Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820

Wikihounding from אומנות

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

---

I 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 - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. 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! [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. 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)

• Well, אומנות of course. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 25 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: [22] and [23], 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: [24] [25] 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: [26][27][28][29] [30]. Here again in reference to his GA: [31] Here another claim that someone has done something “stupid on the higest level possible”: [32]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)

Comment by CT Cooper

I'm not editing Wikipedia much at the moment, and I'm officially on indefinite wikibreak for personal reasons, although I am slowly making a come back and getting into things again. I've arrived here because I was looking through my e-mail inbox and I spotted an e-mail from אומנות dated 13 October 2013. I was rather pre-occupied at the time I received it and I didn't read it properly and then forgot to reply. Now I have read it properly I'm rather concerned about the general welfare of אומנות and I will be replying back with some personal advice promptly. I haven't got time to read and digest all of the above and I'm not passing judgement on anyone here. That said, knowing both users rather well from previous interactions, I can understand why this conflict and I think it generally stems from constant misunderstandings rather than any ill intent from any party. As for resolving this, one could suggest that both Wesley and אומנות stop communicating, but that would arguably be throwing the issues into the long grass and since both editors have similar interests, implementation would be very difficult. CT Cooper · talk 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

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

User: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: [33], here: [34] and here: [35]. 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 [36] [37] 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

[38]
[39] (too many edits to point out)
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]

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 [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49].

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 [50] [51] [52]. 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)

This is not discussion about the article, but about the user. The article just demonstrated the bad faith of user and his inability to learn the rules, despite several warnings, his edit warring and breaking of several rules that were mentioned. I wanted to get to article once this is done and I shall do so, but currently the article is just an example, not the topic. And what I hope for is temporary ban after which Partisan will hopefully abandon his behavior and start abiding the rules. However that is for admins to decide. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Even though I must admit that currently that particular lolarticle is even more ridiculous than before. Just look at the first sentence and than ask any arabic-speaking person what ta7lob means. Its probably the most hilarious thing there. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

What you have said is right, but I have tried my best to improve the page by adding sources. I was also adding links, so more experienced editors could find the page and improve it, but EllsworthSK has removed some of them. Some of the utube videos were showing Russia Today articles and one showed a journalist interviewing a purported member of the Green Resistance. I agree that improving the page and providing information is more important than arguing, but I was editing the page and discussing issues with some editors when suddenly someone I had never heard of sent abusive and threatening messages on the talk page, and took a complaint to admin, demanding my work be withdrawn. No attempt was made to offer help or discussion,or even to be polite, so I had to take time to defend myself. Red and black partisan (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

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)
  • Immediate resumption after block expired doing same stuff. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I've encouraged the user to discuss their editing here, if for no other reason than to save their own skin. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 08:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
      • User ignored the request to contribute here and last edit [53] is more of the same. Don't see any valuable contributions from this editor and still appears to be deliberately disruptive. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indef. John Reaves 18:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

I 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) ([54], [55], [56]). 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)

(Non-administrator comment) Sorry, but "what's good for the goose... etc". I absolutely do not know Wehwalt, and I'm sure they are a good person and all, but they did edit war, and the fact that they're an admin just means they definitely should have known better, There is already a perception around here that admins get free passes for policy violations. How is this any different? From this point, how can Wehwalt block other users for edit warring, and call it fair? Again, I harbor them no ill-will, but a block is called for here, even if just the minimum (1 hr?). And, not just because they did it, but also so that when/if they edit war again, the next time it won't be looked upon as a first offence. We have these rules for a reason and they apply to everyone. - ^theWOLFchild 20:50, 24 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."[57]? 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)

(Non-administrator comment) - Anthony, I don't see where Mark has done anything wrong, certainly nothing to justify a re-open titled "Mark Arsten's behavior". This could easily be entitled "Anthony Cole's behavior". You're upset that Mark wrote: "You're free to propose sanctions if you like, but beware of the WP:BOOMERANG effect, given your self-declaration of bad faith."? (with a supporting diff). This is something that has been said by a thousand admins, a thousand times. It's advice. It's harmless, perhaps even helpful. Conversely, you have twice accused him of "...mindless knee-jerk partisanship..."... that is a personal attack. I have no beef with you, this is just imho; you should apologize and let this go. - ^theWOLFchild 21:15, 24 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.[58] 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.[59] 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 and KWW here? Is that not something another admin could have done?

All combined, we have a climate of intimidation being created around this article,[60] 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)

note: Wehwalt did NOT call her a "dead filly". The exact wording was "the filly from Alabama". FYI. - ^theWOLFchild 22:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a neutral eye needed over there, I started out that way and offered my opinion. However, the tendentious editor involved chose to escalate to the current drama, and suddenly I become "involved." No win: The people who worked on the article for years "own" it and anyone new coming in to offer an outside view is suddenly suspect if they happen to agree with the previous consensus. I happen to have a lot of respect for Wehwalt, having helped a bit with the Richard Nixon, Thaddeus Stevens, and Ezra Meeker articles that he was working on. I have interests other than horses, but I choose to work mostly on horse articles because, as we all can see with this example, there appears to be even more drama and stress elsewhere. Montanabw^(talk) 17:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"Horse editor," Gracie?

I was unaware that we each had our assigned topic areas which we were not allowed to edit outside of - I guess I missed that memo. Perhaps someone could point me to the policy that says that editors interested in horses can't edit other articles, and to the list of editors and assigned subjects so I can be sure that I'm not editing stuff I'm not supposed to be editing.

I also wasn't aware that we were all required to reveal what it was that brought us to a particular article, and why we were editing it. Again, if someone could point me to the place where I can find the proper paperwork to file, that would be nice. I'd hate to have my edits invalidated because I'm considered a "classic film editor" or a "historic building editor" or a "New York City editor" or whatever it is I am. (Maybe someone could tell me that as well, and try to avoid "Pain in the ass editor", please.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The "tendentious editor" has a POV shared by numerous others in archives. Beyond My Ken, obtuseness is unbecoming. Of course we can all work wherever we want; the problem occurs when groups of editors seem to always travel together. It would be nice if you could be one of the editors stepping forward with a collaborative spirit, Montanabw, rather than refusing to acknowledge that there are problems in the article and the "tendentious editor" was working in very good faith to address them. It is interesting that with the onslaught he faced, he behaved rather more admirably than others in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, it's not just groups of editors who can cause problems, individuals can do so as well.

It would be nice to present evidence when criticizing other editors, rather than attempting to ghettoize them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 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".[61])

Other than KWW and Wehwalt, the only two people supporting the status quo of Natalee Holloway on the FAR were also Montanbw and Mark Arsten.[62]

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 and KWW.

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)

I've only reviewed the first half of the archives. I may do the remainder today, but something shiny just came into my field of vision. Regardless, evidence of their lying up to then is clear. Kww and Wehwalt have had plenty of time to refute it and they can't. All they've done so far is complain that I haven't yet reviewed the second half of the archive. If they had acknowledged what they'd done in the first half, I would have dropped it. But they haven't. They lied. The evidence is irrefutable. Nevertheless, they deny it. As you would expect of liars. The opinions of editors who don't have a history of mutual support or animosity with these people will be valued. (As would brief commentary on the involved/uninvolvedness of commentators.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your question, Why did Wehwalt protect (the now redirect) Natalee Holloway? given the atmosphere there and his deep, deep involvement in the article, it does indicate poor judgment on his part to use admin privileges - but perhaps that's a prerogative we allow highly-regarded admins. Perhaps highly-regarded admins don't need to trouble themselves with the rules. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:52, 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)

Anthony, this latest comment of yours includes no diffs. The comment of yours to which it refers contains no diffs. Point to the diffs, and then the crickets will cease.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

See (Permalink) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

May I ask how long the article has been named "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

A few days. The thread at the above Permalink contains the move discussion. I don't have a good grasp on the political landscape here. Would you mind telling me if you have a history of alliance or animosity with any of the main players here, particularly Kww, Wehwalt and SandyGeorgia? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, when I scroll a few miles down, I do now see the heading for a move discussion. I have nothing but affection for SandyGeorgia based on lots of April Fools articles and some other things. I don't know Kww. I've had one or two pleasant experiences with Wehwalt, I think it was at Frank Buckles and maybe one or two others. But, look, evidently I'm a numbskull for not realizing I was supposed to scroll way down, so I'm going to take a pass here. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest if you don't know how to figure that out yourself, you might not be helpful here? [63] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I just knew something like that was coming. Thanks for the link. How was I supposed to know that there used to be an article titled Natalee Holloway? I dare say that a reason for the crickets was the opaqueness of the situation. Anyway, I guess I'm dumb, so I'll let the crickets come back now. Cheers.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. This is a convoluted mess. It's not that I expect anyone to grasp what's happening just from this thread, I'm just surprised that an editor can call two highly-respected/regarded admins liars at ANI and it drifts past to the keeper. (That permalink pretty much explains it all. About ten minutes reading, if you're slow like me.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

AYW, how well you know me :) ;) I just want to keep this on track, ok? Let's not have a bunch of off-topic trying to figure out who's on first. Best, the other numbskull, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, I initially looked at the revision history for the current article and somehow missed the move on November 21 at 06:19. I need to get some sleep, goodnight. P.S. When calling someone a liar, it's good to pinpoint it with a diff, rather than linking to a treatise, with no introduction to the treatise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

(I just made it a bit longer.) Short version: Pretty much everyone who's ever opined on the title of the article has wanted it moved from Natalee Holloway to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Kww, Wehealt and a few others opposed, but Kww and Wehwalt were able to keep it at their preferred version by vaguely waving toward the voluminous archives and saying the majority of people want their version. Most of that treatise is just a chronological list of people saying it should be at "Disappearance of." I'll tidy it up. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

At this moment, Disappearance of Natalee Holloway is move protected, and that move protection came along when Anthony Appleyard moved it from Natalee Holloway. Natalee Holloway and Natalee Ann Holloway are redirect, and those redirects are fully protected. This was done in accordance with the discussion at Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway#The_title, where four of the participating editors (myself, Wehwalt, Thumperward, and Overagainst) came to the conclusion that it was the best way to prevent editors from creating a separate biography article in the wake of the move. I don't think anyone believes that policy would permit creating a full biography article on Natalee Holloway.

If someone wants to unprotect the two redirects, I will obviously respect our policies on wheel-warring. I would appreciate an explanation of exactly why they would do so.—Kww(talk) 16:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Timing

On the BLP noticeboard, Wehwalt accused me of "coordinating" this whole matter, and KWW repeatedly accused me of "knowingly making false statements" and has not backed down from that. Considering a concerning behavioral pattern has been demonstrated involving Wehwalt and KWW, and also involving Montanabw and Gerda, with alliances around QAI that have affected and touched not only this article but other areas (eg FAC, FAR, TFAR, and Infoboxes), perhaps we can get some feedback from these parties that would indicate an ArbCom to investigate this entire matter can be avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we wait a few days, maybe we can have KWW help decide whether to accept this case or not. Why the push for an ArbCom case right now? I find the timing of the ANI and the call for ArbCom at this time very troubling. BTW, I don't care what the title of the article is, nor anything else about Holloway. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 08:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked about the timing, and happy to respond. A rather novice Overagainst brought a Featured article review on Holloway several weeks ago. The fellow bringing the FAR (for quite legitimate reasons) had been intimidated on article talk for weeks.[64] The FAR was so acrimonious, it had to be put on hold, hoping some issues would be worked out in a month or so. Here is my part in trying to calm that situation: Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway/archive2#Purpose of FAR and here. Immediately after that very good faith initiative (with a good deal of prodding to get everyone to calm down and accept the FAR being put on hold so things can progress), the first thing that happened was the Wehwalt edit war which started this thread. Literally-- within an hour after the FAR going on hold, Wehwalt editwarred. The FAR had been put on hold after Wehwalt erupted when MastCell made a perfectly normal according to FAR process post to the FAR about a disputed External link: exactly what the FAR page is for. Wehwalt didn't like it, the FAR was put on hold so everyone could calm down, and Wehwalt edit warred instead. Not a good start, and the second edit war in as many weeks; KWW had editwarred earlier. The next thing was Arsten-- involved-- jumping in here. The third thing was KWW accusing me of "knowingly making false statements", and refusing to back down even now. And finally, Montanabw, with a long history of same here involving WP:QAI, shows up. So, to the extent there is any unfortunate timing with respect to arb elections, it is all entirely the making of KWW, Wehwalt, and their associates. I have been involved at FAR since 2006, and do not recall any FAR ever being put on hold, the editors of Natalee Holloway were given an extraordinary second chance to get their house in order, and this was not even close to the most acrimonious FAR I've seen, so putting it on hold was a very extraordinary allowance. If this is the best they can do behaviorally when given a chance, sheesh. The problems have been festering for years, and yet an edit war erupts as soon as the FAR is put on hold? And Arsten-- involved as heck-- can't just stay out of it? I would be perfectly willing to avoid an arbcase if they'd all stop this kind of behavior. If not, let's get on with it, because this has gone on for too long, and is much bigger than just this one article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as the topic of this subthread goes, we don't need an ArbCom case. The evidence is incontrovertible and the two parties don't acknowledge their culpability. We should deal with them as we would any editor. Or is there a special process for highly-regarded admins? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

And I don't know why GregJackP is jumping to having someone "accept" an arbcase, when I was talking about how to "avoid" one. That would most certainly be optimal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to retract the above statement unless you can show where I asked anyone to "accept" an arbcase. It completely misstates my position. GregJackP Boomer! 17:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I see right up there "decide whether to accept this case or not", followed by your sig (08:38, 24 November). I am happy to have you explain whatever it is that I misunderstood, but I'm not seeing it-- pls clarify. I'm hoping it won't have to be a case, and the word I used was avoid. I hope that one of this group will step forward-- as I did on the FAR[65]-- to take the lead and encourage the others to end the battleground that has occurred at every step of dispute resolution. We are here because even after a plea from me and an unprecedented exemption was granted at FAR, the dispute continued immediately, false accusations continued at the BLP noticeboard, and then some here wanted to close the discussion without examining the behaviors or ways to stop it. Let's stop it without the need for further escalation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it should be fairly clear - KWW is running for ArbCom, and if elected would be deciding if ArbCom should accept the case as a committee member. It should be clear from the context since 1) you are aware of the election, and 2) you are aware that KWW is a candidate. I'm questioning the timing of this at ANI and the your bringing up ArbCom at all. I'm not involved in the FAR on the Holloway girl, nor do I care about it. I do, however, care about the elections and that everyone get a fair shot at it, without any Nixonian type tricks. GregJackP Boomer! 18:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I would recuse myself. As for any timing, it would be the result of User:EricBarbour and his delusion that I am in the employ of the Aruban government. He's been vocal about that on Wikipediocracy recently, and I suspect that digging into his rantings is what drew Anthonyhcole's attention to the article. I'm not aware of any linkage between that and SandyGeorgia.—Kww(talk) 19:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I was sure that you would recuse yourself, however, that is still part of the decision-making process. A recusal is noted in the tally, and affects the number of votes needed to accept the case. GregJackP Boomer! 23:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw Holloway mentioned on a talk page and came to see what was happening (User:Newyorkbrad's I think). Nobody asked me to intervene. One look at your defense of an obvious BLP violation was enough to enthrall me. My question about the article title genuinely came out of the blue. It struck me as odd. I had no idea about the history of that article or the history of the naming dispute. I had no idea you and Sandy had any history, and I thought Wehwalt and Sandy were friends (though it didn't take much reading to disillusion me there).

Further: From my reading of the last few days I share your view on most things around the Holloway disappearance - the likely cause, the behaviour of those involved, etc. As I said, I don't even care what the title is, and you make a good (though I'm not quite persuaded) case for Natalee Holloway. My problem is twofold:

1. You misled newcomers to the page regarding consensus on the title
2. You defended a BLP violation. More on this: The BLP violation you defended was not "Joe is a murderer." It was more nuanced than that. And that is my concern about you as an admin, and especially as an arbitrator. You see black and white but are blind to the shades of grey that make up most of human life.

Others should know that I have criticised Kww on more than one occasion for his extremely poor people skills and seeming complete lack of empathy and am of the view that he is not fit to dish out sanctions as an administrator to anyone other than obvious socks and vandals. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

GregJackP, I didn't initiate a FAR over a month ago (before candidacies were even declared), I didn't edit war right after peace was made on a FAR, I didn't initiate an ANI, I didn't level false accusations at me on BLPN (Kww did), and I can't be responsible for the timing here, so I don't know what you are implying. I am not going to play semantic games with you and I am quite sure that KWW would not be deciding whether to take a case involving himself (recuse). As to what led me to mention ArbCom-- even after multiple attempts at clarification, Kww continued to insist that I had "knowingly made false statements", while, at the same time, this ANI circus was expanding-- it didn't look like there was much hope for any resolution of the whole grand mess short of ArbCom. And, although he didn't, I did pursue resolution of that with Kww on his talk page so that at least one chapter of this could be closed. I would like to see more of that from others. That I mentioned ArbCom doesn't mean that's the direction I want it to go or hope for it to go, but we all can expect it to go if the current trends do not abate. I think it is in everyone's best interest to see some collaboration here, and cessation of the battleground. I made a long plea on the FAR that was successful for all of an hour. I think it is fully in the power of all of the parties here to come out, as I did, and tell each other to just knock it off. Starting with asking Montanabw to strike the words "drop the stick" from her vocabulary might go a long ways, and reminding Arsten that there are plenty of other admins who can settle editwarring ANIs without him having to weigh in when he's involved. There is plenty that can be done to allow the FAR to work without the level of animosity and acrimony that has been thrown around. My point is to avoid an Arbcom, and since I said that, I have seen no one here do or say anything in that direction (I did receive and appreciate a sorta kinda acknowledgement from KWW on the BLPn thread that I had not done what he said I had done, which is encouraging). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You simply pointed out that your use of the word "slur" was at WP:FAR instead of being on NYB's talk page where my memory had placed it. Please don't take my decision to stop hammering you about it as a sign that I have changed my mind.—Kww(talk) 21:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Good. I also pointed out that well before I used the word "slur" on the FAR, you had already leveled your false accusation at me, so it's not only where you were wrong, it's when, and your false allegation is still unsubstantiated. We are clear, and now I know that you are a duplicitous communicator. Had I never made the plea on the FAR, and then followed it with another plea on the BLPN to help Overagainst understand where he was missing BLP policy, you'd all be fighting among yourselves now, and I wouldn't even have to be involved with you. Always had by my inner Pollyanna. And starting to feel like I need a shower. You had a peace offering, not only once, but three times now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Where is this going?

Usually ANI consists of "user X", made "edit Y" in violation of "policy Z", and here are the diffs. But this is just endless, circular, arguing, with all kinds of accusations, complaints and insults, with all kinds of people coming and going. Who is the 'complainer' here? What is the complaint? And is there a (clearly) uninvolved admin here, looking to deal with this and wrap it up? - ^theWOLFchild 23:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You pretty much nailed it, Wolfchild. There is just a whole lot of crazy going on and whatever issues initially arose have been lost in the shuffle. I THINK (and I may be wrong) that the whole thing started when Overagainst wanted to add stuff about van der Sloot's Peruvian conviction to the lead of the Holloway article in a tone that implied guilt by association, which was opposed by Wehwalt as doing so was viewed as PoV and UNDUE. Several other people weighted in on this, including me (initially viewing myself as neutal). Overagainst didn't drop the stick and brought the FAR. At that point, after several weeks of tl;dr, between Overagainst and the lead editors of the page, (with minor input from people like me) then some folks like Sandy popped by and raised some very old grievances that date back several years. Now we are off to the races. Nonetheless, Wehwalt has agreed to look over the article and update it and everyone else, including Sandy, appears to have agreed to give him the time to tweak the actual article. For all of the above reasons, I suggest that this ANI be closed and discussion returned back to the article itself. Montanabw^(talk) 01:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wolf Child, this thread started with a complaint about an admin edit-warring which could reasonably have been brought here or to AN. Now it has evolved into a complaint about two admins lying on an article talk page to win a naming dispute. That starts here, and hopefully gets addressed here. It is a very serious matter - these are very serious charges, especially considering the timing discussed in the above thread. Watch and learn - but please hold off on offering advice until you're better across the ramifications. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw's description is, to put it charitably, biased. Anthonyhcole documented the years of behaviors that led Overagainst to initiate a Featured article review (FAR). SandyGeorgia "dropped by" and agreed that a FAR was needed, and later gave a list of the issues per the FA crit. that need to be corrected in an article that hasn't been updated since I passed it FA more than five years ago, and then pleaded with the rest of the bickering crew for peace, and agreed with the FAR delegate that an unprecedented three-month hold on the needed Featured article review might help work proceed more calmly. That peace lasted an hour, before edit warring erupted. How we got to where we are after the edit warring came to ANI is described by Anthonyhcole. Pehaps Mark Arsten, Montanabw, and others can be convinced to stop involving themselves in the disputes of their associates, and let uninvolved admins act. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Request to Close

I request that this thread be closed as no good will come of it. The thread started because Wehwalt restored a reliable source (FoxNews is, whether some agree with there reporting) three times. Right there this should have been shut down, but it wasn't.

This has spiraled into a snarky, name-calling witchhunt against Wehwalt, Gerda Arendt, Kww, Mark Arsten, and Montanabw by SandyGeorgia and Anthonyhcole. I can not speak for the latter three, but Wehwalt and Gerda are some of our best editors. Wehwalt has an FA on the front page every month, Gerda is constantly working on Bach cantatas (which is tough work).

The only thing that will come out of this is two very good editors leave and Wikipedia will be worse off for it. As such, I ask that this ANI thread be closed, everyone chill out and everyone steer clear of each other. No good can come of this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Your contributions to the dispute (on the talk pages of Anthonyhcole and SandyGeorgia) are pretty much the opposite of "chilling out". I submit that no good can come of your involvement, and request that as such you uninvolve yourself. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, the initial concern (which I posted) had nothing to do with FoxNews. What gave you the idea that it did? Is it too much to ask for some basic diligence before people spout off here? MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• I really don't want to throw myself in here, but hey, why not, since Mrs. Drmies and the kids are at the zoo. I'm not sure I understand why that scrux site was re-inserted, and then twice more. I don't even understand why it was in there when it passed FA. I believe in the good faith of everyone involved here, and I don't think that qualifying a dispute as a witch hunt is productive. All involved are longtime editors and that old grievances (never really solved, just covered over--inevitably, perhaps, and it's not always a bad thing) are brought up again is unavoidable. Mind you, I'm saying this without knowing all the ins and outs of the Holloway edit notice and the FA review and all that. I think everyone should take a step back and take each others' comments seriously (minus the snark--this is very much like a marital dispute and I say that with ten years of experience, during which I of course was never wrong). If there still is an uninvolved person then perhaps their fresh set of eyes can come up with something reasonable for the Holloway business--if indeed there still is a dispute. In the meantime, I hope no one retires. Ho ho ho, the spirit of the season, mother is coming so go clean the house--that's what I'm doing. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sum up and wrap up (?)

• Well, this was started by User:MastCell, under the heading; "BLP and edit-warring issue at Disappearance of Natalee Holloway". He stated he wanted "outside eyes" on the article, and mentioned an edit war over an external link to; http://scrux.com. Well, there certainly has been a lot of attention brought to that article now...
  
• There was then a sub-section added by User:Anthonyhcole, under the heading; "Mark Arsten's behaviour". This is rather self-explanatory. There was some debate. There doesn't seem to be any sanctions coming Mark's way.
  
• There was then another sub-section added by User:SandyGeorgia, titled; "Purpose of ANI", that further elaborated her discontent with Mark Arsten as well. In it, Mark acknowledged her concerns. Sandy did go on to point out that these boards are flawed, and there are concerns about admin bias and inaction, (something that many of us agree with).
  
• Following a debate in the previous subsection, Sandy created another sub-section titled; "Per Georgewilliamherbert request", in which he details her concerns of editorial and abuse by, among others, Kww, Wehwalt and AuburnPilot (ret?).
  
• This followed by yet another sub-section, under the heading; "Kww and Wehwalt", by Anthony Cole, which complains of more admin abuse by these two, specifically lying and page ownership.
  
• This followed by the last sub-section, titled "Timing", created by Sandy, which led to further debate between her and Kww.

So... it seems the initial objective, to bring attention to the problem at the Holloway article has been achieved. Following that, there have been multiple debates, on multiple issues, with multiple accusations and involving multiple editors. Does anybody see any one person (or persons) being sanctioned here? (following a mess this large?) However, if somebody, wants specific sanctions against somebody else, they should consider a new ANI, or perhaps another means of dispute resolution (and they should be ready detail the exact violation and provide exact diffs). All that aside, some uses here have some very strong concerns about long-term and widespread admin abuse, so it just may be that they should consider putting together a case for ArbCom.

But as far as this ANI goes, does anyone object to it being closed up? - ^theWOLFchild 16:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

My complaint - and I think everyone else's - is about editor behaviour here, not admin behaviour. (We do supposedly expect a higher standard of admins but the behaviour I see here is unacceptable even for a newbie non-admin.) As for ArbCom: too soon. If anything is to be done about either of these people, the next step is an RfC. But first, let's leave this open for another half day to let those on the other side of the world comment, if they wish. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutralhomer summed it all up well, I think. The Holloway article itself has a loose consensus for next steps, apparently agreed upon between Sandy and Wehwalt, (I think) which shall be worked on there, and probably with no need to push for final resolution until after the holidays, AND a cautious truce seems to be in place until then. As for this drama here, there are two loosely-affiliated groups of editors here who have had differences of opinion for quite some time over multiple issues, and this article seems to have become the latest battleground. Further, any time any uninvolved person - admin or otherwise- weighs in with an opinion, they seem to find themselves made a part of one faction of the other and, indeed, there are no neutrals here in Harlan County. One accuses the other of being a "cabal", but is not seeing the large "cabal" log in their own eye. Until the "we aren't a cabal" side can let go of their scorched earth, "those-other-people-are-all-wrong-and-somehow-bad-because-they-disagree-with-us" approach, no good can come of further discussion here, it's just going to escalate. Close this thing, pretty please. Montanabw^(talk) 18:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You're in the Wehwalt cabal, right? I appear to be in the Sandy cabal. Can I point out to you how sus it is for Neutralhomer and you to be demanding closure of this discussion? If you're aligned with the person/people under scrutiny it looks pretty ... well ... obvious to be constantly calling for the discussion to be closed. Are either Bushranger or Hahc21 (the two people who tried to shut this down earlier) in the Wehwalt cabal?

You're also missing the point here. This is not a discussion about content or FAR. That an arrangement has been made about the FAR is keen but irrelevant. I have raised some pretty bloody serious issues above about Wehwalt's and Kww's ownership and misrepresenting of consensus, and I'd like to see if there is one non-partisan who is willing to comment on that. I realise this is a long thread and I know how much it pains people to scroll (let alone actually read stuff). But perhaps you could go about your usual business and just let this be for a few more hours. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

User:John

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

---

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

[66] 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 [67] 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 [68]. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:John (2)

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

---

[69] was ended with an "apology" from that user.

See [70] with the edit summary:

null edit; i note your interest but i no longer take your opinion at all seriously because of all the lies you have told; waiting for someone more honest to respond here. no offence

And also [71] made after the AN/I report above where he states

Gosh. Here's a hint; stop making false claims, and you won't have to deal with others calling your false claims what they are

I humbly suggest the "apology" was "pro forma" and was not actually an apology of any weight whatsoever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Notified at [72] Collect (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you want? You two do not get along and sometimes words aren't nice. Can we just edit? Do you have consensus for the underlying edit? There is a point when you just have to move on. JodyB _talk 13:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that personal attacks are alright. What would you do if someone attacked you like that? 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 14:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No but taking established editors to ANI for what obviously is a personal grudge is just looking for drama and is unacceptable. Secret ^account 14:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course not, but It happens and I don't go running to somebody to go and spank somebody else. I'm a preacher. I am attacked like that routinely. I know feelings get hurt and I hate that but really, deal with the content and move along. The sooner one learns to ignore hateful speech the faster he will find success and happiness. Coming to ANI is not the answer to all of life's ills. JodyB _talk 14:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I hold no "grudge" at all, and resent any inference to that effect. The ill-temper is one-sided, and clear. And the nature of the "apology" is rightly questioned. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not a grudge, it is a personal attack by John. Secret, JodyB and John should read the fourth of the five pillars and also read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 14:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Community ban proposal of Jude Enemy

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

---

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)
• Support per Rschen7754. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

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

MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon

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

---

See my talk page: [73]

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.[74] 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 [75] 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)

(Non-administrator comment) Actually, people here have already been called "fascists" and have been compared to "Stalin", which is sort of like 'Godwin's Brother-in-Law'... - ^theWOLFchild 15:54, 24 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)

I have to say that their referring to "an axe to grind" as an "obscure riddle" was one of the more...interesting things Ive seen here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Mass rollback needed

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

---

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 [76] is completely uncalled for and undermines the Wikipedia:Clean start policy. Reverting the editor's contributions with summaries like this [77] and this [78] 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)

Gentlemen! You can't fight in here; this is the war room! bobrayner (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, BMKen, Blackberry is right. You are pressing this user pretty hard, and even threatened a block... why? Have they done anything wrong? You clearly showed bad faith, assuming they were hiding something evil, when you had no basis to do so. You should have considered a more innocent alternative. Now you should just apologize and move on. - ^theWOLFchild 23:36, 24 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 [79] is taking a giant shit on this policy from a great height. Beyond My Ken should not be interrogating [80] 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)

You mean you already knew "wiki-jargon" before creating the BMK account? How fortunate you must have been that someone didn't come along and start acting like a total ass-hat on your talk page, demanding to know who you really were. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 10:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Not much on investigation before sticking your nose in and shooting from the hip, are you? My history is an open book. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:58, 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)

You did not "merely [ask] a "new" editor who exhibited behavior typical of an experienced editor if they were new or not." You posted on their talk page instructing them to "dispense with the pretense and come clean about who you are, what your previous account was, and why you're editing with a new account. The alternative is for I and other editors to keep nibbling away at the evidence you present until we uncover the truth, and then you are blocked from editing" and then reverted their edits, labelling them a "suspicious editor." Who exactly is creating a problem where none previously existed? Perhaps it is you who should be minding their own fucking business unless and until the editor acts in a manner contrary to policy. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 10:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Goodness gracious! Temper, temper, my good Wikipedian!! Language! Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, BMKen... what did you expect? You conduct is so outrageous, so far out of line, that people are bound to be upset. This user has done absolutely nothing wrong, and you are hounding him and threatening him as is if A) he did do something wrong, and B) as if it was any of your goddamned business.

I certainly hope Kdtully did not email you his other account id's when you demanded them. He had no obligation to, and you had no place asking. If he did, it would certainly behove you to delete that info, never reveal it to anyone, and stay away from that user from this point forward.

When Blackberry speaks up on their behalf (and rightfully so), you then have the nerve to insult them, and accuse them of being in the wrong. For cryin' out loud... let it go. You are in the wrong, not everybody else. Just admit it, give these two users the apologies they so rightfully deserve, and then move.

This whole thing is definitely something an admin should be looking into, closely. - ^theWOLFchild 00:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wolfchild, your misrepresentation and interpretation here and in your comment above is so full of cow manure that I'm considering burning it in my fireplace when I run out of logs. How is it you avoided being indef blocked when the community had the chance to do so? Weren't you supposed to be being mentored or something? Your propensity for continuing dramah you're not involved in when it's running out of steam is typical of the behavior of trolls - and your contributions (2,307 edits in 2.25 years, with only 39.4% to articles, as opposed to 55.79% to various talk pages and the Wikipedia space) pretty much show where your priorities are, and they don't seem to be on improving the encyclopedia. So I'm taking your comments for what they're worth, and trust that other Wikipedians who are here to build an encyclopedia will do the same. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder to all and sundry: in the last community discussion concerning the behavior of this editor, "Polemical use of sandboxes by thewolfchild", which was closed just three days ago, the discussion was closed by Drmies with the comment: "I'm going to close this, with the redundant note that TWC needs to be very careful since they came this close to an indefinite block" Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely pathetic; using a low-blow ad hominem does not negate the validity of TWC's point. Earth to BMK: this is about your abusive behaviour towards an editor. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 01:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there was no "abuse", the "incident" (if it was one) is long over, I've already stepped back from it and didn't follow up in any way, I didn't ask for the subject's ID to be e-mailed to me (he offered, I didn't ask), and you and one other editor are the only ones keeping this non-issue alive. So... I think that's my last comment on this non-subject, you can have the final word if you'd like, I've leave sone space here for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Your actions here (I'm speaking to you Beyond My Ken) have gone way past the line of acceptability. It was none of your business who Kdtully used to be, and your immediate attacks against this editor as well as your attitude here (including what I'm sure you thought to be a cleverly made hidden comment against Blackberry Sorbet) are more than enough reason to block you on the spot. However, I'm not going to at this time, as the situation has de-escalated without administrative intervention. Therefore, I'm closing this thread to prevent it from getting any further out of hand. Do not take this to mean your behaviour here was, in any way, considered acceptable by the community. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Wikifan115 -- paid advocacy?

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

I just reverted some blatant WP:REFSPAM by this user: [81][82][83][84][85]... 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)

Well, he's obviously been employed by VKool's Tony Nguyen, as that's what all the recent spam links were for and since that didn't work, he's now created VKool.--Atlan (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• As I understand the community's consensus on this to require disclosing any incentivised advocating like this, I've put a block in place until he comes clean (for a week at the moment). (Note: Any admin can unblock him once his paid interests are made known, and they are found to not be tied to Wiki-PR.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I looked at a few of this writer's contributions, but didn't see any sign that he is affiliated with Wiki-PR. —rybec 23:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No one said he was. What's your point?--Atlan (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User has posted an unblock request denying that he has been involved in paid advocacy. MER-C 02:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Citing Own Research

Hkettani has been blocked indefinitely for the suspected impersonation of Dr. Houssain Kettani. Notwithstanding, Hkettani has been banned per community consensus, from making any edits citing, referencing or linking his own research in article space. If he wishes such material to be included in articles, he must instead propose it on the relevant article talk page to seek consensus and he must clearly reveal his personal involvement. Any failure to abide by these restrictions, and/or any further disruptive editing in any namespace (including unfounded accusations against other editors) will be met with an indefinite block. The topic ban will become effective once Hkettani has been informed on his user talk page. The duration of this ban is indefinite but not necesserarily infinite. It will not be lifted should Hkettani get unblocked in the impersonation issue. Instead, the topic ban can then be appealed either at the administrators' noticeboard, or at requests for arbitration or clarification and amendment.

Unfortunately, Hkettani has displayed a fundamental lack of understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines and the overall functionality of the project, most prominently the concept of editing based on consensus. Instead he resorted to pushing his views and alleged expertise to the point of becoming disruptive and incivil. De728631 (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

---

I 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 [86]. 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[87] 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,[88] 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.[89] You need to stop contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests."[90] Rivertorch mentioned on my talk page that there may be some moderate WP:COMPETENCE issues.[91] 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.[92] 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 [93] 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 [94] . 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. [95] 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. [96].

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". [97][98][99][100] [101]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)

Hkettani, I'm sure there's a guideline or essay against saying something like "focus on the issue at hand, complain about me in another thread" but I can't remember what it is. Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.active 13:44, 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: [102]. 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? [103][104][105] 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". [106] 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?

