THC Science

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Before posting:
- Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1135	1136	1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144
1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
462	463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Wikihounding from אומנות

I suppose one could argue I'm invooolved in this one way or another, but it's time to close it with no administrative action taken, for reasons explained by four respondents, only one of which was yours truly. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

"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.
...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.
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.
...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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I nominated the GA for Eurovision Song Contest 2011, review talk page is Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2011/GA1.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but primary discussions for a GA review are between the nominator and the reviewer, right?
Why did אומנות (talk · contribs) post comments directly to the reviewer's talk page (time-stamped 00:58), when he was not the nominator?
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.
I assumed good faith when אומנות (talk · contribs) posted a comment thanking the reviewer, despite him not being the nominator.
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.
He then continues by posting this perdsonalised attack on the same GA review page.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Well, אומנות of course. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

GERAC

I'm currently engaged in a big dispute with User:Alexbrn and User:QuackGuru as they try to take the German Acupuncture Trials article apart. The argument mainly centers around whether the Federal Joint Committee (Germany) can be considered a reliable source, and whether the GERAC are notable at all (I think they are, since they were one of the main reasons why the Federal Joint Committee decided that acupuncture is reimbursable by the statutory health insurances, for low back pain and knee pain). But these questions are already being discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard and at AfD (since Alexbrn has already started a case there).
The reason I ask for input here is the way these two users are going at it. Even though discussion is ongoing, QuackGuru has been tagging the article excessively [33] and deleting sources he doesn't like [34], while Alexbrn just nukeandpaved almost the entire article when he came to join the discussion today [35]. After reducing the article to a stub, he nominated it for deletion [36] On my objection, I was simply told I obviously don't understand WP policy regarding secondary sources [37]. When I reverted his nukeandpave, he threatened me to be blocked because of edit warring [38].
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

At the AfD page, a user conduct discussion regarding Alexbrn was recommended [39]... Is this the right place or do I have to take it to a special AN? --Mallexikon (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [40], here: [41] and here: [42]. I shouldn't have to ask someone three times to stop doing something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [43] [44] so he has my respect for that. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[45]
[46] (too many edits to point out)
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]

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)[reply]

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 [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56].

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)[reply]

This user was warned time and again on his talk page [57] [58] [59]. 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^[1] as well as sources from Amnesty International ^[2] and Russia Today news, ^[3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[4] Red and black partisan (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.^[5] Red and black partisan (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[6] Red and black partisan (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours. If it continues an indefinite block is probably next. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Immediate resumption after block expired doing same stuff. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)~~[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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?

A (supposed) subject of a BLP states on the talk page that he feels a comment was "untrue and libelous". Was this legal threat?
Did User:James Cantor have the right to alter this user's comments to remove the word "libelous"?
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

BLP and edit-warring issue at Disappearance of Natalee Holloway

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

The link has been removed three times today by three separate editors (including myself), but each time has been restored by Wehwalt (talk · contribs) ([60], [61], [62]). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."[63]? 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[64] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[65] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,[66] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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".[67])

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.[68]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

May I suggest if you don't know how to figure that out yourself, you might not be helpful here? [69] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[70] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[71]-- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

You misled newcomers to the page regarding consensus on the title
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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:John

John has apologised for using unparliamentary language. Uninvolved contributors are invited to weigh in on the content dispute at the article's talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[72] 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 [73] 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 [74]. Collect (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

User:John (2)

Nothing going to be solved here. WP:RFC/U is that way. Toddst1 (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

See [76] 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 [77] 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 [78] Collect (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Community ban proposal of Jude Enemy

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

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)[reply]

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. - Mr X 01:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Support though this is really moot, accounts can be reported to the stewards and globally locked. --Rs chen7754 02:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support per Rschen7754. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon

MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon (talk · contribs) blocked for two weeks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

See my talk page: [79]

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.[80] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

We have a good 5 reverts between the two of them here [81] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

~~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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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) [reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Mass rollback needed

