? Your advice would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe we discussed this a bit on my talk page, here. I believed you were acting in bad faith because you made a comment about intending to mock the Holloway editors shortly before you got involved with the article. That, to me, seemed like a declaration of bad faith. As I said then "few good-faith editors begin their involvement with a dispute by announcing their intent to mock the other participants". At the specific time I made that remark, you had suggested that you might seek sanctions against Wehwalt for misrepresenting the contents of the talk page archive, but you also admitted that you had not read the entire archive. That struck me as an assumption of "bad faith", as well. I may have been mistaken about you, and I haven't pursued the matter further.

I don't believe I insulted MastCell above, I have a lot of respect for him so I will apologize if he feels insulted. I was slightly concerned with some of his conduct though. My concern was that an issue was being taken to ANI that could probably be settled by a talk page discussion. That has been a bit of a pet peeve of mine for a while, not about MastCell specifically, but I think a lot of discussions that are opened on this page (the present one included) really don't need to be handled at ANI. I often try to encourage people not to come to the drama boards before talking the matter over with a talk page, or just trying to walk away and get some perspective.

I'm not sure what kind of admin action you're seeking here, but if anyone has a problem with my behavior here, rest assured I'm willing to take their concerns onboard. Note that I consider myself WP:INVOLVED with the Holloway article (as I mentioned above), and don't plan on ever taking admin action on this subject. My involvement with the article before this thread has been limited to a couple comments on the now-closed FAR and my suggestion that you not rush to seek sanctions. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I left that comment on Sandy's talk page at 18:53 12 November. I had been engaged on the Holloway talk page since 07:01 12 November. So, no, I did not make "a comment about intending to mock the Holloway editors shortly before (I) got involved with the article." My derision sprung from 12 hours of flipping through that article's talk page archives. You didn't even bother to look at when I got involved with the article. You just jumped in to intimidate me and defend your mates.

I'm not seeking any admin action, and would have no problem if you want to move this to AN (except that might break a few wikilinks). I'm here to ask whether there is a history of mindless knee-jerk partisanship between you and Wehwalt (and maybe Kww). If others tell me there is, I'll take a look at your history. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you felt that my comment was an attempt to intimidate you, that was not at all what I had in mind. I was simply suggesting that it was a bad idea to rush to seek sanctions against a well respected user, and that given the tenor of your comments such an action might be perceived poorly. I suppose my comment was technically inaccurate, in that you announced your intent to mock the other editors on the page shortly after you got involved, not shortly before. But I stand by my perception that bringing up the idea of sanctioning Wehwalt for misrepresenting archives that you admitted you had not read appears to suggest bad faith.

Furthermore, describing me as "mindless" is a personal attack, and I suggest you withdraw it. I also dispute that I'm engaged in partisanship, since I did not oppose your plan to move the article nor MastCell's desire to remove links to one site. My concern is that you both seem too eager to seek sanctions against those who disagree with you; seeking sanctions should not be one of the first steps in a content dispute.

Well, since you're not seeking any admin action, I suggest this be closed once again. You are free to investigate my history as much as you like though. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This was closed by User:Hahc21 but there are a couple of inaccuracies in Mark's last comment.

• You imply that I would "rush to seek sanctions against a well respected user." That's interesting. Wehwalt referred to (him?)self as a well-regarded user a couple of days ago on that talk page, in the context of "how dare you?" Now you're doing the same. What is that about? Is there some sort of protected class of "well-respected user" here that I haven't been told about? Who says he's well-respected? Judging from what I've seen in the Holloway archives, anyone of that view is sadly mis-informed.

But, regarding my "rushing to seek sanctions": How do you get to that from "If the above pattern of misrepresenting consensus [that I found in the first half of the archives] continues to the present day (and a glance at the contents of the current talk page is not promising) I'll be proposing appropriate sanctions."[82]? You are misrepresenting me.

• Regarding "...you announced your intent to mock the other editors on the page shortly after you got involved, not shortly before": I think I effectively did mock them on that user talk page. I had/have no intention to mock anyone on an article talk page, you're misrepresenting me. And your use of "shortly" here to describe 12 hours of engagement is misleading, and clearly intended to minimise your carelessness. Can't you just say, "I was wrong, sorry?" I guess not.

• Regarding "I stand by my perception that bringing up the idea of sanctioning Wehwalt for misrepresenting archives that you admitted you had not read appears to suggest bad faith": I'll repeat my statement you're referring to, and leave it to others to judge whether you're misrepresenting me: "If the above pattern of misrepresenting consensus [that I found in the first half of the archives] continues to the present day (and a glance at the contents of the current talk page is not promising) I'll be proposing appropriate sanctions."

• Regarding "Furthermore, describing me as "mindless" is a personal attack, and I suggest you withdraw it:" "Mindless" always refers to an action in my experience and it means "without thought or concern" which accurately describes your behaviour there. If you still believe I have described you as mindless, we're in the right forum for you to seek support for that view.

• Regarding "My concern is that you both seem too eager to seek sanctions against those who disagree with you": How many times have I sought sanctions against someone, Mark? Mmm? Just a rough estimate would be good.

• Regarding "seeking sanctions should not be one of the first steps in a content dispute": That implies I'm threatening sanctions in order to get my way in a content dispute. I'm on the record there as not really giving a toss which title is used, since both alternatives will find the article. While there was a content dispute, the sanctions I telegraphed were with regard to deeply troubling behaviour over seven years. Consensus is a fundamental principle here and when two editors repeatedly misrepresent consensus to new arrivals at an article, vaguely waving towards "the archives", and this is demonstrably a falsehood, something needs to be done quite independent of any content dispute. I was giving both Wehwalt and Kww plenty of time to address my concern (and, as it happens, the concern of multitudes of other editors) and flagging escalation was just a part of that.

If this is how you habitually treat people who criticise you, can I suggest rethinking that behaviour pattern?

Incidentally, I've claimed that an arbitrator candidate and an admin have been lying to editors on that talk page about consensus in order to have their way with the title. Anybody want to challenge that? Don't I deserve to be blocked or banned for these egregious personal attacks? Is anybody on this board even remotely concerned? Does it concern you, Mark? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit unclear as to why you re-opened this thread for the second time, since previously you said that you had no objections to this being closed after a few hours if no one responded to you, which seems to be the case here. I guess I have nothing else to say other than I stand by my statements above, and I find your latest wall of text unworthy of a response. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Didn't I make that abundantly clear? You misrepresented me, so it was necessary for me to put the record straight.

And User:Wehwalt and User:Kww have been lying to editors on Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway for seven years in order keep their preferred title, and, you know, I thought you administrators might want to say something about that situation. Or is there somewhere else we should be discussing a couple of admins that lie their faces off to win a content dispute? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Purpose of ANI

There was a non-trivial problem with Mark Arsten being the primary admin to weigh in on the thread above considering his prior involvement, not only with the article and the Featured article review of the article, but also with interpersonal matters. That he tried to shout down MastCell for bringing a legitimate issue here was revealing. And there is a problem with admins continually closing a thread (which as Floquenbeam correctly points out, lends credence to the notion of a double standard for admins) before discussion closes. There is more to Arsten's behavior that could be said, but perhaps it won't need to be said if other admins begin to deal with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's entirely appropriate for ANI threads to be closed if no admin action is being sought. The purpose of ANI is to seek admin intervention--it's not a general forum for people to voice their dislike of admins who have disagreed with them (or blocked them in the past). I don't think I did anything wrong in my comments in the above section, since I explicitly noted that I wasn't here as an uninvolved admin. Per longstanding practice, involved parties are allowed to comment on matters as long as they don't try to pass themselves off as uninvolved. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It's curious that you mention "or blocked them in the past", considering your involved and spurious block of me, (which pretty well contradicts the picture you paint of yourself above), although I had not even weighed in on the thread that you took upon yourself to deal with in spite of your prior involvement, and your involvement in the issues at Natalee Holloway subsequent to your block of me. Saying in small print that you have "commented on the talk page a couple times' is such an inaccurate description of your involvement that it makes you appear either obtuse, or trying to deliberately mislead and influence the discussion. Is there someone else in this discussion you have also blocked while involved? Arsten, when you weigh in on anything related to Natalee Holloway or Wehwalt or me, you are involved, and you are opining as a regular editor. This little group of admins defending other admins to influence a content dispute needs to end. For similar reasons, I'll thank Hahc to stop closing threads. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of closing threads, what is the point of this thread? Just to complain that disagreed with you and your friends about this article? That's all I've done, and that's not against any rule that I know of. I clearly indicated that I was an involved admin in my comment, and in my capacity as a regular editor suggested that the instructions at the top of the page be followed. But anyway, I have as much right to participate in this discussion as you do, and your assertion that I misrepresented my involvement with the article is not true. I've made one comment on the article's talk page and two on the FAR. So while I was technically inaccurate to say I made a couple edits when I actually made three, I think you're definitely overreacting. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Your posts to the FAR seem to have had no basis in having actually engaged the article or its history, since anyone reading the version you approved should have been able to see the clear problems. On the other hand, Anthonyhcole did engage the article archives, with a thorough review; the appearance is that you showed up for personal reasons, while Anthonyhcole showed up to, you know, build the encyclopedia. As you seem to have done here at ANI, and at other times on this issue, with no knowledge of the history.[83] It looks like Anthonyhcole's reasons for re-opening the thread were to address false statements you made in it.