• Hkettani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

• Support: this editor doesn't get it and it has become clear there is no prospect of coming to a better understanding. I've looked into his "publisher" -- there is no peer review involved, and they will print anything they're given. Thus is a computer scientist able to publish whatever he likes about what is essentially a demography topic. This editor is WP:NOTHERE, and it's evident that a big cluebat is needed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - everything about his contribution history screams WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT. If he really wants to help build an encyclopedia (rather than promote his own work) then he should have no problem writing about other things for a while. Stalwart111 13:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per failure to get it. p.s. came to my attention on Islam and Africa. --Inayity (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Note - For those who find it hard to see a scientific projection of World population up to 2300, they can read UN Report. As of the methodology and estimate of Muslim population in each country and worldwide from 600AD to 2300AD, they can read Kettani, H. (2014). The World Muslim Population, History & Prospect. Singapore: Research Publishing Service. Of course, those challenging the data have no desire to read or ability to understand such projection. They may be a bigot who has issue with Islam and/or ignorant who refuse to learn yet want to feel as an editor to an encyclopedia! I agree that an administrator needs to stop this or we take it to arbitration Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests. So far all attempts to have a constructive, scientific, and objective oriented discussion has failed. The reason is that some people have fixed opinion and want to practice censorship. They are unqualified academically to discuss such topic scientifically. Instead, they recruit other "editors" to make it seem they are supported and are right! Hkettani (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"unqualified academically"?? Ever read WP:NPA? It appears you're "unqualified socially" to edit in a community-based project ... how does that make you feel? ES&L 15:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I know my credentials. I do not know yours. But I can only guess! Hkettani (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again, your supposed credentials do not matter on this project. Unless your book has been validated as a reliable source by WP:RSN, then it's not. Based on the discussion here, you're not even an "expert" on the topic you're pretending to be an expert in - and that's academic fraud. If you work for a university/college, that's grounds for dismissal. Your attitude towards others on this project are grounds for dismissal from Wikipedia. By the way, my academic credentials are available for you to view. I also noticed that you declined to answer my question ES&L 16:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The link your provided does not mention your education. I'm afraid from your comment I can tell it is not advanced. Hkettani (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You understand that you have just invited everyone to buy your book so that they can see your methodology and accept you as an expert. Do you see how this could be seen as inappropriate to a reasonable editor, regardless of malign or censorious intent? As a scholar, can you point to peer review of your work? Stating as a fact that those who would challenge your work have no ability to understand it is not scientific, accurate, or civil. Can you see the flaws in your approach here? __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not see that cause the UN report is available free of charge! Hkettani (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Perfect answer to my questions. Perhaps you'd consider running for ArbCom? __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

From the UN report: "Any demographic projections, if they go 100, 200, or 300 years into the future, are little more than guesses" (p. 3) As for the projections/guesses the report actually makes, it is worth noting that it arrives at three different figures, according to three different scenarios. The 'high' scenario gives a world population by 2300 of 36.4 billion, the 'medium' scenario 9.0 billion, and the 'low' scenario 2.3 billion (p. 13). With 'data' like that as a starting point, even ignoring the blindingly-obvious difficulties of projecting/guessing religious affiliations 300 years into the future, Hkettani's 'projections' for Muslim populations look more than a little over-precise to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for glancing through the report, but apparently you stopped at the first paragraph, where the quote was taken. If the UN believes abstractly in that then why would they publish (self-publish!) a 250 page book/report? Probability and Statistics are not about knowing the future with certainty. It is rather a systematic way to use current and past trends coupled with assumptions to extrapolate to the future. Indeed, as we move farther from the present observed data, the error margin gets bigger, since the assumptions are not exact. Like tracking a hurricane, we see a "cone" of projected trajectory. It would sound outrageous when someone says why predict five or ten days ahead for a hurricane when you cannot tell the exact point of impact! The UN population projections are updated every two years and the updates are always different than the previous ones. The UN Report discusses these things in details. And the book Kettani, H. (2014). The World Muslim Population, History & Prospect. Singapore: Research Publishing Service ends with the statement "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.”" You can ask for a free review copy from the publisher. I am not interested in selling anything! Rather, I am fascinated by numbers from 600AD to 2300AD, for the World and each current country total and Muslim populations. Of course, none of this will sway you for several reasons I mentioned above! Hkettani (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Example - In Islam_in_Europe, Darkness_Shines thinks that having this as a lede "This article deals with the history and evolution of the presence of Islam in Europe." is better than this (which I contributed) "Europe was the third continent; after Asia and Africa, to which Islam has entered. Muslims crossed the Gibraltar strait in 711AD, conquering all the Iberian Peninsula by 715AD. They kept going north and conquered half of current France, reaching 100Km southeast of Paris in 725AD, until they were defeated in the Battle of Tours (Balat Ashuhada) in 732AD. They were driven out of France by 759AD, but returned and conquered the Mediterranean coast of France from 891AD to 973AD. In the ninth century Muslims controlled south of the Italian Peninsula for forty years and briefly controlled western coast of the Italian Peninsula. Muslims remained in control of southern Spain until the fall of Grenada in 1492AD. Muslims also controlled East Europe under the Golden Horde Empire in 1313AD. They remained in Crimea, in southern Ukraine, until 1796AD, when the Muslim Crimean Khanate was captured by the Russian Empire. Muslims controlled the Balkan Peninsula for several centuries, starting with the conquest of Istanbul in 1453, under the Ottoman Empire. They kept going north until they besieged Vienna in 1528 and 1683. Muslims were defeated in the second attempt and kept retreating south since then. However, there are several Muslim majority countries that remain in the Balkans today: Albania, Bosnia, East Thrace (Turkey) and Kosovo. All Mediterranean Islands were under Muslim control at some point: The Balearics (903 – 1232), Crete (827 – 961, 1645 – 1897), Corsica (806 – 930), Rhodes (653 – 658, 717 – 718, 1522 – 1912), Sardinia (809 – 1015), Sicily (831 – 1091), and Malta (870 – 1091). As for Cyprus, it was listed under Asia, and controlled by Muslims 647 – 965, 1426 – 1460, 1518 – 1914, and the northern third of the island is under Muslim control since 1974. Thus, the Muslim population changed from 24,000 or 0.1% of the total European population in 700AD, to 0.90 million or 2.5% in 800AD, to 1.87 million or 5.2% in 900AD, to 2.4 million or 6.6% in 1000AD, to 2.7 million or 6.0% in 1100AD, to 2.9 million or 5.3% in 1200AD, to 3.0 million or 4.7% in 1300AD, to 2.7 million or 3.7% in 1400AD, to 2.7 million or 3.2% in 1500AD, to 3.1 million or 2.9% in 1600AD, to 3.4 million or 2.8% in 1700AD, to 4.0 million or 2.2% in 1800AD, to 9 million or 2.1% in 1900, to 37 million or 5.1% in 2000, to 46 million or 6.2% in 2020, and is projected to reach 68 million or 10.7% by 2100, then 96 million or 14.1% by 2200, and then 124 million or 17.0% by 2300." and I cited Kettani, H. (2014). The World Muslim Population, History & Prospect. Singapore: Research Publishing Service. Hkettani (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Your lead, especially the third paragraph is awful--it's practically illegible. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want a free access to the rationale and methodology then you may check this paper. Hkettani (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't--I was talking about the writing. Free access to guidelines here; also here and here. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support - warning and topic ban as proposed above by User:AndyTheGrump. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Example - In Islam_in_Asia, the article is uninformative and talks about Hinduism more than Islam. So I modified the lede as follows "Islam has started in Asia which explains why more than two-thirds of the World Muslim population resides in this continent. Islam started in Mecca in 609AD, and then was established in Medina in 622AD which marks the first Hijri year. Both cities are located in Hijaz, west of Saudi Arabia. By the death of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in 632AD, Islam was ruling all of the Arabian Peninsula. By the death of his second Caliph Omar bnul Khattab in 644AD, most of the Near East, parts of the Indian Subcontinent and Central Asia were under Muslim control. Islam continued spreading in Asia but at a much slower rate. Significant portion of Central Asia and part of China was conquered during the reign of the sixth Umayyad Caliph al-Walid I bnu Abdel Malik bnu Marwan who ruled from 705 to 715. Islam spread to the rest of Central Asia and Russia when the Mongols adopted Islam as their religion in the first half of the fourteenth century. Most of the Indian Subcontinent was under Muslim control by the end of the twelfth century. Islam spread in the rest of Asia with trade and preaching. It spread through much of the Malay Archipelago starting the twelfth century and by the sixteenth century it became the dominant religion. Islam only reached the Korean Peninsula and Japan during the twentieth century. Thus, the Muslim population increased from 7.6 million or 4.3% of the total Asian population in 700AD, to 12.7 million or 7.0% in 800AD, to 17.0 million or 9.2% in 900AD, to 21.1 million or 11.3% in 1000AD, to 24.9 million or 12.0% in 1100AD, to 29.1 million or 12.8% in 1200AD, to 35.0 million or 14.2% in 1300AD, to 40.2 million or 15.1% in 1400AD, to 47.4 million or 16.7% in 1500AD, to 60 million or 15.9% in 1600AD, to 70 million or 17.3% in 1700AD, to 92 million or 13.9% in 1800AD, to 163 million or 17.9% in 1900, to 0.93 billion or 24.9% in 2000, to 1.28 billion or 27.9% in 2020, and is projected to reach 1.68 billion or 35.6% by 2100, then 1.62 billion or 36.7% by 2200, and then 1.80 billion or 38.6% by 2300." This was reverted by Dolescum. Hkettani (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Let's cut to the chase. Hkettani's insinuations about editors' motives have now crossed the line into accusations of bigotry, he continues to display a profound ignorance of Wikipedia's policies and an utter unwillingness to be informed about them, and his continued inability to construct grammatical sentences—"They may be a bigot who has issue with Islam and/or ignorant who refuse to learn yet want to feel as an editor to an encyclopedia!"—only strengthens my suspicions that he may not be who he purports to be. (Afaik, he has not used OTRS to confirm his identity.) Whoever he is, he has exhausted my abundant reserves of patience and goodwill. Can we please wrap this up now? Formal warning, topic ban, and block if required, per Andy's proposal, with the proviso that the block happen immediately if he makes one more unsupported suggestion that other editors are acting in bad faith or out of some hidden agenda. Rivertorch (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Rivertorch: Discussion with you started like this: "you violated COI", then I showed you that's not the case. Then, "you cited your own work," so I showed you where it says it is OK. Then "you self-published", then I refuted that. Then "I do not recognize your publisher!", "you are engineer why do you publish on Muslim population," "your grammar sucks" and on and on and on, and I refuted one by one. Then "ban ban ban"!! So clearly, the real reason is hidden! Insinuations, accusations, allegations, etc. Yo have a tough life man, try to be in peace with yourself, you will have a much better life. I wish you good and healing soon. Hkettani (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support If I wasn't sure before, Hkettani's examples have convinced me he shouldn't be editing this topic area. That's not a joke, his examples are evidence that he simply doesn't understand or care about what we expect in an article. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban as proposed by Andy, and also the quick trigger proviso proposed by Rivertorch above. Several recent highly regarded reference works contain significant articles on topics such as Islam in Asia, as well as on individual religions in individual countries. With such articles available for us to use as sources, both for their own content and that of the sources they use, I cannot believe that there is any good reason for us to have reason to have content which, basically, can be seen as promoting the interests and attention given to an individual editor and his own works. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Andy and Rivertorch. Self-citing is counter-productive at Wikipedia whatever the position might be elsewhere. Inability to recognise when the consensus is most definitely against one isn't an attitude that helps either. Peridon (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support We have enough POV pushing. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support Ample evidence here of Wiki-cluelessness, self-promotion, use of self-published sources, battleground mentality, IDHT behavior, masquearding as an expert in a subject one is not competent in, promoting fringe views. Considering the overall behavior, I'd go with an indef block, but since a topic ban is what's being suggested, I support that option. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note - An encyclopedia is not a popularity contest. It is rather a summary of facts, information and possible point of views. In the past, many ides that were popular in certain geographical regions are now believed to be wrong. WP is unique for its accessibility, openness, and promptness in updating. It appears that anyone who can use WP editor becomes an editor. Consequently, some problems arise when amateurs write about a subject and exclude the experts. Of course the expert will cite their work, specially if it is the latest research in the field. As a result, WP article will be useless to say the least. Apparently, I am having a discussion with "editors" who do not know statistics, Islam/Muslims and other things. 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. Hatred clogs train of thoughts and leads to ignorance and stupidity. It leads to insinuations, allegations, accusations, etc. When we refute each one, we get a new one, then threat of censorship and blocking. We get mad when a government practices that on us, yet we do that, which sounds and smells hypocritical. 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? It remains to see if WP experiment can be protected and survive as envisioned by its founder. That what I hope for, and aspire for. I would not have invested time to improved its articles if that was not my intention. As for those who wonder why I did not add content to scientific/engineering pages, my answer is that those are well written and my addition/improvements to them did not seem necessary. Whereas the pages on the topic at hand (Muslims/Islam) are poorly written, sometimes off-track, and sometimes full of insinuations to the wrong direction. I use WP from time to time, and it was my way of showing gratitude to give back to the community through informative updates. Hkettani (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The WP:CENSORSHIP argument doesn't hold water, and accusing editors of hatred is even worse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support, the above indicates that this editor is not willing to abide by consensus and other Wikipedia policies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support as bare minimum We're either being trolled by someone pretending to be someone else (hint: yes, we've had people pretend to be PhD's before), or have someone who is 100% willing to violate his institution's ethical principles, all the meanwhile violating Wikipedia's policies that he agreed to. His constant personal attacks and accusations of "other reasons" when challenged to follow policy are really the tip of the iceberg. (Another hint: considering his lack of awareness that a Masters degree is considered "advanced", this is very obviously NOT anyone with their own advanced education) ES&L 11:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • If impersonation is taking place, as you and I have both wondered, an immediate block per WP:BLPTALK is the only appropriate response. As I said much earlier in the thread above, there is a real person associated with the name that's being used, and he is a recognized academic with a number of legitimate publications to his credit. Rivertorch (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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)

Hmm...so before you turned up, there had been two comments in three years. How did you manage to anticipate JohnInDC's comment? Tommy Pinball (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a single comment on Markwpowell64's talk page that can be construed as a warning - that was made by you. What would it take for me to feel it was was justified. You would need to tell the truth. Tommy Pinball (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Tommy, what truth do you think is being concealed here? The incivility is clear, whether you characterize the Talk page entries as "warnings" or "criticisms". If this is too trivial for ANI then let's close this up; but let's address the issue. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see from your Talk pages that you and John from Idegon have had conversations in the past. I don't feel like disentangling those, so if you have a concern that bears on the issue here, please just state it so that admins can either act or wrap up this discussion. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I just believe "John from Mark Powell" is right especially at line 3. John from Idegon needs to read WP:Pierian Spring before he beats content editors with his WP:Stick. Tommy Pinball (talk) 14:44, 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)

It's hard to find any recent edit summary by User:Markwpowell64 that doesn't contain an insult. We could ask him to stop making incivil edit summaries. If he won't stop, a block could be considered. The nasty summaries are a deliberate policy on his part and not a matter of being carried away. I think he's trying to make a point of the low quality of Wikipedia by insulting the skill of the recent contributors to each article. E.g. Nov 23, 05:30 at Skype "errant, fundamentally confused undoing of my correction. This activity exemplifies Wiki's **fatal flaw** and *bar from every being really credible". In the summary he gives the name of the editor he thinks to be confused. If he wants to crusade against Wikipedia he should do so elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

He was making the point that Microsoft was not involved in the development of Skype. C'mon 99% of Readers only read the first paragraph. Yet Microsoft is once again given the credit... errant, fundamentally confused undoing of ... correction is fair comment. This isn't a "crusade against Wikipedia"...it is a genuine attempt to improve an article. Tommy Pinball (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of us manage to improve the encyclopedia (or our own notion of "improve" anyhow) without name calling, snark and sarcasm. He needs to improve, and a lot. JohnInDC (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

...nonsense Tommy Pinball (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hm, yes, I spoke harshly to a vandal in 2007. I stand by my statement and by my criticisms (notwithstanding another 20 or 30 testy edit summaries you might find among 15,000 edits). JohnInDC (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No way does IP 201.55.97.224 deserve to be labelled a vandal. It is actually harder than we think to improve the encyclopedia without name calling. Tommy Pinball (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - John from Idegon has a point, this situation does bear looking into. Markpowell1164 states; "[I] doubt anyone has made as many hard, unassailable factual corrections in Wiki as have I"... yet he has a total of only 179 edits. Almost every single edit summary has some lengthy comment ranging from condescension to incivility. Prior to John from Idegon's edits, there were three other warnings, two level-1 NPA and a bot notice for an edit error. So as far as this ANI goes, it would be worthwhile for an admin to at least discuss with Markpowell, his attitude with his edit summaries.
As for Tommy Pinball, I think it's clear you have a grudge with John from Idegon, stemming from previous talk page interactions, and you a followed him here with the intention of confronting him, and now you seem determined to argue, ad nauseum, with both the Johns on this thread, instead of addressing the issue at hand. - ^theWOLFchild 18:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

My concern with the subject of this report is what I believe to be a WP:CIR issue. He states edit summaries are for attacking other editors, states what can only be described as a grandiose delusion of his importance to Wikipedia, and appears to be unable to make a constructive edit without attacking another editor in the process. The community has acted before in cases where apparent mental issues have prevented an editor from working constructively. So do we need a place where people can learn what to do to contribute more than we need Markwpowell64's self described "invaluable" 179 contributions? As far as Tommy goes, it's just like water on a duck's back. John from Idegon (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Update - the subject editor responded to me on my Talk page with a fairly lengthy posting that - to me anyhow - seemed to miss the essential point, namely "be nicer". I was close to asking someone here to comment to him as well, but Tommy Pinball has weighed in at Markwpalmer64's Talk page encouraging a new tone and offering to help, and I took another, hopefully more constructive, pass at it as well. We'll see what happens next. JohnInDC (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw that too and I hope that he takes Tommy up on his offer to help. Not certain the specifics of the offer are exactly helpful, but at least someone is trying to reach him. I will remain hopeful. John from Idegon (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Eric Corbett

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

---

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.[107] And then the whole thing was reverted.[108] Oy vey.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

And then reinstated [109] :) --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)

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

Please delete Tyron Balthazar

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

---

I 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)

Tagged it for WP:CSD#G3 since I'm convinced, but I'll leave it and let another pair of eyes take a look at it. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted: expired BLPPROD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Hmmmm... can someone tell this editor to cool it?

By the way, I'm not sure I like the way that comment is heading. I feel like my positions are being misrepresented in order to denigrate my person. I will notify the editor of this thread. Perhaps someone could advise them to cool it, if that is called for? I'm not sure. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool it? Biosthmors in two places (Village Pump & Wikipedia:Education noticeboard) has been making hotheaded attacks on the WMF, its education program and university professors, as well as individuals by name. I have tried to show his argument is a mass of contradictions. For example he says with zero evidence that students are "forced" to violate wikipedia rules. He says they are being "compensated" by grades and this makes them paid advocates Therefore they should be stopped. Actually he continues to be a Wiki Education program ambassador for a course that helps the professor and students do the things he denounces, another example of his confusion. At The Education Noticeboard in recent days he has made wild statements such as 1) "maybe the whole class should just be blocked for disruption and violation of Wikipedia policies. And trout the WMF for helping put students and us in this situation." 2) "But the WMF isn't supposed to speak the truth, are they? They have tons of cash and jobs so they're happy to say whatever, even if it is false, I guess." 3) as for personal attacks try this one " For what it's worth, Jami seems to have "checked out" of this noticeboard. But I'm not sure she has ever really engaged here in the first place. But that's OK. The WMF helped her get a job through the WEF. They're so nice and responsible." Rjensen (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

So Biosthmors, what's the problem with the edit you provided the diff for besides you don't like what he says? Toddst1 (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• For someone who has promised not to be disruptive while editing through an IPBE, you're being awfully disruptive ... ES&L 15:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly disruptive. The edit summary is obviously false: Bio has plenty of experience and should know you don't have to revert an edit to see the history, and Bio did not revert it. Clearly WP:GAME is evident here. Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't see anything about Rjensen comments that would require a 'cool down advisory'. But, Biosthmors, you should perhaps consider your own comments. - ^theWOLFchild 17:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the observations. I think the subsequent edits to WP:VPM (where people are discussing the issues I raise) speak for themselves. There is nothing wrong with making provocative arguments to stimulate discussion, and I happen to agree with SlimVirgin that there is an ethical dillema here. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not fully on board with the notion that there's nothing wrong with provocative statements. They have their place, but are often over-used. As a result of a chance comment on SandyGeorgia's page, I took a look at some of the WEN material, and see a lot of issues to address, but did not see that provocative statements were contributing tot he solution. We need editors who are passionate about issues, but I feel you hurt your own case with some of the rhetoric. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Widespread German IP vandalism on automobile articles

A large number of IP editors have been vandalizing myriad automobile articles today. No point idn listing 40+ IPs here, but if you recent changes patrol or watchlist auto articles, be aware, if you see something geolocate it, and block if appropriate. Existing IPs seem mostly blocked already. Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-PR editor on Jimbo's talk page?

I have to think that maybe the recent contributions by a certain new IP here are very very likely once again someone at Wiki-PR trying to engage in misdirection again? Anyone want to look them over? Also, in general, to we have a template for suspected sockpuppets or whatever of Wiki-PR yet? John Carter (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, this is a bit of a witch hunt... Anyhow, here is a WHOIS report for 173.161.202.37: http://toolserver.org/~overlordq/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?lookup=173.161.202.37. I don't think the info shows that this IP has any links with WikiPR.

Comcast Business Communications, LLC CBC-CM-4 (NET-173-160-0-0-1) 173.160.0.0 - 173.167.255.255
Comcast Business Communications, LLC CBC-PHILADELPHIA-40 (NET-173-161-128-0-1) 173.161.128.0 - 173.161.255.255

Ross Hill (talk) 21:33, 24 Nov 2013 (UTC)

The general style and nature of the comments looked a lot like the previous comments made by the president of the group when the ban was first requested, although it seems based on the information above it might not be. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

And your expertise in the analysis of "general style and nature of comments" is, what exactly? Whack-a-mole becomes lynch mobbing pretty easily. I suggest boomerang sanctions here. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Mustn't a boomerang first be thrown before having the potential of returning to the one who threw it? Surely John Carter's expertise can not be in question unless you are suggesting he is poorly stationed to speak of his thoughts regarding what he believed. And surely you needn't strain the bounds of imagination to assume his effort was proffered in good faith. In fact you needn't assume a thing, as he has proven his purpose by extensive contributions. What am I missing here Carrite?—John Cline (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - I take it that the OP's concern is that if the IP does belong to Wiki-PR, then it would be evading a ban, no? But, what of the allegations being made by that IP? Aren't they worth looking into as well? If they're true, wouldn't this be embarrassing for the WMF? Is there not an onus on them to address this? - ^theWOLFchild 15:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There was an active conversation on Jimbo Wales's talk about suspected COI editing of Cooley LLP, before the discussion was closed by Jimbo Wales. Ross Hill (talk) 19:08, 25 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Which is a reason why people should not hold community discussion there. If you only want Jimbo's feedback than asking there is fine. If you want wider community discussion than hosting it there is just dumb and it's rather sad when people try to claim a community consensus was reached there. If you want both than starting the general discussion first and encouraging Jimbo to partake in the discussion is best. Of course if Jimbo only responds in their talk page, that's up to him and people are welcome to engage him there if he doesn't mind further discussion but that's a discussion between communities members including Jimbo, not really a community discussion and people shouldn't expect it to count much in determining community consensus. In terms of the WMF, although Jimbo is on the board and is one of the people vocally opposed to paid advocacy, if you want a response or to inform the WMF, it's surely best to inform Sue or those involved in the community or legal side or the appropriate places on meta or in the mailing lists. The only reason for asking on Jimbo's page is again seeking his personal feedback as a board member and somene opposed to paid advocacy. (In reality, it didn't take a genuis to figure out he probably wouldn't be commenting much.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

IP adding incorrect information to article, engaging in personal attacks

174.91.155.64 (talk · contribs) is changed information in Olympic qualification articles to make it incorrect. See [110], [111] and many others. Also, the editor has engaged in many personal attacks in edit summaries, including [112], [113], and [114] and continues to insert wrong information even after being reverted. He also left a warning on my talk page at [115] accusing me of vandalism after I reverted his edit. Smartyllama (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

A lot of disruption there. Editor has been warned about personal attacks and edit warring and should be blocked if it continues. Toddst1 (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible sock but unknown sockmaster

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

---

User:Transformers Liquidator states "Hi Dr. Mies. How are you? I couldn't help but notice that you nominated some Transformers articles for deletion en masse. Good job. You do realize that that was my "thing" for a while, back in like 2010 and part of 2011, right? How did you even discover the Transformers articles? Well in any case, good job." Seems that they are a sock of someone but I don't know of how. User went into said deletion discussions and !voted delete in all. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Same old story from the hysterical pro-Transformers lobby on Wikipedia. These people should quit worrying about toys and non encyclopedic topics and work on some real articles. Transformers Liquidator (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'll file a SPI. Might be sock of User:Claritas. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It is almost  Confirmed as a sock of Wiki brah (talk · contribs), who is not Claritas (talk · contribs). I've blocked him (for the umpteenth time). Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's a shame--obviously someone who agrees with me can't be all bad. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Unresponsive new account adding unenclopedic copyrighted content

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

---

• User: Rajkumar1974 (talk · contribs)
• Article: Lingam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Source website: This blog or other web forums that mirror similar posts

Didn't get any response to standard welcome or copyvio messages, and I am not sure a more personalized message from me would make a difference. Anyone else want to give it a try? Abecedare (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

User was blocked indefinitely by User:TParis. MER-C 03:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Accusation of meatpuppetry

User:Kiril Simeonovski has just accused me—along with User:Ihardlythinkso and User:Bubba73—of meatpuppetry at Talk:Bobby Fischer. Here is what he wrote:

Maybe you wish to encourage me to gather a group of friends to come here and reach a consensus on the grounds of the number of people involved, but no thanks, my intent is not to manipulate with Wikipedia in a such way you already use to do. ([116])

Aside from that, he has also complained of "people from the United States whose primary goal of editing here is to push US-centrism" (although I'm not American—Ihardlythinkso and Bubba73 are, though), and is exhibiting a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude on the same talk page.

Apologies if this thread should have been posted at WP:SPI, but I find this accusation of meatpuppetry unacceptable. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, this certainly looked quite shifty when I first saw it. I think more eyes are needed here, for sure. Admiral Caius (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that there is no consensus, or nobody linked me to the page where the consensus was reached, on the current wording in the article's intro, while one of the users who participated in the discussion reverted my edit with edit description that consensus is necessary in order to make the change (diff). Building a consensus is surely one of the essential rules on Wikipedia, but one cannot revert me and request consensus when there is not consensus that the wording should be kept as such in the article. This is a pure violation of my freedom to edit Wikipedia. Moreover, if you look at the change in my edit, it's only an alignment of the article's style as in the articles of other chess players such as Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and Botvinnik. My main intent to edit the article was to digest its content since it was nominated for a GA and make the necessary changes in order to promote it in the category of quality articles (see diff 1, diff 2 and diff 3). Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That may be the problem you are having with the article, but the problem stated here by Toccata quarta is a different one: It's the problem of your suggesting that those who disagree with your objections have been invited or are inviting others to manipulate and influence the discussion, and the problem of your suggesting that those who disagree are primarily here to push US-centrism. Your comments on other editors are the problem here, not whether there is consensus. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't accuse anyone for inviting other people to join the discussion and share the same attitude, but only expressed a rhetoric question with a comparison that the American users usually tend to unify their opinions over things related to American people and thus present them as greater than others in any specific field. Toccata quarta has apparently got insulted because he's not American and he has my apologies for that. My suggestion for this one and similar incidents to it is to not allow Americans participate in a discussion concerned with the contributions and greatness of American people and let the knowledgeable people from other countries to agree on the best representation of neutrality. The same could be applicable with other nationalities as well since Wikipedia not rarely suffers from a so-called 'X-centrism'.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The more complicated your sentences get, the more it's clear that you're in a hole and don't know how to stop digging. You accused a group of editors of ganging up to keep the place US-centric. Your "apology" is "sorry editor X, you're not American", which is nonsense. Your suggestion ("to not allow Americans participate in a discussion etc.") is utter bollocks, and your attitude is unacceptable. My solution is to propose a topic ban from the Bobby Fischer discussion, and to keep our options open to see if you have exported this attitude to other areas. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to keep the options open as my personal opinion will always remain the same that the English Wikipedia suffers from US-centrism because its American editors always tend to defend the doctrine that the American people are greatest in everything. Similar cases have already been witnessed with nationalistic views in other forms (UK-centrism, Australia-centrism, Canada-centrism etc.), although they're not so radical as the primary problem appears to be spread throughout the project. My main contributions on the English Wikipedia are related to the ITN section on the main page and the same problem very often occurs there as well when a tabloid news from the United States is being massively supported by the American users who feel that the English Wikipedia can be synonymously referred to as American Wikipedia. Exceptions are, however, not uncommon, though they don't count for more than 10% of the cases in my edit history.

Your suggestion to propose a topic ban from the Bobby Fischer discussion is not that bad if you already know the conditions under which you wish to implement it. So, it's just necessary to define a timeframe for that ban, agree on whether to allow me edit the article and discuss separately how to keep track on my edits and involvement in discussion where it's possible to export the same attitude. From my personal experience, you should start with a short-term ban, which is usually longer than a day but less than a week, and than extend it if you find out that there is no improvement in my behaviour. It wouldn't change anything if you decide to ban me from editing the article, so you will not make any mistake if you choose for either of the two possibilities. But be careful, because if you decide to ban me you will have to define a timeframe for it as well. For the last part of your suggestion, sorry but I really don't know how you propose to see if my attitude will be exported in other areas. I suppose your content with my opinion, but let's first wait to see what the others have to say on this.

Finally, my advice for you in future is to first think for a while before using phrases like "utter bollocks" in your comments. It's highly inappropriate to see that one of Wikipedia's administrators, who is involved in solving a problem with a user who allegedly accuses other users, uses such words. We really need to keep the admins on the English Wikipedia fully impartial without emotional outbursts. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Besides issues w/ collegiality, discussion, & understanding consensus, on Talk:Bobby Fischer he accuses us of "Fischermania":

• It's understandable for me that you were victims of that "Fischermania", but this is Wikipedia that anyone can edit without limitations and borders.

Then "jingoism":

• I don't intend to waste your time but to free Wikipedia of American jingoistic opinions that every American is greater than any other person in the same field.

He's already logged several statements at Talk:Bobby Fischer#Greatest chess player of all time? evincing clear POV that Gary Kasparov is the only player warranting "greatest ever" description, and stating the Bobby Fischer article is:

• [...] about a person whose success in the past was misused for political reasons.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies: With regard to "exporting", the somewhat old discussion at Talk:George Gershwin#Was Gershwin a "Russian Jew"? is worth reviewing. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

When you want to cite something, please make sure that you copy the full text and thereby avoid imposing difficulties on others to get the gist of it. To avoid any further confusion I decided to post the whole relevant part in its full length:

Sorry if you get this wrong, because it's not intended to put any offence against you, but most of the chess books by American chess authors I've read in English present Fischer as someone who will never be borne on Earth; in contrast, the books written by Russian authors I've read in Russian have never focused solely on that who was the greatest player and why we should distinct him as so. It's understandable for me that you were victims of that "Fischermania", but this is Wikipedia that anyone can edit without limitations and borders.

Drmies has also proposed a solution based on my suggestion and now it's up to you and the others to comment on it as I already did.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm more interested in what's going on with Lady Gaga's Jewishness myself. Toccata Fugue 1998 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

24.218.212.247/97.95.179.56

This user 24.218.212.247 keeps adding faux Thomas stories on Shining Time Station, as well as adding links to people/things that do not have a WP article [aka red links]. 97.95.179.56 appears to be doing the same thing despite I warned him twice. I think those two IPs share the same IP. Help me out. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as redlinks go—it's perfectly alright to add them when there's a reasonable chance that an article matching that title could eventually be created. See the guidelines about redlinks here.

And I do not think these two IP addresses are related. One is a static IP and one is a dynamic IP; one is based in Massachusetts and the other is based in New Hampshire; one is hosted by Charter Communications and the other by Comcast.

Lastly, it is considered proper to warn the users you mention in ANI report that their name has come up. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism on Thomas the Train...what is this world coming to... Drmies (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

ACMEWikiNet, next time please place some proper warnings; "!" is nothing. I blocked 24.218.212.247 for a little while because they had been warned before, and there's some edit summaries in the history (not by the ACME editor) that explain what's going on. ACME, give edit summaries, will you, if you want us to do something. We can't smell whether something is made up or not--you have to understand that not everyone is a Thomas connaisseur. Ahem. Now, I'm going to employ the massive power given to me by the Wikipedia community to protect this valuable asset and safeguard the world from Thomas-related misinformation. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, don't be a dick and quit the biting. Fully 2/3 of what you wrote we could have done without. Improper and immature, and frankly you owe an apology. Admins should never act like that or be so childish. Nobody has to do edit summaries for "us to do something", that for one was ridiculous, though I assume you meant you wanted diffs provided...?Camelbinky (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Case of the Mondays, Drmies? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing wrong with Drmie's response. ACMEWikiNet has been around the horn with over 600 edits so WP:DNB doesn't apply. All I see is a (proper) admonishment for failure to properly notify, plus some light-hearted humor. And if there's one thing this community could use more of it's light-hearted humor. And I will fight to the end for that cause! AAAARRRRRRRRRRR --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• [ec with Dr. Fleischman's more lighthearted note.] Camelbinky, what? I semi-protected the article, blocked the IP, and suggested how in a long list of unexplained edits and reverts the good guys (I accept ACME as the good guy) can make it clear that they are the good guys. It's obvious that you don't have a clue what I'm talking about, and your assumption is wrong: I wasn't asking for diffs, I was asking the user to make clear what's going on by providing edit summaries. Hint: that's why I said "ACME, give edit summaries". Wanna play a game? Look at the edit history of that article, its edit summaries, and the actual edits, and try to figure out who's right and who's wrong. You may note that ACME offers a "No!", and once a "revert", and that's all. Here's a test: look at this diff, without looking at whose edit it is, and show me how I am supposed to tell that this is a vandal edit, a content dispute, or the revert of a vandal edit. If it weren't for edits like this (and that user made a note on the talk page too) nobody would know what's what. Besides, of course this should have been reported at AIV (or RFPP), and you know what we would have seen there? "User insufficiently warned". Which admin, you think, knows what to make of this?

  So, Camelbinky, you're welcome and I accept your apology. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken

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

---

In view of the discussion on this noticeboard here I am surprised and concerned to see User:Beyond My Ken still fishing for editors' private data here. As far as I am aware BMK has no authority to ask for users' personal data to be sent to his personal email account, and I am concerned that he is overstepping the mark by requesting personally identifiable information for collection and storage on servers not under the control of the Foundation and not covered by its Data Retention Policy. That he requests this information from users under duress and during discussions in which potential sanctions are being discussed borders on coercion rather than cooperation. As far as I am aware he is not an administrator and has not been given any special privileges to ask for, receive or retain private data identitifying Wikipedia users. As far as I am aware he has not been elected by the community to serve as an Arbitrator, is not a Wikimedia Foundation employee, trustee, appointee, contractor or agent employed by the Foundation, or a developer with a high level of server access. In any event, users agreeing to reveal their personal data should be being advised to email ArbCom, not BMK. In this instance, the IP address is that of an educational facility and is used by multiple users (and BMK is aware of this, as evidenced by the discussion here). This unwarranted pursuit of private data has to cease. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 19:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? The IP could just ignore him if he wants to. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether the IP ignores him or not, he shouldn't be asking in the first place. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw that whole thread develop on the IP's talk page and didn't think anything untoward of it. The IP did make the "I see that we have met again" statement;[117] I don't think it's unreasonable for BMK to offer the IP a chance to explain that statement in a channel that is not open to public scrutiny. Further, there was no demand to it, and the IP accepted cordially. —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

And that channel is via ArbCom. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The totality of the discussion, which took place here, is this:

• IP: Hello Beyond My Ken, I see that we have met again. :-)
• Me: I believe you have an advantage on me. You say "I see that we have met again", but I'm not sure of who you are. ... Would you care to send me an e-mail to let me know who it is I'm talking to?
• IP: Sure, what is your e-mail address? I apologize for the long delay in replying to you.

And, except for a brief discussion on my talk page about how to get an e-mail to me, that is it. There was nothing illicit here, someone said "We meet again" and I asked who it was that I was meeting again. Period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that the nub of the discussion, the first two comments, took place 4 days ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Blackberry Sorbet, if you're looking to get BMK in trouble you'll have to look a bit harder than this (of course I'll be glad to send you the relevant secret information via my IPs email address). What's most glaring about this is that you didn't take it up with them on their talk page, though you're a stickler for procedure, it seems, and procedure is outlined very clearly on the top of this page: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Moving right along, Drmies (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • As BMK has clearly stated "This person has nothig [sic] of interest to say to me" and undone previous comments by me to his talk page without reply, posting there seemed rather pointless. As for "looking to get BMK in trouble" I'm actually looking for BMK to accept that he has no authority to ask editors for them to email their identities to him in the midst of discussions in which he uses loaded language to imply that there are sanctions hanging over them, and for him to be asked to stop doing so. What happens when the anonymous editor from a shared school ip next interrogated by BMK turns out to be some 12 year old kid who feels obliged to send some random stranger their details? What happens when a parent/guardian/educator complains about that? BMK needs to understand that being an editor on Wikipedia doesn't give him any special powers or authority and should quit this nasty habit of his now. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 22:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Drmies, a very similar incident, involving the same editor, was just addressed on an ANI (still above) that was just closed hours ago, (perhaps prematurely), with these comments;

"Your actions here (I'm speaking to you Beyond My Ken) have gone way past the line of acceptability. It was none of your business who Kdtully used to be, and your immediate attacks against this editor as well as your attitude here (including what I'm sure you thought to be a cleverly made hidden comment against Blackberry Sorbet) are more than enough reason to block you on the spot. However, I'm not going to at this time, as the situation has de-escalated without administrative intervention. Therefore, I'm closing this thread to prevent it from getting any further out of hand. Do not take this to mean your behaviour here was, in any way, considered acceptable by the community." — Coffee 16:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Blackberry had already just raised this issue, so perhaps you can understand why he did not go back to 'square one' when another seeming similar incident popped up. Nor, in the face of BMKen's denials, hostility and attacks, could Blackberry reasonably expect a cooperative response (if at all) on BMKen's talk page. Perhaps that ANI was closed too prematurely, and in light of this new incident, another look at BMKen's behavior regarding this 'quasi-outing' of users, any other related incidents, as well as his conduct here, just may bear another looking into.
IMHO - ^theWOLFchild 23:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC) note: this will be my only comment here. I don't really care for any more of BMK's retorts.

Unfortunately, my temporal de-coordinator was broken, so I was unable to go back in time and undo the innocent non-incident "incident" which occurred 4 days before the closing of the above thread. But thanks for advertising the closing remarks, with a nice box and everything, so that everyone could read it again. (Those who are interested in context might wish to read the entire thread.)