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This [82] is completely uncalled for and undermines the Wikipedia:Clean start policy. Reverting the editor's contributions with summaries like this [83] and this [84] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

<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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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 [85] is taking a giant shit on this policy from a great height. Beyond My Ken should not be interrogating [86] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [87][88][89][90][91]... 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. 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 [92]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[93] 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,[94] 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.[95] You need to stop contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests."[96] Rivertorch mentioned on my talk page that there may be some moderate WP:COMPETENCE issues.[97] 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.[98] 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)[reply]

The comments from last month on linking to my perceived CV [99] 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 [100] . 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [101] 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. [102].

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

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". [103][104][105][106] [107]AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [108]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? [109][110][111] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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". [112] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support - per failure to get it. p.s. came to my attention on Islam and Africa. --Inayity (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support - warning and topic ban as proposed above by User:AndyTheGrump. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support We have enough POV pushing. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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

Special:Contributions/Markwpowell64

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Eric Corbett

Every time a user complains about User:Eric Corbett, God kills a kitten. The edit warring on Wells Cathedral has stopped and the article has been unprotected. No further administrator action required for now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Then another editor drastically modified what I uploaded.[113] And then the whole thing was reverted.[114] Oy vey.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then reinstated [115] :) --Epipelagic (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Endorse. For reasons stated by Epipelagic and Viriditas.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Please delete Tyron Balthazar

Deleted by Kudpung. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

User:Gryffindor

Could someone please have a quiet word with the amdiinistrator User:Gryffindor who is currently stalking my edits and trolling by adding info boxes (full of errors) against consensus (even on a well known FA Buckingham palace) and generally being tiresome by making small meaningless edits and comments to other pages which I have heavily edited or begun and am known to be heavily involved with. It would be good if this could be nipped in the bud before it get's out of hand. Thank you. Giano 09:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) - User:Giano, perhaps you should provide some diffs to support your complaint? And have you made any other attempts at dispute resolution before coming to ANI? - ^theWOLFchild 16:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I haven't the time or inclination to go digging about and copy pasting diffs where trolls are concerned. They are easy enough to see in his contributions. If admins won't monitor their own kind here, then I am more than capable of dealing with the matter myself. I just thought it was procedure to flag up problem editors here first. My mistake obviously - it won't happen again. Giano 17:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close. Leaving messages on talk pages and asking to discuss does not constitute whatever User:Giano is complaining about. Gryffindor (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) - User:Gryffindor, do you think it's appropriate to ask that an ANI against you be immediately closed before it's be discussed and the issues evaluated? - ^theWOLFchild 16:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I see 2RR apiece from Gryffindor ([116], [117]) and Giano ([118], [119]). Leaving messages on talk pages and asking to discuss is okay, but not if it's accompanied with a blind revert to the right version lacking an edit summary. Trouts all round. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am also referring to his stalking of pages which I have edited just to make irritating edits Vorontsov Palace, Buckingham Palace, Talk:Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain, Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain, Halton House and Marble Arch. Al in the space of 12 hours. He does not edit in the historical architectural field at all, so what is he doing there if not trolling. I'm in the middle of writing pages I don't want to have to spare time on his meaningless stalking and trolling. Giano 10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel better Giano, there's an infobox at Rainthorpe Hall that you can remove, and you have my word I will not edit war over its re-addition (although if you'd like to improve it to, say, B class, while you're there, that would be nice....). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is very horrible indeed. I'll expand that later when I'm back from the Crimea, unless our new architectural expert transforms it into a GA first. Giano 10:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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 [120], [121] and many others. Also, the editor has engaged in many personal attacks in edit summaries, including [122], [123], and [124] and continues to insert wrong information even after being reverted. He also left a warning on my talk page at [125] accusing me of vandalism after I reverted his edit. Smartyllama (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tendentious referencing of other people's motives

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Possible sock but unknown sockmaster

Blocked as a sock of Wiki brah (talk · contribs). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