As for my reasons for posting here? When I need to pursue a potential SPI, only three sections below this one, I should not have to worry that you will again be unable to refrain from making a spurious block on the cooked-up notion that I accused someone without reason of socking. Your behavior on this page prevents ANI from functioning for its intended purpose, and that is a valid thing to pursue here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You appraisal of my edits on the subject are mistaken, I believe, but ultimately that's for the FAR delegate to decide. And as I've said in the past, I have no plans to block you ever again. Besides, as an SPI clerk I deal with sockpuppetry ever day, so I think my record shows that I support aggressive action against socking. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Deflection. The FAR is not my concern, nor is the condition that article is in. It's been POV for seven years, it probably will be for seven more. Your tactics on this page, and elsewhere, are what the reopened discussion is about. You had no reason to shout down MastCell, you made false charges against Anthonyhcole, you had your finger on the trigger to block me for an interpretation only you could make of a post here to ANI, and the three-admins-on-one against good faith user (Overagainst) for trying to neutralize POV at Holloway obviously intimidated him.[84] What brought you to Holloway ?

Take home message: stop being the neighborhood bully at ANI. Good day, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You concerns about my behavior have been noted, and I will give them the consideration they're due. BTW, I was brought to the Holloway article when I saw a FAR had been filed, since I glance at WP:FAR every now and then. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Would it make everyone feel better if we desecrated Mark's userpage and burned him in effigy...ok then, either open a RFC/U or get over it. I agree with Mark if no admin action is requested it's time to shut down shop. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Admin action was being sought, in the appropriate forum, for an ongoing incident. The admin who most weighed in to influence the discussion was an involved one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting admin action of some sort was required in the first place, or that involved admins should not be allowed to comment as editors? What admin intervention do you seek now, over that first section? Do you believe Mark violated policy or damaged the encyclopedia or community?

Even assuming something went wrong here, which is not evident, would ANI be appropriate or necessary, or is a user conduct RFC the right venue? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you read? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. In reading all the above, I still do not see you asserting a specific claim of either administrator policy violation or user policy violation that justify administrator intervention. There is no evidence admin intervention was required to resolve the first incident; the report was fine, but sanity prevailed on its own. If you believe a specific intervention was required that Mark discouraged somehow, please explain. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, you are tedious. Did you read the post by Floquenbeam at 22:46, 22 November 2013? There was a need for admin intervention, and an involved admin shouted it down and ridiculed it. Then that admin made false statements to Anthonyhcole. All combined, we have three admins working to create an intimidating environment on the article, at the FAR, and at ANI. Since you want policy:

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. ... sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator ...

Do you think interrupting the purpose of this board is compatible with admin status? And, since you insist on specific admin issues, if I must ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Per Georgewilliamherbert request

• Why was this editnotice at the top of the Holloway article for years, placed by there by the admin most involved with the article, with an explicit warning about "admins"? I am aware of no other FA that has such an editnotice, unless there are sanctions in place. There may be some, but I am not aware of them, and why do we have an involved admin placing a template like that on an article?

• Uncontroversial as it may be, why did Wehwalt protect here? Is that not something another admin could have done?

All combined, we have a climate of intimidation being created around this article,[85] with three admins backing each other up, and the clear possibility of someone who has made bad blocks before doing it again. And when Arsten throws his weight around in here, influencing debate about a legitimate complaint, admins like you shouldn't be trying to push it off the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only person "creating an atmosphere of intimidation" around here, Sandy, is you. You just dive into something that you claim to have been complaining about for years, viciously attack everyone who disagrees with you, and accuse everyone else but yourself of various crimes against wiki. I cannot fathom what your problem is here, and I suggest you take a few deep breaths before you hyperventilate further. Montanabw^(talk) 03:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for presenting me with the opportunity to complete the loop. For seven years, the article had three defenders: Wehwalt, KWW, and AuburnPilot. As shown by Anthonyhcole's documentation, no matter how much consensus was against them, the three of them prevented any change in the article. But, AuburnPilot left Wikipedia, and two more editors showed up expressing the same issues with the article that have been recurring for five years. Suddenly, a horse editor, Montanabw, who has never gone near Holloway, shows up to defend the status quo in the Holloway article. The only connection I know of between horses and Holloway is Wehwalt calling her a dead filly. Considering your other alliances with Wehwalt, what sparked your sudden interest? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have now read a portion of the talk page for the first time in five years, and find that Anthonyhcole reviewed talk archives and discovered about a 20:1 consensus for the title move that Wehwalt, KWW and AuburnPilot prevented for five years, always claiming "no consensus in archives", when according to Anthonyhcole, there was no one in archives who agreed with them.

I also found that there were only two other dissenters after Anthonyhcole presented this data: Montanabw and User:Gerda Arendt (two of the few remaining members of the QAI of the "FAC shenanigans".[86]

What was in the Natalee Holloway article before was not a "bio"; there was no Holloway bio. Moving the article to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway allows for a real bio of Natalee Holloway to be finally be created at Natalee Holloway. Which is fully protected by ... Wehwalt.

Georgewilliamherbert asks what admin issues need to be addressed. Admin issue: Unprotect Natalee Holloway, please. I know there have been two instances now in as many weeks of Wehwalt and KWW editwarring to maintain their preferences, but there is indisputable consensus for the move, and no reason for the protection, other than to prevent the writing of a real bio for Natalee Holloway.

Perhaps it's time to send this WP:QAI to deletion; a good case can be made for disruption, if we look at the FAC "shenanigans", the same at WP:TFAR, the Infobox matter, and now this. This WP:QAI group doesn't actually do anything, and seems to exist mostly to back each other in content disputes. Like Infoboxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Kww and Wehwalt

I've mentioned this above but *crickets*. How about User:Wehwalt and User:Kww repeatedly misrepresented the consensus on Natalee Holloway to new editors at that article's talk page in order to keep their preferred title. They are liars. Their repeated lying on that page undermines the foundational principle of this site - consensus. They cannot be taken at their word. They cannot be trusted. Should they be allowed to edit Wikipedia articles? I don't think so. What do you think? Anybody? (Permalink) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

User:John

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

---

Appears to quite dislike the Daily Mail but, unfortunately appears unable to engage in civil discourse thereon.

[87] I accept your apology for talking shit and then being unable to justify it when challenged

Appears to me to be less then civil.

His follow-up was [88] And calling your bullshit out for the bullshit it is, is not a personal attack. If we're recommending each other things to read, for you I think it would be WP:COMPETENCE. And now you may happily have the last word; I am completely indifferent to your outpourings. Following that, does anyone with a clue have an opinion on this? with the "edit summary" being bullshit upon bullshit

Cheers -- he is being notified at [89]. Collect (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that whether the comments were civil or not would depend on whether the other editor's comment were or were not "bullshit". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for using unparliamentary language there. But, as I have indicated, the real problem lies in Collect maintaining for 2 months that a source justifies a claim, ("statistically the [Daily Mail] has about the same number of lawsuits as the Guardian") which it manifestly does not. Whether we call this mistaken, bullshit or a competency issue, Collect needs to address the false statement he has been called out on, rather than complaining about the language with which it has been rebutted. --John (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Community ban proposal of Jude Enemy

For nearly two years, User:Jude Enemy has been causing significant disruption through the creation of articles about non-notable musicians and heavy sockpuppetry. The latest sock is User:Dkdkdkmsmsmsmsmsm, which was blocked today per WP:DUCK. As their actions show, this user is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. For this, I'm proposing a community ban for this user, which I'm surprised hasn't already happened. If you haven't already done so, you should give Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jude Enemy a read to get the idea of how bad the sockpuppetry is. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• This is a matter for AN, if it's a matter for anything at all. It's not like this character is making the kinds of edits that could be disputed in terms of usefulness, so they're always going to be reverted/blanked. I saw a link the other day pointing to maybe a personal essay on what the point is of ban discussions; I wish I could remember. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Your analysis is spot on, but what would be gained by banning him? Will it keep his socks in the drawer? I honestly don't see the point of even having a ban discussion if the result will be exactly the same as the status quo. I propose we follow WP:DENY and WP:EVADE, and call it day. - MrX 01:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! I love hearing that. Seriously, a ban discussion is useful to formalize things like "revert on sight", which is great for the mass rollbackers. Kerzap! But this cat is persona non grata already, and it's not hard to pick out their stuff. MrX, if you acquire magic admin glasses you can see what rape is being committed on the English language by this fan, but in the meantime I am sure you also will recognize a bad article with faked references and a phony GA symbol as a fraud. So, Lugia, MrX's advice is worth following. Next time you see that crap, just tag it: ordinary reasons are good enough. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• And to prove the point that we don't need to go through all of this, look at WP:CSD#G5: "blocked or banned". The fact that this user was originally blocked for their Chaos and other crap, means that their Chaos and other crap is a continuation of that blockable behavior. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support though this is really moot, accounts can be reported to the stewards and globally locked. --Rschen7754 02:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- albeit Rschen7754 is pretty much spot on. He's practically de facto banned at this point, but per Drmies, we should just formalize a "ban on sight" type of routine. And yes, the SPI hurt my eyes to read. Sportsguy17 (R.I.P Jackson Peebles) 03:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon

See my talk page: [90]

137.222.228.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) posts a lame remark to my talk. I happen to remember seeing a post just like that at User talk:Jmh649.[91] I had just cleaned up some of User:MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon's work at social anxiety disorder and Harold Smith (politician). So, when I checked the work of both accounts, I found a history of reverts at various articles, sometimes MyNameIsGeorge, sometimes the IP. For example, Inferiority complex and FE Smith. Don't ask me what I want done-- I don't know what is supposed to be done in these cases, but if they are operated by the same person, they have a history of logging out to edit war. The Old Girl 01:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This IP address belongs to someone/someplace at the University of Bristol, so it is probably not one person who is responsible for all of it. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

And the same IP would happen to intersect with MyNameIsGeorge on a psych and a nobility article, and use the same kind of subject heading on user talk pages? And they happen to edit the Earl at the same time? I dunno. I know we don't block for old edit warring anyway, so not sure what happens in these cases, but strange. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia seems to be suffering from some paranoia. As you say, Jprg1966, that IP address is recorded from Bristol University which plays host to 20,000 users judging by its enrollment numbers alone. The idea that this is automatically linked to me is absurd, and the fact that the only educational institution my profile has made any changes to is Oriel College, Oxford would persuade any rational person that I may attend there, instead. The ability to make enemies SandyGeorgia demonstrates across this website by adopting a supercilious busy-body approach to editing that removes good, supported information to nurse her need to feel significant on this forum if nowhere else is bound to attract many such comments from many different sources. There is no reason to believe any of these, however, are of my authorship, and I would be grateful if such accusations were postponed for any such time in the future where there may be the slightest evidence to support them. MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

George, we were not born yesterday. That IP is clearly you, and if you continue to pretend to be two different people, you will be blocked. I don't even care if you admit it, your two identities simply need to stop editing the same articles. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not pretending to be two different people, and for someone making a life out of making sure online encyclopaedia articles have sufficient evidence to support their claims you are remarkably comfortable with bandying about totally baseless accusations on the forum. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support anything that you are saying. Speak on behalf of fellow editors as you might, Jprg1996 rightly calls you out on this. A more believable course of events is that if you continue to post these sorts of accusations and messages on my talk page and elsewhere you will be blocked for harassment. MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

There is circumstantial evidence—namely, considerable overlap in pages edited. Would you agree with that? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't wasted time verifying SandyGeorgia's claims, (have you?) but even if it were true that the same IP address seems to edit the pages she has cited as my profile, that is only 'evidence' of the fact that someone else in the world edits the same pages as me. It isn't evidence that that person is me. Have you considered that the person using that IP address may have taken an interest in my profile and follows my edits? Have you considered that it is coincidence? Perhaps, even, that SandyGeorgia is responsible for these edits herself in an effort to conveniently remove a fellow editor who is taking a stand against her bullying style? SandyGeorgia has cited us a handful of pages on which an IP address makes the same edits as me. How many other overlaps such as that will there be on Wikipedia? With all due respect to her, SandyGeorgia has at best an irritating and at worst belligerent approach that will provoke no doubt a number of responses from many Wikipedia contributors. The fact that my profile and another IP address have written on her talk page and a handful of the 4.3 million articles on Wikipedia is not persuasive evidence that I am using both that IP address and my account but there is rather a lot of reason to assume that I am not. She even resorts to arguing that both users have the same 'type of subject heading', for goodness sake. Punishing someone based on such tenuous evidence of wrongdoing is more fitting in a Kafka novel or Stalinist Russia than the reasonable and intellectually rigorous community that Wikipedia describes itself as.

I do not want to spend the rest of my life debating this so I would be grateful if you could now draw your own final conclusion as an administrator. Thanks. MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

We have a good 5 reverts between the two of them here [92] I guess the question is do we ban them as sockpuppets? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed the question. You catch on fast. The question now is whether there is any evidence to support the idea that that user is a duplicate of mine. I have made the case several times now for how there isn't, and have received pathetic response. Unless you plan to stage one of Wikipedia's very own Stalinist show trials, a good founding ethic is that someone is innocent of suspected crimes until proven guilty. If that's good enough for the justice systems of the West, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Do you have persuasive evidence?— Preceding unsigned comment added by MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon (talk • contribs)

Support block Based on 1) This highly suspect editing history 2) edit warring 3) incivility 4) using sock puppets 5) responding to sock puppet accusations with far-fetched theories and drama mongering. Good grief. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 10:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

None of that is evidence. Little of it is even true. The 'highly suspect editing history' I have tackled previously without adequate response from you. 'Edit warring' is therefore an inadequately supported accusation. I have not been incivil at any point and you fail to give a single example. The accusation that I used sock puppets is wrong and more importantly inadequately evidenced. The fifth point is truly hilarious. I was not responding with theories, I was positing very reasonable alternative explanations which you have totally failed to engage. I suppose you see rigorous argument as drama mongering, then. And who was it who started this nonsense in the first place? Pseudo-academia with a generous dollop of fascism. Good grief indeed. MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I don't support blocking at the moment. Let George leave here with his pride intact. If he socks in the future he can be blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Someguy1221. GeorgeNathaniel should step back, recognize that we're not a bunch of unedumicated idiots, review the rules and policies they agreed to in order to edit this private website, and then act accordingly in the future. Future BS won't be tolerated - it's simple as that ES&L 10:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

OH dear, this is a bigger problem than I first thought (seems to be more than an editwarring logged out issue). MyName makes some remarkable statements for someone who has been editing for one month (and Blenheim, there are way too many editors in here who know my geographical location for you to imply that I have edited from that IP to essentially set you up). OK, considering what developed here after my post, do I move this to SPI for a CU, or does it stay here? The CUs are more likely to know the profile ... but I thought SPI wasn't used in cases like this because they won't identify IPs or something to that effect ? Not sure what is next ... but this account seems to have a history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Your attempt to remove me has failed but you persist despite two administrators agreeing that no further action is required. My account 'has a history'. My goodness, we've developed into not even making accusations before appeals to punishment are made. What exactly is your grievance now, and do you have any evidence to support it? MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

After the boneheadedly provocative post immediately above, I'm now of the idea that further investigation is required on GeorgeNathaniel. File an SPI, and be done with this type of WP:BATTLE behaviour. This is clearly someone with an axe to grind with someone, that would therefore violate any WP:CLEANSTART or renaming. Next time, George, it's better to shut up when things are going your way ES&L 17:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems this is a game to him. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously thinks WP:MMO is true and WP:WINNING is false 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 21:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you think that because you have some coloured stars on an internet forum you have the right to assume such a bullying tone? I have been chased around by SandyGeorgia for literally hours for no good reason at all and when I complain I am told that I am the problem. What at all was provocative about my post, aside from asking for an explanation? Unlike you in the above post, I said nothing to cause offence. An 'axe to grind'? What? What are you talking about? Are you all speaking in obscure riddles to mask the fact that there is no substance in anything you're saying? I don't spend my life on the internet and prefer to use actual English so SPI is unknown to me, but if you mean to say that I am being blocked from contributing then I would not want to be part of a community that treats its grassroot contributors so horrendously. It is a thuggish and unintelligent place which places no value in reason or evidence and sides with its long-term contributors, regardless of their behaviour, above reason and common sense. I have done nothing but contribute constructively to articles but because one lonely user took a disliking to me I am now being forced out. For all of its user badges and complex jargon this place is missing a few fundamentals. MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Which internet forum do I have stars on? It's been ages since I've visited any of those. Right now I'm on an encyclopedia, where people are supposed to check their BS at the door and follow the rules and policies they agreed to when they made their first edit. You've been provided information about how your editing patterns match someone else's which is a valid and legitimate reason for a block. You've been advised that all you had to do is back away, shut up, read the rules, and behave and there would likely be no more problems - you couldn't even handle that simple task. You've been advised that we can run a Sock Puppet Investigation (SPI), and SandyGeorgia has been advised to do that so that we can shut this thread down. Now you're accusing a neutral third party of mafioso behaviours, and 100% failing to look at your own. We're probably mere seconds away from Godwin's law ES&L 18:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, ESL, will do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not very good at SPI: will someone make sure it is in the right place and done correctly? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Mass rollback needed

Mass rollback needed: Special:Contributions/MAPJH1986. 27.55.47.158 (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Any particular reason you can't just tell them on their talk page they don't need to double space after a period? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note on their talk page. The only real concern here is if the editor is making these unnecessary edits in order to become auto-confirmed, which would send up a flag, but at this point we should WP:AGF that it's just a new editor's misunderstanding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