But, hey, at least you didn't wish me "luck" the way you did to Bwilkins before you twisted the knife you put in his back, my gratitude for that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• It is entirely possible that BMK was chastised righteously, but in this particular case I can't escape the conclusion that it's sour grapes--in fact, a pair of sour grapes, one blackberry-flavored and one wolf-flavored. That previous thread was closed, and we're not reopening it here. If TWC actually wanted to prove that Blackberry Sorbet had ulterior motives besides the concern for IP editors' welfare he couldn't have done a better job. Now, can you two move along and let others handle this complaint, to see if there is anything to it? Drmies (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Your conclusion is without any basis in reality; sour grapes over what exactly? To the best of my recollection, I have never come across BMK before 3 days ago, I have no axe to grind beyond my conclusion, made in those 3 days, that BMK is a busybody who appears to enjoy throwing his perceived weight around and cowing editors into giving up their identities. If you can actually construct a logical argument that anything TWC might say proves I have "ulterior motives" then you are reading a different page to the one I see. All I'm seeing, in fact, is a bunch of ad homs which fail completely to address the issue. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 02:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• This report is totally without foundation—IP says "Hello Beyond My Ken, I see that we have met again", and BMK very correctly suggests that an explanation be sent via email. I recommend that Blackberry Sorbet think very hard before trying to poke BMK again, because posting clueless reports is not a useful activity, and in fact can have repercussions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Cherry picking the final part of the discussion completely whitewashes over the preceding 4 posts by BMK, complete with italicised bold text and talk of "possible evidence", "block evasion", "suspicions", "watching the contributions that come from this address", "additional evidence", etc, which set the tone under which the request for email is made. If BMK believes that a shared IP address is being used contrary to policy then there are well established procedures which he should follow. You may see this as "clueless" - I clearly do not share your view. I see an emerging pattern of unpleasant behaviour. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 02:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• There is no policy against politely asking an IP editor what his old account's name was. I suggest you drop the stick. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, did not want to get any further involved, but BMK has now followed me from here to the ArbCom Candidate Discussion Page of another user. This has nothing to do with that user, and what has occurred here should not spill over to that page, and unfairly interfere with his election campaign. I stated as much, but BMK followed up with another rude response with (what is to me at least) a racial slur. I'm am not going to comment there further. I think an admin should remove those comments A.S.A.P. I'm looking to avoid fights these days and that's what I'm going to, despite these provocations. I will not be commenting any further on this. - ^theWOLFchild 04:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any racial slurs. Am I missing something? A piece of advice: if you're looking to avoid fights, avoiding the "Wikipedia:" namespace is a good place to start. John Reaves 05:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

@John Reaves: TWC has clearly misinterpreted "Pot, kettle, black" as a "racial slur". I'll leave it to others to assist in the ongoing education of this editor by explaining how utterly incorrect he is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Thewolfchild: I think it may best if you both tried as hard as can to avoid each other and focused on the encyclopedia. John Reaves 05:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sage advice, I will do my utmost to follow it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Intimidation Threatening "Administrative Sanctions"

I have been involved in a contentious dispute with Dr. Fleischman on the talk page for PPACA, which has culminated in this user threatening "administrative sanctions" against me if I "pursue it any further." After receiving a 36-hour ban for doing 3 reversions, followed by an unrelated edit to the same page, I have no intention of taking any further action that may be perceived in the broadest light as violating Wikipedia policy. However, Dr. Fleischman knows this, and is taking advantage of this by declaring that any edit I discuss is controversial, against consensus, and he will seek further administrative action against me. This conduct has left me feeling paralyzed, and unable to participate in revisions, or even discussion of revisions, without risking a ban.

This user has also been intimidating other users on the talk page from making any edits through excessive wikilawyering, insisting on absolute, 100% consensus for any edits, while refusing to allow consensus on fixing any NPOV violations on the PPACA page, and attacking disagreeing editors through administrative channels. These blatant attempts to completely shut down editors Dr. Fleischman disagrees with are making it impossible for me (and I imagine, for several other users) to even participate as an editor. Please help! - TBSchemer (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to demonstrate that DrF is demonstrating disruptive behavior at the article's talk page, you are going to have to post some diffs. I quickly perused through the recent sections on talk, and didn't find anything damning. That said, DrF is not an administrator, and cannot ban you. If you wind up blocked, it's going to be because you violated policy, not because DrF wanted it. That said, the appropriate course of action in any dispute is the follow dispute resolution, get more editors involved, and if your version is better put DrF in the minority. If you cannot do that, then perhaps he has a point. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the discussion that preceded my allegedly improper comment speaks for itself. The background, in a nutshell, is that TBSchemer engaged in some extremely disruptive editing and was blocked accordingly. During his block I made some suggestions to explain how I thought he could participate more productively. In response his message was (paraphrasing) no way unless/until I "compromise" by agreeing to an edit he feels very strongly about. A choice quote:

• "Even if you know in your heart that it's too partisan to be reliable, if you have no principles regarding propaganda in a Wikipedia entry, then it's a waste of time to convince you of anything at all. In that situation, I'm better off working around you, not with you."

I felt TBSchemer's comment was completely over the top. I read it as, either TBSchemer gets his way on this issue or he continues to be disruptive. As he hadn't actually acted on the threat, I didn't feel the need to report him. But I wanted to put him on notice that I wouldn't hesitate report him if he did act on it. And I didn't "threaten administrative sanctions," I threatened requesting administrative sanctions. Huge difference.

For reference, the WP:ANEW reports that led to his block are here, here and the relevant talk page discussion is here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

TBSchemer was blocked for edit warring a few days ago in part because of his insistence that a certain edit to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act be made, irrespective of the lack of consensus for it. For TBSchemer, upon his block expiring, to then immediately declare an ultimatum that other editors must accept the edit or else he will "work around them" certainly seems like a threat of further disruption to me. Given that context, Dr. Fleischman's warning that such disruption may lead to TBSchemer being sanctioned is hardly problematic, and in fact is probably constructive in deterring further disruption. That said, TBSchemer should not feel paralyzed in contributing to Wikipedia; as Someguy1221 alluded to, consensus-building is a fundamental part of Wikipedia that must be fully explored when an edit is contested, and if a dispute cannot be resolved, dispute resolution services are available if needed. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Xboxandhalo2 violates consensus (WT:FOOTY) about assist

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

---

Hi. I want to report User:Xboxandhalo2 (signature Bobby) as he has been edit warring (never blocked but got warned at User talk:Xboxandhalo2#2013–14 Real Madrid C.F. season) over assist at the 2013–14 Real Madrid C.F. season‎ and the article got full protected for edit warring. The issue is about assist so there has been discussion on the article talkpage Talk:2013–14 Real Madrid C.F. season#Assists and a consensus not to include assists has been reached at WT:FOOTY on the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 81#Assists.

After the editor got warned for edit warring and the discussions took place he stopped but now the edits and reverts has resumed and he has currently made three reverts today on 2013–14 Real Madrid C.F. season. He has been told that his edits against consensus are disruptive (as seen here) and also discussion has been tried at User talk:Xboxandhalo2#Assists. An admin has also expressed his concern here at User talk:GiantSnowman#Real Madrid assists and this admin told me to go to ANI here. However nothing help and he keeps editing against consensus and ignores all comment.

For what it is worth (probably not) he has history of keeping editing even if people try talking to him like at User talk:Xboxandhalo2#Live scoring.

Could an uninvolved admin take a look at this since User:GiantSnowman is involved and I dont want to revert again and risk getting warned and blocked for edit warring (even if fullfilling consensus). QED237 (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Long story short - there is no consensus to support the edits that Xboxandhalo2 is making, and in fact plenty of opposition against it (note - I am involved). Xboxandhalo2 is fully aware of this, but has still seen it fit to reintroduce the edits after a break of some months. Their behavior is disruptive and sneaky, to say the least. GiantSnowman 21:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support User:Qed237 and User:GiantSnowman. User:Xboxandhalo2 knows that consensus is against the inclusion of Assists, but refuses to accept. JMHamo (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - there is a clear, long-standing consensus to have these stats kept out of articles. Recent discussions have strengthened the consensus; yet Xboxandhalo2 claims otherwise, and willfully disregards it, in very underhanded ways. Enough is enough. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit warring over the definition of 'endorsement' for a political candidate

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

---

User:Rusted AutoParts and I have been going back and forth at several U.S. political lists, with two major differences of opinion. The affected articles are:

• List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2012
• List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012.

My position is that an endorsement should be a public statement, and that a quiet donation to the candidate's campaign is not an endorsement because it is not public.

Rusted AutoParts holds the position that a campaign contribution is an endorsement. Failing this argument, he added the text "or donated towards" to the article introduction, so that the introduction says "This is a list of prominent people or groups who formally endorsed, voiced support for or donated towards" the candidate in question. Following this change, Rusted AutoParts moved the two articles to new names to make the list more inclusive:

• List of Barack Obama presidential campaign supporters, 2012
• List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign supporters, 2012.

The question is one of focus: should the article list all the quiet campaign contributors along with public supporters, or should it list only public supporters? I could have made this question into a Request for Comment but the answer has larger ramifications than just one article. Other related articles depend on the same basic agreement about what is in the set and what is not.

Note that these political articles are under sanctions because of Silly Season edit wars. We are not now in such a busy election cycle. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

How is it an edit war? I reverted you once on each page. An edit war is if I kept reverting you, which is not the case.See, look. one revert on Romney, one on Obama. That completely fails the definition of edit warring. All this is designed to do is say "look, he's disagreeing with me". Having it as endorsements is biased. Supporters leaves it open to add any contributor, be it a public endorsement, or campaign contribution. Rusted AutoParts 21:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It may not be an edit war yet but it could become such. I think you are right that this should be sorted out in the calm of the off season. An RFC would not be a bad place but if you rather try talking to the people at Wikiproject politics. I'm sure they would be better suited to offer some guidance. JodyB _talk

Some donors donate to both candidates in an election. So a donation doesn't necessarily imply support. John Nagle (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd find it hard to believe, for example Quentin Tarantino donating 5, 000 dollars to the Obama campaign for shits and giggles. And the source provided specifies which person donated to which campaign. So far each donor has only been listed on one list. Rusted AutoParts 23:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Guys, I recommend taking this off ANI. If it's a simple content dispute, there are much better places to resolve it—article talk pages, user talk pages, WP:DRN, WP:3O, etc. ANI is for times when user misconduct requires administrator intervention. It doesn't sound like that's the case here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Bink reported me for edit warring when a war wasn't even happening. Rusted AutoParts 01:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by user Franz weber

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

---

Perhaps someone could have a look at the last few lines of this post on Gaba_p's talkpage. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• I accept that that's a legal threat. User can be unblocked the moment they make clear that no legal threat was intended, or they take it back, etc. See Wikipedia:No legal threats. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this Randykitty, I've been AFK the whole day. I honestly believe Franz weber means well, they just needs to get used to following some basic WP policies and guidelines like WP:BRD, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:LEGAL, etc. I would have no problem in discussing the issue in the article's talk page with them after they are unblocked. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Strange pattern of template instance edits by User:ModernSportsEra

ModernSportsEra (talk · contribs) has been making edits to protection template instances in various articles: [118] [119] [120] [121] etc. Some edits change the protection timeout, or seem to. There are no edit comments. This almost looks like something a 'bot would do. I put a note on the user's talk page asking what they were doing [122] but they just deleted the note with no comment. That seems to be their general response to questions from others on their talk page. The account is only 10 days old, but the editor is clearly experienced - their first edit was to Requests for Page Protection.[123]. Not sure what's going on. --John Nagle (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I checked the four examples above; it appears that the date he added is correct in all four instances.

I would guess this is someone gnoming who doesn't want to be identified, but that's not wrong / prohibited by the multiple accounts policy. If you can identify an instance where they put up a note that's wrong, let us know... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. I don't see anything bad happening either, although I wish they'd use edit comments. --John Nagle (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This user is almost surely User:PrivateMasterHD who has been indefinitely blocked. He/she is doing the same crap that led him/her to being blocked before.--Yankees10 03:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh... Can you file the SPI case? I have to drive somewhere. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Got home, SPI filed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

...and confirmed, and blocked. Thanks for spotting the pattern, Yankees10. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If it makes a difference at this point, this comment appears to explain ModernSportsEra's motivation for the protection template edits. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ravi Zacharias, again

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

---

User:Wpete510, recently blocked for edit warring Ravi Zacharias, has returned to resume his project. The contentious point is whether, in connection with the subject's rejection of the second law of thermodynamics, the article should mention that the subject's view is not shared by the scientific community. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I broke the 3RR previously, and I am not seeking an edit war. I have not edited Ravi Zacharias since then except to fix two punctuation errors. I have engaged in conversation on the talk page, but it does not seem contentious to me. Please advise me on where I have gone wrong. Wpete510 (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) MarkBernstein, this is the one edit to the article that Wpete made since returning from his block. I fail to see how it is problematic. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? An ANI for fixing two punctuation errors on an article? Edit warring or not, unless one is about to break out over proper usage of punctuation I fail to see why this was necessary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Use of illegitimate sources on the article about "Imam_al-Mahdi_Scouts" and deleting of talk discussion

Neither the RS status of a source or soapboxing is a topic for ANI. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Intelligence.org.il is not a valid source, for they are in confrontation with hezbollah, and israeli army has attacked schools, hospitals, children... as according to international conventions against terrorism they are terrorists and have conspired to severly harm and kill civilians, and support free syrian army which are linked to al-qaida! Al Jazeera is also a supporter of free syrian army and therefore of al-qaida linked elements, who use car bombs to again harm civilians and are hence terrorists according to international conventions against terrorism. Therefore your arbitration is required and, Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization, as it does not conspire to harm civilians. Although it does have a tit for tat policy, there is no substantial evidence against them. Furthermore, they combat terrorists of al-qaida, jabhat al nusra, and free syrian army. While others wish to aid these terrorists in Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.68.83.35 (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC) This is not the reliable sources noticeboard. If you need people to help judge whether something is a reliable source, that's where to do it. --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Holy Sock Farms Batman!

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

---

Can we throw some blocks at some socks please? User:REalMusic0000, User:2601:9:2C80:20F:6900:BA54:45B8:6687, User:Real life22 and User:Califinest89. All edits are promotional in nature and consist of contesting deletion at Young Dedicated Proper(YDP) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Is the case opened at SPI? You should forward your request there. Alex ^{discussion ★} 17:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is but the reverts of the csd template was getting weary. It seems to have slowed down now though. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Other seem like a very obvious socks, but even if not a sock REalMusic0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be immediately blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Alex ^{discussion ★} 18:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The article has been deleted so we have a respite but I think the more people who watchlist that page the better cause I doubt we have heard the last from them. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for about fifty hours. Not blatant vandalism, so I'm not going to levy an indef block on those grounds alone. Let's wait for additional disruptive editing or for the conclusion of the SPI. Nyttend (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Since many of the WP:SPI people aren't admins, I've restored the YDP page and moved it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/New life88/YDP; this will permit everyone to see the edits by the alleged socks. I've not checked them carefully, so I have no opinion. Nyttend (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please also see history of User:Young Dedicated Proper (YDP) page. More suspected socks there. Maybe delay CSD on that page to wait SPI closure or archive history like Nyttend has done to the main namespace copy? Seems obvious case to me, but let's wait a little while to hear what others have to say about this. jni (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked the obvious accounts. Did a sleeper check and found additional accounts which I've also blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Disrupting IP on The Lord of the Rings

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

---

The following IP [124] is making vandal edits on The Lord of the Rings. Like [125] and [126]. A block would be appreciated, thank you. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me that IP hasn't been sufficiently warned. Make sure you post appropriate warning templates on user's talk page after reverting. And also for vandalism reports use WP:AIV noticeboard. Alex ^{discussion ★} 18:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I warned about this report, not about the revert. His page is full of warnings about vandalism, can't on earth understand how the IP is still around. Ok, sorry, I didn't know there was a noticeboard for vandalism, will post my initial message there. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks, edit warring etc by User:Orrerysky at Talk:Plasma cosmology and elsewhere.

User:Orrerysky, a new contributor, seems intent on rewriting the contentious Plasma cosmology article, and is not only edit-warring to do so, (see history: [127]) but seems intent on making personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with his/her objectives - see for example the latest efforts [128] and [129] (part of a longer history, as the talk page makes clear), where Orrerysky accuses a contributor of "insist[ing] on mangling the English language to advance a very suspect ulterior motive in order to mislead people about a field of scientific inquiry", and goes on to suggest that "If I need to get a 1000 friends in here from a few facebook groups then I'll be more than happy to build the army. (in a respectful way that complies with the rules of course)" - note also that there is at least reasonable grounds to suspect that a newly arrived 'supporter' [130] of Orrerysky might possibly be a part of this 'army'. It should also be noted that the article was the subject of an arbitration case, and that Orrerysky has been explicitly warned about this: [131]. And again warned about edit warring. [132] Though the only effect of such warnings seems to have been to inspire Orrerysky to place a bogus 'Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion' notification on my talk page: [133] - bogus, because Orrerysky unsurprisingly filed no edit warring report. I can only see this as an attempt at intimidation. Frankly, given Orrerysky's battlefield mentality (see his/her entire edit history) it seems to me only a matter of time before we have to block - and I can see no benefit in waiting until later to do something that is fully justified now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I can only agree. From the very beginning this editor has displayed strong ownership behavior, accused others of exactly what they were doing themselves, edit warred, and refused to accept any advice. They lack competence and seem incapable of learning from others. We seem to be dealing with a massive ego. I don't know if this could be the topic banned User:Elerner (see Eric Lerner), or just someone else with a manic obsession with this topic. They have obviously violated 3RR by far, and should have been blocked for edit warring, but that would be far too little to stop their disruption. A topic ban or total ban may be best as they aren't suited for editing here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I am curious if Andy & Ariane are sockpuppet accounts. Please investigate IPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrerysky (talk • contribs) 07:13, 26 November 2013‎

Me too. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ludicrous! Both are well-established editors. You are the newbie creating disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That'll be fine by me. Meanwhile, I see that Orrerysky wants to take this to ArbCom: [134] Somehow I don't think they will be needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that, Orrerysky wants to take this to "the President of wikimedia"! [135] AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The WP:Boomerang from that should be spectacular! Let's sell tickets. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

He just took it to WP:DRN, where I closed it. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Plasma Cosmology. Clearly he needs to take this all the way up to the president of the Internet. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I can only agree too. I too have had unsigned bogus 'Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ' notification on my talk page [136] I have also been notified on the Dispute resolution noticeboard WP:DRS on this. He/she has Also tried intimidation as well, stating "I am going to seek to have you banned from further contributions to this article." [137] and a unsigned " Personally, I were the admin here I'd toss you under the bus…" under "Bogus 'Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion' postings." [138] Both of these are clearly unveiled threats. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Orrerysky's ownership should result in a topic ban. (Their general disruption and edit warring should result in a total ban.) Here's the latest, referring to Arianewiki1:

• "I am going to seek to have you banned from further contributions to this article." [139]

Here's a previous one in which he expresses that he doesn't want any interference from the earlier editors:

• "The current ring of editors really have no business in the editing process for this article." [140]

Please topic ban Orrerysky. A total ban would be even better. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And now Orrerysky is making overt threats to start socking: "I would rather not have to create accounts and tunnel masked I.P.'s and make this a bigger issue." [141]. At this point, I can see no other solution than an indefinite block, per WP:NOTHERE, WP:COMPETENCE, etc, etc... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Biased individuals claiming to be admins, working at entrapment! I demand a new "admin" be assigned to arbiter this issue. BullRangifer, claiming to be an admin (and apparently isn't at all). Respected editors? Protectionism and cronyism. Refusal to allow edits. Breaking the 3 reversion rule. Possibly using their own sock accounts to contorl and administer a website. Defending a user who broke the 3 revert rule. Refused to provide arbitration or customer service support when requested. If BullRangifer is an Admin as led to believe then I request he be re-assigned to other topics and a new admin be placed here. They are guilty of topic camping and violating reverting rules, refusing to negotiate or fairly discuss editing. These individuals have already shown that they are not willing to negotiate with changes while also not willing to provide citations for the entries that they support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrerysky (talk • contribs) 08:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"...claiming to be an admin"??!! Why would I do that? I'm not an admin. I specifically and expressly told you that a long time ago: "I am...an ordinary editor who does not wish to be an administrator (autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 40068 edits since: 2005-12-18)."[142] Is that clear enough? -- Brangifer (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we have a WP:DENY situation where a SPI and a block will help, if that doesn't work they can always read WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hell In A Bucket I would like to see the phrase "mostly rejected" changed to "an astrophysical" as there is no sociological data to support a statement of this effect. I removed the previous instance with a request that if it be re-inserted that polling data from a polling organization be furnished to support it. This is a scientific data point and should use Sociological Polling techniques, but no such data has been forthcoming by editors despite claims that they base their edits on material. What material? This appears to be nothing but their opinion and seems calculated to misguide readers with red herrings. Now, I would like to discuss the issues. They however seem content with whining and being taddle-tells. Quite frankly, I would like for them to just provide the data to support their sociological position. (which they can't do so they wish to conspire with entrapment) regardless. Please provide some kind of customer service rep or arbiter to address the issue of changing this phrase. I don't care about these stalkers, I'm more interested in conversing with other individuals in the community as these people are not assisting in achieving the project objectives for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrerysky (talk • contribs) 09:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Orrerysky, there is both an arbitration case about this topic area ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ) and a specific policy for fringe viewpoints in science ( WP:FRINGE ). These are settled Wikipedia policy and you - and anyone else coming to that article - must abide by them.

Among other things, they state that a neutral, independent assessment of what mainstream science considers within the normal scientific spectrum and what it considers fringe topics determines how articles are treated here on Wikipedia. You do not get to come here and call it a sociological issue; this is settled Wikipedia policy and consensus. You are welcome to contribute in cooperation with settled policy and consensus, collaborating with other editors, but if you attempt to impose your own judgement and assertions your contributions will no longer be welcome.

Please calm down, read what has been written to you, read the rules and policies here, including our core values in the Five Pillars, and engage in a cooperative manner.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Following further review, I have imposed 1 month of 1RR on Plasma cosmology on Orrerysky. [143] [144] This is under the Pseudoscience arbcom case and the as-amended Standard Discretionary Sanctions uninvolved administrator rules. It is my hope and intention that this will slow down the activity enough for Orrerysky to engage in an actual constructive manner with the other editors, as well as minimizing ongoing edit warring which is damaging the article, encyclopedia, and community.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if we need an SPI or not, but there is something going on with the plasma cosmology and Ruggero Santilli related articles. At Santilli we've had an IP claiming to be him (and almost certainly is him) and at least one SPA who has just arrived. With Orrervsky we have him adding a file to his sandbox[145] within minutes of it being uploaded by Wavyinfinity (talk · contribs).[146] And we have another SPA, Reid_Barnes (talk · contribs) editing the Santilli related article Stephen J. Crothers which was created by Wavyinfinity (who we also see supporting Orrerysky at Talk:Plasma cosmology[147]). And what non-Admins can't see is that Wavyinfinity's first edit was to create the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stellar metamorphosis. Wavyinfinity also created Grey dwarf, seeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grey dwarf. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

We also have a new editor whose only comment is to praise Orrerysky in a manner that reveals some knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And another who only makes one edit to praise him. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Orrerysky (talk · contribs) has continued to edit-war, and I've blocked him for 31 hours. MastCell ^Talk 21:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And now we have another 'new' account continuing the edit-warring. [148] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Due to the surge of interest in plasma cosmology by first-time editors who don't participate on the talk page I've now semiprotected plasma cosmology. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note editor discussed here has created Plasma-Redshift Cosmology page.220 of ^Borg 23:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic-motivated edit warring by anonymous users

There is an edit war happening across a range of Serbian and Slovak towns regarding their Hungarian names, by 92.238.171.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/195.89.201.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on one and 79.117.186.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/79.117.177.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/79.117.180.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The former, "92" started it first, by head-counting Hungarians and insisting that "native name" in the Infobox must be Hungarian, because they're the local majority. "79" follows him around and reverts; 92 was briefly reported to AIV by 79 and by myself, but no action was taken. A few ethnic slurs were exchanged in the process [149].

I'm not sure what to do so I'm bringing it here: the IPs are dynamic, at least the 79's, and I can hardly discuss anything across a dozen articles. I wanted to slap a WP:ARBMAC or WP:ARBEE warning, but I cannot find the templates anymore, and I'm not sure which remedies are active nowadays after several amendments. Those pages, including WP:AE, are a bloody mess to navigate. At minimum, I'll notify the IPs involved. No such user (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but auto-confirmed editors were also preocupated to revert the inappropriate edits of 92.238.171.3 and 195.89.201.254. Please read what native name field in the infobox means. It refers to settlements where the English name differs of the name used in the respective country

You are free to ask for details about why the edits of 92.238.171.3 and 195.89.201.254 were reverted to other editors that reverted him: Yopie ([150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159]), Iadrian yu ([160]), Biruitorul ([161], [162], [163]), Saturnian ([164]) .Even User:No such user participated at the "edit war" [165] 79.117.186.23 (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I did say that 92 started it first, under obvious nationalist motives, and that included ethnic slurs, like "Суботица is the alien name of Serbian occupiers.", and yes, I did revert him myself. Those two IPs definitely should be blocked to protect encyclopedia. Your following him around was disruptive as well, and the "go back to Mongolia, nomad!" comment [166], although provoked, does not shed positive light onto you. In your defense, you did defend status quo, along with several other users you quote, and made a first report to AIV, but it is a chaotic place where reports not qualifying as "obvious" vandalism are quickly dismissed. No such user (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Why were my edits disruptive, when I only reverted to the correct state of the articles? I follow him around because he keeps misusing that infobox field. The native name field is to be used when the English name is not the same with the official name - see template documentation Template:Infobox_settlement/doc#Complete_empty_syntax.2C_with_comments (like in the case of Bucharest, where the native name is București

I regret saying "go back to Mongolia, nomad!" and I publicly apologize for that, but his insistence is already annoying 79.117.186.23 (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:No such user "I'm not sure what to do" - what about submitting a request to WP:RFPP?. I intended to do it myself too, but I was too slothful and I hoped 92.238.171.3 / 195.89.201.254 will go away. 79.117.186.23 (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For those of us too busy to track down a buncha potential target pages, could you either RFPP or post the list here? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I submitted some requests for protection for the most attacked articles [167]. I also explained to the IP why his edits are not approved [168], [169]. From my point of view, the case is closed. 79.117.171.176 (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The 79.117.x.x is a banned sockpuppeteer. Here's a link who. I've placed a week long rangeblock on the range. He's all over it. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Elockid, if socks and proxies are zombies, then you're Brad Pitt. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Groundless revert of an edit to tweak the content in the article's infobox

More than a month ago I created the article on Dialects of Serbo-Croatian in order to use at as a summary in the infobox of the article Serbo-Croatian. Before making any changes I left a message on the discussion page (diff 1) that the article was created and it would be nice if the style is aligned with the articles on Macedonian and Bulgarian. I noticed there wasn't any response on my comment and decided to be bold and edit the article myself, but I was careful and first left another message (diff 2) before changing the content of the box (diff 3). Quickly afterwards, the first comment appeared about the reasoning behind my change (diff 4), then my reply on it detailed all the points why it's good and necessary to make that change (diff 5) and the user subsequently agreed with most of my points (diff 6). However, my edit was unfortunately reverted by Kwamikagami (diff 7) who refused to join the discussion on my points and posted a message in which he attributed the change to my "personal problems with Torlakian" (diff 8). Normally, my reply solicited for using less confrontational tone and invited the user to join the discussion on my points above (diff 9). The user refused once again to join the discussion and mentioned that it was edited through consensus (diff 10) and building a consensus is necessary to make the change (albeit the discussion was open on building consensus with my points presented). Since he mentioned that consensus was reached in the past, my next question was to see that discussion where the consensus was built (diff 11). The discussion was staled for almost one week and then I came up to present some important points why it's good to have insight on the previous consensus (diff 12). Kwamikagami replied to it that the discussions were archived and it could be difficult to find it (diff 13), but then I left a comment to question the existence of consensus at all (diff 14). User Taivo joined the discussion to make me "lazy", to support the position of user Kwamikagami that he works on "thousands of articles" and to demand searching through the archived discussions (diff 15), but after carefully searching through the archives and presenting a list with all relevant threads (diff 16), his reply once again hailed Kwamikagami against my editing history and when he faced the facts that there is no consensus on the discussion page on Serbo-Croatian he attempted to transfer the issue out of that article and said that a consensus might have been reached on other articles (diff 17; albeit, according to the rule, the changes in one article are discussed only on its own discussion page).

It's also worth mentioning that Taivo requested several times from me to start a discussion to build consensus, though a discussion on the issue has already been started even before it, in which he and Kwamikagami refused to participate. I decided to file a mediation request to get some help with the case at all, but both users did not agree on it and the request was declined by the committee. The problem here is not that much about the consensus as these two users tried from the very beginning to play a game against me by introducing a non-existing consensus to revert my edit and thereby limit my freedom to edit Wikipedia. My concern that some users implement their own rules and standards to bite other users from some pages on Wikipedia has been already discussed on several conferences in the past and many people are worried that this is a formidable problem which increases the level of self-created elitism and thus decreases the rate of editors' retention (diff 18). We really need to change this in order to make Wikipedia a better place for our users. Fortunately, my involvement in the movement to promote its mission and goals will never let me disappoint and stop edit the Wikimedia projects because of things like this, but the same should not apply for many other users who are prone to succumb on such behaviour.

Some of my proposed measures for this one are the following:

• ban users Kwamikagami, Taivo and Kiril Simeonovski to participate in the discussion on my points presented on the discussion page (You may invite other users or authorities to discuss on my points, but don't forget that there is already agreement on the change and there is no consensus specifying the current format of the article's infobox);
• ban users Kwamikagami and Taivo from participation in any serious discussion on the article Serbo-Croatian for some time;
• warn users Kwamikagami and Taivo that they should have full respect to other users and their opinions on the discussion pages and comment on their points presented there;
• warn user Kwamikagami that using a non-existing consensus as argument is totally out of the spirit of Wikipedia;
• warn user Taivo that any attempt to justify the existence of consensus of any sort out of the discussion page on the main article in question does not comply with the rules on Wikipedia;
• warn user Taivo that a discussion page on Wikipedia is not place to compare one's edit history with other's.

These are only some suggested measures and you don't need to stick to them if you can come up with better solutions. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Kiril, having seen you in action at Talk:Bobby Fischer#Greatest chess player of all time? and Talk:George Gershwin#Was_Gershwin_a_.22Russian_Jew.22.3F, I meant to put forward here your behavior at Talk:Macedonian_language#Torlakian_dialects and associated Talk:Serbo-Croatian, but refrained. Now I spotted that you're bringing the matter for inspection yourself... and I'm not sure you will like the outcome.
So, in each of the cases I cited above, the story goes like this: you spot an "error" (a phrasing which you dislike, but was put there for a reason) in the article, usually in infobox or introduction, and jump on to "fix" it. You get reverted by another experienced user, with an explanation why the previous text was justified. You then pick a prolonged fight in the article and the talk page over a relatively minor detail, which quickly derails into name-calling, ad hominems, process-wonking and, finally, ends up at ANI. In the process, you manage to annoy and alienate several experienced editors (in the Macedonian case: User:Taivo, User:Kwamikagami, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise and myself; in the Gershwin case: User:Soundofmusicals, User:Binksternet, User:Toccata quarta & User:JackofOz). Your complaints are not entirely without merit, and your opponents are not completely blameless, but your endless ruleslawyering does not make you win any sympathies, on the contrary, with time other people acquire a tendency to spite you. Instead of dropping the stick and walking away from an otherwise minor quibble, you produce kilobytes of debate, now ending at ANI.

Now, in the Torlakian case: please understand that, after all wasted time, nobody is going to appease you and remove Torlakian dialect from the Serbo-Croatian infobox, where it is classified by a majority of sources, and the remaining ones at least acknowledge that it is "often classified as Serbo-Croatian". It is not rocket science to acknowledge that this is a mere issue of categorization and nomenclature, and not of substance. If you get at least four experienced users against yourself in any debate you enter, it should be taken as a sign that some self-reflection is necessary. No such user (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I remember that you were one of those who participated in the initial part of the discussion (before the creation of the article Dialects of Serbo-Croatian), so it's highly appreciated first to read the whole discussion before drawing any conclusions. You're also welcome to explain me how you counted that there are four users against me since none of them decided to comment on my points presented on the discussion page and the only who did it was other user who agreed on most of my points to make the change. My suggestion for you is to stop referring to other cases on Wikipedia since they're not relevant to this one. We talk here about the behaviour of users Kwamikagami and Taivo and their game to refuse my willingness to discuss the matter with my points presented and introduce a fictional consensus just to prevent me edit the article. Please understand, this behaviour is totally anti-Wikipedian and must be sanctioned. If you think that my behaviour is even worse, then you're welcome to advertise the case anywhere you want. One of the crucial problems of Wikipedia that usually prevails as a serious problem and was even mentioned on several conferences in our movement is the self-created elitism and the very high level of bureaucracy that exhibits on the discussion pages of some articles. This is a fine example of those cases in which the article's content is locked and controlled by a closed casta whose members introduce their own rules to act upon them during each of the discussions and use insinuations in order to get favour of everything and bite the other users out of the article. We have to say no to these problems and conclude the case with overtaking some concrete measures. It's much better for Wikipedia if some of its users are punished for such behaviour instead of letting them upgrade their bureaucracy on any higher level.