Unresponsive new account adding unenclopedic copyrighted content

The indef will continue until copyright clue improves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

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

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

^ http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KlzFldNd6XM
^ http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/libya-al-gaddafi-loyalists-risk-revenge-death-sentences-2013-08-02
^ http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qLsxP0b_h6g
^ "Nine Libyan forces killed in clashes with Qaddafi loyalists". Al Arabiya. 22 September 2012. Retrieved 28 September 2012.
^ http://voiceofdetroit.net/2012/01/05/resistance-in-libya-continues-green-flag-flies-in-many-cities-heavy-fighting-in-tripoli/
^ http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/11/23/178863.html

[1] ttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KlzFldNd6XM

[2] ttp://www.amnesty.org/en/news/libya-al-gaddafi-loyalists-risk-revenge-death-sentences-2013-08-02

[3] ttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qLsxP0b_h6g

[4] "Nine Libyan forces killed in clashes with Qaddafi loyalists". Al Arabiya. 22 September 2012. Retrieved 28 September 2012.

[5] ttp://voiceofdetroit.net/2012/01/05/resistance-in-libya-continues-green-flag-flies-in-many-cities-heavy-fighting-in-tripoli/

[6] ttp://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/11/23/178863.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 646: / Line 646: @@
 == Citing Own Research ==
+<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{quote box2
+  | title =
+  | title_bg = #999
+  | title_fnt = white
+  | quote = {{u|Hkettani}} has been blocked indefinitely for the suspected impersonation of [http://www.fhsu.edu/informatics/faculty/Kettani/ 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 [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]], or at [[WP:RFAR|requests for arbitration]] or [[WP:ARCA|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. [[User:De728631|De728631]] ([[User talk:De728631|talk]]) 16:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
+  | width = 30%|halign=left}}
+:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> {{#switch: {{PAGENAME}} | Administrators&#39; noticeboard/Incidents = | Administrators&#39; noticeboard = | Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.}} No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top-->
+----
 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 [http://rpsonline.com.sg/rpsweb/9789810772444.html]. So I added some results in [[Islam in Asia]] and other continent and cited by book. Interestingly, some editors such as [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]], [[User:Jreferee|Jreferee]] and [[User:Dolescum|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.  [[User:Hkettani|Hkettani]] ([[User talk:Hkettani|talk]]) 17:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
@@ Line 790: / Line 800: @@
 *'''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) <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:EatsShootsAndLeaves|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">ES</font>]][[User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">&#38;L</font>]]</span> 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. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 15:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
+----
+:''The discussion above is closed.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> {{#switch: {{PAGENAME}} | Administrators&#39; noticeboard/Incidents = | Administrators&#39; noticeboard = | Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.}} No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive bottom --></div>
 == [[Special:Contributions/Markwpowell64]] ==

Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Ruderalis

Revision as of 16:17, 25 November 2013

Wikihounding from אומנות

Administrative findings

GERAC

User:Someone not using his real name personal attacks

User:Red_and_black_partisan

Supercarslover

Legal threats

BLP and edit-warring issue at Disappearance of Natalee Holloway

Mark Arsten's behaviour

Purpose of ANI

Per Georgewilliamherbert request

Kww and Wehwalt

Timing

Where is this going?

Request to Close

User:John

User:John (2)

Community ban proposal of Jude Enemy

MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon

Mass rollback needed

Wikipedia:Clean start

User:Wikifan115 -- paid advocacy?

Citing Own Research

Warning? And a Topic ban?

Special:Contributions/Markwpowell64

User:Eric Corbett

Please delete Tyron Balthazar

User:Gryffindor

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

Widespread German IP vandalism on automobile articles

Wiki-PR editor on Jimbo's talk page?

IP adding incorrect information to article, engaging in personal attacks

Tendentious referencing of other people's motives

Possible sock but unknown sockmaster

Unresponsive new account adding unenclopedic copyrighted content

Leave a Reply