10 edits in 6 minutes seems a mite rapid. Hopefully they are also a swift learner.--Kdtully (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• I just saw this funny little picture of someone's Facebook page, where someone said "OMG my baby drank bleach! what do I do?", and someone responded "just keep chatting on Facebook until he gets better". So here we have five editors, and none of them could remove those redundant periods? Tsk tsk. I'm an admin, for crying out loud: I shouldn't have to do your dirty work. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• But, but...you have a sharper mop! John from Idegon (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• But since acquiring it my editing skills have gone down the drain, of necessity. I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to speak to you (and that's not cause of the Midwestern thing--some of my best friends acquaintances are from the Midwest). Drmies (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• In my own defense, I didn't remove them because I didn't think it was necessary to do so. Pages render precisely the same if there's one space or two spaces after the period (or ten, for that matter), so there's no big deal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't remove them because I'm not autoconfirmed either (and didn't wish to arouse undue suspicion).--Kdtully (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting story, except a brand-spanking-new non-autoconfirmed editor coming to WP:UAA on their 11th edit, and WP:ANI on their 22nd edit suggests that you're not really a new editor at all, doesn't it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Edit summaries like "rv unsourced GF edits" aren't exactly typical of new editors - so who are you really? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This [93] is completely uncalled for and undermines the Wikipedia:Clean start policy. Reverting the editor's contributions with summaries like this [94] and this [95] is also beyond the pale. Who the fuck died and made you Chief of the Secret Police? Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 11:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, right. I should get my tin badge in the mail any day now, but it probably won't help me to understand what you're tsalking about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Try reading the policy then. It doesn't have very many long words. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 14:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, trying using your brain then - an editor who's really interested in a clean start wouldn't throw around Wiki-jargon in edit summaries, would they? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

<nowiki> Insert non-formatted text here </nowiki> Duh, ok Ken, shud dey insted preten 2 b stoopid n stuff. Is dis dum enuff 4 u?<ref></ref> Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 14:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah! Grade school humor! I remember it well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Clean start

As the policy states: "A clean start is when a user stops using an old account in order to start fresh with a new account. The two most common reasons for wanting a clean start are to make a fresh start after recognizing past mistakes, and to avoid harassment." Threatening to stalk a clean start editor's contributions unless they reveal their previous account details [96] is taking a giant shit on this policy from a great height. Beyond My Ken should not be interrogating [97] a clean start editor: he/she should AGF and leave this editor alone unless he has reasonable grounds to suspect that they are using multiple accounts in a manner contrary to policy. Kdtully should be reassured that a clean start is exactly what it says on the tin and they will not be harassed to divulge their previous details. Beyond My Ken should be reminded of policy and asked to leave Kdtully alone to get on with building an encyclopedia. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 14:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Blackberry Sorbet should be reminded to engage his or her brain before typing: someone who is engaged in a clean start (in the case he is referring to (see above) their third clean start!!! - shouldn't be throwing around Wiki-jargon in edit summaries, should they? It rather defeats the purpose of the clean start, since it identifies them as an experienced editor, which is not confirmed by their edit history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

There's also the question of why a clean start editor would be drawing attention to themselves by posting on one of the most trsfficked pages on Wikipedia? Is that consistent? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't talk rubbish. I was a 'crat on a completely unrelated wiki 6 years before you made your first edit as Beyond My Ken, and am a sysop on several others. Wikipedia isn't the only wiki in existence, y'know, and assuming that someone today can only pick up 'editing' here is plain nonsense. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 16:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, my first edit here was in 2005, so I guess our things are about the same size. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Blackberry, if you have the skills use them..it's the behaviors that are key not the skills. A clean start allows you to escape the wiki-stalking (real or perceived) but if the behaviors that led to wanting the clean start don't change it won't matter if there was a clean start because they will end up blocked/banned again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, absent any evidence of wrongdoing, I don't think there's anything for us to do here. Trolls have a way of showing their true colors, so if this user is one (and I know of no evidence to suggest that they are) we'll know soon enough. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I never suggested anyone was a troll, I merely asked a "new" editor who exhibited behavior typical of an experienced editor if they were new or not. It's Blackberry Sorbet who has been insistent on making a mountain out of a molehill, not me, and not the editor I asked the question of. Perhaps Blackberry Sorbet might want to mind his or her own business and not try to create a problem where there was none? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Wikifan115 -- paid advocacy?

• Wikifan115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I just reverted some blatant WP:REFSPAM by this user: [98][99][100][101][102]... not the kind of "contributions" expected from an editor with 500 live edits. Looking at his talk page, he has a habit of creating non-notable articles (the editor has conveniently removed the deletion warnings). DJ Kick Mix, XOOM Energy, Paul Worsteling and Alexander Michaels are somewhat promotional and fit the pattern of paid advocacy -- lots of articles on totally unrelated companies and people. MER-C 13:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A quick look at some of this user's recent edits do appear to be linkspam masquerading as references. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A check of some of their articles indicates promotional efforts of just-possibly-notable subjects. I'm checking, and listing some for the appropriate deletion process. May, however, are in the field of popular entertainment where I know better than to try to evaluate--those ones seem ok to me, but I'd appreciate it if someone else took a look at the, DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I came across this editor through paid editing ads very recently - in which case I can confirm that they do paid editing work, and were recently hired to provide the linkspam to the articles identified by MER-C. - Bilby (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Socketpuppets of Bbtregervdfv

The POV editing socket puppets are back, repeatly making en masse changes from "Taiwan" into "Republic of China" in many articles[103][104], making POV edits about Chiang Kai-shek[105],[106], and vandalize articles by adding "Republic of China" in irrelevant articles. [107],[108].

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bbtregervdfv/Archive.

New socketpuppets:

Saucemotedba (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

AINUCENTM5D (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Chrt6be3kiVCVBVXCVCV (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Shularackfbbvn (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Justig1ddsormtkm (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Cvrg5bvxcvxcvqqq (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Buglerazedg21dnlole (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Fyuisa8vbgsbdv (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Vcbr4sdcxcxukkueasdv (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

and more.

He is also using IP addresses 114.27.xx.xx ,118.171.xx.xx.

111.243.0.198 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

65.205.13.26 BLP violations at Talk:Perri "Pebbles" Reid

1)This edit repeatedly restored[109][110][111] despite several warnings,[112][113]^{repeatedly on the talk page} makes contentious claims about two models (sourced to blogs) and a singer (completely unsourced). The editor seems to believe that I should not be removing contentious unsourced/poorly sourced info about living individuals.

2)The editor is also repeatedly restoring unsourced marriages to the article and talk page and an unsourced birth date contrary to the reliably sourced birth date, eventually leading to semi-protection on the article.[114][115][116][117]

3)The editor seems to have previously edited under other IPs[118][119], receiving warnings.[120][121][122] - SummerPhD (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

1)I was told it is rude and bad netiquette to edit another's post. I repeatedly asked summerphd to stop. summerphd refused.
Models Tomiko Fraser and Agyness Deyn have both admitted to lying about their ages so there isnt anything contentious or libel about it. Why is mommynoire not acceptable? Dailymail is not a blog. Mariah Carey is the singer and THIS INFORMATION IS NOT UNSOURCED! MC has for years been claiming 1970 as her birthyear but People (magazine) has held firm that she was born in 1969 per her high school records/NY ID. These are not claims they are facts! I got this information from each's respective wikipedia article. Dailymail is on Agyness Deyn's article page as the source, so why isnt it allowed on Pebbles' talkpage ? Mariah Carey's birthyear too is 1969 or 1970 on her article page so how is that contentious and libel ?
1a)I was warned by summerphd only and those warnings mean sh*t. summerphd thinks its owns the article (WP:OWN) It wont accept any other editors contributions. If an admin or an editor who know what they are doing would have told me and explained why I would have stopped restoring my post.
2) Perri Reid's marriages and children are not contentious or libel. If summerphd would give me a second [ as i asked in my edit summary please wait and let me finish] to add a source, or add one itself, we would move forward. Instead it focuses on censoring my edits. So I couldnt event add a source! Then when I did it wasnt good enough. summerphd says artist direct isnt relaible, yet it is used all over wikipedia on musician's pages as sources! So I went to discussion/talkpage, but again summerphd censors. How am I and others editors supposed to see that needs to be sourced and contribute with summerphd censoring it ? Another editor might have the source but wouldnt know since summerphd has bracketed out the content!
2bI didnt get the article semiprotected. summerphd did. summerphd got an admin to lock the page to of course its disputed version instead of a neutral version, which is not fair at all.

carmaker1 tried to edit and was reverted as well.
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perri_%22Pebbles%22_Reid&diff=582528486&oldid=582510515
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perri_%22Pebbles%22_Reid&diff=next&oldid=582624304

carmaker pointed out WP:OWN but no one stepped it to tell summerphd to step back.

I took a break for a week as wikipedia advises, did summerphd ? Nope. It continued to revert anyone else's contributions.

On the discussion page I made sections (5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3) and asked for summerphd to contribute what it thinks, it never did. .
it was too hellbent on censoring my posts on pebbles' marriages and kids.

3) Lastly, dont try that sh*t. I haven't edited under any other IPs so dont fvck with me.
You always try and distract from the matter at hand; editing the Pebbles Reid article to be the best we are able to get it to be. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

1) The models' sources are debatable, your not sourcing the singer when repeatedly challenged is pretty clear.