It would be also appreciated if you stop intimidating me with phrases like "I'm not sure you will like the outcome.". Your opinion and the opinions of others complaining on me might be true that my style of debating is sharp and sometimes controversial, but it doesn't give you automatic encouragement to use threats or draw conclusions that my every request has to be declined.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The discussion could have been already over if: (i) the rules on Wikipedia were followed to come and comment on my points, (ii) my edit was not reverted by explaining my "personal problem", and (iii) no fictional consensus was introduced to defend a position. Unfortunately, some people thought that this is only another troll and felt so strange to violate some rules and cross over it to bite the "troll" out of the discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

What a complete waste of time, Kiril. The problem is that you turned what should have been a simple process of consensus into a personal crusade against Kwami. When Kwami reverted you, instead of presenting a simple, clear proposal in a new section on the Talk Page, you continued to escalate the personal attacks against him because you felt wronged. Did you try the suggestion I clearly presented to you at least a dozen times? No. Not once. You refused to give up on your personal need to have your ego massaged and some sort of "apology" expressed. Your trivial change to the article simply got lost in your paragraphs of needless attacks and desires for retribution. Try my suggestion, Kiril, and see how fast you can get a working consensus--1) Stop ALL your personal attacks and begging for apologies, 2) Start a new section on the Talk Page, 3) Present your change clearly in a single sentence, 4) Give no more than two sentences why the change makes sense, 5) Let the other editors support your change or present a clear case why it doesn't make sense. You never tried this despite the fact that I have suggested it to you multiple times. You are simply wikilawyering instead of presenting a simple, clear case without the personal attacks. --Taivo (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And your statements of "fact" above are wrong in several respects. You did not start a new, clean discussion on the Talk Page after Kwami reverted you. You simply buried your proposals in convoluted language couched within personal attacks at Kwami and filed after kilobytes of bandwidth in a discussion that began before you created the Dialects of Serbo-Croatian page and was generally on a different topic than your real proposal. That's no way to get a consensus. I always suggested that you start a new, clean section without any kind of personal attack. You never did that. You continued on your personal crusade to embarrass or elicit some kind of apology from Kwami. Drop it. You have a simple, trivial proposal to make, but you have buried it inside personal attacks, demands for an apology, searches to get other users to admit that they are wrong and you are right, etc. At no point whatsoever did you start a new section, state your new proposal simply in a single clear sentence without personal attacks, and then allow other editors to see the wisdom (or lack of wisdom) in your proposal. --Taivo (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing/Disruptive editing by User:Cuchullain at Canada national football team

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

---

Canada national football team is about a team that is constituted for playing in American football, principally the IFAF World Cup. As such, it is fair to call it an "American football team". User:Cuchullain refuses to acknowledge this, both in the article and in a move request here to bring the article more in line with the other national teams in the IFAF (Mexico national American football team, Brazil national American football team, etc). Could somebody explain to him that this is a team that plays American football (i.e. NFL/NCAAF rules) when it is constituted? pbp 22:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're having content dispute problems, I feel bad for you, son; ANI's got 99 problems, but a content dispute ain't one. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute, it's a WP:CLUE issue: there are facts, and Cuchullain is ignoring them, to the point of disruption. pbp 23:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Editor deleting Islamic content

I warned User:StAnselm on the 13th of November about his deletions of Islamic content, but he has continued his behavior today. [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175]. He's also making pov page moves such as this. And thats only today. Previous examples include [176], [177], [178], [179], [180] among other occasions. What can I do about this editor who wants wikipedia articles to reflect the Christian point of view and rejects coverage of Islam? I'm not sure why he opposes Islamic content. Pass a Method talk 12:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs you give, here StAnselm clearly is correct, a character that originates in the Bible shouldn't be mentioned first as being in a sura. What matters here (the lead) is the origin of the character, not where else he or she is present. The same applies here and here. Perhaps a case can be made to add the Qu'ran after he Bible in the lead, but putting it in front (when chronologically it clearly comes later) is wrong. Furthermore, your links, e.g. here, weren't helpful for readers, as they pointed to the wrong page anyway. It looks to me as if the problem is not really with StAnselm's edits, but with yours, e.g. this or certainly this as well is just trying to push your POV. Here Islam was and is mentioned from the second line on, but still you want to include it as first in the lead anyway (this one hasn't been reverted yet). Fram (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I note that similar changes you made to other articles have been undone by other editors, e.g. here, so it isn't just StAnselm who has a problem with your edits in this regard. Fram (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

First, are chronological rules based on your opinion or on a wikipedia guideline? Second, even if chronological rules exist, we are both wrong since Anselm is not moving it chronologically but removing it entirely. Pass a Method talk 14:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the additions look shoehorned in to me, and in at least some cases the issue seems to be one of emphasis rather than actual rejection. Which in your view are the most egregious? JohnInDC (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

When you see an editor editing in a certain, rather tendentious fashion, and that editor has been warned (and reverted) before, then it isn't strange that not every edit is given extra care to see whether the added content would be used somewhere else in the article, with additional polishing. His earlier reverts, e.g. here, did keep but reorder your info, but apparently you find fault with that as well, so... Continued POV pushing is a sure-fire way to get outright reversions. Looking at e.g. [this diff I gave above, and seeing that it is part of a pattern in your edits, I can't find fault with his other reversions. An edit like this one, where you complain about the reversion a well, is borderline trolling or serious incompetence. "Biblical epics" is a standard way to describe these (e.g. [181][182]), while Quranic epics is basically your own invention[183][184] As for applicable guidelines: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section is of interest, e.g. the section "Relative emphasis", as is WP:UNDUE. Fram (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing, Pass a Method: please use correct edit summaries. If you first remove a line[185] and then readd the exact same line in the exact same spot[186], then you aren't "formatting" and you certainly aren't "adding content", you are undoing your mistake or test or whatever it is. Fram (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, I don't claim to be a scholar of religious texts so I don't know what's defensible substantively, but the POV page move you describe was to undo one you'd made from Lot (biblical person) to Lot (Abrahamic). (You similarly moved Tree of LIfe and Job.) It's religion. People get touchy. I suspect page moves like that would go down more easily if you discussed them first. Plus if other editors keep moving them back after consensus then the case against them is much stronger here. JohnInDC (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion is wp:verifiability. Here are 4 sources which use the term quranic epic:

• One,
• two,
• The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, volume 25, page 176.
• four Pass a Method talk 15:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, my computer has a virus right now so forgive me if i act weird. Pass a Method talk 16:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear that Fram overstated it when he said that the term "quranic epic" was your invention. That being said, Google returns 78,000 hits for "biblical epic film" and zero (!) for "quranic epic film" or "koranic epic film", so it seems a real stretch to include the term "quranic epic" in an article about Epic films, and even moreso to include it in front of "biblical epic". JohnInDC (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources he gives merely conjoin the words "Quranic" and "epic", every time in a different context with different meanings, quite different from the term "biblical epic", which is consistently used as a name for a type of movie. It's archetypical misuse of keyword searching to find sources. Paul B (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason for that is because the Quran has around a dozen transliterations whereas the bible has only one. Also because of conservative islam's reluctance to incorporate possible fiction as being Islamic. Pass a Method talk 17:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Mm. It's still mighty thin gruel there and I am not surprised that you are encountering resistance to the prominence you are trying to give it. JohnInDC (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason for that is twofold: 1. The Bible, both Christian and Jewish, has numerous stories that can be dramatised cinematically. The Quran is not written in that way. 2. Islamic attitudes to images, though far from uniform, militate against the creation of "Quranic epic" films. I'm such no-one wants to exclude Quranic content from articles on characters who are mentioned in both the Bible and the Quran, but it makes sense to give Biblical references first where the figure originates in the Bible. Paul B (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• In my (involved) experience, this type of behavior is about par for the course for User:Pass a Method. The pattern goes something like this: PaM makes bold and controversial POV/Undue/not-well-thought-out edits across multiple articles, ignoring any past consensus, and using vague/misleading edit summaries. Somebody reverts the edits. Instead of discussing, PaM either edit wars, or immediately jumps several dispute resolution steps by filing an RfC or retaliatory ANI. I don't think any action is necessary here, except perhaps a trout for the OP. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Fram, you are dealing with a very troubling editor in Pass a Method. Here is a bit of evidence for my two cents on this user being troubling.[187][188][189] Yeah, I'm biased in my opinion of this user, but not without good reason. You can tell Pass a Method to follow WP:DUE WEIGHT, use edit summaries the correct way, and a lot of other things that are supposed to be done as a Wiki editor, and it won't matter a lick. Johnuniq knows this too. I'll be starting a WP:RfC/U on Pass a Method as soon as I compile all of the damaging evidence well (currently have a user page just for that, which Pass a Method surely already knows about). Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Another legal threat concerning Nova Science Publishers

Please see this edit. This is a new user, so perhaps a stern warning is enough. On the other hand, she does not really seem to be here to collaborate and form a consensus... --Randykitty (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I have left her a warning on the talk page. This seems to be clear case of conflict of interest mixed with edit warring and said legal threat. And that's not the mix that makes Wikipedia work effectively. De728631 (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm also disturbed to her mention of "our Editors", implying possible meatpuppetry.--Auric talk 13:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Technical question

Why does this page start with empty <noinclude></noinclude> tags? Debresser (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I presume it's a typo, now removed. GiantSnowman 13:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Evlekis

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

---

...is continuing to spawn numerous sockpuppet accounts, some of which are used only to battle bobrayner. This is getting ridiculous. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful to give us just a little more information, Joy. Are you referring to named accounts and/or IPs? If so, which ones? A sleeper check was done just a couple of days ago here, and several named accounts were blocked and tagged. You yourself blocked a different named account, and Mark blocked an IP. I am sympathetic with Bob, but what it is that you want? (If Bob wishes, we could always semi-protect his talk page.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have also been targeted lately by Evlekis's socks. Sadly, I'm not sure anything more can be done except vigilant reporting and blocking. He is waging a private little war, and the rest of us will have to carry on. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just had to block Gameover2000 (talk · contribs) which was posting deceptive edit summaries, purportedly editing against Evlekis' sock, but actually reverting bobrayner's edits. It's just plain bizarre. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That's his m.o. -- to hound Bobrayner, with whom he had numerous feuds that eventually led to his de facto banishment. He also tries to intimidate other editors who "protect" Bobrayner. That's how I got involved with it yesterday, which was my first introduction to this mess at all. I was minding my business on Huggle, started reverting a disruptive IP, and quickly found myself a target. (See "Hashim Haradinaj" above.) Quite a pathetic hobby for a grown man. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I can suggest is to contact an admin, including me, if you don't want to go to the trouble to reopen the SPI. The admin can then evaluate whether a block can be issued without an SPI. Unfortunately, there are some socks who delight in attention - thus, the more the merrier. Not much one can do about it except pick them off one by one and otherwise ignore them.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too bothered about my talkpage. I'm used to people disagreeing with me and the more time he spends on my talkpage, the less time he's messing about with articles. Good content is more important than keeping a tidy user-talk page.

However, feel free to block the socks. Evlekis likes to revert-stalk and, although it only takes a minute to undo each sock's revert-spree, it would be nice if they could be stopped automatically. I would also like to express frustration at other editors cynically cooperating with Evlekis-socks in order to pov-push on controversial articles, but maybe that's a Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement case for some other day when I have more time on my hands... bobrayner (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyway; thanks for all your help. Sorry about the mess. bobrayner (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Can someone stop this nonsense? This sockhounting is started to affect negatively the project. Bobrainer by reverting me is becoming disruptive by reinserting red-links and pipped links only because he favours Albanian names for setlements and refuses to accept that the articles he is linking are not written the way he wants. I already called his attention on this and asked him to procede properly, to make a WP:RfM is he beleaves the articles should have another title. I don´t care about socks, but in this case, the text sock is defending is actually correct, and Bobrainer is using the "sock" excuse just to implement his POV in articles. FkpCascais (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sockhounting should not be an excuse to disrupt pages and once an established editor is reverted that is not sockhounting anymore, but disruption. FkpCascais (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If you really want to resume Evlekis' crusade that placenames in Kosovo should always be in Serbian, rather than using the actual Albanian names, perhaps we could have a centralised discussion on that (I've considered starting an RfC once the current sockfest is over). But bringing it up at AN/I is likely to lead to closer examination of editing behaviour rather than of the content dispute; are you sure you want to go down that road? Making proxy edits for a blocked editor is a Bad Thing, and you've been doing a lot of it lately. bobrayner (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You are as hypocrite as one can be. I told you to open a discussion on that matter. If anyone wants to examine my contributions, is welcome. I just brought here another exemple of your disruption in the Kosovo-related area where you refuse to change your behaviour and keep using the "sock-excuse" with everyone who desagrees with you. FkpCascais (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

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

A.D.D.E.

Hello, today I am reporting AmericanDad86 for disruptive editing on The Simpsons becuase he doesn't get the verifiability policy, as of the edits [1] [2]. It all started when he wanted to defend Grapesoda22's edit by adding a non-reliable source on the article. I have told the user about that, but the user started to change the subject, in which of telling people about how I edit instead of talking about the content, and tried not to reference what I said about the non-reliable part, and had to end up repeating myself in the article's talk page, when I said it already on the Reference Desk. Also, in which the user did the exact same thing on The Simpsons' talk page, starting talking about me instead of the content, in which I don't know if that results to personal attack, in which he did it twice. I later reverted it's edit, and said on the edit summary is to read WP:RS, but the user refused, and reported me to the edit warring noticeboard. The user currently doesn't understand something between a reliable source, and a non-one. If the user did know, it wouldn't of never putted that source on the article, or reverted the disruptive edit he made. The user's source that it added was a search from Google, describing a book written by authors that had nothing to do with the project of The Simpsons, and the whole book isn't even about The Simpons, it's about non-fiction facts about television shows in which that is a non-reliable source. I tried all I can to tell the user, but as I said above, it doesn't understand the verify policy very well (or not at all). Yesterday I started a discussion of the reference noticeboard, Itsmejudith responded in the the edit summary that it's not reliable, and added a common message in which can be viewed by clicking this link; Since that was cleared out, we all know that if I revert the edit he made three days because the source is not reliable, we all know he'd revert it, in which because mostly he's doing tendentious, and disruptive editing, as of what it says in the symptoms in DE in rejects or ignores community input, the user is resisting moderation and/or requests for comment (for example, as I told the user to read the WP:RS, the user pretty much didn't want to), continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors (in which is me), as of the statement he made at the articles talk page to prove that he was right without minding the source that he inserted, in which I can find that hard to believe that he actually is right. Blurred Lines 20:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

{Edit Conflict] :I call WP:BOOMERANG.[190][191][192][193][194][195][196] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute over a genre. To the extent it's a conduct dispute, Blurred Lines is more of a problem than AmericanDad. Although AD may not be the most diplomatic or detached of editors, Blurred Lines was the one blocked for edit warring, and they've been in a great deal of trouble lately for their conduct. After BL requested an unblock from the latest block, EdJohnston stated, "I hope that other admins who review this will take note that this is your third block since October 1. You seem to find it difficult to follow our policies." ([197]) BL later withdrew the unblock request and sat out the block. My suggestion is the parties engage in the usual dispute resolution. From reading the short discussion at WP:RSN, I don't see a clear consensus for whether the source backing up the genre is reliable, which, of course, is a separate issue from how to classify the series.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Me being the big problem because I was blocked doesn't resolve anything as you are trying to point fingers. Also, the users has made it clear, the source is not reliable, and you can't argue about that unless you want to make a conclusion on the noticeboard that it is. Blurred Lines 21:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

153.107.33.156 et al

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

---

User talk:153.107.33.156 has been blocked nine times, most recently for three years. First post-block edits (made today) are vandalism, used in tandem with User talk:153.107.33.154 (which has five previous blocks). See also:

• User talk:153.107.33.151 - 5 expired blocks, and blocked again for 3 years earlier today
• User talk:153.107.33.152 - 8 expired blocks, has vandalised today
• User talk:153.107.33.153 - 8 expired blocks, has vandalised today
• User talk:153.107.33.155 - 8 expired blocks, has vandalised today
• User talk:153.107.33.157 - 8 expired blocks, has vandalised today
• User talk:153.107.33.158 - 7 expired blocks, has vandalised today

Thanks. -- 82.132.213.125 (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a three year block wasn't long enough... StAnselm (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I just added more detail to my original post. Is it possible those 8 IPs should be blocked together - ie so that all their blocks expire at the same time? 82.132.213.125 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done I did a /28 range block beginning at .125. Anyone can modify as needed without my input. If that is not sufficient, let me know. JodyB _talk 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Correction: I changed to a /25. The 28 was too small. JodyB _talk 15:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI: At this point, there are three overlapping blocks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Dropped the two and kept the final one on that IP, I'm unsure if it really matters but I'm happy to make a change. I just want a tight range blocked to try and alleviate this problem. JodyB _talk 16:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

For clarification, I changed the blocks to remove the overlaps and reinstated a narrow rangeblock that will cover the vandal ip's. JodyB _talk 16:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Telegraph Totter

This is a newish user, with a chequered record (see User talk:Telegraph Totter), who is insisting on making edits to articles - specifically, removing dates of birth from opening sentences - contrary to guidance at WP:OPENPARA and despite being advised not to do so. I'll revert him once more, but a few more eyes on his activities would be welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Given my dealings with this editor and their IDHT attitude regarding policy, I don't believe they should be editing any BLPs, period. But I'm not exactly unbiased.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No Jezzy I'd say you are totally biased and the reason for removing the dates from the opening par is because it looks daft to have them there AND the fact box AND the opening line of the bio section.--The Totter 01:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

If it "looks daft", perhaps you should start a discussion at WT:LEAD, rather than trying to change one article at a time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

While TT is a bit of a bull in a china shop, and would do well to invest more time learning his way around, he's right about one thing: it does look silly for the lead to say (January 5, 1912 - June 3, 1952) and the infobox to give Born January 5, 1912 and the article body to open Smith was born January 5, 1912 in London. I think all that's needed here is for someone to explain to him that, of these three, the last is the expendable one -- Smith was born in London is enough in most cases. EEng (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I think EEng has a good point here. Including dates of birth by rote in multiple places looks silly. It's not the first thing that readers are looking for, so why do we have to cram it into the first sentence of so many articles regardless of how well it scans? WP:OPENPARA suggests that the date of birth should be in the opening paragraph but all the examples push it into the first sentence, immediately after the name. Maybe we could discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. bobrayner (talk) 11:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

@Telegraph Totter: - your signature violates WP:SIGLINK, please rectify ASAP lest I have to initiate a softblock. GiantSnowman 10:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Sonny1998

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

---

Sonny1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): all of this user's edits are unsourced. He/she never explains them in edit summaries, never discusses on talk pages. Has been blocked twice for the same reasons last month. Now the block has expired and Sonny1998 continues unchangedly. I just left a message on the user's talk page an hour ago, asking very politely to review our policies and guidelines, to please provide references or to explain using the edit summary. No reaction: continues as though nothing had happened. I don't know how to solve this as it is impossible to communicate with this user. --RJFF (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

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

This user's pattern of edits is very reminiscent of serial sockpuppeteer Greekboy12345er6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). It might be worth doing a CU on the account. RolandR (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Greekboy hasn't edited since 2010 and is therefore stale with respect to a possible CU.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

But several socks have been blocked since then, most recently last June. Is there any point in taking this to SPI? The account has been indeffed, and has never engaged in talk page discussion, so is unlikely to challenge this. But Greekboy has a long record of creating socks to make large numbers of disruptive edits, so a record of this latest appearance could be useful. RolandR (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

June is well outside the useable time frame for technical comparison, although there is nothing stopping an SPI being started to be judged on behavioural evidence.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Greekboy frequently used edit summaries, but Sonny apparently didn't. Sonny mainly edited between 11:00 and 23:00 UTC. Greekboy doesn't have enough edits for wikichecker to be very effective, but appears to have edited between 01:00 and 03:00 and 14:00 and 21:00 UTC. IMHO while they may have similar interests and behavioral patterns, editing patterns seem to indicate that they aren't related. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 22:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Some eyes please on Patrick Califia

There has been a concerted effort to associate Califia with pedophilia for several months now. The talk page has had to be revision deleted a few times. And may need at least another round as someone has generously quoted several sources. I've removed a statement two times now that presents the material in what i see as an WP:Undue, and WP:POV way violating WP:BLP. I think there is some room for some content but that it has to be presented with context, and done so neutrally. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I read the articles (ours and the source) and meddled a bit. Kleuske (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Overzealous addition to local spam blocklist

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

---

I have found out from another site that User:Ckatz stuck http://www.ccel.us/ on the local spam blacklist back in the summer of 2011 in this edit. This was apparently in response to this spam taunt, but it's quite unlikely that this threat was honest since CCEL (now titled Evangelical Christian Library) is simply a repository site for well-known theological and religion-related texts, most of them PD. I would not be surprised to see links to its materials throughout religious topics on Wikipedia; the case which caught my eye involves a reference in J. Z. Knight to an on-line edition of a book by Russell Chandler, once a religion writer for the LA Times. This looks to be a perfectly reasonable reference, and an online copy is surely preferable for an online encyclopedia. Therefore I would like to ask that this entry be removed from the spam blacklist as unnecessary and inappropriate. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you asked at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist? They'll be more apt to remove it than anyone here at AN/I. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Done so, thanks. Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Medgeorgia

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

---

• Medgeorgia (talk · contribs)

I find this user's comments unnecessary and often offensive. I tried to be as civil as possible, though he doesn't seem to care about the basic rules of Wikipedia.

Earlier today he added "Georgian-Armenian" as Sayat-Nova's nationality. Note that he linked "Georgian" to Georgians (the ethnic group) when it is widely known that Sayat-Nova was an ethnic Armenian (something that he also admitted in the talk page "Was the son of Armenian immigrants"). And then I tried to remove Georgian from the lead, since it it unsourced and somewhat irrelevant. In order to avoid an edit war I went to the talk page and gave reliable several sources such as Encyclopædia Britannica and Great Soviet Encyclopedia‎ that simply call him "Armenian") and his response was a comparison to Kim Kardashian!?! He ignored the sources I provided and instead claimed that people born in Georgia are automatically Georgian.

The above, however, is just a content dispute. His last comment is what made me come here. He said "U r inadequate my bro! I am active in ka.wikipedia, and I am writing here because seeking to falsify the history by Armenians. But I do not hate Armenians, contrary I love them." --Երևանցի ^talk 21:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well,Very bad behavior from the Armenian friend. At the end of the discussion I offered him a way out, but ignored it. Sayat Nova never lived in Armenia. He was born and lived in Georgia. He died and was buried in Georgia, Tbilisi. Had an Armenian mother, who lived in Tbilisi. His father was from Aleppo, who moved to Tbilisi. After this, Sayat Nova's article mention of Georgia is Mistake?--MEDGEORGIA  talk  22:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not an excuse to make statement like "falsify the history by Armenians". You might also want to accuse Encyclopædia Britannica and Great Soviet Encyclopedia‎ in "history falsification". --Երևանցի ^talk 22:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You do not want to recognize the truth.--MEDGEORGIA  talk  22:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) And what is 'the truth' as you say? Epicgenius (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yea I think that last statement clearly indicates a WP:NOTHERE issue and a topic ban is unlikely to work. We don't need uncivil nationalistic POV pushing editors, we got enough as it is. Gone, indef. Secret ^account 01:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

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

European Commission editing on own subjects

Please take a look at IP editors like User:158.169.131.14 and (to a lesser extent) User:158.169.40.9. These IPs trace to the European Commission, and they are adding self-interested content that seems problematic for Wikipedia and its free license. For example, note the "copyright" claim on this edit. Nothing wrong with government officials wanting to help expand the encyclopedia, but they need to be aware of WP:CV and WP:COI, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Percolaytor (talk • contribs) 15:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The copyright claim is about the underlying material being discussed, ie the copyright status of EbS programming, not the content of the Wikipedia article. Unless the article content is copied from somewhere, I don't see any issues on the WP:CV front. WP:COI always applies, but it the edits don't seem that bad, and there hasn't been any attempt to sort it out at the article, or on user talk pages, so that aspect isn't ripe for review here. Monty₈₄₅ 15:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Monty, I appreciate your comments, but I don't think you looked carefully enough at the content. Look at the text in section Europe_by_Satellite#Copyright_for_EbS.2C_Credit_.C2.A9_European_Union. Just pick any sentence, e.g., "All other kinds of video material available on this website may be edited for EU information and education purposes." That's a direct copyright violation of copyrighted content found on the EC AV page here. The government IP is blanket copying copyrighted content, then pasting it into Wikipedia. I don't have the time today to "sort it out", but I know it's a problem, so that's why I brought it here, for someone to tend to, not to dismiss it as unripe. Percolaytor (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the COI issues, the edits by 158.169.40.9 aren't a substantial problem. The other IP has far more edits, so I'll report back after checking them. Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw no big problems with any of the edits I checked, aside from Percolaytor's samples. We shouldn't block an IP without warning for a series of days-old copyvios, so I'm not going to take any admin actions, but I've left a {{uw-copyvio}}. A block will be justified if any more of these edits are made. Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I see a couple of IPs in the 158.169.0.0/16 range have been quite busy over several years, on a range of topics (including, but not limited to, lots of different EU-verse articles) so perhaps there are proxies used by multiple people in one of the Euroland institutions? I think it's more than just a couple of overenthusiastic stagiaires. bobrayner (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

user:Finally An Account

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

---

Finally An Account has threatened on his talk page to use sockpuppets to continue editing. Can someone take a look? Thanks. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 20:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Pistolpierre

I think I am in the correct place, but this may belong in long-term abuse. I am here to alert admins to the comments and actions of the user Pistolpierre. This user has a long history of disruptive behavior dating back to 2006. Currently, (s)he has been leveling personal attacks at users and general incivility on the Talk:Adolf Hitler page. While (s)he raises a valid point on the page, her/his comments quickly devolved into incivility and ad hominems (e.g., 1). The user has been warned on the talk page itself and on their user talk page. For note, the level 4 template was used because of past behavior and recent warnings the user had removed from their wall. User has been alerted to this discussion. Thank you for your time. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't know if the incivility here rises to the level of a block. The user's main problem is insisting that they are right and everyone else is wrong—i.e., that the page consensus, developed at an RFC, means nothing. Pistolpierre, it's fine to believe the consensus is inadequate, but at a certain point the discussion needs to stop. There's plenty to do on Wikipedia. I suggest taking a time-out on the Hitler article if it really upsets you that much. There's no need to let this grind your editing to a halt. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious referencing of other people's motives

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

---

Apologies for TL;DR. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) doesn't seem to be able to stop repeatedly making accusations maligning the alleged disruptive behaviour/bad faith etc of other contributors in the circus that is articles relating to Austrian Economics. OK, she usually carefully avoids naming names but the circus has a small cast and far more often than not they are opposed across the entire gamut of these articles: it doesn't take a moment to work out to whom it is she is referring. The underlying content issues seems to me (who knows little about the subject) to be six of one and half a dozen of the other but Carolmoore is aware that we have processes for dealing with her allegations and yet she continues to avoid pursuing them in favour of continual whining across a wide range of forums. There are rarely any diffs provided. Some recent examples:

• at RSN
• at BLPN
• WT:Citing sources
• RSN again
• Talk:Ralph Raico (in fairness, later qualified with this)
• this amendment came out of my request following this
• RSN, the change coming after a request

That lot is a sample from the last few days. The problem has gone on for much longer (certainly prior to the examples in the lengthy thread here) and recently has included questions about application of WP:AEGS as if she is hoping that someone will do the dirty work for her (eg: here).

I do realise that the entire topic area is toxic at the moment and that Carolmoore is far from being alone in exhibiting dodgy behaviour. However, we've got to get a grip on this increasingly personalised timesink of a topic and the fact that she acknowledged the issue in the last diff of the list above but then continued in the same vein over subsequent days is worrying. I could refer her to WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP but I do not have the clout of an admin (everyone is born equal but ...). There have been moments when I've toyed with suggesting that all the major contributors should be topic banned because the behavioural problems do seem sometimes to be widespread. Right now, I'm not convinced that banning CM alone does the project any favours because of balancing issues but, please, can someone suggest a remedy here? - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I did decide tonight stop whining and take User:Sitush's advice and do a well formed WP:ANI of all the continuing problems in the Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions area, imposed October 26. I had gotten a section of diffs completed when I saw this.

But having spent too many hours today dealing with the same BLP violations, the same input of poorly sourced negative material, the same deletions of perfectly acceptable RS material, and the same personal harassment that happened before sanctions and during the last month, I'm a bit burnt out today. So I'll reply tomorrow afternoon sometime with those ANI issues, either here or in a separate ANI as others' advise.

Actually I did just look at the diffs and I do want to note that I'm still trying to get better guidance from WP:ANI on how often and in what context one can refer "publicly" to others frequently stated biases per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. Asked here twice before. This includes reacting to explicitly expressed biases to which I probably replied one or more times, if not necessarily in the diff presented. But not going to figure it out tonight.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Carolmooredc reply on Sitush diffs

Thinking about it more, after a long nap, maybe a quick response to each of Sitush's diffs is needed:

• at RSN. -- CM:looks like polite mention of a factoid well known by the editor I was speaking about, per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors
• at BLPN. -- CM: Isn't BLPN the place to complain that editors biases are being used to distort an article?
• WT:Citing sources. -- CM: No one there would know or care who I was talking about but if the editor was misusing citing it might be relevant; I still haven't figured out exactly what the citing html issue is, but the material was removed making it moot.
• RSN again. -- CM: I'm discussing advocacy group type biases in an administrative setting per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors
• Talk:Ralph Raico (in fairness, later qualified with this). -- CM: Yes, I'm whining about Steeletrap and SPECIFICO always removing well sourced material. Mea culpa.
• this amendment came out of my request following this. -- CM: I make a joke about Friedman not needing to bolster his ego and mention I'm not a paid editor, which I later removed since you did not assume good faith and assumed I was talking about someone in particular. I was just talking about me not being paid. Geez...
• RSN, the change coming after a request. -- CM: Yes, I complained in general terms about SPECIFICO following me to other pages in non-Austrian areas and commenting on my work, usually negatively. But I don't get impression anyone would do anything about it at ANI - and I did remove it after you complained.

Well, at least Sitush did do me the courtesy of providing diffs! Though I'd like to think they are far less serious than material I provide below in my WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP response to Sitush. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea why you started another subsection for your response above. Still my report is now a sideshow and can be closed. As per the section below this, things have moved on. If nothing to your liking comes from the points that your raise below then I think you'll need to draw a line in the sand. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, everything Carol has said below confirms your initial complaint. You state concern about her incivility and her reply is yet more incivility. All her sufferings and complaints have been litigated before and dismissed. They are full of lies, half-truths and of course more personal attacks. Why would you withdraw this ANI now? Carol's response is ample evidence of her inability to address any substantive issue without bringing on even more PA and other uncivil behavior. Why conclude that her recidivist behavior is going to change now, for the first time, after countless examples to the contrary? Are you satisfied that her writing in this ANI acceptably responsive, truthful and civil? I can well understand you may not have taken the time to read through the 13 noticeboard complaints she cites in her defense. I reviewed a few and I see the same behavior over and over. BTW, when she posts a link to a diff part way through an ANI or other thread, it's important to find the responses which followed when others read her assertions. I'll just tell you however that uninvolved editors who have invested the time to research her behavior in the past have been disgusted by what they found. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

In that case, you should name those "disgusted" editors and stick the standard {{ANI-notice}} on their talk pages, or give some diffs. I doubt that would be construed as canvassing in the present circumstances. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, you did make me finally file a list of complaints, though like I said the timing is really bad and it's unlikely there will be much non-involved editor comment until next week. So your mission has been accomplished. If you are recommending to others that they post to MilesMoney or Stalwart (or anyone else?) who can be assumed to reply here, I'm assuming you are recommending I contact an equal number. I'll follow others' lead on what is and is not canvassing. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if we assume all your allegations about "biased editors" to be true, repeatedly (on an almost daily basis) making these allegations, rather than filing them on ANI, is a clear violation of the spirit and policy of WP. Steeletrap (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth Sitush, those people like myself who have had to wade through this blather before (in my case at the BLP noticeboard) probably dont want to get involved. Carol is big on talking, not so much on factual evidence. I got fed up in the end and just tuned her out. Giant waste of time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush: As I wrote above, I took your comments about WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP as an invite to do so here. And when others started criticizing me based on your list, which I thought was rather innocuous, I thought I should respond to those specific issues. I'm not denying I've complained alot about certain editors' explicitly and repeatedly stated POVs and the way their POVs distorted their editing, in my opinion and that of others. Yet no uninvolved editor has yet replied here about whether or not the complaints were consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. Considering these three editors are making probably an average of 7 to 10 problematic edits to 3 or 4 different Austrian economics articles almost every day, the topic keeps coming up! (Look especially at SPECIFICO and Steeletraps contributions lists.)

Perhaps I was being too nice in not coming here two weeks ago when the three editors in question were dissing a dozen or more quality references calling Murray Rothbard an historian, doing it both on the Rothbard talk page and/or at WP:RSN on that topic. This after they were continuing to defend using very negative, low quality and/or self-published blog posts in Rothbard, Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute and Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Per this discussion. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, Carolmoordc is denying Sitush's concerns by stating her opinion that they are innocuous. And then she's denying her daily breaches of the core WP Pillar of civility by stating that her disparagement and attacks are justified because she disagrees with various editors about article content. As they say in Dixie, "That dog won't hunt." User Carolmoore has demonstrated over and over that she is unable to "comment on content not contributors". Her behavior has caused months of disruption which wastes editor and Admin time and attention nearly every day. For whatever reason she appears to be constitutionally unable to change her behavior. We've seen repeated promises to do better when it's appeared that the community was about to discipline her, but she soon resumes her disruptive and tendentious editing. Under the current Community Sanctions relating to Austrian Economics, any Admin is empowered to block Carolmooredc, and such a block is amply justified by this thread. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

If wikipedia thinks complaining about issues is worse than the issues themselves, including constant need to go to noticeboards because of editors' intransigence and POV pushing on BLP and RSN, it's pretty sad day. As just one example, in the last 24 hours questionable BLP-violation edits have generated five talk page sections in just two articles (necessitating three editors dealing with them): 1, 2 (this needs to be applied to other bio also), 3, 4, 5. Exhausting... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply:Frustrating issues in Austrian economics community sanctions area

Obviously those diffs above express my frustration with various continuing issues in the Austrian economics General Sanctions covered articles. Thanksgiving week is a bad time to deal with this, but since User Sitush forced the issue above, here we go. Note that it's a lot easier to prove frustrated snippy comments like mine than to prove patterns of behavior like the below, so, yes, it's long...

October 26th ANI imposing Community Sanctions on Austrian economics article after a number of complaints about problems in the area, including my long listing of diffs & links here. (See sanctions page Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions where a few of us have now been notified and logged.)

In that discussion, two of us expressed similar concerns:

• Me, I have no love for Austrian School economists (I am in favor of government-instituted economic policies) and I am not at all an economist by training or practice, so I am as neutral on the general topic as can be achieved here on Wikipedia. When I was alerted to problems related to Austrian School topics I found Steeletrap and Specifico working their POV changes to put one faction in a bad light. It became clear that they were fans of a competing faction, and that their purpose on Wikipedia was to reduce the respectability of their ideological opponents. Whatever I do at those articles is intended to establish as neutral a tone as possible. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 21:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• As I've said many times, it's one thing to clean up an article with issues you describe and add NPOV info, including critical info. It's something else to emphasize adding highly negative material in a WP:Undue fashion while frustrating others' attempts to add NPOV material. [User:Carolmooredc]] ''' 12:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I see these as continuing problems, either done or supported by Users: Steeletrap and SPECIFICO, and to a lesser degree by MilesMoney. Since the Community Sanctions were imposed, especially problematic articles include Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Thomas DiLorenzo , Ludwig von Mises Institute, Robert P. Murphy, and lately Ralph Raico. Feel free to mention any other articles. Additions of negative, cherry picked and poorly sourced material; deletion of WP:RS NPOV neutral or (heavens forbid!) positive material; need to go to noticeboards because discussions drag on without resolution or editors refuse to admit they are in the clear minority - or that there are obvious BLP problems; refusal to enter into any dispute resolution. Related issues below:

Heavy negative biases

• Steeletrap is working on “independent research on the von Mises Institute (for the Master's degree thesis on American fringe political movements)” and admitted early on to being “strongly biased against them”.(diff), writing later "(To put it plainly, I think they are cultish, ideologically-driven charlatans whose "economics" is just an attempt to justify their ideological priors), and also believe that a great many of them are bigots.”(diff). Steeletrap attests to having a minor [corrected: undergranduate degree] in economics & anthropology(diff) and believes such expertise is necessary so firmly that Steeletrap proposed in the Community Sanctions ANI “Sub-proposal: Require administrators who evaluate/sanction editors to be educated in economics’‘.
• SPECIFICO stated his biases when he wrote: I am an "Austrian School" economist trained before the Mises Institute launched its attempt to hijack of this important intellectual tradition.(diff)
• I personally have refrained from such POV soapbox, though their searching around Wikipedia and the internet helped them figure out I’m a libertarian of some sort who knew Murray Rothbard 30 years ago. I have expressed very strong opinions about misusing Wikipedia and violating its policies to discredit those one disagrees with politically, something I've spent far too much time dealing with on other issues as well.

WP:RSN

• Oct 25-on: Steeletrap: Volokh_Conspiracy (as RS)
• Oct 25-on: Carolmooredc: 3 questionable sources in Von Mises Institute article.
• Nov 12, Carolmooredc: Rothbard as historian (re: rejection of almost 12 RS saying he was one)
• Nov 18, User TFD: Rothbard article (re: inaccurate ref)
• Nov 19, User:Carolmooredc: Demos blog in BLP of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (low quality ref in BLP)
• Nov 24, User:Carolmooredc: Institute bios in BLPs (Joseph R. Stromberg and Ralph Raico. (Removal of Institute profile factoids on views)

WP:BLPN

• Oct 26, User:Arzel: Von Mises Institute re: Volkh Conspiracy generalizations.
• Oct 26 User:Arzel 1 names MilesMoney who has been a problem in this area and Nov 2 User:Quest for Knowledge 2 an RfC, both regarding Rand Paul. (I would not be surprised if some see discrediting Von Mises Institute associates, including Ron Paul, as part of discrediting Rand Paul and his future career.)
• Nov 23, User:Carolmooredc: Removing BLP violating material re: Thomas DiLorenzo article after SPECIFICO refused to reply to a long list of issues and accused me of trying to White Wash the BLP.(this diff).

Continuing harassment
Obviously this has made me more touchy and whiny that I might otherwise have been.

• At earlier ANIs I complained about harassment by User:Steeletrap refusing to stop posting to my talk page and User:SPECIFICO harassing personal talk page messages
• October 31 User:Steeletrap again harassed me on my talk page which I reported to the admin who initially warned Steeletrap. I also had to make it clear to SPECIFICO that he had been banned for his past harassment, since my ANI and a poorly worded mention of it to him on someone elses' talk page did not make that impression.
• October 31 User:Steeletrap first harassed me on the Murray Rothbard talk page about alleged COI because I knew and associated with Rothbard a bit 30 years ago. Despite my replies Steeletrap took me to COI Noticeboard where it was clear there was no conflict. (See Murray Rothbard "Views" section for negative, cherry picked coatrack in action and this talk page section on POV.)
• November 23 Specifico edit warring notice and November 24 Specifico 3rr notice to me about edits that did not violate 3rr but did try to correct serious BLP problems discussed and linked to at the afore mentioned [[ Nov 23 BLPN discussion. (This after SPECIFICO made the "white wash" accusation.)
• [Added later:] Steeletrap's soapbox inferences I'm a bigot for trying to follow WP policy in Murray Rothbard, at this diff.

Refusal to engage in dispute resolution

• My Ludwig von Mises Institute talk page suggestions to Specifico and Steeletrap that we all discuss issues on WHERE at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard were totally ignored.
• Given that it’s not surprising that my later listing of issues we could discuss at Dispute resolution (diff) was ignored.