2) Do not add contentious material to BLP pages without citing a source. If you have a source, cite it when you add the material. If you intend to find the source later, add the material with the cite when you find it, not before. I did not say artistdirect was not reliable, only that it is a mirror of allmusic, which should be used as the original source.Talk:Perri_"Pebbles"_Reid#Source:_allmusic_vs._artistdirect In fact, that is the source I was using for the birth date you repeatedly removed. When Carmaker1 challenged the reliability of that source, I took it to the RS/N for discussion. The consensus there was that it was reliable, though they identified additional sources for her birth date, which I added to the article[123] over Carmaker1's unsourced claim.Talk:Perri_"Pebbles"_Reid#Source:_allmusic_vs._artistdirect

2b) I did not mean to imply that you asked to have it semi-protected, only that it was semi-protected because of your edit waring: "Protected Perri "Pebbles" Reid: IP edit warring."[124], at my request.

3) I wasn't accusing you of sockpuppetry. If I was, I would have started a sock case. However, 208.250.69.26 traces to PANERA BREAD CO., Siver Springs, MD[125] while 65.205.13.26 in PANERA LLC., Silver Springs, MD[126]. If you aren't one and the same, you should at least have lunch together. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

1) Your sentence makes no sentence. The sources are not debatable. Tomiko Fraser gave the interview to mommynoire, these are her words. There is also a YT clip of her saying the same thing. Agyness Deyn to admitted she lied about her; and this info is from her wikipedia page. Mariah Carey is given as a 3rd example of a disputed age. This is a fact--it is even on her wikipedia page--yet you censored it as contentious. It is contentious, it is from wikipedia! Same thing for Rachel Zoe's and Jessica Chastain 's DOBs! You need to stop calling everythign contentious.
2) I ddint add anything contentious. Her ex husbands George L Smith, LA Reid, Otis Nixon, and current husband Excel Sharieff are not contetntious. You have a problem with it, why I dont know. And maybe if you slowed the f down and let me finish my edit you see the source. But you also interrrupt and revert me mid edit.
2b)My edit warring? Are you crazy. YOU kept reverting. Dont blame me without admitting your role. You did the same thing with others users perriareid and carmaker1.
3)You do realise TLC movie is on vh1 and that is why there is so much interest in Pebbles ? 65.205.13.26 (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Authority control

Please check this and other edits by this user. I don't know much about Authority control, but this seems like a wrong edit (although probably well intended). Debresser (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you informed the user about this discussion? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I now have. Thank you for reminding me. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A perfectly valid edit, as the data is now imported from Wikidata. This can be seen by looking at the current version of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Здравствуйте! Я не владею английским языком в совершенстве, потому пишу на родном руксском языке, извините. Моя правка поставлена под сомнение, как и большинство остальных. Объясню свою точку зрения.

Я являюсь пользователем в Русской Википедии и наибольшее количество правок у меня как пользователя Wikidata. Меня привлекла сторона Authority control, обнаруженная мной именно в English Wikipedia. На каждую статью в Википедии составляется статья в Викидата с указанием стандартного набора свойств, эти свойства собираются на данное понятие из разных Википедий, других источников, чтобы потом использовать эти данные в статьях своей Википедии как значение свойства. В английской Википедии давно существует шаблон Authority control, в полях значений которого были прописаны значения идентификаторов VIAF, LCCN, GND, ISNI. В течение 2013 г. произошло наполнение Викидата практически всеми статьями изо всех Википедий. Свойства, например, Authority control, для многих людей получили запись в соответствующей статье в Викидата. Эти данные значительно шире и богаче отдельной Википедии. Как использовать эту информацию? Подключать значения свойств Викиданных в своей Википедии. Шаблон Authority control переписали из одной строчки с несколькими числами в сложную конструкцию, проверяющую наличие информации по данному идентификатору в этой статье на Викидата. В него также добавили много других идентификаторов. Я захожу в статью в Википедии, смотрю значение шаблона в статье, перехожу в статью в Викидата, проверяю наличие свойств из шаблона в этой статье, функцией Викидата добавляю недостающие свойства-идентификаторы с сайта viaf.org, проверяю правильность и соответствие данных, ставлю источник, потом перехожу в статью из Википедии. Если в ней в полях шаблона прописаны несколько значений, их можно безболезненно убрать, дубль не нужен. Статья станет короче. Это начальная работа в этом направлении. Большинство информации в статье будет прописано в Викидата, а в Википедии будут только ссылки на Викидата не только по АС, но и по Датам рождения-смерти, месту рождения-смерти, профессии, датам правления, образованию, трудам, наградам, организациям, странам, фотографиям, родственникам, сайтам, источникам, ... Ошибок будет меньше. Эта информация в Викидата находится под наблюдением большего количества людей и контролируется соответствующими программами. Я одновременно редактирую статью в Викидата, Википедиях на английском, немецком, русском, итальянском, французском языках, начинаю подключать польский, португальский, чешский языки. Идёт работа не только по Authority control, но и по другим данным. Хотелось бы увидеть в английской Википедии шаблон Freebase, который бы вставлял в статью Википедии идентификатор Freebase из Викидата. Я думаю, что уважаемый пользователь поймёт мои добрые намерения и отменит свою правку в статье, восстановив мою версию статьи. С уважением,--Пробегающий (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I used Google Tranlate on it, and got this:

"Hello ! I do not speak perfect English , because I write in their native language ruksskom , sorry. My editing questioned , like most others. Explain their point of view .

I am a user of Wikipedia in Russian and the greatest number of edits at me as member Wikidata. I was attracted by side Authority control, that I found it in the English Wikipedia. For every article in Wikipedia article compiled Vikidata specifying a standard set of properties, these properties are going on this concept from different Wikipedias and other sources, then to use these data in their Wikipedia articles as the property value. The English Wikipedia has long existed template Authority control, the values ​​in the fields which had been prescribed identity values ​​VIAF, LCCN, GND, ISNI. During 2013 there was filling Vikidata almost all the articles from all Wikipedias . Properties, for example , Authority control, many people have an entry in the relevant article in Vikidata . These data are much broader and richer separate Wikipedia . How to use this information? Connect the values ​​of the properties in its Vikidal Wikipedia . Authority control pattern copied from a single line with a few numbers into a complex structure that checks the availability of information on the identifier in this article on Vikidata . It also added a lot of other identifiers . I go to a Wikipedia article , see the pattern value in the article, in turn Vikidata article , check the availability of properties from the template in this article , add the missing feature Vikidata identifier properties site viaf.org, check the correctness and consistency of data , put the source then turn to the Wikipedia article . If it in the template fields prescribed multiple values, you can safely remove them , take no longer needed. Article becomes shorter. This initial work in this direction. Most of the information in the article is written in the Vikidata , and Wikipedia are only links to Vikidata not only speakers , but also dates of birth , death, place of birth , death , occupation , date of government, education, labor, awards , organizations, countries , photographs , relatives, websites , sources ... Error will be smaller. This information is kept under observation Vikidata more people and controlled by the respective programs. I simultaneously edit the article in Vikidata , Wikipedia in English, German , Russian , Italian, French, begin to connect Polish, Portuguese, Czech. We are working not only for Authority control, but also on other data . I would like to see the English Wikipedia template Freebase, which would be inserted into the Wikipedia entry identifier from Freebase Vikidata . I think my dear user understand the good intentions and cancel your edits in the article, restoring my version of the article. Sincerely,"

2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 18:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

If this is so, then no problem. Thanks for explaining. Or, in Russian: Если так, то нет проблем. Спасибо за объяснение. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Citing Own Research

I am trying to contribute to history and size of population of Muslims in articles such as Islam in Asia. I have several peer-reviewed articles in scientific conference proceedings and journals and a recent 600 page book [127]. So I added some results in Islam in Asia and other continent and cited by book. Interestingly, some editors such as AndyTheGrump, Jreferee and Dolescum keep reverting my contribution (basically deleting all of it and the source). They keep citing COI or self-publishing, none of which applies here. When I refute their allegations they come up with another excuse and keep threatening of blocking my account. Such "referees" or "editors" may have other motives that they are not disclosing. The job of an editor or contributor is to make the article better, not deleting all sources and information. Better means: checking facts, better reference, etc. Hkettani (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that your sources meet the definition required as per WP:RS, then you may have them investigated at the reliable source noticeboard. Make sure you never re-add them after they have been removed (as per WP:BRD and WP:EW. In the long run, however, you actually should not be quoting or linking to your own work, as per WP:COI ... that's the reason there's a talkpage on the article, so that you can discuss and obtain WP:CONSENSUS for the changes ES&L 17:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, by self-citations are allowed per Wikipedia:SELFCITE#Citing_yourself. May be mis-understanding is promoting such ill-informed editors to go to war! Someone needs to stop this as it degrades the content of articles. Experts like me will not put with this and will give up easily (they are busy doing real research and real publications). However, bloggers and those who know less, in the long term will control the quality and content of WP articles. Something that no one wants for WP. Hkettani (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've written literally thousands of newspaper articles, hundreds of which have appeared in newspapers we consider reliable sources. Due to ethics, I've never linked to a single one of my own articles. If people don't accept your source as reliable, you have been pushed to the RSN ... either take the advice, or don't ... if you choose the latter, don't get too upset at the ramifications. Scholars and Wikipedia don't get along, in part because of what you're trying to do is 180 degrees away from what Wikipedia is all about ES&L 17:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

My initial involvement was to post a 7 October 2013 COIN notice to Hkettani's talk page, essentially to request that he not link to his CV or switch out existing reference URLs an replace them with the URL to his CV. My initial request[128] was limited to URLs used in Wikipedia references to which Hkettani was an author in hopes that would be enough to move the matter back on course. I received a 23 November 2013 note on my talk page from Rivertorch and then AndyTheGrump,[129] updated my review the matter, and posted on his talk page "Your contributions to Wikipedia articles appears to be limited to posting summaries of information you wrote, placing footnotes to source material you wrote, and/or providing links to pages outside of Wikipedia to material you developed.[130] You need to stop contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests."[131] Rivertorch mentioned on my talk page that there may be some moderate WP:COMPETENCE issues.[132] In looked into that briefly, but did not comment since I did not want to note too much at one time. One of Hkettani's edits removed information sourced to the Encyclopædia Britannica, but left a reference to his own work, which is ranked No. 1 in that article.[133] He added to the Islam in Africa article

"Thus, the Muslim population increased from 1.2 million or 4.5% of the total African population in 700AD, to 5.1 million or 17.3% in 800AD, to 9.2 million or 29.7% in 900AD, to 12.3 million or 38.2% in 1000AD, to 13.1 million or 37.6% in 1100AD, to 13.8 million or 36.5% in 1200AD, to 14.4 million or 35.6% in 1300AD, to 15.3 million or 35.1% in 1400AD, to 16.3 million or 34.9% in 1500AD, to 21 million or 37.4% in 1600AD, to 23 million or 37.9% in 1700AD, to 27 million or 37.8% in 1800AD, to 46 million or 40.4% in 1900, to 346 million or 42.8% in 2000, to 551 million or 42.0% in 2020, and is projected to reach 1.72 billion or 41.1% by 2100, then 1.60 billion or 42.8% by 2200, and then 1.74 billion or 44.2% by 2300."

Even if the information is factually correct, it does not seem to be a major fact or major detail of the Islam in Africa topic and obviously is not a summary of the article per WP:LEAD. Each of Hkettani's edits to article space probably need to be reviewed. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The comments from last month on linking to my perceived CV [134] was well taken then. At first, was thinking that the website is a bank of all my articles in soft-version and that my CV is at [135] . The reason for linking was because the original link was dead. When Rivertorch complained to me, I respected that, explained my rationale and suggested other direct links to the mentioned article. Instead, he either mentioned "dead link" or put "reference needed", or simply deleted all the content. I found this as not useful solution to say the least. Hkettani (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding numbers, I think Jreferee's comment shows ignorance. If we talk about a population somewhere it is vital to talk about its size in past, present and future. Hence it is very relevant to talk about the numbers of Muslims in Asia or other continent when talking about Islam in Asia!!Hkettani (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I may have more to say on this later, but for now add a few salient points which Hkettani has omitted in the above post.

Firstly, Hkettani's expertise is in computer science - he has provided no evidence whatsoever that he has any academic recognition for the subject of the book.

Secondly, Hkettani's contributions included at least one fringe claim entirely at odds with mainstream historiography - that "Muslims arrived to the Americas as early as the tenth century; more than five centuries before Christopher Columbus" - with no source cited whatsoever beyond his own work.

Thirdly, Hkettani has simply replaced existing article ledes (in at least 5 articles) with his own (semi-literate) material - entirely in contravention of MOS:LEDE.

Fourthly, with regard to the work being self-published, the publisher concerned (Research Publishing Services) gives every indication of being willing to publish more or less anything. Nowhere in their description of editorial control do they even hint that they do more than copy-edit submitted material. [136] No hint that they might reject a manuscript.

And finally, a brief perusal of Hkettani's talk page reveals that he has repeatedly been warned there and elsewhere over conflict of issues - the last warning at WP:COIN as recently as last October 19th. [137].

AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Further to this, note that Hkettani is now spamming personal attacks on contributors on multiple article talk pages - stating that "...'referees' or 'editors' may have other motives that they are not disclosing". [138][139][140][141] [142]AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a WP:BOOMERANG given the personal attacks, policy violations against consensus and posting here when he was the one in the wrong. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 18:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

2Awwsome: Blablabla. Focus on the problem at hand an try to come up with constructive consensus rather than nonsense sarcasm. Hkettani (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Note. Contrary to talk page guidelines, Hkettani inserted new posts into the middle of mine, thereby making the flow of the thread difficult or impossible to follow. I have removed them, and suggest that Hkettani posts responses in an appropriate place in future, AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Again, AndyTheGrump deletes my contribution even when I am replying to him in talk!!! this is going really far. Clearly this is not an honest discussion. My answers to his comments were as follows:

To point 1. It is naive to assume researchers are one-dimensional. Yes, I have extensive background (education) in Electrical Engineering, and that explains the extensive use of numbers in my study of Muslims and such qualitative study was motivated. While it is presumptuous to say that someone is not expert, I believe peer reviewed and well-cited articles and book should count towards that. Hkettani (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

To point 2. In fact the mainstream is what I stated (like Vikings were here before Muslims! And natives were here from Asia before everyone else). You may consult A. M. M’Bow & A. Kettani (Eds.) (2001). Islam and Muslims in the American Continent. (pp. 231-291). Beirut: Center of Historical, Economical and Social Studies. And Mroueh, Y. (1996). Pre-Columbian Muslims in the Americas. Report of the Preparatory Committee for International Festivals to Celebrate the Millennium of the Muslims Arrival to the Americas (996-1996 CE). Burton, MI: As-Sunnah Foundation of America. Hkettani (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

To point 3. This is a matter of taste, and the ledes really needed improvement. Now, if you improve on my contributions I would respect that. What you did is you deleted all of it and reverted to the original, which needed improvement. You keep jumping from accusation to another one just to justify what you did. It simply amount to Censorship and unethical editing. (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

To Point 4. Please try to think before making statements and acting. No publisher in their right mind will take the task of publishing a book without seeing a value in it. Now, whatever you want to say about RPS, still does not amount even remotely to Self-publishing. Again, this is just another example where you are trying to say anything just to delete my contribution. Which hints that the actual motive still hidden. Please spell it out so that we can have a productive discussion! (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Point one: you have still provided precisely zero evidence that you have received any recognition for your work on Muslim populations.

Point two: citing yourself as as source for your assertions achieves nothing. As for the other works, can you provide evidence that the position taken in them has received recognition from the academic mainstream? If so, our article on Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact will need revision. After of course confirming this mainstream recognition.

Point three:MOS:LEDE isn't a matter of taste - it is part of our manual of style. And yes, I removed your material, for the multiple reasons already explained. You, on the other hand, have yet to give any explanation whatsoever for your repeated removal of sourced material from the existing ledes.

As for point four, I suggest you do a little research on vanity publishing. It is a very profitable business. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The point is not to keep accusing each other but to have better articles. I find it talking to you useless and waste of time. I properly listed each comment under a point you mentioned so that it is clear to you and the reader. Instead you deleted all. Again, I know you have 100 of refutable excuses in your disposal just to get your way. Not something I subscribe to or want to deal with. Hkettani(talk) 19:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

So far you have refuted nothing. If your work on Muslim populations has received recognition from academia, provide the evidence. Where are the reviews of your book? Where has it been cited? Where has any of your work on the subject received the recognition necessary for you to be seen as an expert on pre-Columbian Muslim contact with the Americas? The burden of proof is on you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump: I do not know how fruitful to continue responding to your allegations. Your responses and actions concern me about your motives and honesty.

1. You can check this page to see citations of my work. You can scroll up to see how many keynote and invited speeches I gave internationally in the subject of Muslim population and others.

2. Read my book and articles (the latter are free on my website) and you will see my neutrality (to the possible extent).

3. Trying to think of me this ill, does not serve you or the cause of making the article better. Most of the time, an ill-doer thinks everyone like him!

4. I checked Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact as you suggested. I am afraid if contributors or supervising "editors" are like you, then yes the article needs much improvement. I gave you two references to check earlier. I am sure you won't. But if you want a free one, then you can check Mroueh's article and references therein.

Hkettani (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

A simple question: is the position that there was contact between the Americas and the Muslim world "as early as the tenth century" that of mainstream academia, or is it a minority position? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Did a little googling, this advertisement for Research Publishing Services has a nice self-publishing category on it. There are many similar advertisements listed for this organization in googles index. Dolescum (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The link you provided says "Publishing and Production of Conference, Symposia, Workshop Proceedings, IEEE and ACM and other society publications, Full Spectrum of prepress services, which includes: Copyediting, Typesetting, Proofreading, Indexity, Artworks rendering, Scanning and archiving. XML/SGML conversion, CrossRef DOI submissions. Printing and Print-on-Demand POD." It mentions nothing about RPS being a self-publisher. If you want to learn more about RPS here. Probably at this point facts do not matter! Hkettani (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The link Hkettani provided says, "We're not just another printer." Hkettani, did they pay you to produce the book or did you pay them? __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

They did not pay me and I did not pay them. And they have done a great job in publishing my book. They were professional and very helpful throughout the editing and publication process. They probably meant by "printer" as publisher, the one who prints books, not the printer you have in your office!