That’s enough for now, though I can present lots of diffs of individual acts of questionable entry of bad material, defense of bad material, removal of perfectly good material, etc. Note that I gave up on doing much in Wikipedia in August and September because I was disgusted with these issues. The Community Sanctions gave me some hope, but despite them it's been the same old same old for the last month. Thus my whining. I wouldn’t mind seeing us all banned from these articles IF other NPOV editors would clean up the most obvious problems and add NPOV material. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

HEY! Don't be downgrading my econ B.S. to a mere "minor" in econ. Otherwise this is the same old tl;dr stuff that has been brought up by Carol on numerous ANIs in the past. Carol is WP:Forumshoping by raising these old charges again and again. (I was upfront in disclosing my bias, but it doesn't preclude me from editing these pages, any more than someone skeptical of Scientology from editing Scientology related pages; and for the record, my Master's thesis in anthropology is complete and made no mention of LvMI in its final form.) Steeletrap (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Funny, CMDC, my recollection is that you stated you would give up on editing for a while when it became clear that -- after your dozen or so failed Noticeboard complaints -- your specious ANI against me threatened to BOOMERANG against you with a topic-ban last August. I have nothing to say about your accusations and attacks. They speak volumes about you and your attitude and behavior here. I'll only say that the battleground personal attacks and ad hominem talkpage discussions in these articles began with your antics here last spring. What at first seemed kind of funny -- you remember: that time when you accused me of CANVASSING with faulty notifications of a talkpage RfC and then copied exactly the same words in your own notifications -- that opening salvo of yours has developed into what we see today. Thanks for the memories. There was nothing but clear constructive content disagreement here before you stirred things up. I'm confident the community will do the right thing here. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO: I do not know what you are talking about in your allegations above and unless you can provide diffs or links reminding me and proving it to others I will have to assume you are making up exaggerated or false allegations in order to avoid taking responsibility for all the questionable editing I've pointed to. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Anybody who clicks on the links you've already provided and investigates the context and the rebukes of other editors, for example the thoughtful and articulate @Stalwart111: will be able to evaluate your behavior. I may provide additional diffs, or other editors may do so, but as I see it your behavior as documented by Sitush's opening statement, your writings here in this ANI thread, and the language of the Sanctions would justify a block. I am traveling and don't expect to be on WP for the rest of the day today, sorry. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, if anyone wants to know MilesMoney/Steeletrap/SPECIFICO's contemptuous opinion of Community sanctions and their admins see this user talk page thread (or if it's deleted the deletion diff): Mises Sanctions as a Horror movie plot: Anyone can die?'. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've worked with CarolMoore several years. She fastidiously finds and follows quality sources, avoids OR, seeks the neutrality that such leads to, and is very direct / blunt in conversations on such. The times that I've butted heads with her is when I thought she might have done this too thoroughly / rigorously. Although I don't consider myself to be enough of an expert or research to jump fully into the articles discussed above, I have been watching them and occasionally weighing in only in process areas. Carol's efforts of the type I described above (including following where quality sources lead) have led her to a collision with folks who to me appears have been working towards a negative spin on the subjects of the articles. Trying to use the bluntness aspect to go after her is trying to use a minor sidebar of this against her and I think out of line. And an even weaker construction after folks even admit that it was not about or to anyone specifically, and not even using the singular in her comments. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• It is true that I wrote the following in mid-October: "When I was alerted to problems related to Austrian School topics I found Steeletrap and Specifico working their POV changes to put one faction in a bad light. It became clear that they were fans of a competing faction, and that their purpose on Wikipedia was to reduce the respectability of their ideological opponents." I should add that MilesMoney joined this pair of POV editors to act as their heavy, throwing additional stumbling blocks at those who were trying to maintain neutrality on Austrian School articles. MilesMoney was topic banned, but I do not see the problem lessening with regard to Steeletrap and Specifico. They both have been reverting too many times in the last few weeks at Murry Rothbard, and they continue to try and reduce the respectability of Rothbard, for instance with this edit by Specifico in which Rothbard is denied the names of like-minded colleagues, and this recent change by Steeletrap in which a Ralph Raico statement is cast as being both trivial and conflicted. Little by little, Specifico and Steeletrap have been working to reduce Rothbard's legacy as much as they can get away with. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wow! Do those diffs ever not prove your point. — goethean 00:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

So, Binksternet, you are saying that Carolmooredc is justified in filling nearly every "contribution" -- text, talkpage posts, and edit summaries -- with personal attacks and disparagement as documented by OP and others? And the justification for violating the Pillar of civility is that she has a content dispute with other editors? Is that your view? I'd like to know how many of the Admins who patrol this page agree with Binksternet that Carolmoore's personal attacks, incivility, and disparagement of other editors -- posting a stream of ad hominem attacks instead of responding to clearly stated content disagrements -- how many Admins agree with that? Anyone? SPECIFICO talk 03:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I am saying nothing of the sort. Did you see anything in my comment about Carolmooredc? No, of course you did not. I have not commented on her behavior because I see that it is uneven, that she makes good points sometimes and then she goes off on a jag. This whole thread is woefully unorganized because she was unable to clearly state her case. Still, there is a case to be made, difficult as it may be, so the right thing to do is figure out what the problem is and correct it. I see the problem as the continuation of POV editing by you and Steeletrap. Do I think Carolmooredc has perfectly clean hands? No, not really. I think that some of her contributions to Austrian School articles are poorly thought out.

I take offense that you would pin a fabricated viewpoint on me, drawn from whole cloth. Such misleading behavior does not win you supporters. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Misleading behavior like claiming I'm topic-banned when that's not the case? Let's stick to the facts: this report has nothing to do with anyone but Carol and her behavior. She keeps throwing accusations around, pointing at everyone else but herself, but even you admit that these don't excuse her behavior. She refuses to admit that she's made mistakes and take personal responsibility for them, instead playing the victim and repeating her performances.

As far as I'm concerned, anything Carol says here about others here is just more evidence against her, showing that she's unable to discuss issues without making them personal. As you admitted, she's terribly disorganized, so when she actually does discuss content, she makes a mess of things. And as you admit with your comment about clean hands, she is extremely biased, prone to misinterpreting sources, picking and choosing, and generally resisting anything she dislikes regardless of how well it's sourced. She shops around to forum after forum until she gets her way and she is, in general, quite tedious to deal with.

I am hardly Sitush's best friend, and that's mutual, but I think all of us see that Carol's behavior is a problem. Making excuses for her is highly counterproductive, as it only enables her misbehavior. Instead, she should come clean, admit that she's too biased to edit articles on people she knew personally, and agree to leave these articles alone. If this problem isn't dealt with now, it'll only come up again. Carol is currently the most disruptive editor on Austrian economics-related articles and we cannot ignore this any longer.

I've said my piece, I'm done here. Stick to the facts, stick to the topic, and stop making false statements. MilesMoney (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

For uninvolved editors who wish to see what Carol and her "suppporters" are talking about: - I just opened the link which Binksternet cites as a smoking gun against me to prove that I deserve to be personally attacked and that I am not editing in good faith: I hope that every reader will take a look: this is the edit. Now, Binskternet, it is hard to believe that you are telling the assembled editors and Admins here that the diff you cited proves that I am a bad-faith, biased, POV-pushing, etc. etc. editor. What's the problem? A copy edit which trims the names of two high-school students who accompanied Rothbard to Ayn Rand's place? I know that you're aware that this article is about Rothbard, and not the two students. False accusation of bad faith is a WP:personal attack and it's inflammatory. Please strike your message above. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Your bluster is unbecoming. The diff I showed is a small part of you chipping away at Rothbard, bit by bit. You have been creating this problem for a long time, with many edits. Few of your edits can stand alone as evidence against you, including this one. Instead, the overall pattern of your editing for many months is what makes the picture complete. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like there's no further discussion. Do we need to put this up to a vote now? MilesMoney (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

With the exception of ArbCom elections, we do not strictly speaking vote on Wikipedia. Neither is there any need for every discussion on a central noticeboard, such as this or RSN, to end in a vote. Some things just die a death and in other cases the consensus is clear anyway. Whatever the outcome of this thing may be, it should signal the end of Carolmooredc's repeated and often oblique references to generalised issues on other boards: she'll either get a favourable reaction here or she will not. In either event, there should be a line drawn under things. Personally, I think that there are problems on both sides: Specifico and, in particular, Steeletrap and yourself are causing huge amounts of disruption with point-y edits and ridiculous challenges to things such as clearly unreliable sources (what?) and the use of words like "historian". But, hey, when I'm in the mood to draw up a list of diffs myself then you'll know about it and until then I won't be referring further to it - you've had as much of a warning as I'm going to give and can decide whether to risk it or not based on things such as my past experiences when initiating reports here.

And before someone says yet again that this is a "bad week" for bringing things here, it isn't: Wikipedia does not go into meltdown just because some people in the US are stuffing their faces with turkey etc, nor when people are engaging in other annual rituals on 25 December of 31 December/1 January, Passover, Diwali etc. - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, I think there's agreement that Carolmooredc should not be permitted to continue her personal attacks and other disruptive and tendentious behavior which has been discsussed above. As I see it, the problem is that she's demonstrated that she's unable to control herself. If she were capable of changing her behavior, I do not believe that she would have continued with the same sort of disparaging and accusatory narrative in this ANI. My experience and knowledge around WP is much more limited than yours, but I am struck that on this thread nobody, not even those who have "sided" with Carolmooredc on various earlier talkpage and noticeboard threads, have denied your initial complaint, nor have they tried to excuse her behavior. In fact, when I interpreted Binksternet's comment as a rationalization of Carolmooredc's attacks, he corrected me and stated that even he -- who last summer accepted at face value her accusations and conspiracy theories about other editors -- did not come here to defend her behavior.

With these articles under General Sanctions, any Admin who has read this thread and reviewed Carolmoore's history of disruptive and tendentious editing, her personal attacks, and her steadfast refusal to limit her WP remarks to "content and not contributors" could block her. I have no knowledge of how Admins have traditionally exercised this authority in other areas under Sanctions, but I'd hate to think that with all the time and attention we have put into discussing Carolmooredc's behavior we are going to go back to the same old same-old. If that's all that comes of this thread -- some kind of warning or the wishful expectation that Carolmooredc is going to exercise a new self control which she has never yet been able to muster, then how can we trust this process or the GS enforcement to support the WP-efforts we invest in the future? So, I hope that Sitush as OP and the most experienced among us in these matters -- and all the Admins who must be watching this board -- can help take this thread to an effective outcome. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, I read Sitush's PUT UP OR SHUT UP comments to be an invitation to make specific complaints here. Plus, now that I think of it, show that I and other editors have tried to do something about the problems I generally complain about with multiple noticeboard visits in the last month! (Where the community generally supported the complaints, if anyone bothers to read the noticeboard postings.) Maybe my listing above needed to be shorter and most of it done here next week instead; my apologies if so.

I certainly do encourage Sitush to come and list the issues he has with the editors in question, per his general discussion above. I've already got a big BLPN building up now for later next week if issues not addressed properly.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Clogging the Noticeboards with ordinary content discussions which belong on the article talk pages is one of the ways in which your participation continues to be disruptive, for example here, in this thread, where you continue your pattern of personal disparagement even after numerous warnings and this ANI SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

And here we are, an hour later and Carolmooredc has posted additional gratuitous, and inaccurate, personal disparagement: [198]. It's clear that she is not able to control this behavior. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussions are a relevant place for problematic editing issues so this is a strawperson. Both links refer to bringing one editor to WP:RSN for removing Institute-related info from two different bios the same day. I did do a WP:RSN search, as inferred in original WP:RSN posting, and saw WP:RSN usually supports such use, but I was too burned out to do all the links on both talk pages and then have to explain them, when it seemed a cut and dried case with "problematic behavior by one or more editors" (as an uninvolved editor put the general problem in reply to last diff) just delaying the inevitable. Additionally, my comments were in reply to questions from another editor today about the objective situation and were relevant to the discussion, as behavior and POV editing usually are at noticeboards! All the other complaints were filed due to I or others being annoyed that discussion was going no where because of equal numbers of pretty much the same editors on each side of issue, among other reasons. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'm the last person to endorse the tendency of ANI reports to turn into lynchings, so I'm not out for blood. I don't think we should ban Carol from this topic, or even from particular articles. However, I do think we should formally warn her that she has used up all of our tolerance for her personal attacks and that there is a consensus that the next one will trigger immediate sanctions against her. This way, if she really can control herself then she's safe, but if she's as out of control as some fear, they'll get their way. MilesMoney (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: probation

This means that if she engages in personal attacks, edit-wars, brings article disputes to drama pages (RSN,NORN,ANI) without first discussing them on the article talk page, or otherwise repeats the sort of misbehavior that led to this report, she is immediately blocked from all editing for one month. No excuses, no tolerance, no more. MilesMoney (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support as OP. MilesMoney (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. We have already given our administrators enough power in this matter at Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions. You should know this fact very well as you are topic-banned by way of this method. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be a bit fact-challenged, as I am not under any topic ban. I mentioned this the last time you made this error, but perhaps I was too subtle. Repeating this slur against me constitutes a personal attack, so you're going to need to redact it right now. I insist.

For that matter, I don't see what argument you offer against probation. Would you rather we just block or ban her now? Feel free to offer an alternate proposal, then. MilesMoney (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, it says here that "MilesMoney (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from engaging in any edits or interactions with respect to the article, Ludwig von Mises Institute". Has the sanction been removed? Let me know if it has and I'll update the general sanctions page. If it is still in effect though, you should stop saying you aren't topic banned. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Bink is claiming that I'm banned from the topic of Austrian economics as opposed to a single article. MilesMoney (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Am I? Where did I say that? Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you even know the difference between WP:TBAN and WP:ABAN? MilesMoney (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The article ban is also commonly referred to as a topic ban, in casual conversation on Wikipedia. I see you did not ask Mark Arsten whether he knew the difference. You will also note the wording of your ban which says you are "topic-banned" from the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly support CMDC's constant, disparaging speculations about the motives/mental states of other editors' constitute PAs; even if these speculations were meritorious, they should be filed in ANI complaints, not constantly splattered on article talk pages. OP's proposal appropriately threads the needle between a topic ban (which I hope is a route we can avoid, as CMDC is a spirited and gifted editor who can contribute positively to WP) and a slap on the wrist (which has proven woefully insufficient to improve CMDC's conduct). Steeletrap (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. No offense, basis. North8000 (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

If your concern is that probation is an unnecessary step, would you instead support an immediate block or ban for what she's already done? I prefer to be lenient, but if you insist... MilesMoney (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I meant that there is no basis for either. This looks like somebody trying to gin up/ overblow a few snarky comments not directed at anyone in particular into an ANI against someone that they are having a content dispute with. North8000 (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

North, my old friend... Are you accusing Sitush of creating a falsely-stated ANI? I see no basis for that. Please review the entire thread. I don't recall any memorable content disputes between Sitush and Carolmooredc, and I have never seen Sitush confuse content issues with behavioral issues. Please review the thread and reconsider. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, North. I'm sorry if I have not made myself clear but am also bemused regarding where that failing shows. There is a behavioural issue regarding CMDC. Happen there are probably behavioural issues regarding others also but in CMDC's case, which is that she sees such issues in others, the appropriate response is to draw admin attention to the perceived issues and not to tendentiously refer to them across numerous threads where admin involvement would be serendipitous. My complaint has forced the denouement, which is something I'd tried and failed to obtain previously. Whether people now choose to address her concerns or her actions alone is entirely up to the community. Once this is done, there should be no need for CMDC to reference all the historic stuff on an almost-daily basis. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching the article for a while. I don't have the expertise to jump deeply in, but have commented on a few process issues and also as a "dummy reader". And my general impressions is that the net effect is an effort to POV the article negatively towards the topic. I've seen Carol to use noticeboard to get input on content issues, but not to "go after" editors. I see here choice of words etc.as an effort to "push back" against the "net effect POV'ing effort" without directing the comments at any individual editor. At best, this is pointing out a reality in a much-needed effort without even accusing individual editors much less taking them to behavioral noticeboards. At worst it would be an inaccurate complaint against nobody in particular. And so when I see a big content dispute, and minor sidebar item become a ANI discussion, and the main people weighing in against Carol being the same ones in opposition ot here in a content dispute, I get "concerned" about what's really going on. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for two reasons. First, reviewing the diffs I just don't see the NPA aspect of CMDC's comments. Yes, some seemed snarky and some assigned motives to other editors. While CMDC's behavior may be irritating to some it doesn't come close to constituting personal attacks, at least in my book. Second, the proposal is WAY too vague. There's no WP:NODRAMA policy or guideline. It's unrealistic to expect any editor working on such contentious subject matter to jump through extra, unnecessary hoops before using the noticeboards for their intended purposes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Doc. Nothing was unmanageably contentious before Carol showed up. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Doc, Carol has a pattern of jumping straight to the drama boards, avoiding discussion on talk pages. MilesMoney (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

These don't sound anything like punishable offenses to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Doctor, have you read all of the text above and followed the links and read the diffs and the surrounding threads? Have you ever seen another editor whose every utterance on WP is couched in first and second person narratives, speculation, and accusations and who freely distorts and misrepresents her narrative to manipulate WP process? If you haven't done the reading, I ask you to do so. It will be quite an eye-opener, even if it takes you several days. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that an editor's irritating comments are many doesn't render her comments any more violative of WP guidelines or policies. I went through the list of diffs in Situshi's original report and I didn't see anything objectionable. Sorry, no editor in their right mind is going to spend "several days" reviewing all of CMDC's many comments. Personally I'd rather wash the dishes. Ok, off to the kitchen... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I think that most of the problems in these articles originate with SPECIFICO, Steeltrap and MilesMoney who seem intent to add negative information to articles about libertarian writers regardless of the strength of the sources. For example, they added that Rothbard supported the campaign for governor of former KKK leader David Duke in a newsletter he co-published with Lew Rockwell. When I provided links to the newsletters which did not contain any mention of Duke during his campaign, rather than withdraw the information, they argued that their source was more reliable for the information existing in the newsletter than the newsletter itself. (See Talk:Murray Rothbard#Kirchick's opinion piece allegations even supportable? and WP:RSN#Murray Rothbard article.) TFD (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello TFD. As you know, I personally invited you recently to become an active participant in editing these articles -- an invitation I am glad that you accepted. Why would I do that if I had the intention of adding negative information to these articles?? Secret strategy of misdirection or sleight of hand? I am surprised and disappointed to see you use weaselly language here. "they added..." WHO added? All 3 of us badguys at once? I know I didn't add that information. Nor did I have much to say in the extended discussion that followed, and certainly no fixed POV. I think you're a more thoughtful and intelligent an editor than to use misuse "they" in such a manner. But as to the matter at hand: Do you deny that Carol has behaved tendentiously, made repeated uncivil remarks, personal attacks and other violations of core WP policy? Or are you conceding that she has done so but saying that such behavior is OK? Please sort out who did what RE:Duke and strike or correct the false portions of you allegation above. Please also clarify your view as to why Carolmooredc should not be disciplined for her behavior which is clearly documented by numerous editors in this thread. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I'm disappointed in your assessment of my edits on these pages. Do you recall that it was I who added the glowingly positive Skousen material and deleted the race and intelligence material (it was later restored when multiple RS were added to support what was previously a primary sourced section)? As to the "endorsed" Duke stuff, that was an RS interpretation and was properly presumed to be true until proven otherwise. Steeletrap (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – Carol has been around for many years and 27k+ edits, long before and/or with far more editing experience-wise than many of the other editors who have opined. IOW, she has contributed greatly in these topic areas well before others signed on and contentiousness has not stemmed from her efforts. Rather, difficulties have arisen from the interactions between editors. (I, myself, was (once) banned from her talk page because she did not always enjoy reading my comments.) I have observed difficulties in these various interactions, and a few months ago I proposed a voluntary interaction ban to apply to all of the editors engaged in the discussion. (And I was the first to volunteer for the ban.) I raise the IBAN proposal again, with the proviso that it be mutual for all "involved" editors. – S. Rich (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Srich, the initial complaint presented by @Sitush: documented Carolmooredc's tendentious editing. Her incessant and egregious violations of the Pillar of Civility were then further documented and (amazingly) demonstrated in this ANI thread. The articles are under Community Sanctions. It's rather an open and shut case. Please state under what theory you believe that Carol's documented violations and the Sanctions should be disregarded here? I know you had hurt feelings last time your IBAN theory was rejected, but the proposal is even more unsuitable now, in the context of Carolmooredc's specific documented misbehavior. SPECIFICO talk 04:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't recall saying anywhere here that CMDC's comments were personal attacks/uncivil. They're a bloody nuisance but she has raised some valid points. My point was to cause her to raise the things ("put up") or cease ("shut up") the repeated vague accusations. She chose the former and I'm pleased that she has because there does seem to be some merit to them. I find it interesting that I keep getting "thank you" ping from both sides of the circus, the timing of the ping depending on whether they perceive my comment to be pro- or anti- the position being taken by the individual: I'm clearly neutral. I've raised a few diffs in a subsidiary message above - the quibbling about "historian" etc - but if I raise more then there is a possibility that the entirety of one "side" will find themselves sanctioned. I'd rather knock heads together and hope that the participants see sense because reasonable debate is healthy. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Rich, I don't even know that Carol would argue that contentiousness hasn't stemmed from her efforts, especially as regards her edits on the Palestine-Israel controversy. There is no reason for constantly disparaging other people's motives; it is tendentious, uncivil, and insulting. She should file an ANI posting if she's concerned about bias. Steeletrap (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Carol gets frustrated by these off-topic comments. Steeletrap, what was your involvement in any P-I controversy and how is any of that long-past editing relevant? Where did anyone get the idea that my feelings were hurt (and how would my feelings impact any of the previous discussion)? What sanction violations have been documented? Where is there uncivility? These recent (and earlier) comments demonstrate how an IBAN would (hopefully) help – the idea being that subtle and overt snipping is put to an end. – S. Rich (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose And Miles should thank his lucky stars that he was not topic banned for exactly what he is accusing Carol of doing. These pages have become a toxic dumping ground to attack and malign Libertarians. Carol could probably temper her approach, but it is hard to do when you have a group of editors who's only apparent purpose is to denigrate anyone associated with Libertarian views, or at least certain Libertarian views. Arzel (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comments

• Steeletrap, please do not try to speculate on what I think about my edits on Palestine-Israel conflict. Plus, what is the relevance? Feels to me like some sort of "wink wink" negative inference, as it is quite appropriate to mention in an ANI. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration for how those of us who edit in the area still try from time to time to deal with conflict.
• Steeletrap, need I remind people of my and others' past noticeboard postings where POV of three editors in question was mentioned or the main topic: My listing above of "Heavy negative biases", as well as discussions at WP:RSN, WP:BLPN, WP:ANI. And all these past discussions since the spring: ANI, ANI, BLPN, ORN, 3RR, BLPN, NPOVN, RSN, ANI, ANI, ANI , BLPN.
• IMHO, some editors would like to ban any editor from ever mentioning their POV-distorted edits in talk page discussions or edit summaries, including the BLPs where most of the problems are.
• Question: If POVs are constantly disruptive do we constantly have to go to ANI to publicly complain about POVs , ala "NPOV Policy FAQ:Dealing with biased contributors"? All that Policy FAQ talks about is being polite, not how frequently one can mention them when they keep coming up over and over again. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Only fly in the ointment, carolmooredc, is that you are not polite. What to do? SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be trotting out the Palestinian/Israeli stuff if you're trying to convince folks how reasonable you are, Carol. Anyone with the patience to dig into it will find you engaged in the same dysfunctional, elbowjabbing incivility we've seen on the Austrian aritcles. And just to complete the circle, the current relevance of this (aside from the fact that you brought it up here) is your anti-Semitic innuendo and misogynistic and anti-transgender on [[ping|Steeletrap}}. SPECIFICO talk 18:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Instead of innuendo based on innuendo, perhaps WP:RFC/USER is the best place for this discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

And don't forget the almost always lacking diffs to prove your allegations. But a mass of unsupported allegations in response to a long list of diffs and links of noticeboard discussions has been the very frustrating modus operandi through many of the noticeboard discussions mentioned above.

Having noticed an external link to a smear site run by an anonymous smear-monger, I'd like to point out that my intemperate remarks there were to 2003 email which has been discussed previously at wikipedia (assuming they are accurate, which I probably checked at the time but am not going to check again). They were at the time the Iraq war was started and in reply to/reaction to a person who had made at least five or six death threats against me, as well as other smears, which got him banned from several notice boards. (I listed all of the threats on the internet.) Yes, I lost my temper. In contrast, in the last year when I received over a 1000 death threats through wikipedia's email system from a well-known Sockpuppet on the same topic, I kept my temper.

Also, note the one time I got blocked I was blocked originally for six months (later reduced to a week) for inferring negative things about someone from their edit history and mentioning it on the Wikia feminist page which I thought (duh) was part of wikipedia.

Of course, we aren't supposed to have to defend ourselves this way on Wikipedia, are we? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Request to review block of Joefromrandb

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

---

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

I recently blocked User:Joefromrandb due to his edit warring on an AFD page. The original report is here. My findings were that:

• Joefromrandb had added a comment to the AFD page, which he believe he had worded to avoid a BLP violation.
• User:Neljack claimed that the wording did violate BLP and redacted it.
• An edit war broke about between the two users with the comment being re-added and re-redacted.
• Neljack eventually opened a case on the BLP noticeboard.
• Shortly afterwards User:Nomoskedasticity reported both users at the edit warring noticeboard.
• Both users continued to revert after the edit warring report was made
• Neljack's last revert was about 40 minutes after the case was opened
• Joefromrandb reverted again about 5 hours later

I decided that Joefromrandb should be blocked (and that the block should be for one month) due to the fact that he continued reverting several hours later and the fact that he has a fairly extensive history of blocks for edit warring and disruptive editing (including a week long block that had only expired three weeks earlier). I decided to use my discretion to not block Neljack, because he had opened the BLP case, had stopped reverting shortly after the edit war was reported, and because he seemed to have a genuine belief that he was preventing a BLP violation. I have since discussed the block with Joefromrandb, and put it to him that

You seem to agree that you were edit warring, and have stated that you make no apology for doing so. Presumably this means that you believe edit warring is OK, and would be prepared to do it again. The fact that this is your second block for disruptive editing in three weeks, adds further support to this conclusion.

to which he replied

You're goddamn right I make no apology. The day I make an apology for reverting the sycophant of an (alleged) child-molester will be the day I die.

It has been suggested to me that Joefromrandb should not have been blocked because his comment did not violate BLP and so Neljack was violating policy by reverting his comment. I did not make a finding on whether Joefromrandb's comment did violate BLP. Instead I found that even if his comment did not violate BLP, and that Neljack did violate policy by reverting him, that did not provide Joefromrandb with an exemption for edit warring (here is the list of edit warring exemptions). It has also been suggested that the block length was punitive, rather than preventative. Per the blocking policy a block is preventative if the aim of it is to

• prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia;
• deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior;
• and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

In this case, I believed and still believe that the longer block was necessary to deter further disruptive behaviour from Joefromrandb. I believe that his comment above reinforces the belief that he is unrepentant, and feels that edit warring is acceptable and previous, shorter, blocks have failed to deter him. I bring this here for your review as User:WilliamJE has made it clear that he is not happy with my decision to retain the block, and his belief that it needs to be reviewed. There has been extensive discussion on my talk page and Joefromrandb's talk page. TigerShark (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Joe's original comment was not objectionable and Neljack had no business removing it. Perhaps Joe shouldn't have edit-warred, but when someone insists on censoring a comment that should not be censored, they are just asking for trouble. If anyone should have been blocked, it should have been Neljack. The fact that you brought this here for review yourself instead of waiting for someone else to do so allays my outrage slightly, but only slightly. At best, you've made a major mistake. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 23:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• My two cents: Joe was edit-warring with the other guy about restoring Joe's own comments which Joe had carefully written in a good-faith attempt to avoid any BLP problem. I don't see anything in Joe's block log about any edit-warring about Joe's own comments, so this seems sui generis. That's why a month-long block seems excessive. This was not an edit-war about article content.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Since you asked, I would say that you probably should have blocked both and probably just long enough to finish out the AFD. I think Joe is very angry and will need to find a way through that anger without taking it out on Wikipedia. Probably the best thing to do now is end the block. Your motives were good and the fact you brought it here speaks well of you. JodyB _talk 23:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Jody, Automatic, Tiger Shark only came here after I made repeated statements today that I would be starting the ANI. Before that he ignored at least two editors who thought a review was in order or said his block was inappropriate and at least one of those comments was made two days ago....William 01:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • • WilliamJE, I think you know that is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. Both TParis and Drmies raised concerns on my talk page and did mention that ANI may be required. However, I took significant time to address there concerns (including TParis's follow up) but then heard no more. In your case, I explained my reasons again, and asked yo to explain why you thought it wasn't edit warring, or why you thought that Joefromrandb did not need to be deterred from edit warring again. You ignored those key points (and they are the key points if you are arguing for a unblock) and instead tried to suggest that I had some nefarious intent, because I responded to your question on my talk page, and then said that you were going to take it to ANI. You also keep mentioning that TParis and Drmies raised their initial concerns, as if that explains why Joefromrandb had an exemption. Do you actually have policy based reasoning for why Joefromrandb's reverts were exempted, or is your reasoning simply your claim that I am acting in bad faith and that other people have questioned the block? TigerShark (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
        • TigerShark you have already shown appallingly bad faith via your actions.(BTW I brought up above WP:TPO in Joe's defense. Something you ignore.) I asked you two question on Joe's board. You didn't answer them there but on your own talk page instead in a two day old stale thread I had never taken part in. The only reason to do that- to keep Joe from commenting on any replies you made. I told you how I felt about that move(Never seen anything like it in 7 years here) and why I felt you did it, but you've ignored it though you've had almost a day to address it. Based on your non answer we can safely assume you did that move only to muzzle Joe. If there was any justice here at ANI, we'd be discussing your competence as an administrator.(Look at this ANI of yours. No differentials or userlinks when you began it. Even though it says at the entry window 'Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors.' I had to do that.) Unfortunately it is well known that getting acting against an admin is impossible. The well known case of Mark Arsten calling an editor a petulant piece of shit and getting away with it is damning proof. You know you can get away with anything. If you thought more about Wikipedia than yourself you would have already ended this ludicrous block. It is increasingly obvious here that editors other than myself think you went too far....William 11:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I was aware of that and I had actually considered inquiring as to when you would start the thread. As you know, Joe and I have had some very severe differences in the past, but yet I am tempted to make some very strong comments about this extreme block. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 03:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Removing BLP violations is a clear and specific exception to the 3RR rule. While Joefromrandb took some measures to keep his comment below the threshold of a BLP violation, in my opinion he did not go far enough, and the statement as it stood was a strikingly negative comment about a living person, whatever one might think about that person's character, which we do not take into account when determining if the BLP policy has been violated. (Facts about bad acts and the opinions of experts may legitimately be immune from removal due to BLP concerns, but most certainly not the opinions of Wikipedia editors.) Further, the wording used by Joefromrandb left little doubt about what Joefromrandb was referring to, when he could have used a number of other formulations which would have been much vaguer and yet gotten the point across. Because of these circumstances, the block of Joefromrandb was correct, and the non-block of Neljack was also correct. As for the length of Joefromrandb's block, it was possibly excessive, but I'll leave that for others to determine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not the only editor with concerns. Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TParis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have also voiced them.

What took place happened at an AFD[199]. Joe made this post[200]. Neljack came along and redacted[201] it as violation of BLP. Neljack and Joe went back and forth reverting each other more than three times each. To save time, I am not posting them but TigerShark didn't either. We're not in dispute on that aspect of this thread.

The changing of a editor's comments would seem to be a clear violation of WP:TPO by Neljack. When an editor sees this, isn't he or she allowed to undo it?

As for the BLP violation that Neljack accuses Joe of, TParis told TigerShark here[202] and here[203] that he felt no such BLP violation happened. TParis also said[204] no BLP violation took place directly to Neljack.

Without a BLP violation, this comes down to WP:TPO and whether an editor can be charged with edit warring for undoing changes to their own comments. If it is an edit war, then punishment should be handed out to both parties. TParis in one of the above posts I linked to above, clearly said he feels Neljack not Joe deserves the block. Right now Joe is blocked(by Tiger Shark) for a month. Drmies thinks[205] that is too long and felt these blocks should be reviewed at ANI[206]. I agree with Drmies.

Before today, I wasn't involved with any of this. I learned about it when reading Joe's talk page. You may want to read this thread[207] besides the one at TigerShark's page. There I asked[208] TigerShark two questions. TigerShark did the interesting course of action of not replying[209] at Joe's page, but in a two day stale discussion thread at his own talk page that I hadn't ever taken part in. I told TigerShark that I didn't appreciate that and that I strongly suggested[210] he did so in order for Joe not to take part in any discussion between TigerShark and I. Tigershark has had multiple chances to deny this but he has chosen silence. His behavior over that, his block of Joe and failure to do the same to Neljack, and his refusal to change anything in spite of multiple editors suggesting he do so, well I have an opinion on it. What do all of you have to say?...William 00:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a minor correction, I didn't say Neljack should be blocked now but I would've blocked Neljack instead of Joe at the time. At this point, we all need to find a way forward and blocking Neljack now isn't the solution. At this point, let's try to solve the dispute with some open discussion and cohesion.--v/r - TP 00:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

WilliamJE, you comment that If it is an edit war, then punishment should be handed out to both parties. shows a deep misunderstanding. The blocks are supposed to be preventative. Taking into account everything that I have said above, it was clear to me that a block was not required to prevent future edit warring by Neljack, but that it was for Joefromrandb. To claim that two parties that have edit warred must both be blocked, for punishment is completely wrong. You are also still relying purely upon 1) claims that I acted in bad faith and 2) statements that other people have raised concerns. Furthermore, you keep wording your comments to suggest that I did not respond to those concerns, and that simply because somebody raised a concern at some point, that means that they still have that concern. Why don't you speak for yourself. Explain your policy based reasoning for why Joefromrandb's reverts were exempted. TigerShark (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Lots of fuzziness here: Borderline BLP issue, borderline decision to block one and not the other, borderline decision on duration. Nothing insanely wrong here on TigerShark's part, but my Reality Check Meter^(TM) is indicating that the sum total ended up being too harsh. Reduce to time served, since you're asking for other opinions. FWIW, I blocked Joe for a day a month or two ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Crokupedia is so cool, man. Lots of reasons to contribute here. Calling someone incompetent for misreading and or misapplying policies is a clear personal attack, but calling someone a sycophant of a child molester is borderline everything (BLP, NPA) etc. (as a long you put "alleged" in parentheses somewhere in there; should it be before sycophant or before child molester?) Kumbayah. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Not sure if all that was directed at me (I didn't say calling someone incompetent was a personal attack), but yeah, I was too flippant here. "Borderline BLP issue" was unclear, I was trying to use it as shorthand for "A BLP issue that some would block for, and some wouldn't". But I definitely didn't account for the clear personal attack in "sycophant of an (alleged) child-molester", that was unacceptable. It wasn't a reason for blocking, since it came after the block, but it's worth considering when deciding on unblocking terms. I still think 1 month is too long for one (sustained) outburst, even with the recent block history. But my suggestion of "time served", if not accompanied by some acknowledgement from Joe that you can't going around saying stuff like that, whether you're angry or not, was not really reasonable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• I do not intend to comment on the block, but I do want to explain my actions. I redacted the statement because, after careful consideration, I concluded that it was prima facie libellous and therefore a BLP violation. I considered that the statement contained an obvious implication of extremely grave criminal conduct or purposes (and subsequently it has indeed been confirmed that this was indeed intended). It may not be well-known among non-lawyers that an innuendo can be just as libellous as an explicit statement. There are many cases where a person has brought a successful action for libel based on an innuendo which readers would grasp despite it not being expressly said.

I acknowledge that I should have brought the matter to the BLP noticeboard more promptly, and I apologise for that. All I can say is that in this somewhat stressful situation it took me a little while to organise my thoughts, compose a coherent statement and find the relevant diffs. Joe was reverting quite frequently in the meantime, despite the fact I had repeatedly indicated a willingness to discuss the matter and start a thread on the BLP noticeboard. In the interim, I felt I could hardly leave up a statement that I regarded as libellous (and I repeatedly pointed out the statement in the BLP policy requiring disputed material to stay out until it has been discussed and consensus gained for reinstating it). I note, also, that two of my reverts occurred after I had started the BLP noticeboard discussion.