Hkettani (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you look lower down the page, at the third of the three lines underneath the word "category". Dolescum (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The page you cited is not the publisher's! So it is directing the reader to somewhere to self-publish as a suggestion. Hkettani (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Citing oneself shouldnt be considered a problem in and of itself. Citing oneself in problematic ways is a huge problem. For example some scholars insert citations to themselves over many article seemingly in an effort to boost their visibility. This is problematic. Other scholars cite themselves in tendentious ways neglecting or downplaying scholarship by others who may in fact be more prominent in the field, or represent a more mainstream view. These kinds of citations are problematic and Andy the Grump and other editors are right in keeping track of the use of selfcitations, and limiting the problematic kinds. Also agree with Andy that RPS is not a reputable social science publisher, and articles published there cannot be considered reliable sources unless they have received considerable attention from other scholars in the form of citations. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The alternative you are suggesting is to have amateurs writing about a subject and excluding the experts! Of course the expert will cite his work, specially if it is the latest research in the field. Consequently, WP article will be useless to say the least. Hkettani (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have time this afternoon to dig up diffs, so my apologies. The background for what's happening here can be found by reviewing this archived COIN thread and by checking over Hkettani's contributions at around the time of that thread. My primary concern at that time was potentially self-promotional edits masquerading as legitimate references and external links (Hkettani was inserting links to his own curriculum vitae in various articles). My perfectly civil query to him was met initially with flippancy, then with bogus insinuations about my motives. After more thorough checking, I also came to question whether a paper he'd presented at a conference was in fact an appropriate source (whoever was adding it). I invited Hkettani to post a query at WP:RSN to determine consensus on whether it could be used as a source, and I offered to add the citations for him if the consensus was to allow them. I even offered to open the discussion at RSN, although I explained the onus was on him. Jreferee reiterated that RSN was the place to go. We were both met with silence, and Hkettani did not post anything to RSN or request me to do so.

  Leaving aside the issue of the reliability of the source (which isn't a question for ANI) and Hkettani's hostility towards other WP users (which is), I'd like to note for the record that whatever else may be wrong with Hkettani's edits, they are just plain sloppy, containing enough errors of grammar and style that I actually have wondered if there's a competency issue. I have wanted to make allowances for the possibility that English is not his native language, but frankly the quality of the writing is so low that I'm having trouble accepting that it's being posted by a legitimate academic who writes professionally in English. This is odd, because I did some checking into Professor Houssain Kettani's background, and he is most certainly a legitimate academic with an impressive body of writings to his credit (many of them in his own field, needless to say). I've wondered whether User:Hkettani could possibly be the same person.

  The only solution I can propose is that Hkettani either get advance consensus for the edits he's making—and is much more careful about how they're written—or else that he stop editing here. Rivertorch (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Rivertorch: Another lame allegation/accusation? So now my edits are poorly written grammatically?! Could you give an example? If it is true (hypothetically, cause I know that my English is better than yours!) you could have just fixed the grammar/style or position within the article. Can you be honest and not jump from accusation to another one like a slippery soap? The article Islam_in_Asia clearly ill-written, uninformative, and talks more about Hinduism than Islam!Hkettani (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Real life being rather attractive just now, I have no wish to become involved much more deeply in this thread. Your posts here on ANI today contain ample evidence of careless writing or lack of proficiency with written English (or perhaps both), but since you asked, here's a diff: [143]. It has multiple problems, but the sentence

"Remarkable presence of Muslims started in 1960s with migration of Muslims for economic means mainly to Australia.

is a glaring example. It's not standard English, period. As it happens, I've spent a fair amount of my time over the years fixing stuff like that. I rather enjoy doing it, but I won't waste my time if there are potential problems with the substance of the content. Rivertorch (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that what you propose would be a solution: but given Hkettani's insistence the he has done nothing wrong, how are we going to ensure it happens? Frankly, without some sort of enforcement, I can see no reason to assume that he won't ignore everything said here, and carry on as before - previous attempts to make him change his ways don't seem to have had any effect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Anyone involved with an encyclopedia should be thirsty for information and do their best not to be biased or apply censorship. After all, the objective is correct knowledge to our best possible way. Even if we disagree with a statement we can add a counterpart to it, not just delete it and feel happy about that! Envy/jealousy/hatred do no good to an article or to ourselves. Alas, in a volunteer work, it is the trend that in the long run the work is controlled by the loudest, least qualified/knowledgeable, and those with narrow agenda. How many of those accusing me wrote a book, or even a peer-reviewed paper in a conference proceedings of journal? Hkettani (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you care then to explain why you chose to 'censor' existing material in the lede section of multiply articles by deleting it, and replacing it with your own? [144][145][146] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump: I did not. You are trying to accuse me (new one now and counting!) of what you did/do! Hkettani (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The evidence is in plain sight in each of the links I have provided. You removed existing material, and replaced it with your own. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Updating a paragraph is not censorship Andious! Deleting all my informative contribution instead of modifying as needed is CENSORSHIP! Now of course, you will keep saying "you did" and I will reply "I didn't" then you will move on to another accusation! I hope you heal and be in peace with yourself. You will have a much better life. Hkettani (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, we've established that you only consider removal of your own words as censorship. No surprise there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back to the main topic, and I will again ask Hkettani a question that deserves a response: Is the position that there was contact between the Americas and the Muslim world "as early as the tenth century" that of mainstream academia, or is it a minority position? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No, we established that you are unqualified editor who needs to grow up! Please scroll up for answers to you where you first mentioned this. I can re-post for you if you are too tired to scroll up! Hkettani (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Since you refuse to answer the question, I think that we can safely assume that Maunus's statement below is correct - that this alleged pre-Columbian Muslim contact with the Americas is the position of a fringe minority. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hah, LOL. That isn't even a minority view, it is a radical fringe view. I had no idea that was what this was about.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't the sole issue: but it is certainly indicative of the fundamental problem: that Hkettani is using Wikipedia to promote his own views, and his own publications, with little regard for the wider objectives of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Andy: Did you read Mroueh's article or are you busy deleting stuff? Not willing to learn so why get involve with an encyclopedia?? Hkettani (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. Now answer the question. Is the position taken by Mroueh that of the academic mainstream? A simple yes or no will suffice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If you read it, then you got your answer. An objective editor (and human being for that matter) will be interested in facts and not what is popular or not. And if something seems controversial, then you present both views and supporting materials instead of deleting one and imposing the other one. I hope you are learning something from a professor instead of arguing like a child just for the sake of argument. Hkettani (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I got an answer. And we have now conclusively demonstrated that you have abused Wikipedia to promote a fringe viewpoint - you made no attempt to even hint that the claims you made were controversial. And cut out the patronising crap. I am over twenty years older than you, and have sat through enough lectures from professors to recognise vacuous bluster when I hear it - though fortunately I was normally lectured by professors actually qualified to lecture on the topic they were discussing. Though what exactly you are qualified to discuss (beyond computer science, where I'm sure you are at least competent) has yet to be established. Certainly, I'd have to query the expertise of someone who could confidently assert that the Muslim population of Europe is projected to be "124 million or 17.0% by 2300". [147] Try making a statement like that in any lecture hall I've ever sat in, and see what sort of reaction you get. That isn't 'projection', it is grade A bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

1. I do not believe it is controversial. But I said, if you believe that you are entitled to your opinion and very welcome to include references and supporting documents to both views. I do not see Mroueh's article and references therein mentioned anywhere in Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. You may fix that. And there are plenty of other references by the way.

2. 20yrs older or younger than me, is irrelevant to me or to the topic at hand!

3. The book estimates the Muslim (and World) population from 600AD to 2300AD. The future projections are based on UN estimates of total population. Read the book and you will see the scientific rational and assumptions. It ends by saying "Every attempt is sought to present reliable data, however, the statistics presented in this book, in the words of the French demographer Jean-Baptiste Moheau (1745-1794): “They are not to be viewed with much confidence but they are a first step to the truth. The proper way to criticize them is to displace them by more accurate figures.”"

4. I do not know you educational background and level, so I do not know the proper way to explain to you. But at least you know mine!

Hkettani (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming somewhat less than civil. Suggest closing it down, placing a final warning on the user's talk page, and blocking if there are further problems. Rivertorch (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't 'civil' from the start - Hkettani's first post accused people who queried his behaviour of having "motives that they are not disclosing", and he's been using much the same line ever since... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Andy: At least we agree on this one! It was not civil when you deleted my stuff without checking/discussing its correctness, objectivity and originality. Instead accused me of self-publishing, self-promoting, and vanity publisher! Then tried to justify it using COI, other WP rules (none of which applied), then ill-written grammatically according to Rivertorch! Hkettani (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Warning? And a Topic ban?