Finally, I note that Joe's talk page contains a number of statements either expressly confirming the innuendo or repeating the original statement (or something that carries a similar innuendo). I suggest they should be RevDeleted as libellous and a BLP violation. Neljack (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Simple fact: this was a block for edit-warring, and both of them were edit-warring. As such, both should have been given the EXACT same block - this is one of the few times I don't follow normal escalation processes. The block log does NOT say it's a BLP-related block. The problem now: it's purely punitive because only 1 side of the edit-warriors was blocked, and it's too late to block Neljack, so you have no choice but to unblock joe. An unblock does NOT negate the fact that joe should not have been edit-warring no matter what ES&L 12:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

To say edit-warring should usually result in symmetrical blocks is inaccurate. If one editor has edit-warred on one article, and another on 10-15 of them, should they get the same block? No. pbp 15:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What the heck does that have to do with the topic at hand? I gave a rule-of-thumb based on 2 people edit-warring on 1 article, not someone edit-warring across multiple ones? How many red-herrings are needed here? Stick with the program, please ES&L 17:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe a consideration in the block was the fact that Joe had a history of edit-warring. Had this been the first time he edit-warred, he would have gotten a much shorter block, or none at all. So it's not a red herring. pbp 17:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's try and keep this on-topic. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment: While you're at it I suggest that you also take a look at the multiple other errors that TigerShark, an admin who over the past five or six years has only made just enough edits to keep his adminship alive but now acts as if he's as infallible as the Pope, has made over the past few days. Such as blocking a large number of IPs indefinitely in spite of being told by multiple editors, including admins, that it should not be done, and why (discussions regarding TigerShark's multiple errors have been spread out over multiple talk pages, possibly to make it harder for others to get a full picture of the multiple errors he has made...). With [211],[212],[213],[214],[215],[216],[217],[218],[219],[220],[221],[222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227] being some, but far from all, of the IPs that have been given indefinite blocks by TigerShark, blocks that TigerShark refuses to reconsider. Other places with interesting reading would be on Drmies' talk page and these two threads, #1 and #2, on TigerShark's own talk page. Thomas.W talk to me 13:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Thomas what you point out above is very serious. Maybe I turn this thread into a discussion about whether TigerShark should be WP:Deysyoped. We have all those horrendous IP blocks, his actions towards Joe, his not knowing how to start an ANI thread, Multiple instances of [[WP:IDHT], and his talk page change with me at least. Based on all of that his continuing to have administrator privileges should at least be reviewed but knowing ANI as I do I'd expect someone to quickly close this thread and remove Joe's block so to avoid that potentially very embarrassing discussion....William 14:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC) I think it would be best if Thomas.W and WilliamJE stopped with the hyperbole; if your average editor came to this thread and saw people breathlessly making these overwrought comments, they would probably instinctively take the other side. Throwing everything you can at the wall to see if anything sticks is poor form, and an indication that you don't have strong arguments. The IP blocks are not "horrendous"; some kind of block of joefromrandb is hard to argue with; "doesn't know how to start an ANI thread" is... devoid of meaning; he is talking to anyone who shows up at his talk page, and making reasonable points, so there is no IDHT; his talk page change was not a big deal; and you can't desysop someone at ANI. If you want to stir up drama, keep on going. If you want to work towards an unblock of joefromrandb, focus on the issue at hand and suggest to Joe that he reconsider his personal attack. Hatting this was smart, unhatting it unhelpful for an unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep the block Normally I would be inclined to agree with ES&L, as both editors were indeed edit warring. Joe's behavior on his own talk page is quite frankly, deplorable. He clearly doesn't care that he violated policy (both EW and BLP), and directly states that he would have no problem doing it again. Therefore, this block isn't punitive, it is preventative, as joe would certainly continue editwarring and BLP violations if the block was lifted. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but I can't support an unblock after some of the rhetoric Joe has been using, i.e. "the land of enablers for child-molesters and their sycophants". While calling other editors sycophants should not normally be justification for a block, I think this is a bit of an exception. This kind of rhetoric is disruptive, and the block should be maintained as a preventative measure until we're certain it won't be used again. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That "the land of enablers for child-molesters and their sycophants" doesn't come anywhere close in comparison with calling someone 'a petulant piece of shit' You should know that, Mark....William 15:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the excesses of others don't give Joe the right to break our rules. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support immediate unblock how is it fair to defend a bad block based on the way the user reacted to being given a bad block? Yes, I wish Joe would tone down the rhetoric, but I'd imagine many of us would react unpleasantly if we were given such an egregious block. Even if Joe did deserve a brief block for edit-warring, he should be unblocked for time served. And yes, Neljack should have been blocked as well. Joe's comments were not a black-and-white BLP violation and repeatedly insisting on removing them only served to further this mess. If Neljack can't be blocked now because it would only be punitive, Joe's month-long block should come to an end because it is also punitive. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 15:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• I suppose there are two interpretations. The one I believe you are putting forward is that the block was not necessary to deter Joefromrandb from further edit warring, and that his later comments where he claimed to be unapologetic and gave the impression that he would edit war again were simply a result of his anger at the perceived unfairness. The other interpretation is that he did need a longer block to deter him, because he believes that edit warring is acceptable and would do it again, and that his comments simply reflect that. Given his history of edit warring and disruptive editing, I think that the second interpretation is far more likely. TigerShark (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock per AutomaticStrikeout, for fairness, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• I have little to add here but support for an unblock for time served. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• I would endorse this block; I would have made the same block had I been reviewing the edit-warring report. I would have blocked chiefly for the BLP issue rather than the edit-warring. One month seems an appropriate duration although there is an argument to made for an indefinite duration pending credible assurance that the problematic approach would not be repeated. I would also not have blocked Neljack; the removals of the remarks in question I would have considered as covered by the BLP exemption for edit-warring.--CIreland (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock -- just give everyone a break. If it continues, we'll go from there. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 18:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock per AutomaticStrikeout, Couldn't put it any better myself. Davey2010Talk! 19:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock per Sportsguy17. Enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Question Sportsguy17 recommends that we unblock and "just give everyone a break. if it continues, we'll go from there". What exactly would that entail? A week long block did not prevent further edit warring, and a month long block has been responded to with claims that he "makes no apology" and would do it again. If the block is removed now, why would that deter Joefromeandb in future? A week long block didn't, so I can't see any reason why making this a 4 or 5 day block would help. So, I'd be interested to hear thoughts on what "we'll go from there" would actually entail. Would it be another block? For how long? What would happen when that one gets appealed? In the face of unrepentant edit warring, I can't help but think that we need to try longer and longer blocks, not shorter ones. How else do the community send a message that this has to stop? TigerShark (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Now would be a good time to remind everyone of this. pbp 22:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

TigerShark, I'm somewhat disappointed that you have not acknowledged that this situation was unusual in that it was not about article content. It's much much much more unusual to have comments reverted than content reverted. Right? But you seem to be treating it all as one and the same.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder that BLP policy is in force everywhere on en.wiki, including in the comments of editors, so there is no real content/comment distinction here, as there would be normally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The distinction is that very unusual things are less likely to recur than very usual things. Isn't this the only time that removal of Joe's comments has occurred? And the only time he has protested such removal?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would normally be true that the lack of precedent for the behavior would be a mitigating factor, but it remains true that Joefronrandb has, so far, at least, failed to back away from the comment, and has said that he would do it again – see the comment above about the day he backs off from it would be the day he dies – so precedent alone can't carry as much weight, because he's apparently still harboring the same feelings. Now, a statement from Joefromrandb that he won't do it again (it doesn't have to be an apology, just a statement about his future behavior in this regard) would change everything, and I would think that time served would be sufficient, as there would be no longer anything to prevent. Until he distances himself from his comments, though, which still variously qualify violations of BLP and NPA, there's still something to be prevented. Giving WP:ROPE to someone who says that they'll do it again seems to me like a foolhardy choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

TigerShark let me clarify what I meant. First of all, we could always apply WP:ROPE, give him another chance and if he continues disruption, you (likely) indefinitely block him until you receive credible assurances that the problem won't reoccur. As for you, Purplebackpack89, by linking to that RfC, you really tossed a boomerang, considering that the RfC ended up having a good chunk about how you and Gabe (mostly you) had been treating Joe, which earned you a one-week block about a month ago for hounding/harassment of Joe (although it hasn't seemed to have been a problem since). Just saying. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 22:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I have taken no position on Joe's unblocking, I just want people to get the facts. People seem to be portraying Joe as completely innocent, when the fact is he's edit-warred a great deal. We gave him plenty of ROPE already (two blocks for edit-warring since the RfC). There is no particular reason why any action should be taken against me for saying that. pbp 23:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't an interaction ban between you and joe already suggested more than once? Perhaps it's time to make it official as well? Good opportunity to kill to birds with one stone ES&L 09:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that's needed at this time. pbp 13:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:Sportsguy17 I tend to agree in principle, but I believe that we really need the credible assurances now (after all, this is far from his first block). Of the people here who have agreed that the block should continue, I think most of them have said (in one way or another) "until we get credible assurances". If he provides them and acknowledges that future edit warring will result in an extended block (or maybe even a ban), then I think that most (myself included) could support an unblock. If we don't get them now, and unblock anyway, I think we lose this opportunity and reinforce that we are not committed. Would be good to hear your thoughts on this. TigerShark (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I note that User:Anythingyouwant tested the waters a little with regards to this by asking if Joe would edit war again in a situation where he felt his comment had been removed without good reason [228] and Joe responded with "To give you a quick, but honest answer, I don't know." [229]. I don't knock Joe for being honest, but I think it shows that we are not there quite yet. I hope he can find his way to agreeing that he won't edit war again (even in situations where he believes he is right). It is the belief that edit warring might be a valid tool when we are right that is often the problem in these situations. TigerShark (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock per AutomaticStrikeout. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock per AutomaticStrikeout & Gerda. GregJackP Boomer! 20:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock - ^theWOLFchild 02:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• So, then unblock conditions: WP:1RR across the entire project, and what used to be called "civility parole". Implement an IB between pbp and joe. Move forward with enough WP:ROPE for all ES&L 12:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the interaction ban is needed at this time, and it's off-topic anyway. This thread is about Joe. Earlier you were saying I need to stay on topic, now it's you who do. pbp 13:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it's off-topic, Purplebackpack89, and you might not be happy with the idea, but I'm almost certain Joe would have no problem with it. When the two of you interact, it is far more disruptive than constructive. I see it like EatsShootsAndLeaves does: unblock on a 1RR restriction and civility parole and an IBAN between PBP and Joe. I also agree with TigerShark that the next block will/should likely be an indefinite block. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 15:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll support the 1RR, but the interaction ban doesn't solve the problem. It's clear that even when I don't interact with Joe, he edit wars with other people. And it's likely an interaction ban wouldn't cover this anyway: I didn't edit-war with him, I didn't comment on his talk page, and I didn't start this ANI. pbp 15:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm coming late to this (wasn't even aware it was being discussed) but I was watching this revert war in real-time. I urged both participants to calm down, and since a BLP claim was being made, and since Joe claimed it wasn't BLP I asked him to please explain why it wasn't. From my vantage it sure looked like one. But as I have known to be wrong before I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. He didn't feel like explaining, perhaps because there is some bad blood between the two? In any case this flare up seems to be related to other interactions that have been seething for some time.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• I personally feel that the interaction and civility stuff should be kept out of this, because the waters are already muddy enough, with all kinds of allegations and points being raised that have nothing to do with the current block and how we deter Joe (and others) from edit warring. I hope we are close to a resolution, but it seems that there are enough people that place little importance in deterring edit warring, that getting consensus to take action which supports the policy may be tough. TigerShark (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• (Comment from uninvolved editor) Comment – just unblock the user so that he can participate in this discussion, then re-block him. Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Joe is unblocked, but must adhere to 1RR or expect a very long block

Actually proposed by ESL or Sportsguy17 above

• Support pbp 15:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose if you want to give Neljack 1RR, fine. Just unblock Joe and move on. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 15:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• Almost support As long as we mean "no reverts" rather than "not more than one revert", and Joe should also give an undertaking to not edit war. Also, I think that the proposal would need to define what the block would be. Otherwise, someone will give Joe a long block, and then we will be back here with half of the people claiming that they never supported a block of that length. I fear that this may be moot, given that Joe has stated (in response to my post above) that he will never accept a conditional unblock [230]. Still, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't define what those conditions would look like. TigerShark (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The conditions probably should be imposed when he returns even if he isn't unblocked, given his history of edit warring. As for "how long", maybe make a suggestion in the "Definition of a long block" section below? pbp 16:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with AutomaticStrikeout.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• (Comment from uninvolved editor) Support sounds reasonable from a neutral standpoint. Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Definition of a long block

• Oppose per AutomaticStrikeout. GregJackP Boomer! 20:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per AutomaticStrikeout -Davey2010Talk! 00:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - ^theWOLFchild 02:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Joe is unblocked, but if (for any reason) he reverts another user on a future occasion, he will be blocked for two months on each occasion

This means that Joe would need to leave others to revert obvious vandalism, BLP, or anything else that usually exempts reverts. I think we should drop any suggestion that Joe should agree to these conditions, because he clearly won't, and as long as the conditions are clear it doesn't really matter. However, I feel that this proposal needs strong consensus to be implementable. It will be useless if there is no strong consensus, because then we will just be back here, arguing for and against "time served". TigerShark (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose this laughably bad proposal. The first thought that entered my mind after reading the above- Is this serious? Reverting vandalism and BLP violations can get a person blocked. He's protecting wikipedia but can't be allowed. If this was a serious proposal, it just further strengthens my view that this person shouldn't have administrative functions....William 17:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarify I favor unblocking Joe but not with these laughably bad conditions. Tiger Shark, end Joe's block before you make another proposal or say something that makes the above seem reasonable in comparison....William 18:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Oppose because vandalism reverts and self-reverts can get him blocked for two months. That is the most unreasonable idea I have heard in this discussion. Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: This proposal clearly shows that TigerShark is totally out of touch with reality. There is a clear support above for unblocking Joe because of his one-month block being seen as unreasonably severe, yet TigerShark proposes an even more severe punishment, a totally unlimited 0RR-limit that would give Joe an automatic two-month block for any revert he makes, even on his own user pages (since there's no mention of an exception for that in the proposal), and even of the most obvious cases of vandalism. And forever, since there's no time limit in the proposal. So could an uninvolved admin please close this, and enforce the consensus above, i.e. to unblock Joefromrandb? I would also like to point out that I find it very unsavoury that an editor who obviously has some grievance against Joe gets free rein here, more or less smearing Joe at will, while Joe (an editor that I don't know and have never encountered on WP), because of his block, is unable to defend himself.Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Tom, I find it unfortunate that you've ignored Joe's previous blocks for edit-warring (Four in the last six months). Then when I bring it up, you accuse me of "smearing him at will". TigerShark's proposal is coming about because (and only because) of Joe's history. pbp 19:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) All of these blocks for WP:3RR. Epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It usually takes two to tango. And being all over this case here at ANI, cheering on everyone who opposes lifting the block or writes something unfavourable about Joefromrandb, is equally unsavoury. And not cricket (to use a phrase my grandfather often used). Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

We're past the point of punishing Neljack for this. If Joe wanted to comment, he could request unblock and/or request that another editor transclude comments from his talk page to here (those are things to make it cricket to discuss an editor when he's blocked). He's done neither. What's really concerning me now is how critical you are of me, TigerShark and others who find his history of edit-warring reprehensible, particularly to the point of inaccuracy (cheer on every person who opposes the block? I've done no such thing!) pbp 20:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

So since we, because of stubborn resistance from TigerShark and legal wrangling here, are past the point of punishing Neljack for his part in it, Joefromrandb should serve his unfair one-month block. Where's the logic in that? His block doesn't become fair just because we can't give Neljack the block that he IMHO ought to have been given. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Personally, when I looked at the diffs, it seemed to me that Joe's comment (before it was edited by Neljack) was not wrong. Other people might say otherwise. Epicgenius (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool down, remember, and lets end this thing. Thomas, Purple, please do what I just suggested. The remember part involves this- Joe's EWarring involved him reverting another editor who was changing what he wrote in a AFD. The other editor was violating WP:TPO and you have to take that into consideration when judging what Joe did. None of us are happy if someone comes along and reverts what we did on in non article space. A few weeks ago an experienced editor reverted my wikilove message to another editor, would you believe that? Back to Joe, so if you are going to still punish him, remember what was the underlying cause of this. Also, TigerShark should have taken this to ANI right away instead of waiting 2-3 days to do it. TParis and Drmies, both administrators, had problems with the length of this block and told TigerShark but TigerShark stuck to initial position. I'm the one who forced TigerShark here, because I said I would start the ANI if he didn't....William 22:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Per WJE, Epi. GregJackP Boomer! 20:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WilliamJE. -Davey2010Talk! 00:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - ^theWOLFchild 02:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I move that Joe be unblocked by a uninvolved administrator

A tally of straight block or unblocks shows this-

Unblock- Me, Epicgenius, ESL, Drmies, Automatic Strikeout, Gerda, Sportsguy, Davey, Thomas W, GregJack, wehwalt, Floquenbeam, thewolfchild, and maybe TParis who he would have blocked the other editor. Jody B and Anything seem to favor unblock. Correct me if I'm wrong. (16 for unblock)

Continue the block- TigerShark of course, Mark Arsten, Admiral, Clreland, Beyond My Ken, Loomspicker. PBP I think too. (7 for block)

A couple of people are fuzzy but I have it around two to one in favor of Joe's unblocking without restrictions/just a warning. I think its time to end the arguing....William 22:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe I am uninvolved and could close this discussion. A couple of editors might take issue with that conclusion because of my action to hat one portion of the discussion, but I disagree. I have been following the discussion and have avoided closing it for two reasons. First, many people were still commenting, and, second, the lack of focus made it difficult to determine consensus. William's idea here to bring the issue of whether to unblock Joe back into focus is a constructive one, but I believe some clarification of his vote counts is in order. I'm not doing this just to disagree with William's interpretation, but with the hope that some editors who have previously commented will make their positions clearer now. In favor of an unblock without restrictions: Automatic Strikeout, Gerda, Drmies, Sportsguy, Davey, Wehwalt, Thomas, Gregjack, William, Jody B, and thewolfchild (9 10 11 total). Against unblocking (and that includes anyone who wants conditions): ES&L (originally favored an unblock but then proposed conditions), Floquenbeam (originally favored unblock but changed to conditions), Admiral Caius, Clreland, Beyond My Ken, Loomspicker, Andrew Lenahan, and TigerShark (7 8 total). TParis hasn't voted. PBP's vote is unclear (at one point he took no position and later supported an unblock with conditions). EpicGenius doesn't seem to have actually voted except on one permutation proposal, just commented otherwise. If I were to close this now, I'd probably close it as no consensus, although because the vote counts are close, I'd have to struggle with argument weight and other factors. I've read editors' comments, and I gotta tell you that would be tough as generally the voting editors are experienced and either make credible arguments or implicitly agree per precedecessors' arguments (Drmies's is a good example of that).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on William's comment below, I've added him to the list supporting an unblock and changed 9 to 10.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Jody B should be counted in favor of an unblock (now added). I don't agree with the others. More recently, Andrew supported the block below, so I've added him as well. I am now rethinking whether I will at some point close this discussion, not so much because I think I'm involved, but because, despite the fact that I am willing to make hard calls, it's not worth the grief. Hopefully, this mini discussion about consensus will assist any administrator willing to close the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23:Where does Andrew say he supports blocking Joe for Ewarring? He thinks Joe was not civil but this block isn't about him being civil. You're still discounting multiple people who have said they support Joe being unblocked or that TigerShark was wrong to block him in the first place. If you say TigerShark was wrong in the first place, then you're saying there should be no block at all. Maybe its time to ask Jimbo to Desysop TigerShark. A very strong case can be made for it just based on his laughable 0RR proposal above which TigerShark refuses to withdraw. TigerShark can always unblock Joe and that would end the grief, the arguing etc....William 15:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: You're still not counting Floquenbeam, Jody, TParis(and read his lengthy comments to TigerShark at Shark's talk page. Without his Drmies protests, this thread may never have happened. And others have this count at over 2 to 1 compared to yours. Your second failed count I think also shows bias in my opinion and that eliminates you from deciding this thread....William 11:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23:CommentYour above vote counting is shabby. Among those who voted for Joe that you seemed to forget was me(and I don't know how you could miss that considering I listed myself above among those who support unblocking Joe and you've messaged me on my talk page about something I said here), Jody B who said the block should be ended, Floquenbeam who said he would reduce the block to time served, TParis has clearly said he would have not blocked Joe in the beginning but the other editor instead. The people who support conditional unblocks still support unblocking. A over 2 to 1 majority isn't no consensus....William 00:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, very bad precedent but typical around, if no consensus is the decision. A month block for an editor reverting edits that violate TPO(remember the block was for edit warring), Nothing at all for a administrator when they violate WP:CIVIL and acknowledge it at this page. We have a block done here by incompetent administrator. He actually proposed an indefinite 0RR for Joe that would have damaged Wikipedia in an effort to punish Joe. That tells you alot about the administrator who did the block we're talking about. Why would anyone here want to validate the judgments of a person who would see Wikipedia harmed so that his judgment be not overturned?...William 17:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

In most circumstances, decisions made by admins intended to represent the will of the community are not supposed to be made on the basis of tallies or headcounts, but by weighing the policy-based arguments presented. I would hope that any uninvolved admin will remember this, and read and evaluate the entire discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well BMK, I think that it's going to be hard for uninvolved admins to decide the outcome of this discussion, given its complexity. Epicgenius (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That's possible, but I've seen much knottier problems be unraveled by closing admins. In any event, just counting heads is not rhe appropriate methodology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• (Comment from uninvolved editor) Comment – reduce both block lengths. It was at the AFD, which is now over, and it was over whether a comment should have been removed or not. Cannot support unblock as both users have history of edit warring, and cannot support an unblock of Joefromrandb at all because of their comments above suggests user thinks edit warring is acceptable.--Loomspicker (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at things here: I agree with BMK that head counts don't cut it. That said, their is definitely leaning consensus toward an unblock. IMHO, Joe and PBP should not be commenting on or interacting with one another. Now, policy-wise, let's look at WP:BLOCK: As I see it, the AfD/PROD or whatever it may be has closed and I honestly think that Joefromrandb has some small interest in improving, even if he doesn't make it completely transparent. As I see it, unblock and make it clear that further disruption/edit warring could result in an indef block. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 01:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment There is clearly not consensus here, nor can consensus be achieved by people just voting "time served", or just focusing on attacking other users. There is a legitimate concern, shared by many here, that Joefromrandb will continue to edit war and that he needs to be deterred from doing so. Any consensus can only be reached if that concern is acknowledged and addressed, either by putting forward arguments that no such threat exists, or by proposing a way to deter it. Proposing conditions for deterring future problems is an attempt at consensus building. Focusing on attacks on others, or just saying "unblock", is not. That is not to say that people can't comment as they wish, just that many such comments do nothing to actually achieve consensus. TigerShark (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Over a dozen editors stated good reason to end Joe's block. You're practicing WP:IDHT just as you are by not withdrawing that laughable proposal up above that's got not one iota of support because of the bad judgment it shows in you. An administrator is out of touch when they propose blocking someone for reverting vandalism....William 14:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I fully agree with Tiger's concerns. Joe's history is poor. However my concern is whether this event with the ensuing block was appropriate move. I think given the one-sided nature of the block we should end it now and move on. If Joe fouls up again in editing he will be dealt with as an serial offender. But this is just not the best way. I encourage Tiger to unblock him especially since the root discussion is done. JodyB _talk 15:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks Jody, although I don't think that the root discussion is quite done. The root is how we deter Joe from edit warring again. It would see that a key idea is that we "let him off this time", and only deal with it if it happens again. I can't see any justification for this, especially given Joe's history and defiant comments made since the block. As I mentioned above I think that it is easy to reach consensus for an unblock (including support from me) if it is done on the condition that further violations will result in a pre-agreed response. What those conditions are, I think, is really the root discussion, but it is not a discussion that some people seem to be prepared to engage in. I think the conditions need to be unambiguous, and I have suggested "no reverts" and "a two month block", but that is only a suggestion, and anyone should feel free to suggest changes. But a response by some, along the lines of "ludicrous proposal...unblock immediately" is simply an attempt to avoid the question of what the conditions should be. So let's try to decide what those conditions should be. TigerShark (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
      • TigerShark, make it very clear that a recurrence will result in an indefinite block. And while there is isn't perfect consensus to unblock, there is a lot of people telling you to unblock, including fellow administrators. Lets also remember that it takes two to tango in edit wars and since one of the offenders got off without a block, it's not fair to continue the block on the other side: the edit war has stopped, the AfD closed, and as I stated very far up, lengthy blocks tend to anger users more than get them to understand. If you want Joe to have an epiphany about his actions, then do so, but continuing the block will not. This is my last comment. Best. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 15:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
        • It's easy to overlook, but Joefromrandb's comment was indeed a too-thinly-veiled highly insulting remark about a living person, the removal of which by Neljack was justified, and the restoration of by Joefromrandb was not. This is what justifies the unequal treatment of the two editors.

          The question of the length of the block is another matter altogether. I'm convinced by the discussion here that there is considerable sentiment for reducing Joefromrandb's block to time served, but I agree with Tiger Shark that doing so without some kind of statement from Joefromrandb that he won't engage in the same behavior again does not serve to protect the project.

          This puts his fate into the hands of Joefromrandb. If he has no intention of making BLP-violating comments and edit-warring in support of them int he future, all he has to do is say so, and I feel sure that Tiger Shark would unblock him. However, this is not the case, since Joefromrandb has explicitly stated on his talk page "I have no interest whatsoever in any conditional offer of unblocking." Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

          • Which means that he is not interested in being unblocked and only wants to say what he believes is right, regardless of whether it offends other people. In that case, leave him be. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Just a note because I was checking up on Thewolfchild and his edits led me to Joe's page which led me back here. I've been a bit busy offline so I havent paid attention here. But just to clarify, I do not think Joe should've received the block here. I also believe it's too late to block Neljack whom I believe is responsible for this whole mess. This thread, in my opinion, should conclude with a warning to Neljack to not be so liberal in his user of BLP as justification for his actions. Redacting once is appropriately, from there, he should've taken the issue to ANI.--v/r - TP 16:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, TP, literal old me wants to know whether you support an unblock of Joe without conditions. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Grudgingly yes. I believe that Joe was provoked by Neljack. Neljack's actions led to this situation. If Joe received anything, time served is good enough for me. No other conditions. TigerShark was put into a difficult position and that's understandable why he did what he did, but I think he's drawn this out long enough and it's time to put an end to it.--v/r - TP 17:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• TP, then shouldn't Neljack also be blocked? They should serve their time for edit warring with Joe. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

TigerShark, you asked for a review...

...and you have now had one. A lengthy one. What else do you need? There is a consensus of 2⁺:1 in favour of lifting the block. More than that, there are several experienced administrators suggesting you lift the block. You need to consider how your defiance in the face of all this appears. The community has spoken. If you're concerned about recidivism, then monitor for awhile... if he repeats this behavior, then you have all you need for a harsh and unquestioned block. If he doesn't, then the issue is resolved and everybody is happy. This is starting to drag on, and we need to start looking at closing this and moving on. - ^theWOLFchild 19:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur. There has been a review, and the community favors an immediate unblock. If TigerShark has so little regard for the community's judgment, then perhaps we need to look at other options. Hopefully he will rethink this defiance, unblock and we can all move on to creating content. GregJackP Boomer! 21:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to look at other options I suggest you also look at the capped content quite a bit up this wall of text. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

We need to wait until he gets back on, his last contribution was about 12 hours ago. An RfC/U and an ArbCom case are messy, and no one wants to go through that. I think that he will get the message and unblock. GregJackP Boomer! 03:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• I would say that the "sycophant of an (alleged) child-molester" comment alone is a good reason to keep him blocked, even setting aside everything that came before. That was so over-the-top it's absurd. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Starblind: - Where was that comment made, and in what context? - ^theWOLFchild 07:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Searching for the text on this page and at the user's talk provides the answer. Johnuniq (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Erm... well, given the big picture, that comment really doesn't seem all that bad. But, once again we're going off the rails here. I had specifically asked @TigerShark: just what is he doing at this point, given that he asked the community for a review, following which there is strong support for lifting this block. He has not done this. He asked for feedback, and is now ignoring it, meaning that this whole exercise seems to be a waste of time. - ^theWOLFchild 14:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support block and oppose unblock. Given that I have decided not to close this discussion, I am now free to express my opinion. TigerShark's initial block was well within process. Whether I myself would have blocked is immaterial. The length of the block is discretionary and again, considering Joe's history, was well within process. Whether I myself would have blocked for a month is immaterial. TigerShark's decision not to block Neljack was well within process. I think Neljack's persistence, albeit understandable, was probably ill-advised, but I don't think it merited a block. As for Joe's behavior post-block, I see many reasons not to unblock him. He has never made an unblock request. He has continued to make personal attacks and to commit BLP violations. He refuses to accept any conditions. Instead, we are supposedly to simply hope he will behave or block him again. That's not the way it's done. Generally, we scrutinize apologies carefully for credibility. Here, we have an unrepentant editor from the get-go. Unblocking him in these circumstances turns the usual procedure on its head.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Thewolfchild and WilliamJE: Cool down, and go find something else to do, because your repeated heated and not always well thought out posts in this thread are not helping Joefromrandb. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thomas.W - "Cool down"? "Heated"? Heh, I can't speak for William but, I can assure you, I am quite calm. Perhaps you should relax a little, as you seem very upset. - There, see how I did that? I'm sure you are perfectly calm as well. It's easy to say to someone "Hey, calm down!" when in reality, there is no way to tell what state a person is in. (Unless, of course, they're using ALL CAPS, followed by plenty of exclamation marks!!!!, along with some rude language and insults... none of which I have displayed here). I had asked Tiger a fairly simple question. He answers, he doesn't answer... Either way, I am going to move on. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 16:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, you do need to calm down. As seen in your comments you are obviously discontent with the current situation. Epicgenius (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Epicgenius - I am either as upset, or as calm, as you are. It's rather silly of you to try and depict me as being in some sort of rage, based on... well, based on nothing at all. Just plain silly. - ^theWOLFchild 23:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

---

• Would any administrator besides TigerShark care to speak here about unblocking conditions? Epicgenius (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There should be no unblocking conditions. I'm not an admin, but I recognize consensus. I also see a number of admins circling the wagons. GregJackP Boomer! 21:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Note to a passing uninvolved admin: When an admin blocks without a discussion first, it should only be because they believe there would have been a consensus if there had been a discussion. It's not unreasonable for TigerShark to have thought that, and I have no real issue with Joefromrandb having been blocked. But if there is a post-block discussion, and no consensus for a block is achieved, the user should be unblocked. The default in case of no consensus needs to be an unblock, or else far too much discretion is left in the hands of one single admin. I'm not sure if there is clear consensus for an unblock here (I think there probably is), or no consensus, but I'm certain that after 5 days of discussion, and 8 days of blocking, there is no consensus for the block. In addition, discussion is going around and around in circles, with no productive end in sight.

  Thus, as someone who has no real problem with the block (in spite of being mislabeled an unblock supporter above (re-read my comments if you're not sure)), and who feels in particular one comment he made post-block is beyond the pale, I strongly recommend that a passing uninvolved admin unblock Joefromrandb, without forcing him to agree to restrictions, and close this "discussion" as either no consensus for a block, or consensus for an unblock, whatever they think is more accurate. "Unblocked without forcing him to agree to restrictions" doesn't mean that it wouldn't be appropriate to tell him that the next time he calls someone a "sycophant of an (alleged) child-molester", or something similar, he'll likely be blocked indefinitely, and that block would quite likely have consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree pretty much with Floquenbeam. Eight days is a plenty long block given that it's the first instance where Joe was blocked for edit-warring to restore his own comments. And anyway there's no consensus to continue the block. Regarding the post-block vituperation ("sycophant of an alleged child molester"), such language would be fine with me if it were well-supported, but here I'm not convinced that the individual is a sycophant as opposed to a BLP enthusiast (plus it's not nice to imply that sycophant X of alleged criminal Y agrees that Y is a criminal), but in any event Floquenbeam's conclusion is the same as mine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There has been plenty of time for TigerShark to have responded and to have unblocked Joefromrandb. I can prepare an RfC/U, if 1) someone indicates that they will certify it, and 2) that this is what the community wants. GregJackP Boomer! 21:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Long-term "Alvin and the Chipmunks" vandal under different IP addresses

There is very strong evidence (because of similarities) that this IP user is using different IP addresses to disruptively edit and to evade blocks. There's a persistent long-term pattern of disruptive edits over a sustained period of time. The same type of unhelpful and poorly sourced content about Alvin and the Chipmunks is put into numerous different articles about songs, for which there is simply no relevance to include such poorly sourced content.

The IP user has previously had numerous warnings and a 3 month block, but simply comes back again under a different IP address to put in the same irrelevant and poorly sourced content into song articles. This has been going on for a long period of time and has a disruptive impact on the Wikipedia community.

Please could I ask for an investigation and a rangeblock to be calculated and checked. Please see the following contributions below for evidence.

Given a 3 month block for long-term disruption as:

97.86.5.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Suspected evasion of that block as:

198.246.7.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Most recent pattern of disruptive edits:

68.186.161.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

IP's may be related somehow by being in the general St. Louis area, but this seems stale and I'm noticing some good contribs from the latter, and all three are currently stale. At that, this is the wrong place to ask for a rangeblock/checkuser; this should be filed at WP:SPI. Not that I would support a rangeblock anyways since all the numbers are so far apart we'd have to block all of Charter's IPs just to deal with some easily controllable A&TC vandalism. Nate • (chatter) 02:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm a gentle type of person and not someone who is prone to arguments, so I guess we may just have to agree to differ on this. But all three are stale ? The latter edited just yesterday, on 28 November 2013, putting the same type of unhelpful content in again about Alvin and the Chipmunks.

"The IP's may be related somehow". I would suggest that there is an extremely good chance that they are related. Is it just a mere coincidence that all three IP's happen to all come from the St. Louis area of Missouri ? That seems to me to be a very big coincidence.

"Some good contribs from the latter" ? But also some bad and unhelpful ones too I would suggest. He or she was requested to provide reliable sources. A detailed look at contributions show he or she has ignored that request with edits in November and the contributions between all 3 IP's show striking similarities.

If, as I very strongly suspect, the IP's are related, he or she evaded the 3 month block on 97.86.5.61 by continuing to edit during the period of the block on IP address 198.246.7.69

A viewing of the total number of contributions from all three IPs, shows that numerous warnings have been given and ignored. It has been frustrating to see song articles so frequently disrupted by the same type of editing.

If you do not feel that action is required on this, I may keep tabs on the situation and later report the matter to WP:SPI Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know if this is connected but I recently tagged a hoax Chipmunks article for deletion IIRC about a week ago. Details may be found at my log. KonveyorBelt 00:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Completely different vandal (or vandals); listed IP's don't engage in article creation it seems, and the creation of additional A&TC 'sequel' articles is a regular annoyance among children's show/films article followers like me; we get about five-ten of those a year. Nate • (chatter) 01:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Need diffs. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Y'know, if we had mandatory registration and sign-in-to-edit, this situation would not exist. Just sayin'... Carrite (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Been there, tried that, lolno'd by WMF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Not everyone lives in a free country. Anonymity needs to be preserved, simply, in some cases to allow people to contribute without a trail that could lead to their imprisonment or death. LilOwens (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
    • It's been long since established that IP addresses are easier to track down than usernames. It's just that WMF has decided that sticking to a principle is more important than improving the encyclopedia by eliminiating that (failed) principle. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

The article Foro de Sao Paulo has been stable for 8 long years, but for no apparent reason an user is now trying to start nonsense edit wars like this. I hope someone can help me solving the issue because I don't want to request blocks for no one, since I don't edit wikipedia for this. Thanks. MarcosPassos (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I recommend engaging with the other editor on the article's talk page. Soman is an experienced, productive editor. Rather than "nonsense" or vandalism, this seems to a fairly routine content disagreement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

@MarcosPassos: There is an edit warring noticeboard for reporting edit warring. Please be cautious about accusing other editors of vandalism, as it may be construed by some as a personal attack. For more information about what is and what isn't vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 02:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sam, please be cautious about accusing other editors of doing what they haven't done, as it may be construed by some as libel. I said "possible vandalism", what means that I was not sure if it was or wasn't a case of vandalism. MarcosPassos (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that we misunderstood each other. I was trying to say that people usually don't even bring up the word "vandalism" unless it's pretty obvious. I hope you had a good Thanksgiving, if you celebrate it. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 20:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Marcos: as SamX noted, if you really believed that Soman's behavior was inappropriate, you should have taken it to WP:AN3, as it notes in big letters in the top of the page. However before requesting administrator intervention, your first step should be to make a good faith effort to resolve the issue. (Edit warring and insulting other users does not constitute a good-faith effort.) For example, I have just initiated request for comment, which is something you should try in the future. —Quintucket (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Threats by user Goldrawer7

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

---

I've speedied one of his misinformation pages, and now Goldrawer7 (talk · contribs) is telling me that 'he was secretly given a mission of spreading that message', and threatens me that 'I'm going to suffer some serious consequences'. Alex ^{discussion ★} 21:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note: The user already has an extent history of dubious articles' creation. Alex ^{discussion ★} 21:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

+a personal attack here. Alex ^{discussion ★} 22:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Zodiac Killer News definitely needs to go, but I might quibble that G3 isn't necessarily the best label for a seemingly serious accusation that a living person was involved in serial killings. bobrayner (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Obviously it's a scam. Should G10 be more appropriate? PS I'm sorry if I offended you few weeks ago on Commons. I apologize for that. Alex ^{discussion ★} 22:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Don't worry about that. We're trying to do the right thing in our own way, and I can barely remember what I had for breakfast, let alone whatever you did a few weeks ago. bobrayner (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I've taken it out as G10 even though the two main names are reportedly dead. It was sourced only to a book whose title I can't trace, and whose author was not given. With no evidence provided, I'm playing safe and assuming they might be still alive. I've left the author of the article a message. If sound evidence appears, there might be a case for an article - or more correctly, for a section in the Zodiac killer article. I note that the suspects mentioned in the article I've deleted are not in the ZK article. Peridon (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Now, back to Goldrawer7 (talk · contribs)? bobrayner (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that Goldrawer7 (talk · contribs) has now modified their remark. What is now threatened is that if the page is deleted, then someone--presumably the person who did that--will find whatever edit or page they are involved in edited or deleted. This is of course still unacceptable, but not as outrageously so as their previous comment. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Paul Walker deceased

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

---

Numerous media reports of actor Paul Walker having been killed in a car accident. Eyes on the article... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Article should be locked up until there is official confirmation. Betty Logan (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There is confirmation - eyes would be appreciated.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems a little ironic to be true, but even El Comercio (in Spanish) has news on it([231]). If a hoax, this is a major one.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be. Both his official Facebook and Twitter accounts, as well as New Regency (makers of the F&F movies) Twitter are all confirming. The article is semi'd right now, which is good, because keeping up with the talk page is nearly impossible. Resolute 03:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, it appears to be the truth. A simple search of "Paul Walker" in Google News shows multiple major news outlets reporting his death. - ^theWOLFchild 04:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It's terrible that he died and a great loss for his friends and family, but not at all ironic or surprising considering that road injury is the ninth leading cause of death.[232] Please slow down and buckle up. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It still seems a strange death, given that he is best known for playing a death-defying car driver. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be a publicity stunt, but (at this point) would be of terrible taste. So, RIP Paul Walker.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

What's sad is how respectful we were about confirming his death but could give a crap about waiting for a reliable source to state the name of the friend in the vehicle with Walker. I don't see how "event organizers" are reliable. While it may well be true, this doesn't appear to be appropriate right now.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous

All the pathetic and immature vandalism taking place at Paul Walker and Fast & Furious 7 is just another solid reason to bring an end to ip editing and make account creation mandatory. - ^theWOLFchild 06:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thewolfchild: A little while ago you wrote "I'm looking to avoid fights these days..." It appears that you have made - by my probably flawed count - about 34 WP:AN/I posts in the last seven days. WP:AN/I is pretty much the fightin'-est place in en.wikipedia.org. Perhaps it would be for the best if you took a little break from posting here, and worked on articles and reverting vandalism for a while. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

... - ^theWOLFchild 14:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Les Etoiles de Ma Vie Edit Warring, Personal Attacks, Calling Out Editors, Rants, Tendacious Editing

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

---

Pages: Asma al-Assad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Talk:Asma al-Assad (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) and User talk:Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs).

Editor being reported: Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Other Involved editors: Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Veriss1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:45 , 30 November 2013 (US EST)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in US EST

Brief summary: This editor has a long history of tendacious editing, edit warring, personal attacks, posting long rants, soapboxing and being difficult to work with. She is very smart and has some valid points at times but trying to wade through all the vitriol makes it hard to resolve her concerns. I believe all the drama on the talk page and edit summaries scares off other editors. It certainly inhibits cooperative, productive discussion.

End result desired: I merely want the editor in question to cease her attacks, insinuations, rants, soapboxing, lack of good faith and try to cooperate with other editors if possible.

Edit warring warnings, 24hr block and appeals: Throughout her appeals you can see many personal attacks interlaced with accusations of collusion and feelings of persecution.

17 Mar 2012 (Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Asma al-Assad. (TW)) By Bbb23/Editor.

27 Nov 2013 (Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Asma al-Assad. (TW)) By Bbb23/Sysop.

28 Nov 2013 (added AN3 notice) By Bbb23/Sysop.

28 Nov 2013 (→Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion: don't need you writing on my page every second. Borderline stalkerish.) By Les Etoiles de Ma Vie/Editor.

29 Nov 2013 (→Edit warring at Asma al-Assad: new section (Notice of 24hr Block)) By EdJohnston/Sysop.

30 Nov 2013 (→Edit warring at Asma al-Assad (her appeal)) By Les Etoiles de Ma Vie/Editor.

30 Nov 2013 (→Edit warring at Asma al-Assad: new section (appeal declined)) By Jpgordon/Sysop.

30 Nov 2013 (→Edit warring at Asma al-Assad) (second appeal)) By Les Etoiles de Ma Vie/Editor.

30 Nov 2013 →Edit warring at Asma al-Assad: new section (second appeal declined)) By Kuru/Sysop.

AN3 report and discussion: AN3 28 Nov 2013 (has all the pertinent links to the edit warring)

Recent Personal Attacks in edit summaries:

28 Nov 2013 (→Personal life: There should be a comma after Zein. Someone needs to open a grammar book.) Directed to Bbb23/Sysop by Les Etoiles de Ma Vie/Editor.

30 Nov 2013 (→Personal life: Have you, Veriss, ever heard of a Oxford comma? A.k.a serial comma? Look it up. It might help your writing to know that for three or more names, a comma should be included after the "and".) Directed to Veriss1/Editor by Les Etoiles de Ma Vie/Editor.

Personal Attacks on article talk page:

30 Nov 2013 section: Vogue Personal attack in last comment. Directed to Bbb23/Sysop by Les Etoiles de Ma Vie/Editor.

30 Nov 2013 section: Repetitive Information Multiple attacks in last comment. Directed to Bbb23/Sysop and Veriss1 by Les Etoiles de Ma Vie/Editor.

30 Nov 2013 section: Rewrite of article by Etoiles Multiple attacks in last comment. Directed to Bbb23/Sysop and Veriss1 by Les Etoiles de Ma Vie/Editor.

Closing: This is my first time initiating a post on any noticeboard that I can recall in seven years of editing here. I tried to follow other examples but if I left something out, please let me know. Older difficult discussions are located in the two archives for the talk page and older personal attacks in edit summaries can be found by scrolling back to early 2012. I can provide additional links to older interactions from early 2012 if needed. I have tried to be be patient and courteous but this all is becoming tiring and grinding so I am now asking for assistance. Thank you for looking into this. Veriss (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

First and foremost, I find Veriss' accusations rather laughable. So much to address--I don't even know where to start. In regards to the punctuation "attack". Both Bbb23 and Veriss1 undid a very basic edit I had made in regards to adding a comma. I added the comma in accordance to the grammar rule known as the "Oxford comma" or "serial comma". Surprise--surprise, both Bbb23 and Veriss1 undid that revision. Veriss' summary of the edit was:

09:25, 30 November 2013‎ Veriss1 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (16,340 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (Undid revision 583705873 by Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk)minor, excessive punctuation. there is no need for a coma in a list of three items before the "and".) (undo | thank)

However, according to rule of the serial comma, there IS a need for a comma in a list of three items before the "and". :)

I would like to address Veriss' accusation that, "I believe all the drama on the talk page and edit summaries scares off other editors. It certainly inhibits cooperative, productive discussion." First of all, there are only two primary editors for the article in question. They are, surprise: Bbb23 and Veriss1. Though I was active in 2012 for a period of time, I left the article in good faith after hashing out and contesting bits of the article, for which other editors ruled in the favor of my arguments. For over a year, I stepped away from the article, so this accusation that "drama scares off" is quite laughable to me. I've been silent for over a year. But alas, Veriss and Bbb23 would find it most ideal to silence the opposing opinions of those who do not agree with them.

I wish I was simply "imagining" that Veriss1 and Bbb23 were buddies that ganged up on other editors on the page, but mais non, they conspire and collaborate together. They have a history of doing this together--working together for their own benefit--to meet their goals of the article in question.

If you go to Veriss1's talk page, you can see several conversations which they use "code names" for myself. I am "E". You will also see that they mutually conspire and turn a blind eye to another editor in question, Sayerslle, doing the exact same thing that Veriss accuses me of, but more importantly, turning a blind eye to Sayerslle removing my comments from the talk page, per their conversation on Veriss1 talk page (taken from his talk page):

Asma al-Assad

Hi, I don't want to get into an edit-war on her Talk page. I actually agree with S's removal of some of E's post. The Talk page should not be used as a forum for her to discuss her personal views about Syria and the subject. I did not like his edit summary, though, which I thought was attacking, and I left a message on his Talk page to that effect. I'll leave it up to you whether to leave in the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate both your and S's positions as I too tire of E's lectures. I normally take a very dim view of editing other's posts though except for the most extreme policy violations. I'll look around for some policy on that practice, if you have any leads, I would appreciate them.

If the pruning should be reverted, I will revert it. I agree, his edit summary was a personal attack and to make matters worse, we all know how volatile she is. Cheers,Veriss (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think her comments are a policy violation, just a violation of Talk page guidelines, which is why I haven't reverted your reversion (heh). At the same time, the combination of the Talk page guidelines, the sensitivity of these particular issues, and a bit of WP:COATRACK thrown in for added flavor, makes me more inclined to agree with the trimming. And she does have a habit of making these kinds of inappropriate comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed WP:TPOC and find this may be in a grey area given the long, disruptive history of the user E in question making posts that some may wonder are just vehicles for propaganda. Normally I do not condone editors changing the content of other's talk page posts but will undo my reversion of S in this case since his action may be within policy, though it appears to be quite a stretch, and I am of course, not an adjudicator. If E protests, she may very well have grounds. They both have very short fuses, here's to hoping this does not blow up into another ugly drama fest. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You are a model of moderation. I agree with your analysis. I'll hope along with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, "hope is not a method". We should prime our fire extinguishers. Veriss (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You see that both accuse me of "propaganda" and turn a blind eye to the attacking, the removal of MY comments on the talk page, and talking about my "habits". Unfortunately, this is what I have had to deal with. The conspiring of these two gentlemen, who have an alliance, if you will. Furthermore, please note the "'WE' should prime our fire extinguishers." You see, these two editors in question work as COLLECTIVES. Birds of the same feather, so to speak. Collaboratives, basically.

Further conspiring of together, taken from Veriss1 talk page:

Thank feature

Look at the contribution history of an article. At the end of each entry you should see things like rollback, sum, x - and at the end thank. If you hover your mouse over thank, it tells you what it does. Frankly, I've never used the feature and wish I could remove it, but that's how it's supposed to work. I'm not sure when it was added but it wasn't that long ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I knew and respected you as a fellow editor long before you were "saddled with being an Admin", a concept you smirked at on Asma al-Assad's talk page :). I respect you for taking on these responsibilities. "You are a better man then I Gunga Din". Veriss (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You were a great help on that article. Do you know that it hasn't even been edited in almost a month, and that edit by an IP was reverted by another editor? Ain't life grand when it's quiet?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't, but I do miss E and S sometimes. Veriss (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

How sweet. Veriss says he misses me sometimes. Reminder: I am "E", which is a code name that Veriss has anointed upon me.

Ironically, Veriss has filed this notion after I have recently, yesterday, requested for 3rd party editors to review the article in question. I worry, perhaps, that Veriss and Bbb23 may be concerned that a third party opinion may turn the balance out of their favor, in terms of editing of the article. After all, until now, Veriss and Bbb23 have had absolute monopoly over what and how they conduct things in the article. For example, on the Asma Al-Assad talk page, we have another editor, FormerIP, who has expressed on TWO occasions a wonderful suggestion of which both Veriss1 and Bbb23 have not/refuse to acknowledge. It's a true shame. Especially since Bbb23 has been elevated to admin status, of which I believe he abuses his powers. Mais, I rest my case. What can I do when these two gentlemen, who claim monopoly of the article in question and talk behind the backs of other editors on their talk pages, simply want to silence, belittle, and conspire against those who walk a different line in life? C'est la vie!

Unfortunately, I must further add that Bbb23 in particular, continues to talk behind my back and make startling accusations.

'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

Asma al-Assad

Asma al-Assad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has an extended history of coatrack-related problems. Noneless, it has been relatively quiet for some time. However, a WP:SPA who wants to "protect" the article subject has returned after over a year of no editing and slashed the article. Two editors (not me) have reverted the SPA, but she insisted. I warned her for edit warring (she was up to three reverts). Her talk page comments have been singularly unhelpful.

I just started a topic on the talk page to encapsulate the history of the problem (it has to do with Joan Juliet Buck and an article she wrote in Vogue) and the history of the SPA. The topic is fairly long, but it still doesn't completely capture everything that happened in 2012 and since. I have also reverted the article to the status quo ante.

More eyes would be helpful on the article, and any comments on the talk page would be even better. As I stated there, I have no objection to revisiting the issues. Indeed, content-wise I probably think the material in the al-Assad article is too prominent (and repetitive of what is in the Buck article), but my views are just those of one editor and not necessarily the consensus of the community, or at least of those editors who are interested in expressing an opinion. In the meantime, the SPA cannot unilaterally impose her views on this or any other article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, the fact that he has the audacity to say that I want to "protect" the subject is hilariously atrocious. That would be, for example, similar to myself accusing Bbb23 of trying to "trash" the article subject. It's funny to me that this editor/ADMIN wants to accuse me of trying to protect the article subject.... what exactly am I trying to protect???? And how???? This is precisely the kind of corruption that I feel plagues the integrity and ethnics of Wikipedia. I must make it clear here, on this public forum, that my intention is not to "protect" anything or anyone, but rather, to maintain a objective and neutral article that is not muddled by the personal views/opinions of select journalists/news agencies, and of course, biased editors.

Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

An edit summary saying "Personal life: Have you, Veriss, ever heard of a Oxford comma? A.k.a serial comma? Look it up. It might help your writing to know that for three or more names, a comma should be included after the "and".) Directed to Veriss1/Editor" is not a personal attack. I had not heard of the "Oxford comma" - so this edit summary is (for me) useful and informative.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the support, Toddy1. Not a lot of people know about the "Oxford comma" aka "serial comma". It is also known as the "Harvard comma". I'm glad you found it useful! :) As noted earlier, the only reason why I wrote that edit summary to Veriss is because he undid the comma I had applied twice (after two edit reversals!) and then in his edit summary, wrote "minor, excessive punctuation. there is no need for a coma in a list of three items before the 'and'". I figured he didn't know about the "Oxford comma", which is why when I again added the "Oxford comma", wrote him the personalized edit summary to inform him that in fact, there IS a need for a comma in a list of three items before the "and". If you have time, please also visit the Asma al-Assad page to make edits or give critiques, as you see fit. We definitely need more objective eyes on this article. Have a beautiful day. :) Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Minor fluff. The serial coma is covered in some detail here on Wikipedia: [[233]]. Some writers are trained to minimize punctuation and the use of commas and instead structure the sentence so excessive commas are not needed in most circumstances. Other writers prefer them. Using them is a matter of taste and experience and as the linked article discusses may be controversial in some circles. That is a rabbit hole though as though I prefer minimal punctuation for ease or reading and properly structuring sentences to remove ambiguity, it is not a big deal. The issue isn't commas, it is cooperation, personal attacks and tendacious editing. Please don't get distracted. Veriss (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

But the example you gave was not a personal attack.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I submitted 14 examples to illustrate a pattern. If you would like to focus on the tamest example, then all power to you. Veriss (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, obviously it was not minor (or not too "tame") if you wanted to use the personalize edit summary as a example of an attack? Also, if it wasn't such a "big deal" why did you and Bbb23 reverse the comma edit? You are continually contradicting yourself through words and in action. You say, "I prefer minimal...." - this isn't about YOU or ME or anyone else. This is about doing things proper. Ironically, the whole point of utilizing the Oxford comma IS to REMOVE AMBIGUITY. If you need me to provide a detailed explanation from a grammar book, I am happy to do so, as the Oxford comma is covered in most respected books on grammar. You, yourself did three edits on the article yesterday, so you should probably take your own advice. And in regards to "cooperation": if cooperation means having to be submissive to you and Bbb23, it won't be happening anytime soon. I would like to ENCOURAGE you to again, heed your own song on cooperation and perhaps cooperate with FormerIP on the talk page for the article in question so that something productive can be done about the issues raised on the talk page? You nor Bbb23 should be complaining about "cooperation" when you two, as a duo, refuse to cooperate with other editors who differ in opinions of the two of you, as a collaborative. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed the three items listed under "Personal Attacks on article talk page":

• 30 Nov 2013 section: Vogue Veris claims that there is a "personal attack in last comment." This accuses a named editor of "he was faking like he had no idea what discussions on this Vogue article were had previously", but did not give any evidence in the form of diffs. If a diff had been given it would have been 100% OK.
• 30 Nov 2013 section: Repetitive Information Veris claims that there are "multiple attacks in last comment." There are no personal attacks in the last comment.
• 30 Nov 2013 section: Rewrite of article by Etoiles Veris claims that there are "multiple attacks in last comment." There is one personal attack in the comment, where she referred to "the two thugs on this page". This was not appropriate conduct.

--Toddy1 (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that thorough review, Toddy1. I am a passionate person. At the time, the only adjective that could come to my mind to describe the two gentlemen was "thugs", as I felt that I was being ganged up upon. As mentioned earlier, there are two primary editors for the article in question (Veriss1 and Bbb23). They as a duet, literally monopolize the article. Recently, a new editor, FormerIP, joined the discussion but both gentlemen have ignored her comments. I apologize on this public forum for calling these two editors "thugs". Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Etoiles can be a very difficult editor. She can also be helpful. It might come as a surprise to her that there are areas in which she and I agree. When she returned after over a year's absence from Wikipedia, my biggest problem with her was her approach. Unfortunately, my attempts to reduce the rhetoric and the disruption to the article were met with attacks. Her insults didn't really bother me much, actually. I just wanted her to see reason and that she had to play by the rules no matter what her substantive arguments were. When she refused, I filed a report at AN3, and she was blocked for 24 hours. Her unblock requests, unfortunately, were not promising as they gave no indication that she knew what she was doing wrong.

I was pleasantly surprised, though, when her block expired, and she posted a rather reasonable message on the article talk page. She tends to be impatient and reads too much into what people say and what people don't say. So, the fact that I didn't respond to FormerIP's comments about what should be included in the article caused Etoiles to think that I was ignoring FormerIP. Quite the contrary. I read FormerIP's suggestion. I wasn't sure if I agreed with it, but it was constructive and reasonable. And if the consensus was to go with it, it was also a model of concision. The only reason I didn't comment was I had already suggested language for the article, and I wanted to see if other editors had anything to say before injecting myself back into the discussion. I also give credit to Etoiles that other than her adding a serial comma to the article (a minor issue - fwiw, I like serial commas), she has not attempted to restore her version of the article. Also, I believe she has struck some of her more personal negative comments from earlier. Toddy1 helped her with that, for which she thanked him effusively (Etoiles is quite effusive :-) ).

Veriss1 is an understated and non-confrontational editor. His edits and comments to the article over the last year+ have always been civil, focused, well thought-out, and helpful. As he stated in his opening statement here, he is unfamiliar with ANI. I, on the other hand, am more familiar with ANI than I'd like to be. Personally, I would not have brought Etoiles here at this point in time because, as I said, in my view things were improving. But for a consistently respectfful editor like Veriss1, Etoiles's style can sometimes be hard to take. However, if everyone just takes a deep breath, keeps civil and focuses on content, I am hopeful we can come to a consensus about what should be included in the article, at least with respect to the Vogue/Buck material (I haven't looked closely at Etoiles's other complaints yet given that seemed to be her biggest objection).

I am, of course, too WP:INVOLVED to close this discussion, but with my sincerest respect to Veriss1's good intentions, that would be my recommendation.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

One thing I did miss in Veriss1's report were the comments Etoiles made after the block on the article talk page in which she called Veriss1 and me "thugs" and some other choice names. However, even though such comments are uncivil, I've certainly seen worse (as we all know, what constitutes incivility at Wikipedia is a contentious issue), and, as I said earlier, she struck those comments, so I think we can let them go. My recommendation above is the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Comment – Was this reported at WP:ANEW before? This can be more easily solved there.I see that it has been reported at WP:ANEW. Forget my previous comment. Epicgenius (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

With Toddy1's help she has started striking out much of the vitriol from her earlier comments. It appears that she wants to mend her ways so I believe the desired outcome may have been achieved. In light of that, this can be closed by the next available admin. Thank you. Veriss (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) Okay, closing. Epicgenius (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Vnisanian2001

Vnisanian2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has long-term pattern of making unreferenced edits or attempting to include sources that do not meet WP:V. Blocked for 48 hours on August 2, 2013 and two weeks on August 24, 2013 for similar behavior. Warned repeatedly over several years on talk page, most recently in October for similar and WP:OR edits. Most recent edit to Sale of the Century (U.S. game show) included WP:OR and a URL in the edit summary that does not provide backup to the information added.

Since this is not a vandalism only account, I am making a request here that additional steps be taken to prevent this user from continuing to engage in the behavior pattern. Please advise if this should instead be discussed at WP:AIV. AldezD (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

That most recent edit seems like a good faith attempt to date a particular episode of a show, and though you could call it WP:SYN on one hand, dating things like that doesn't seem outlandish. Provided the case is that in episode X, someone said "station Y was founded 35 years ago today; happy anniversary", and you have a source stating the founding date of station Y, you can simply add the numbers. However, this ignores the possibility that the statement was incorrect (e.g., it referred to a projected airing date that was missed, referred to the taping date which was different than the air date, or was outright incorrect), or that the source stating the date of founding is incorrect or refers to a different founding date than was used as a reference for the show (corporate founding dates can be contentious sometimes). In short, that particular dating argument is, while in good faith and facially reasonable, probably not something we want to rely on. Looking at other edits Vnisanian2001 has made that you've contested (I further note that it seems like you and you personally are the only person warning Vnisanian2001) it seems like a lot of those have been unreferenced changes to facts, figures, and dates that were themselves already unreferenced; while that fact doesn't cure the problem of making unreferenced contributions, perhaps it should counsel an attempt to reference those figures (or do so in a more obvious manner if they are referenced) or remove them until references can be found, rather than enforcement of the status quo through warnings escalating to blocks. But this isn't something you need an administrator to enforce, and frankly, I don't think Vnisanian2001's edits rise to the level of something requiring immediate intervention. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This user requires a healthy dose of CLUE to become a competent editor. Their understandings of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR are deeply flawed, as shown in this edit summary, for example—or their citation of a YouTube commenter here. I also really wish this user would use edit summaries more often. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Outside of bringing additional attention to this editor through WP:ANI, what next steps would you suggest taking in order to have this editor comply with WP:V and WP:NOT#OR? Repeated warnings are clearly ineffective, and Jprg1966's comments about WP:COMPETENCE are certainly valid. AldezD (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Franks Cock"

Non-issue. Move along. --Jprg1966 (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Did you people really lead a major website with the title "Franks Cock". It's a joke right? It says cock and it's not about a bird, whatever your intentions, your websites main paige was about a mans dick. Your collective intelegence of a world renowned resource had "Franks Cock" as the title. Nice. Reeeeaal nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.218.31 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Frank's Cock is a featured article today. I don't see any problem with that. Epicgenius (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC) It's actually about a short film, 37.142.218.31. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 21:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC) See WP:NOTCENSORED. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

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 [234] and deleting sources he doesn't like [235], while Alexbrn just nukeandpaved almost the entire article when he came to join the discussion today [236]. After reducing the article to a stub, he nominated it for deletion [237] On my objection, I was simply told I obviously don't understand WP policy regarding secondary sources [238]. When I reverted his nukeandpave, he threatened me to be blocked because of edit warring [239].
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 [240]... 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)

• Comment. Is there a reason that the article was gutted, stubbed, and then put up for deletion? Why wasn't the article just put up for deletion as is? GregJackP Boomer! 06:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Because doing the WP:NUKEANDPAVE (and adding a new piece of secondarily-sourced material), and then seeing the result, crystalized my thought that that subject matter here made this article an AfD candidate. As it happened, the large amount of primary material that I removed has been restored and this has proved a distraction from the pertinent questions at AfD (although other editors have added better-sourced content which is pertinent). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Well it wasn't like that, was it? Your nukeandpave edit (removing reliably sourced material) took place at 6:19 [241]. However, at 3:57 you already had this discussion with QG where you stated that "... this article needs to be filleted - in fact probably deleted, with any usable remnant merged into the main acupuncture article". This was premeditated. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
      • What are you trying to say? Going from a thought that it "probably" should be deleted to actually deciding that it should be deleted is precisely what I meant by saying the stubbing process "crystalized my thought". So after thinking some more about it and searching for sources I nominated it for AfD. BTW, as has been pointed out at AfD, you set this hare running with a false statement that I nominated the stubbed article for deletion, when in fact it had been reverted by the time I made the nomination. Would be grateful if you could correct this. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

QuackGuru

I'm not a person who likes running to a higher authority whenever something happens, but I do think this requires some attention from an administrator.

Basically, QuackGuru is a long time editor who edits mostly topics related to Quackery, which includes things like energy medicine, homeopathy, and in this case, acupuncture.

That alone should not be problematic, except that Quack is misinterpreting a lot of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in his controversial edits. What's more worrying is how Quack deliberately tries to compromise the integrity of an article that is currently being nominated for deletion along with any person or organization that's somehow related to these trials. The Federal Joint Committee (Germany), as a federal body working on a national level, is obviously a notable health authority so I think Quack's proposal for its re-direction seems to be somewhat unconstructive:

I propose redirect Federal Joint Committee (Germany) to Healthcare in Germany#Regulation]

...especially when it was made on the 20th of November, which happens to be the day that the trials were nominated for deletion.

Quack is still removing a lot of content from the German Acupuncture Trials, but I believe most of the article is reliably sourced. It shouldn't surprise anyone that most sources included in the German Acupuncture Trials are only available in German, yet QuackGuru is tagging all of these sources as "unreliable". I believe any native speaker of German (or even English) would be able confirm that the Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift is a reliable source.

The more important point here is that these trials are obviously notable (nobody seems to be denying that they're not), but before I continue to spend my time working on it, I want to be sure that those people who have issues with my additions at least try to read the references that I've cited before tagging.

I've tried talking to QuackGuru about this on this talk page, but he simply removed all comments, so perhaps there's an uninvolved admin who would like to give a third opinion? -A1candidate (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A1candidate is one of the editors who wants to keep the article with the disputed text and unimportant low level details. Using a source to describe itself is obviously a gross WP:WEIGHT violation. The GERAC trial itself is being used in the article to describe the trial itself. We must use sources independent on the subject matter. Using a primary study from six years ago is obviously a gross WP:MEDRS violation. The primary sources are being misused to describe in extreme detail about the trial itself, among other low level details. The article is littered with too many primary sources that do not show it is notable. For example, The Joint Fed. Committee is a primary source because they were part of the event. Even if the The Joint Fed. Committee was a WP:SECONDARY source there are now newer sources on the topic. That means The Joint Fed. Committee fails WP:MEDRS and WP:SECONDARY. The Joint Fed. Committee study is also being used to discuss the trial itself. The article should be mainly about how the results of the trial influenced policy in Germany. The trial itself in not what this article is supposed to be about. The details about the trials itself is not notable and not the direction of an encyclopedia entry. Editors have turned the article into their own personal WP:COATHOOK article. All the medicine cannot be stripped out of this article because editors at the article think it is a medical article. If the non-notable medical claims are removed from the article there may only be a few sources on how a clinical trial impacted the society and politics. The current state of the article makes it impossible for editors at the AFD to determine if the topic is notable. Again, the primary sources are being used in this article to make statements about the acupuncture trial itself to discuss medical information that is unrelated to how a clinical trial impacted society and politics. Do you see the unrelated medical information and do you think that information must be removed? Discussing the details about the trial itself creates a WP:COATHOOK. There is not a decent paragraph in Healthcare in Germany#Regulation, Regulation of acupuncture#Germany or Acupuncture. The content can be merged into the other articles. Editors at the AFD commented there many problems with the current article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials. See here, for example. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not appropriate conduct to nuke an article and then nominate it for deletion. If it needs to be deleted because of poor sources, nominate it and make your case at AfD that the sources are crap. This article had 23K of material removed by Alexbrn [242], then it was nominated for deletion by him. The material was re-added to the article and then removed by you [243], [244] in what appears to be a tag-team match with Alexbrn. It is also not appropriate to remove reliable sources from an article while it is at AfD, which QuackGuru has done repeatedly, without any apparent consensus to do so. Note, I am uninvolved in the article and personally think that acupuncture is BS, but this isn't the way to go about it. GregJackP Boomer! 18:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"It is not appropriate conduct to nuke an article and then nominate it for deletion" ← well that's your opinion; I disagree. The fate of the article largely depends on its potential (as dictated by the sources available in the real world), not on what's there right now. You seem to be very free with your accusations and assumptions of bad faith, and that certainly is "not appropriate conduct". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's not just my opinion. I've heard it several times and places, especially since I'm a deletionist and don't have a problem in getting rid of crap articles. I did not assume bad faith either. I'm sure that both you and QG are doing this with the best of intentions. My statement above was factual and focused on what had happened and what should happen. No where did I state that I believed that either of you were acting in bad faith, nor have I asked for any sanctions for misconduct. I'm merely pointing out a better way to do it in the future. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sure it is an opinion others share with you, and I respect it. TBH I didn't see any great link between stubbing the article and the AfD nomination, though I do now regret doing both in succession now because it's given an excuse for others to create a distraction around the article, rather than focussing on the content (which has always been the issue of substance here, so far as I'm concerned). In writing that QuackGuru appears to be in "a tag-team match with Alexbrn" you are at least being uncivil (see WP:TAGTEAM) in that this implies some degree of coordinated action. In fact when it began to look like the reversions and re-reversions were escalating into an edit war I backed off (and warned QuackGuru and another editor who had got to 3RR not to continue). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

QuackGuru II

He is doing it again, this time removing a huge chunk of content directly related to the trials . -A1candidate (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The real question is, why is he allowed to edit at all? It's because everyone knows it is throwaway account used to do the so-called "dirty work", and he's supported by a great number of editors and admins alike for this singular purpose. It's like having an account-for-hire, but one that you know will be blocked for disruption. He's completely supported in this endeavor by the community, which tells you everything you need to know, in other words, the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. Don't expect the rule of law, justice, or equal treatment on Wikipedia, because you won't find it here. It's obvious and transparent that this account is solely used to disrupt Wikipedia. QuackGuru isn't interested in arguing with you or compromising, or backing down on anything. He will simply disrupt the encyclopedia like he has always done. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that not a single admin has commented after so many days speaks volumes. -A1candidate (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

That's because disruption is OK as long as you are on the correct side. Viriditas nailed it with his evaluation. GregJackP Boomer! 22:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

That's true. But QuackGuru is actually making science look bad. Science is a tool for developing a provisional knowledge set that works to help us make accurate observations and decisions about the world and the uni/multi-verse. It is not, however, a cudgel used to beat people with, like a hardback book favored by some religious sects. But you wouldn't know it with QuackGuru, who appears to be pushing the religion of scientism, not the provisional knowledge set created by science, which in this context is used as the basis of modern medicine, which in application is essentially an art, not a science. People like QuackGuru are often victims of fundamentalist upbringing, so we probably shouldn't be too hard on him. He's acting out his victimhood in an aggressive and disruptive manner to prove a point to himself, nobody else. It's basically a cry for help. It's likely that someone in his family was harmed by some kind of "quackery" so he's lashing out at everything in an attempt to get back at this person or group. We've all seen this thing many times before. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

and yet on the surface, heshe is doing far more constructive work regarding quackery than somebody like, say, A1candidate, who seems to love the woo ! --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing "constructive" about it. Which articles has he improved? He's acting as a proxy for other editors who aren't willing to violate the policies and guidelines that make it possible for people to collaborate in a harmonious manner. I don't a give a damn who loves the "woo", I can find ways to work with them. If they don't have the tool set for skeptical thinking, then you offer them your hammer or spanner, you don't hit them over the head with it. He isn't here to work with or help anyone but himself. This is about as far from "constructive" as you can get. Finally, he makes science look like a religious pursuit, which it is not. As GregJackP has accurately observed, this is Wikipedia realpolitik in action. Fuck everyone and everything if you are right. Most editors are indefinitely blocked for this behavior, but not QuackGuru. This shows the community is essentially corrupt at its core. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

His account seems to be a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, if you look at his edits. Other than Larry Sanger, I can't find a single article that QuackGuru has recently edited that is not related to "[[Quackery]". -A1candidate (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Middayexpress (talk · contribs) seems to have made various Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and other errors on the African Australians page, discussed on Talk:African Australian.

Removal of valid citations: Middayexpress removed various citations which were pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style, e.g. [245], [246]. Furthermore, the user's justification for this is erratic, most recently that the edit would have justified the inclusion of "New World" immigrants on the page in question, despite the source and statement making no mention of New World immigrants whatsoever. Discussing the matter is problematic due to this inconsistent and fluctuating reasoning.

Ignoring good faith questions: I have repeatedly tried to make simple, clarifying questions to determine the user's views or reasoning. The user has repeatedly ignored these questions. Related to this:

Clarity: Repeated attempts to discuss the lack of clarity on the page are completely ignored. For example, I have established I think the page definition is confused and poorly phrased with direct questions, e.g. "have you considered that the current page definition of "African Australians" is simply not clear?" This is completely ignored, and as any edits to the page are reverted, it is impossible to address.

Blatantly illogical use of sources: Various examples, e.g. user ignored the disclaimer on one source stating it is the view of "the individual author only", and argued it is more than the view of the individual author and that the source shows the government's view. However the user consistently deletes sources (from the government or otherwise) that are contrary to his/her opinion when they are added in. The user has further claimed evidence in sources yet ignores my attempts to receive a direct example of this. For example, arguing a report[247] is referring to immigrants when when it says "people of African descent", but ignoring direct queries to clarify exactly where this is stated. Furthermore, user removed this source despite claiming it supports their position.

I notified the user earlier of my concerns on their talk page, which hopefully was the correct thing to do. Appreciate any admin clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heisoutofsight (talk • contribs) , this notice added by Jprg1966 ^(talk)

(Non-administrator comment) This seems like a content dispute to me. Aren't dispute resolution steps more appropriate for something like this? It appears that both of you are editing in good faith, so I would hate for ANI to be the place where it gets sorted out. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It's indeed an ordinary content dispute. The Heisoutofsight account was created only a few months ago, so perhaps he/she isn't familiar with proper dispute resolution procedure. All of the claims above have also already been addressed in detail on the article's talk page [248]. Additionally, a Third Opinion was sought [249], so that should be coming in shortly. Middayexpress (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I sought a Third Opinion as Middayexpress refers to. However, I felt that the user ignoring the specific Wikipedia:Tendentious editing guidelines I raised with him/her, and persisting in simply protecting one exact version of the page over multiple edits, was more appropriate to raise here. I am indeed unfamiliar with proper dispute resolution procedure, and I apologise if I have made a mistake. I will of course not persist with any discussion here if this is the wrong place for it.Heisoutofsight (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This board is for reporting urgent violations of Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks, none of which have been made. It's not for ordinary content disputes, especially when a Third Opinion has already been sought (see WP:FORUMSHOPPING). Those multiple edits were and are also unsupported by what the government sources actually state, both in words and data figures. This has been repeatedly demonstrated on the talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for linking me to WP:FORUMSHOPPING (which I was unaware of), however it does state that "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable".

Middayexpress's dismissal of the rules in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing is a different issue to the actual content dispute that I posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. I stick by my claims regarding Middayexpress's Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, which is fairly unambiguous as it involves straightforward things like ignoring the rule under "One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors".

If ignoring Wikipedia's policies outlined in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing (after having attention explicitly drawn to them) does not constitute urgent violations of Wikipedia's policies and is not appropriate here, then I have simply made a mistake. If this is the case, I request this discussion be closed as it is simply entirely misplaced.Heisoutofsight (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

With respect, you clearly do not understand what tendentious editing means since all of your claims have already been discussed and successively disproved on the article's talk page [250]. As also already explained, this noticeboard is for urgent violations of Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks, none of which have been made. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were unaware of the policy against WP:FORUMSHOPPING as well. Middayexpress (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

With respect, I explicitly raised these specific concerns regarding tendentious editing on your talk page[251], as I have stated. You deleted them without discussion [252]. Therefore, it is incorrect to say they have been 'discussed and successively disproved'. They were deleted and ignored. Likewise, much was ignored on the page you linked to [253].Heisoutofsight (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I indeed deleted that notification from my talk page because it had zero relevance, as is my prerogative per WP:HUSH. The fact remains that all of your various claims have been successively addressed and/or disproved on the article's talk page [254]. Middayexpress (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I simply did not make all these claims on the article's talk page. These claims here are largely a restatement of what I posted on your talk page. They have not been successively addressed and/or disproved on the article's talk page because they were not raised there.

I am by no means whatsoever disputing your right to delete what is on your talk page, but that is where I made in particular the second two of the four claims on this page. You did not successively address and/or disprove either of them, because you did not respond to them at all.Heisoutofsight (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid all of your various (and largely invalid) claims were indeed addressed on the article's talk page. That includes the ones above, which are but repetitions of said disproved assertions. But since you keep insisting that they haven't been addressed, I have hatnoted the entire discussion below in its full, actual context. Middayexpress (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have also noticed the behaviour involving user Middayexpress (talk · contribs) regarding several articles on Wikipedia, mainly the country article of Eritrea where this user have been involved in edit wars [255], this page is now page protected.

The user Middayexpress have been reverting and removing several edits and contributions made by several users. But also been engaging Wikipedia:Tendentious editing on several pages.This user is has been involved in 86 reverts in [Eritrea]] article [256] and has also been the user (active) with most edits on this page [257]. The user is active in stopping users from contributing, and revert edits as soon as he/she disagrees with the contributor.

As user Heisoutofsigh (talk · contribs) case points out, Middayexpress has been involved in a numbers of incidents that involves:“Removal of valid citations” “Blatantly illogical use of sources”

Here are some recent examples (there is alot more):

Eritrea Article. Here user Middayexpress reverts edits and removes valid citations in the cuisine section [258], that got three reliable sources, one including a WHO report on alcoholic consumption in Eritrea. These sources states that “Suwa” (beer) and “Mies” are traditional alcoholic beverages in Eritrea. Middayexpress removes these sources made by a user, throws in and refers to own sources and claims that Suwa is just a barley drink and not a beer. Middayexpress claims that “Suwa” and “Mies” are not traditional Eritrean alcoholic beverages, since half of the population in Eritrea is Muslim. User also claims that none of Eritreas Muslims drink these alcoholic beverages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eritrea]. How can you claim that half of a country’s population doesn’t drink alcohol with any sources? These are most definitely traditional beverages in Eritrea.

In the cuisine section on the Eritrea page Middayexpress has also constantly been adding illogical use of sources. Middayexpress claims that Eritrean cuisine “strongly” resemblesthose of neighboring Ethiopia and Somalia [259]. Using a source that not states this!The sources the user is referring to only states that “Eritrean and Somalian Cuisine are similar to those of Ethiopian cuisine ”, the source does not mentions anything about Eritrean and Somalian cuisines being similar to eachother. Still the user Middayexpress claims this and even states that they are “extremely similar”, which contradicts actual facts.

Tigre people Article.The user Middayexpress claims that the Ethnic group of Tigre is related to the Somalian Ethnic group. Which is not correct? There is no sources claiming this, still the user Middayexpress engages once again in edit wars and reverts the article, [260], using no sources at all. The sources on Tigre people article only claims that the Ethnic group of Tigre_people are only related the Beja_people of Eritrea/Sudan and the Tigray-Tigrinya_people of Eritrea.

Eritrean cuisine Article (extended). Once again Middayexpress uses a source that does not claim that Eritrean and Somalian cuisines are “extremely similar”. [261] . But also removes contributions and sorces regarding the beverages "Suwa" and "Mies".