Per Rivertorch's suggestion above, I suspect a formal warning and topic ban, backed up with a block if not taken heed of, is the only solution here. I would at this point propose that Hkettani be told that he is formally topic-banned from making any edits citing, referencing or linking his own material in article space, and that if he wishes such material to be included in articles, he must instead propose it on the relevant article talk page, making his personal involvement clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you and Rivertorch it is not your call and against WP rules and spirit. You both were at fault imposing as "editors" while your motives became clearer and clearer through this discussion. Hkettani (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Alhanuty

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

---

This user Alhanuty distorting information from information sources and treats her as he needs it. I think it should be taken certain measures. Here is a concrete example of his actions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map He had made the change of Deir Salman and Abbadeh and used this source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/23/us-syria-crisis-oil-idUSBRE9AM03K20131123 And here is his comment to change:"Now Reuters confirms what lothar and sopher99 point ,that rebels captured cities and town in eastern ghouta. But this source States the following:Activists near Damascus said a heavy battle was raging in the eastern suburbs outside the capital between the army and pro-government militias and rebel units, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), an al Qaeda affiliate. Rebels are trying to retake the town of Oteiba in order to break a heavy blockade on the opposition-held suburbs in the east that ring the capital. For months Assad's forces have choked off the areas from both food, supplies and weapons. The fighting caused dozens of deaths on both sides, a fighter in the area said."

I think his actions are damaging and distort the correctness of the information. It also cancels the changes that other useres who point him at his mistake.Всезнайка ДБР (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Wo,wo,wo,listen many editors are using un neutral sources from both sides,secondly editor sopher has brought a source saying that the cities are rebel controlled,and Reuters reported about an offensive in the area,so the Reuter source could have possibly,confirm the status that the cities are contested al least,but I am amazed that all pro-Assad users who bring unneutral sources and without even a confirm by a neutral report,are not reported and me who did an edit and even didn't edit war,was reported.Alhanuty (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

And editors lothar and sopher99 made the edit,and I just found a neutral source confirming something about the cities,and you have a lot of editors,who are biased to Assad ,who are vandalizing the map,and I see that issue more concerning because there is many of them,and I don't find this issue concerning,and I am going to leave the map at the last edit that he edited on,so no action neededAlhanuty (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC) And wait a second,this account was just found yesterday,and why he would this person,just file on me,as if he knows me we'llAlhanuty (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I have simply noticed a mistake and you have not reacted when to you it has specified. And about which you have mentioned the source resulted earlier not authentic as is based on messages from Twitter Yalla Souriya. And it about oppositional, and does not mention source Reuters specified there.And I have no anything against you personally. Simply it is not necessary to deform data from sources.Всезнайка ДБР (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC) You are a sockpuppet of someone,and I have filed a report against you Alhanuty (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/Markwpowell64

Please look at the contribution history of the above editor. Then if you would take a look at this note he left on my user page after I left him a note on his talk page (which is littered with warnings for uncivil behavior) asking him to explain his edits on Michigan. I don't know whether it is WP:CLUE or WP:CIR, but this user has a problem. I find the section in his wall of text to me about--oh, hell, i don't have the time to dig thru that pile of drivel again--it is all pretty much clueless. He repeatedly engages in attacking editors over the silliest of points. I just don't want him going after a new editor that has potential and driving them away. This started over a very trivial thing. In August, he changed the order of a listing of three states that roughly equal the size of the upper peninsula with an explanation that was about as clear as the wall of stuff he left on my talk page this morning. I reverted it back, saying they were in alpha order and that is just fine. Now three months later, he comes back and undoes that edit, adding a parenthetical phrase into the article " (in descending size order)" to explain it. Now perhaps this is wrongthinking on my part, but if you have to add copy to explain your edits, then perhaps they shouldn't have been made.

And I want to be clear that the interaction that has occurred between me and him is of very little concern to me. It is the edit summaries in his recent contribution history that is troubling. It appears that we have an issue with competence, possibly caused by some problem the user has. I can't really think of how express what I am trying to say, but it seems like what I am trying to say should be abundantly clear from reading his diatribe on my talk and his recent edit summaries. User notified. John from Idegon (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this is wrongthinking on your part. Tommy Pinball (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

So are you saying that edits that require explanation in the text are a good thing? John from Idegon (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't limiting my comment to that single issue. For instance you mention Markwpowell64's talk page (which is littered with warnings for uncivil behavior) ...I can't see how you would justify this comment. Tommy Pinball (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? There is an introduction and 5 headings on his talk page. 4 of the headings, including my comment to him, address civility issues. What would it take for you to feel that was justified? John from Idegon (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no question that Markwpowell64 is uncivil in his edit summaries. (I am one of those who has commented to him on it.) I think the only question on the table here is whether the incivility rises to a level that requires some kind of escalated response. It's - disharmonious and annoying, and the editor seems indifferent to the concern, but I don't know that the behavior could be described (yet) as disruptive. JohnInDC (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Eric Corbett

Re Talk:Wells Cathedral. This editor is making the process of editing the Wells Cathedral article unpleasant. Two matters have arisen over which User:Eric Corbett has been unpleasant insulting and has made threats to use Wikipedia processes against the person who has had a disagreement with him over a matter of grammar in one case and expression in the other.

• in the first case (over the matter of British use of which and that) I wasn't the person who was repeatedly accused of "ignorance" by User:Eric Corbett. I am sorry to say that I stood by while another person was bullied. The bullying extended to User:Eric Corbett warning the other user that if they complained, then their action was "a boomerang".
• in the second instance (over whether "most" was to be preferred over my preference "the majority of") User:Eric Corbett has made the thinly veiled threat that "If this article was presented at FAC in its current state I'd rip the arse out of it." I regard this threat as bullying.

User:Eric Corbett had made quite a number of edits to the article, in order to "simplify" the language, and in doing so had introduced a number of factual errors, and told me, in an edit summary, that one of my attempts to correct his edit was "ridiculous".

I have tried to diffuse the situation with humour, but User:Eric Corbett doesn't seem to comprehend humour, and one runs the risk of ones attempts at light-heartedness simply backfiring.

• Moreover, User:Eric Corbett is assisted in his practice of humiliating people by User:Giano who appears to hop around behind him like a talking parrot. He is definitely not User:Eric Corbett's ventriloquist's doll, as the things that User:Giano says are very much more creatively spiteful (under the guise of a simple soul for whom English is not the native language) than User:Eric Corbett is capable of. They appear to work very effectively as a team for demolishing opposition. Other editors who are targeted by these two need to be aware of the apparent synchronicity.

I am not in the habit of complaining, (I believe this is my first in about 7 years) but I came to a realisation that User:Eric Corbett and his shoulder-parrot are putting people down in this manner with a fair degree of regularity.

Amandajm (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't expect anything of this. Corbett (AKA Malleus) is immune from any sanctions whatsoever for any behavior at Wikipedia. He could do anything and nothing will ever happen to him ever for any sort of antisocial, disruptive behavior, up to and including egregious personal attacks, rudeness, incivility, or indeed any behavior to insult, degrade, or bait anyone he perceives as his enemies into leaving Wikipedia and nothing will ever be done about this. After you've been around a few years, you'll get used to this as the standard state of affairs, and learn to ignore his antics. --Jayron32 03:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

And maybe one day you'll grow up. Eric Corbett 03:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess we can't call him MF anymore. Hello EC.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You can call me MF if you like, but I'd made too many edits for my account to be renamed. Unlike many of my critics. Eric Corbett 03:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a critic, except regarding the occasional insufficiency of your pleasantness.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• User:Eric Corbett, who was formerly known as User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:Malleus Fatuarum ("hammer of foolish ladies"), and also used the account User:George Ponderevo, has asserted that someone is a sockpuppet of User:Rodhullandemu. If there is evidence to support this assertion, it should be presented. If not, the appropriate action for accusations without evidence should follow. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

  The evidence is staring you in the face Demirge1000, but of course you're blind to it. How many CUs crawled over me about George Ponderevo, yet how few have investigated Anglicanus? Eric Corbett 04:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

  I'm willing to look at any evidence you're willing to present. Did you have access to the Ponderevo account or not? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

  Aren't we drifting off target here? Ask ArbCom about the Ponderevo account. My question was about the Anglicanus account. Eric Corbett 05:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)l

• Move to close. Amandajm's comments on the talk page have not won me (or anyone else) over to his side and he appears slightly unreasonable and slow to compromise. Based on the discussion on talk, this appears to be an obvious case of OWNership on the part of Amandajm, and not due to Eric Corbett's edits or comments. Also, somebody should do something about the lead image in the infobox; it's too dark and taken from too far away. The image could use some editing by an expert. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I swapped images.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Then another editor drastically modified what I uploaded.[148] And then the whole thing was reverted.[149] Oy vey.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

And then reinstated [150] :) --Epipelagic (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse. Amandajm's "grammatical points" have been lame in the extreme, and must have been very frustrating for anyone trying to deal with them. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse. For reasons stated by Epipelagic and Viriditas.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• I think it's kind of freaky when a man (Bill) pretends to be a woman, Amanda. Eric Corbett 05:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Please delete Tyron Balthazar

I have looked for sources and found nothing at all. I think this article is a hoax. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP CSD will kill it soon regardless. But yes, it does read as a hoax to me. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)