Somali_People Article. Here the user reverts edits and adds that Somalian people are releated to all of these ethics groups Afar | Agaw | Amhara | Beja | Benadiri | Harari | Oromo | Saho | Tigray | Tigre. Without a single source! [[262]]

But, to make it look good this user throws in a reference to a book which does not claim that Somalian ethnic group are related to all of the mentioned ethnic groups above. [[263]] Can an experienced user or admin please go trough and investigate the behavior involving this user. A warning and a possible ban should be considired for this user.

Regards (Canevino16 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC))

Canevino16 is a sock of User:Hiyob346, who was indefintely blocked only a few days ago. Most of the pages he links to above are actually now page protected because of his disruptive editing there via a series of ad-hoc accounts and dynamic ips. The administrators User:CambridgeBayWeather and User:Gyrofrog witnessed this disruption. Middayexpress (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected Agaw people and Tigre people. Interesting first three edits by Canevino16. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thats a very odd thing too write User:Middayexpress, dont confuse me with a socketpuppet. You are mentioned in alot of pages that involves east africa, my area of interest. Everywhere there is a dispute your name seems to be there. I also noticed this discussion, where another user is accusing you of the exact same things. I don't know if thats a coincident ? User:CambridgeBayWeather, Yes recently I started my account, I did not know if I was obligated to have an account to post in this noticeboard.

Regards Canevino16 (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You have a non-existent editing history other than your posts here, but this is belied by your posting style and content. Your arguments, links, writing style, posting times, gripes and pages of interest are also identical to those of Hiyob346, who coincidentally was indefinitely blocked shortly before you registered this account. That is what CambridgeBayWeather means above by "interesting first three edits". Per WP:DUCK, you are yet again block evading Hiyob346. Middayexpress (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This report here looks too early, discussion is taking place on article talk page. There's lots of accusations against Middayexpress, but with weak evidence to back it up.--Loomspicker (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Well if more evidence is needed, here it is.

Removal of valid citations, reverting to the exact same sentence: [264], [265], [266]

Ignoring good faith questions - all unanswered direct questions found here [267]

You are constantly reinstating your preferred sentence, in its exact form. I don't see how this is constructive. Have you considered any alternatives? Please explain if any other options may acceptable to you.

Firstly, does a government source explicitly state that identified African descent does not denote an African Australian? If so, please provide an explicit quote, and a page number.

Secondly, does a government source explicitly state that an Australian who is not an African immigrant cannot be an African Australian? Does a government source explicitly state that an Australian who is not an African immigrant or of "recent" African descent cannot be an African Australian? If so, how is "recent" defined? If so, please provide an explicit quote, and a page number.

Thirdly, have you considered that the current page definition of "African Australians" is simply not clear? It states that "African Australians" are synonymous and interchangeable with "African immigrants to Australia", but that they may also have "recent ancestors from Africa". Are you comfortable with any rephrasing of this statement to make it more precise and less unclear?

Blatantly illogical use of sources:

- Reason for edit on talk page where government source I posted is explained not to contradict user's sources [268] - "The parts of the Response to OHCHR Questionnaire link [17] that actually discuss African Australians (beginning on "Question 2") pertain to immigrants from actual African countries and their descendants." [i.e. pertain to Middayexpress's stated definition]

- Reason for the same edit where source I posted is explained to contradict ("mutually exclusive") user's sources [269] - "fix erroneous mutual exclusivity; more precise govlink"

- Reason for deleting a source which literally contained no mention of the New World in any way whatsoever - "The gist of your post above is that there is an "unabridged link between an Australian of African descent" [incorrect quotation of what I said] and an "African Australian"", and that "an Australian of African descent" is by extension inclusive of New World immigrants with some ancestors from Africa."[270]Heisoutofsight (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's really quite pointless to attempt to selectively revise the proceedings out of their appropriate chronology and context. Here is what actually transpired, and in its full context:

Hatnoted wikitext
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This page was established to be about Australians with identified African heritage, that is what the first line established. Did I miss an agreement somewhere on Wikipedia that unlike the Asian Australian page or the Arab Australian page it be made about immigrants and not ancestry? Why change it? User:Heisoutofsight There will necessarily be some overlap between the Arab Australian page and this one because many of the immigrants from the Arab world in Australia hail from African countries (e.g. [271]). The headquarters of the Arab League is, in fact, in Cairo, Egypt. That said, it makes no difference what the page's scope was all those years ago when it was started as an editorial stub. The Australian government defines "African Australian" first and foremost as consisting of Australian citizens and residents born in or with recent ancestors from Africa. This is made clear on its African Australians Project. That is what the actual government population and migration stream statistics pertain to, not to non-Africans from the Americas or elsewhere. Middayexpress (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC) That is incorrect. The government also collects statistics about Australians with African ancestry. Therefore the idea that government population statistics relating to Australians identified also as African only refer to migrants is factually incorrect. For example, over 13,000 Australians were described by the government's census as being 'African' (without further specification) in ancestry (nowhere does it specify recent ancestry) here: [272] The African Australians Project you cite itself states at the top that it is "an independent piece of research and reflects the views of the individual author only." Therefore it is not the view of the government, it's just one guy. Furthermore, you yourself appear to agree with me to an extent. You advocate a definition of ""African Australian" first and foremost as consisting of Australian citizens and residents born in or with recent ancestors from Africa." Thus those with African ancestry only are, by your admission, equally African Australians. Thus we are in agreement that 'African immigrants' is not a term interchangeable with 'African Australians' as they denote different things. I think there may be a miscommunication here. Since you do not appear to be suggesting that being 'African Australian' is synonymous with being an 'African immigrants to Australia', I suggest the page be altered to read "African Australians are Australian citizens and residents born in, or with ancestors from Africa. A large proportion are African immigrants to Australia." The current statement "African Australians, also known as African immigrants to Australia" implies the terms are interchangeable, which they are not as it appears we agree.Heisoutofsight (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC) The 2006 census did have supplementary entries for "African", "Creole", "Asian", "Eurasian", "European", "Caucasian", and "Inadequately described", a number of which overlap. However, the government defines "African Australians" specifically as consisting of Australian citizens and residents born in or with recent ancestors from Africa. While one author did prepare the African Australians Project, it was actually commissioned by the Australian Human Rights Commission. This is stated at the top of the report ("this background paper was commissioned by the Australian Human Rights Commission"), and noted by the Commission's address and url at the bottom of the pdf's first page [273]. The author is also a government member [274] and a specialist on demography in Australia [275]. That makes it a government publication, which is why it is published on the government's servers. All of the statistics on the African Australians Project pertain to immigrants from actual African countries, not to non-Africans from other areas. This obviously implies recent immigration from Africa (not historic or prehistoric) since most African nations did not come into existence/gain independence until the 1960s. Other government papers that are exclusively on African Australians likewise pertain to immigrants or descendants of people from actual African countries (e.g. [276]). Same goes for government consultations with African Australian communities [277]. Middayexpress (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Australia's official submission to the UN OHCHR refers to Australians of African descent as African Australians, as seen here. [278] This is a more appropriate source than the African Australians Project linked to earlier, as it does not have a disclaimer stating it is the views of an individual only, rather is an official submission by the Australian Human Rights Commission to an international human rights body. The AHRC wished to "develop concrete strategies to improve the human rights outcomes of African Australians" because "racism, xenophobia and discrimination against people of African descent still exists in Australia".(Same source [279], see sections 2.3, 2.4) There is no way in which a work with a disclaimer stating categorically that it is "an independent piece of research and reflects the views of the individual author only" actually does reflect the views of the government. The African Australians Project linked to earlier does not reflect the views of the government, because that is what it says itself. Please do not inaccurately use this source to indicate government views. If the term "African Australians" is sometimes used to refer to immigrants from Africa to Australia, and other times used to refer to people of African descent in Australia, that indicates these are both acceptable usages of the phrase "African Australians". The current statement "African Australians, also known as African immigrants to Australia" implies the terms are interchangeable, which they are not as the Australian international submission I have cited also indicates. The current page introduction is therefore unclear, inaccurate, and unsuitable. I will insert the rewording in the introduction that I mentioned earlier, as Middayexpress I do not believe it contradicts the point of view you have expressed, and you have not noted any disagreement about it. Inserted: "African Australians are Australian citizens and residents born in Africa, or of African descent. A large proportion are African immigrants to Australia." Middayexpress, please feel free to explain or clarify on this talk page if I have misunderstood you and apologies if I have.Heisoutofsight (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC) There indeed has been a misunderstanding. The African Australians Project was commissioned by an Australian government body, the Australian Human Rights Commission. The brief disclaimer indicating that the paper expresses the views of the author doesn't change that because the author himself is a government employee and a demography specialist at that, preparing a government report. This is actually the official government usage of African Australians, which other government papers on the community likewise specifically adhere to i.e. that the population consists of immigrants from actual African countries and their descendants. This is what the link above also means by "African descent". It does not include, say, people from the Americas who moved to Australia. This is why they and other non-African populations are not aggregated in the government's actual population statistics on African Australians. This is also why that link speaks of "a long history of migration between Africa and Australia". Here's [280] another government link, wherein a civilian wrote in expressing that he "totally disagree[s] with the use of “African Australians” to describe the African migrants or the African refugees" because "to me the use of the “African Australians” is just a reflection or a version of the African Americans", so "a better term to use is “African Communities or African Community in Australia". In other words, the government uses "African Australians" to denote immigrants from African countries and their descendants, though it is an inadequate term for the reasons the fellow in the link points out. Also, please see this briefing [281] on African Australians by the Australian government's Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Middayexpress (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Middayexpress, You assert your opinion of the specific source I have linked with no clear verification that it relates specifically to migrants or recent people. Please point out explicitly where this is stated in the link I earlier provided,[282] I cannot see it. A work with a disclaimer stating categorically that it is "an independent piece of research and reflects the views of the individual author only" cannot be assumed to mean the opposite. The employment status of the author does not change the explicitly-stated purpose of the work. You are constantly reinstating your preferred sentence, in its exact form. I don't see how this is constructive. Have you considered any alternatives? Please explain if any other options may acceptable to you.Heisoutofsight (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC) An additional note - I have already noted that government statistics accept ancestry/descent (with no mention of it being "recent") as denoting an "African" in Australia both here[283] and here[284] Repeating that this is "non-African" is not neutral, it defines Africans in a circular fashion (Africans are people who aren't non-African), and ignores the actual approach of these government sources.Heisoutofsight (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Middayexpress, you have deleted my cited source from the AHCR on people of African descent in Australia. This is covered in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. According to that page, "There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information." Please keep this in mind.Heisoutofsight (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC) The reason why I reinstated the African Australians Project report is because the first sentence you changed to read "Australian citizens and residents identified as having African descent[...] they may also be Australian citizens and residents born in Africa" misdefined how the Australian government actually uses the term African Australians. By African Australians, the government means immigrants from actual African countries and their descendants, regardless of race, language, culture and religion (please see box below). It does not include immigrants to Australia from the Americas or other non-African areas who trace a part of their ancestry from individuals that migrated from Africa to the Americas/elsewhere centuries ago. Only immigrants from actual African countries and their descendants are aggregated in the government's population statistics on African Australians [285], and included in the National Consultations on African Australians [286]. This is empirical fact, not opinion. The parts of the Response to OHCHR Questionnaire link [287] that actually discuss African Australians (beginning on "Question 2") pertain to immigrants from actual African countries and their descendants. This is obvious since those sections allude to the "national consultation with African communities", and "a Discussion Paper in March 2009 – translated into 10 community languages – which called for submissions from African Australians". The link's only cited statistics on African Australians likewise exclusively pertain to immigrants from actual African countries ("248,699 people born in Africa were living in Australia[...] since then, around 50,000 more migrants born in Africa have arrived in Australia"). Nowhere does the link suggest that the government also includes non-Africans in its definition of African Australians. Here's how the Australian government in its own words actually defines African Australians, from Tom Calma, the Race Discrimination Commissioner and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner [288]: The Australia of 2009 is a proud multicultural nation. It is a nation, culturally, socially and economically formed by the unique combination of its First Nation peoples, its early settlers, and by the many waves of subsequent migration. As such, negotiating diversity and respecting people of all faiths, races, cultures and identities has evolved into an important characteristic of being a member of Australian society. Over the past couple of decades Australia’s breadth of cultural diversity has widened with new and emerging communities, comprised of people who bring additional skills, culture and talent, as did the migrants of yester-year. Such contributions enhance the social fabric of our nation as well as increase economic development. Many of these new and emerging communities in Australia have come from Africa. It is a common misconception that people from African backgrounds are one and the same. While the strong African spirit and pride certainly unifies, people from African backgrounds represent tremendous diversity in ethnicity, race, language, culture and religion. After all, the African continent comprises more than 50 countries. The impression of homogeneity is only one of many misconceptions about African Australians. Even though Australians pride themselves in giving everyone ‘a fair go’, it would appear that many African Australians have not been fully given this chance. Settling into a new country is seldom easy and there are many challenges in building a new life. Recent public debate has voiced a number of myths and stereotypes about African Australians reinforcing the discrimination that many may continue to experience. However, it is facts, not myths, which tell the truth. And it is listening to people tell their stories that enables the wider community to begin to actually understand and relate to an experience and to humanise and personalise those who appear to be ‘different’. Many, but not all, African Australians underwent a refugee experience prior to their arrival in Australia. A refugee experience often involves a denial of some or all human rights. Newly-arrived refugees need our compassion, but compassion alone is not enough. Those who have survived the refugee experience are resilient. Australia needs to recognise that African Australians have much to offer and contribute. But is this happening? This project is a first. It is time, at the national level, to find out about human rights and social inclusion issues for African Australians. For both new arrivals and those who have been here for a longer period. It is also time to suggest solutions to the issues raised, share best practice, and discover pathways to help African Australians meet their personal potential and in so doing, improve their quality of life and add enormous human resources that will help contribute to our whole nation. The Australian Human Rights Commission and partner agencies want to hear from African Australians. It is also important to hear from others who work with, provide services to, or undertake research about issues for African Australians. It is for these reasons that I launch this Discussion paper." Tom Calma March 2009 Middayexpress (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC) You appear to have missed my concerns. I have added sources indicating identified African descent denotes an African Australian. I understand you disagree with this and deleted them. However, I have three questions I would appreciate it if you could answer. Firstly, does a government source explicitly state that identified African descent does not denote an African Australian? If so, please provide an explicit quote, and a page number. Secondly, does a government source explicitly state that an Australian who is not an African immigrant cannot be an African Australian? Does a government source explicitly state that an Australian who is not an African immigrant or of "recent" African descent cannot be an African Australian? If so, how is "recent" defined? If so, please provide an explicit quote, and a page number. Thirdly, have you considered that the current page definition of "African Australians" is simply not clear? It states that "African Australians" are synonymous and interchangeable with "African immigrants to Australia", but that they may also have "recent ancestors from Africa". Are you comfortable with any rephrasing of this statement to make it more precise and less unclear? You have noted a quote saying that "Many of these new and emerging [African Australian] communities in Australia have come from Africa". This underlines my point, as it does not say "all". It does not indicate that an "immigrant to Africa" is interchangeable with an "African Australian." If you think African Australians can also be Australians with "recent ancestors from Africa" are these people also immigrants or not? Where does this specific phrase come from? I have added back in the sources you deleted. You stated "The parts of the Response to OHCHR Questionnaire link that actually discuss African Australians (beginning on "Question 2") pertain to immigrants from actual African countries and their descendants." Please point out where this was explicitly stated. Furthermore, the descendants of African migrants are people of African descent. Please explain how this contradicts the statement you deleted. Since I have been discussing explicit links, here is the explicit, unabridged link between "an Australian of African descent" and an "African Australian", as written in the AHCR submission to the UN here: [289], see "2.4 Question 4: Planned national measures" The Commission’s consultations revealed that racism, xenophobia and discrimination against people of African descent still exists in Australia and the need to be vigilant in exposing this and changing practices and procedures. Activities will include: Maintaining momentum raised by the report by working collaboratively with targeted key government, non-government and African Australian representatives in seeking solutions to the Report issues The Commission will also work together with key stakeholders to support efforts towards a unified platform for stronger representation of African Australian communities. Working through the new National Anti-Racism Strategy to advance the promotion and protection of the human rights of African Australian communities. (emphasis added) This source therefore explicitly refers to activities intended to stamp out discrimination against people of African descent in Australia as being directed at "African Australians". Thus it explicitly uses the term "African Australians" to refer to people of African descent in Australia.Heisoutofsight (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC) First off, it's not assuming good faith to accuse other users of tendentious editing simply because they don't happen to agree with your edits. I realize you registered this account only a few months ago, but that is still unhelpful. Second, the actual chain of events was me adding a link to the African Australians Project, then you removing that and later replacing it with the Response to OHCHR Questionnaire link. Only then did I restore the original African Australians Project link. Anyway, that was a while ago, so let us examine what the government sources actually state with respect to "African Australians". The gist of your post above is that there is an "unabridged link between an Australian of African descent" and an "African Australian"", and that "an Australian of African descent" is by extension inclusive of New World immigrants with some ancestors from Africa. However, none of the sources makes this connection, including the one quoted above. Every government source cited on African Australians (notably the 2009 African Australians compendium quoteboxed above) makes it clear through its actual statistics and statements that "African Australians" pertains to immigrants from African countries and their descendants, regardless of race, language, culture and religion. This is what Tom Chamla and other government officials mean here by Australians with an "African background" as well as by Australians of "African descent". Here's another contextualized demonstration of this, from the NSW Ministry of Health's STARTTS service and the independent Public Interest Advocacy Centre [290]: In recent years, PIAC has become increasingly aware of human rights and social inclusion issues impacting on African Australians. On a number of occasions PIAC has been approached by representatives from African communities concerned about derogatory statements being made by broadcasters and other people in public positions about people of African descent. PIAC has assisted in these matters by providing legal advice and information as well as appropriate referrals[...] Our experience working with clients and communities from African backgrounds has made us aware of the enormous diversity amongst African Australians in terms of ethnicity, race, language, culture and religion. Middayexpress (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC) I am confused by the way you have interpreted my statements. Here is the the crux of your response: The gist of your post above is that there is an "unabridged link between an Australian of African descent" and an "African Australian"", and that "an Australian of African descent" is by extension inclusive of New World immigrants with some ancestors from Africa. The gist of my post is not at all that "New World immigrants with some ancestors from Africa" are African Australians. Nowhere did I mention such Australians anywhere in my post. The sourced statement you have deleted from the article is this: "African Australians are also Australian citizens and residents identified as having African descent." The statement as it stood, correctly sourced and pertinent to the definition of the article, cannot be problematic for referencing the New World, because it did not do so. That no sources refer to immigrants from the New World as being African Australians is simply not relevant to this statement at all. I cited the Wikipedia:Tendentious editing rule on this page as an explanation of why I reinstated a source which should not be removed. This was not an accusation. Without informing you of the guideline, how else can I explain my reasoning was based on this guideline? You have now removed that source three times. Please explain why this was necessary. Following your second removal of this source, I remain unaware of your precise reasoning that my sourcing was not "pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style". I have now made all my concerns as explicit as I succinctly can, here and on your talk page. Earlier, before using the talk page, I deleted a source you provided before I was aware such action was inappropriate. I apologise for doing so. I have not made this error again. As a new editor on Wikipedia, regrettably I have not familiarised myself with all its rules, however I endeavour not to repeat mistakes. The AHCR source I added did not replace anything, it was an addition only. This is clear in the edit history of this page, please recheck it. I have made beginner mistakes in my genuine attempt for a productive discussion to improve this page. I apologise if you feel my conduct has been inadequate. Here's the wikitext you wrote in full: African Australians, also known as African immigrants to Australia, are Australian citizens and residents born in, or with recent ancestors from Africa. African Australians are also Australian citizens and residents identified as having African descent. From the above, you were clearly referring to citizens and residents of Australia. However, the suggestion that the Australian government means something different when it speaks of "African Australians" and Australian residents of "African descent" is inaccurate. The cited Response to OHCHR Questionnaire link certainly doesn't state this anywhere. Fact is, every government source cited on African Australians makes it clear through its actual statistics and statements that "African Australians" pertains to immigrants from African countries and their descendants, regardless of race, language, culture and religion. This is what government officials actually mean here by Australians with an "African background" as well as by Australians of "African descent", as just shown and quoteboxed. Middayexpress (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Middayexpress (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion

User:113.168.106.105 is a currently blocked User:Thainguyencc. He was blocked based on behavioral evidence found here [[291]] and is again using an IP to continue the dispute and making personal attacks [[292]] which mirrors this edit [[293]]. Personally think that the ip should be blocked and registered user's blick extended for ip socking and block evasion.

• Also consider comments at 3rr board "What do you think if a map not show California, Texas... are not an English-speaking areas without source? --Thainguyencc (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)"
• and ":I can't talk? but What do you do with a linguistic map show your state is entirely non-natively English-speaking area, make from non-specific source [Ethnologue (2009, 2013)]. --113.168.106.105 (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)"

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

In Vietnam, most of IP address are dynamic IP address--113.168.106.105 (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you stating you plan on continuing your disruption editing? Hell In A Bucket (talk)

No, I need only page(s) and/or link, and add "as per Ethnologue" in Kwamikagami's fake linguistic map.--113.168.106.105 (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for block evasion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, you should reduce the block to a set time because now it is an indefinite block on a dynamic IP.--Atlan (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• Bumping this. 113.168.106.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) still has an indef block on it and AFAICT it is not an open proxy. Could an admin adjust that to 6-12 months or whatever the appropriate time might be. Rgrds. --64.85.216.132 (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• Maybe have it blocked for how long will the IP may remain with the blocked acc? 98.114.104.129 (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• (Comment from uninvolved editor) Thainguyencc should have their block reinstated and extended for block evasion. I find it unusual that no one has done that already. Epicgenius (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• My understanding was that block evasions should be indeffed. If I've got that (or anything else about this thread) wrong, I'm quite happy for another admin to do whatever is appropriate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Not on IPs. Only on sockpuppet accounts. The main account definitely needs reblocking though... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sock of just-blocked editor

The just-created editor User:You find the truth painful appears to be a sock of the just-blocked editor User:Cognoscerapo. YTheir contribution list is short enough to peruse for the evidentiary diffs, but see this and this in particular. The block was based on a violation of WP:ARBMAC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Indef blocked by Ponyo per WP:NOTHERE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

A CU might want to take a look, and if there was block evasion, extend Cognoscerapo's block, although I think WP:DUCK is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The geolocation between You find the truth painful and Cognoscerapo certainly makes a connection  Possible, however due to the IP range hopping I can't lock down a rangeblock. A liberal dose of reverting, rev-deleting, blocking, and semi-protection will essentially deny them the platform they're looking for. If they continue with the physical threats then it may need to be brought to WMF attention for a more thorough check. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

As Ponyo found out, our friend is now actively IP hopping. De728631 (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Cognoscerapo is, in turn, likely a sock of somebody else. He cites a policy in an edit summary via shortcut WP:RS in his tenth edit overall [294], and knows how to use ref tags and cite web template in the twelfth [295]. It's not rocket science, I agree, but it is consistent with someone having significant editing experience.No such user (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) In this case, a SPI might need to be opened and then have a checkuser compare the accounts. Epicgenius (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:You find the truth painful is an Evlekis-sock. Another AN/I thread on Evlekis has recently been closed, below. I think that Cognoscerapo could be somebody else's sock, but I'm not certain. If a sock, the sockmaster would appear to be somebody on the opposite site of our Balkan disputes, although it wouldn't be the first time that Evlekis has used false-flags... anyway, I think there is still a real possibility that Cognoscerapo is a real editor, it's not an open-and-shut case. bobrayner (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of which, Evlekis has returned with 217.36.124.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Any chance of a block? bobrayner (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If I may speak here. I would like to draw attention to certain things which I believe constitute BOOMERANG. Without submitting too much in the way of examples, I see Bobrayner has embarked on a crusade to cancel EVERYTHING submitted from the accounts these past months which were recently blocked DESPITE the period having passed peacefuly and the contributions evidently being in good faith and there being nothing tendentious about any of them. One example is here[296]. Now naturally if striking out banned users is a real requirement (this coupled with the notion of acting as a proxy for banned users is forbidden) then may the community please have an explanation as to how and why this "banned user edit"[297] is not subjected to the same "rv sock" policy, instead pushed by the claimant. When will the community finally wake up and realise Bobrayner edits in gross violation of all NPOV matters on Balkan-related subjects and that is all this is about. Examine the content and spot the difference between the edits he "strikes out" or "reverts sock" to those that he ignores/restores to "banned user" revision. 217.36.124.203 (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The IP has now been hard-blocked 1 year, in accordance with the filed SPI. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your swift response. bobrayner (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Anti-semitic attacks & legal threats at Talk:Ruggero Santilli

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

---

Ok, this post by an account with the name of an organisation is the last straw. The report mentioned is at [298] and is titled "Documentation Of Jewish Dishonesty And Corruption On Prof. Santilli's Article At Wikipedia". The editor User:ScientificEthics quotes someone atTalk:Ruggero Santilli saying ""hi luca / we have completed our investigation over wiki's scam on dr santilli / all editors are jews / all non-jews are cut out / all decisions are made privately via emails now monitored / talks are just a smokescreen / the boss is the level six zionist weinberg s / rubin a is just the puppet executioner / the fringe dubbing is their slimy signature prohibited by wiki's rules calling for response in kind / we provide in attachment names and profiles of all these scammers and their nicknames so that your committee can deliver a legal punch in their most tender personal and academic spots / adnan ". See various other comments by SPAs and an IP who is almost certainly Santilli. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support block for outright trolling. The comments aren't even serious, and if one wanted to make a comment that they were, then the editor is suffering from severe delusions. Signed, Level 7 Zionist.

  I wouldn't bet that the comments aren't serious. I've read some of Santilli's work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block for ScientificEthics (talk · contribs) and his little sock too (Zkurko (talk · contribs)) for very obvious trolling and WP:NOTHERE. LouisTheSmall (talk · contribs) is problematic too, but I can't tell if they are a sock of ScientificEthics. - MrX 15:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• LouisTheSmall is almost certainly a sock too and should be blocked. Is there an SPI somewhere? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Indefed. Either its plain racism or racist trolling. Now the conspiracy will spread to include white males, I guess. Or I will have my ethnicity changed... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment in cases like these, community should have no tolerance, and defectors engaging in speech of hate, causing racial intolerance alongside with trolling should be blocked without a warning. Regardless of SPI results, Zkurko (talk · contribs) should be blocked as well. Alex ^{discussion ★} 21:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef. That is just awful. - ^theWOLFchild 11:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef for malicious and repeated sockpuppetry and legal threats. Zkurko/Santilli can't even spell his sockpuppet's name consistently. His account now is Zkurko, yet he repeatedly manually signs both Zkurcko and Zkurko. How many socks is he using now? This one needs to be blocked as well. He is trying to get us to use content on his website which contains legal threats. Notice the wording of his heading ("Lie-admissible treatments of Irreversible systems"). Compare it to wording on his website, bottom half. This guy is not reliable in any sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Protect article. I request that the article Ruggero Santilli be protected so only reviewers/experienced editors can edit it. That will force socks and meats to use the talk page. We really do need some peace and quiet on that front. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef for malicious ad hominem attacks, faulty logic, tendentious editing, tenacious advocacy of fringe theories, bad writing and bad grammar, in that order, roughly. Yeah, I'm a Jew, but welcome productive editors of any religion, or none for that matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

---

An active SPI is ongoing:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zkurko

Editors interested in this subject may come here first, so please reopen this thread. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Abuse by Greenclayton

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

---

This is unacceptable. Could someone please take action against such an indefensible breach of one of the five pillars? - SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Well we are a load of idiots. Is there a pattern of this type of behaviour? If not, maybe they're having a really bad day or their account has been compromised. In any case, it looks like they're retired.- MrX 17:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have bad days but I don't go around calling people cunts. Good riddance to bad rubbish! So has this now been swept under the carpet with no action? Anyone can stick a retirement tag up on their user page and carry on editing. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be a tad oversensitive. Just remove it and forget it. You're not going to get someone blocked for posting a single "c*nt" on your talk page. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Then that's a damned poor reflection on the state of Wiki that something so blatantly wrong and against one of the five pillars is so blithely ignored by such a casual dismissal. - SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Not much point in blocking someone who's retired. I would have imposed a block if not for the retirement claim. Nyttend (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W, I'll bear that in mind when you do something to piss me off and I come to your talk to call you a cunt then? Cassianto^Talk 20:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

...Thomas.W, who have you just called a cunt? -- Cassianto^Talk 00:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nyttend, You haven't answered my question: What's stopping this person from editing while they are "retired" then? ANI is only as good as the admins who police it, and judging by the representation on this thread so far, it's piss poor. Cassianto^Talk 20:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Cassianto, something like this would generally get a 24-hour block. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so there's no point in blocking someone who's not going to edit in the block time. And who retires and then comes back in less than a day? Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Never mind what I said in the previous comment. Turns out that I was wrong on one basic thing: last month, Greenclayton unretired about an hour and a half after retiring in the first place. Given that fact, we can't trust that he'll be gone even for a short period of time, so I've issued a 24-hour block. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll remember the next time I overstep all bounds of normal behaviour: I'll slap a retired tag only account and step away for 24 hours in the knowledge that the rules regarding interaction - one of our five core pullers - are so woefully and weakly defended that I'll get away with pretty much anything. Always good to see ANI backing up such behaviour - great work going on here! - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Since you didn't answer my question, I will assume that this is a one time transgression by this user, so no, an admin is probably not going to block this user who has stated that they are no longer editing. If they start editing again, and if they continue making personal attacks, then perhaps an admin will decide it's worth incurring the inevitable flood of criticism that comes with almost every admin action. You should let this go, and move on with the incredibly rewarding task of building the world's best encyclopedia. - MrX 22:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• overstep all bounds of normal behaviour

Seriously, one vulgar, obscene word crosses not one bound or two bounds but all bounds of normal behavior? I know you're a veteran editor so I'm surprised one obscenity is the vilest behavior you've seen. I'm only recently active since the summer and I see worse tirades that this every week. I'm not saying that posting "cunt" is not uncivil, it's just not extraordinary. There are editors in good standing who insult other editors on a regular basis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Great work all round. I now know exactly what I need to do should I ever want to drop into the gutter and call someone a cunt. Toothless and pointless place this if ANI is too gutless to bother with breaching one of our core pillars. Why do we bother even having it if people can't be bothered with something so blatant and obvious. Shameful. - SchroCat (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to call me cunt, or whatever else you want, on my talk page if you think it will help. I wish I had a better answer for you. Unfortunately, There is no justice. - MrX 23:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The only "stick" I have now is the one which you have handed me. The abuse on my talk page has seemingly been ignored and to some extent endorsed by the lack of action which has been displayed here. What you have done now is open a floodgate for editors to abuse other editors and to avoid a reprimand simply by sticking a retired tag on their page. Also, your sycophantic claim of this being "the world's best encyclopedia" is now rendered questionable; maybe one day many years ago it was, but certainly not now. Not if we have people like yourselves who appear to stick their head in the sand when situations like this arise. Cassianto^Talk 00:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a rather childish response MrX - and no, I don't see you as trying to be helpful with comments like that. I do not wish to call anyone a cunt, but sadly it seems ANI IS all rather spineless and toothless to those who breach one of the unbreachable rules. As to this being against someone who has stated that they are no longer editing, it's a great way to avoid any censure, and if a block is applied by someone with standards, then the user will have to face up to the fact that they have transgressed before they are allowed to start editing. Sadly I don't hold out any hope for any action in this rather bizarre set I up (seriously, what's the point of having Wp:FivePillars, if even those who are supposed to safeguard it cannot be bothered to do anything. I've always considered ANI to be a rather pointless and disappointing place, but the last shreds of any positive thoughts I had about have evaporated in this rather ridiculous and shameful episode. Why do we bother having five pillars if admins can't be bothered with them. Shouldn't we just fess up and admit that our core principals are an utter waste of time and effort, ditch them as being unnecessary and pointless and go round calling everyone a cunt that we don't like?

- SchroCat (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

To both Cassianto and SchroCat: What would you like to happen in response to Cassianto being called a cunt? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• User:Greenclayton was blocked for 24 hours; they did not post an unblock request nor have they edited since the block expired. This seems over with and this thread can be closed. No? Rgrds. --64.85.216.192 (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As the oft repeated mantra goes, "blocks are preventative not punitive". Admins do not have the power to send an editor to the naughty corner beyond blocking them and removing talk page access. The civility pillar has always the most difficult to deal with since one person's grave offence is another's shrug of the shoulders. As such, the only way has been to cater to the middle which is to block for repeated offences and warn for one offs. ANI is toothless, to an extent, because editors have made it so. Blackmane (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Admin restored BLP and has threatened to block me.

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

---

I removed this edit from the BLPN board because (mostly) it suggests about a BLP subject "seems to be an incredibly mentally ill person." The user re-instated it again, and I removed it again. GiantSnowman has threatened to block me stating "The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia". Removing BLP violations are supposed to be done immediately. Can someone here please look at this.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you redact the part you mention or did you blank the whole thing? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason you have not asked GiantSnowman about this on his talk page? I see that you responded on your own talk page, but it is possible he did not see that. Also, you are supposed to notify GiantSnowman that this issue has surfaced at ANI. Please do so. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman notified. Admiral Caius (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• No Two kinds of pork ("TKOP") did not try and attempt to discuss the matter with me before bringing it to ANI and no he did not notify me about this thread either. TKOP removed another editor's entire post, as opposed to simply redacting the offending part - not once but twice. I have already asked that user in question, Sceptre (talk · contribs), to re-phrase their comment. GiantSnowman 18:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So the BLP violation remains in place till the user who made it gets around to retracting it? Is that how we do things now? Interesting.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not hard to redact it, something I meant to do earlier but got distracted by real life, hence why I have hardly been online this afternoon. What you do not do is to blank the entire post. Twice. GiantSnowman 18:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Blanking its the lesser sin than reinserting a known BLP violation. One is bad etiquette, one is damaging to the project.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Not that I particularly want to, but one could quite easily support Sceptre's assertion. The matter seems to be covered in numerous reliable sources. GiantSnowman 19:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If it's not a BLP violation then you shouldn't have asked that it be removed and you shouldn't have redacted it yourself. Take a stand, was it a BLP violation or not? You're playing both sides.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I have attempted to reach a compromise and minimize the drama. That has obviously backfired. GiantSnowman 19:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Cube lurker, quite stirring drama to satisfy some anti-admin axe.--v/r - TP 19:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There was no drama stiring intended. The admin reinserted material, and then asked the poster to remove it. That legitamately concerned me. Now he's defending the material in the first place. WTF am I supposed to think now. The first thing that has to be decided, is is the info BLP compliant or not. Decisions being made with that being undecided become a cluster.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of your intentions, you aren't helping this discussion at all. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to answer several items at once. 1) No, I didn't try to talk to GiantSnowman on his talk page. I was stepping out for a bit, and wanted to see if others could resolve this in my absence. 2) No I didn't notify him of this discussion. I wasn't aware that I was supposed too. And upon learning he was an admin, I figured he would see this here anyways. I extend my apologies to GiantSnowman. 3) No I didn't just remove the offending portion. My input device at the time was not conducive to full text editing, and considering the rest of the post in question was an off-topic rant, I took the lazy way out and used the undo button. Again, my apologies. 4) Having performed the unpleasant task of actually reading/watching sources related to this BLP, I wasn't unaware of any reliable source stating the subject was mentally ill. Some sources called him many things, most of them unpleasant, but mentally ill wasn't one of them. Maybe I missed some, but the ones that even broached the subject claimed he had never been diagnosed. 6) The comment in question is part of a thread about an edit-war removing BLP from a discussion page. What's the word for lobbying for a time-out with a fraction of a second left and getting served with a 109 yard runback to lose the game? Iron Bowl-y?Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your humility sounds sincere. In the future I would encourage you to avoid bringing something to ANI if it can be resolved directly with the user first. This board is generally for when something is so urgent or flagrant that attempting to resolve it with the user would be pointless. I think we can safely conclude that no administrator intervention is needed for this case. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Stjohn2001 disruption on Penn State football season articles

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

---

Stjohn2001 has made a total of 14 edits to Wikipedia, dating back to November 24 of this year, and all 14 have been to Penn State football articles (e.g. 2012 Penn State Nittany Lions football team, 2011 Penn State Nittany Lions football team, etc.) changing links that are to be Penn State child sex abuse scandal to Sandusky child sex abuse scandal (example evidence here here, here, and here. Upon noticing this (note: I reverted the first 12, but have refrained from reverting the final two as though it would not violate 3RR as it is not occurring within a 24-hour period, it may not be blatant vandalism, as the contributor may be acting in good faith), I placed this message on his talk page, and upon him doing it subsequently, I posted this one, 9 and 11 minutes respectively prior to his final two instances of link changing. There may be a I didn't hear that issue, or it may be that he/she does not know how to use talk pages, but the bottom line is, good faith or not, it is growing disruptive, and at this point, I would request a tentative block to prevent future disruption until the contributor agrees not to further change the links, or the situation in some other way resolves itself. Thank you! (contributor notified here, and I brought it to ANI rather than AIV as I cannot be sure it is vandalism, as s/he may not be acting in bad faith). Go Phightins! 20:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look like this user ever got a welcome message, so I left {{Welcomevandal}} to make sure the user has seen the initial guidance on policies. He's not doing mobile edits, so he should be seeing the notifications of talk page messages. I also didn't see a warning that clearly mentioned the possibility of a block; I've left one. I'd give one more chance to see if the user gets the messages, but whatever the reason, if he does it again, I'd then support a short-term block for disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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