Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:11, 22 November 2013

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Polemical use of sandboxes by thewolfchild

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

thewolfchild (talk · contribs) appears to be using his/her sandbox histories as places to store WP:UP#POLEMIC information regarding folks s/he is holding a grudge against. The chronicling followed by blanking is far too consistent to be anything other than a sneaky way around WP:UP#POLEMIC. Users and discussions chronicled:

• BilCat (talk · contribs)
• Nick Thorne (talk · contribs) , ,
• Toddst1 (talk · contribs) ,

This is not the first time this has been a problem with this editor: This user has previously been blocked for maintaining similar, more obviously polemical lists after this discussion on ANI.

I think that at the bare minimum, these sandbox pages should be deleted or the many polemical edits subject to revision deletion.

There was a proposal to indefinitely block thewolfchild on ANI last month put forth by EatsShootsAndLeaves (talk · contribs) and Rklawton (talk · contribs) as thewolfchild was previously "unblocked with the understanding that any such repeat of CIVIL and BATTLE would mean an indef block immediately with no chance of unblock" and appeared once again to be violating those standards. The motion was archived without achieving consensus. Toddst1 (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Couple of items of disruptive I noted, it seems the old problems never went away:

Talk:Aircraft carrier (and yes, we all know bill and nick hate this and are completely opposed. thanks anyway) Don't think that was needed or helped really given the previous irritations with this editor. See also removing content where there is clearly no consensus to do so in Talk:Aircraft carrier and then wikilawyering over WP:BRD

Requested not to post at User talk:BilCat when that user had already indicated they were disengaging. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the most recent status of the sandbox before it was blanked , it appears he was drafting a complaint to be filed somewhere. I am inclined to let it slide given the relatively conciliatory message he left BilCat after blanking the page. Whether his overall behavior was worthy of an indef block is not something I looked into, but I don't think this user was trying to publicly shame the above editors by using his sandbox in that way. --Jprg1966  15:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A "concilliatory" message posted directly after he was specifically asked not to...sometimes you cool things off by not posting. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

As the victim of long-term harassment by banned trolls, including in the past week on my talk page, I expect users to stay off my page when requested, as I have done multiple times with this user, including today. I understand that he was upset when I referred to him "The Child", in reference to both his user name and his childish behavior at Talk:Aircraft carrier, but there are forums such as this one that he can use to address that. I am sorry that I allowed the whole situation to escalate the way it did, and I understand that the name calling is inappropriate, and I had previously said that I would not do it again, and I did not. However, TWC changed my comments to remove it, and that is also inappropriatewhich I had reverted. Please note that he has asked others to "Stay off my talk page", even today, apparently for this neutral note.

I am still extremely upset at his baiting of Nick and me at Talk:Aircraft carrier, as WCM reported above, in which his comments had the effect of marginalizing any response Nick or I could have made. This was completely uncalled for on his part, as this was a brand new discussion that he started, and I have yet to receive the apology that I asked for here. That said, I should have walked away from the later discussions when they got contentious again rather than continue to respond to him, which escalated the feud. I let my own stubborness keep me in the conversation after I should have walked away, as I feared him taking a lack of response as permission to continue his edits as he saw fit.

I'd like to propose an interaction ban between myself and TWC, should he be allowed to contiue editing on WP. I have respected his desire that I stay off his talk page, and I fully expect him to stay off of mine, except in the case of notices he is required to leave, not including "warnings", such as this one. I would like TWC to be excluded from editing Aircraft carrier, and participating in discussions at Talk:Aircraft carrier, directly or indirectly. Nick and I have both been long-term editors on that page, but I will refrain from editing there if that is imposed on me by the community. However, Nick is an old carrier pilot, and I think restricting his access to those page would be too punitive.

I'd also highly recommend that TWC seek wiki-mentorship. He has continued to show a lack of respect for the talk and user pages of others, as discussed here and here. Even though he has now promised not to do this again, I find it extremely troubling that he felt he needed to edit others' user pages in the first place. He doesn't seem to respect limits on his interactions with others, while at the same time making demands on us when we "offend" him in any way, including refactoring our comments.

Thanks for your consideration. - BilCat (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

For those that haven't followed the links, I had a very similar problem with TWC last month which Bbb23 (talk · contribs) brought to ANI as Ongoing harassment of administrator by editor after I had asked for help. We're seeing more than one repeat problem with TWC. Toddst1 (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

And which this harassment has continued. - BilCat (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (Non-administrator comment) He certainly knows that the list violates WP: POLEMIC, otherwise he wouldn't be trying to hide it in the page history. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No, TWC's removal of that material predates this ANI thread by 3 hours. Presumably, TWC considered opening a some form of dispute resolution, ANI, or Arbcom thread himself and then reconsidered. That's not a violation of WP:POLEMIC to collect threads for dispute resolution. No evidence of hiding since it happened before this ANI thread.--v/r - TP 02:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite block

• Support indefinite block. In the previous ANI thread last month, I supported an indefinite block of TWC. His subsequent behavior is essentially along the same lines as the behavior that justified the block then. Again, he refactors other editors' talk pages for what he perceives as slurs (calling him a "child"). This discussion on The Bushranger's talk page sums it up nicely. He internalizes everything, he lets it fester, he does pretty much what he pleases to remedy the alleged horrible wrongs done to him, and he keeps track and/or plans his revenge (?) in his sandbox. Why he wasn't blocked in October eludes me, but apparently no administrator (who looked at it) felt there was a consensus for the block (not that one is required by policy).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This wasn't using his nickname, it was calling him a child. Would you like to be called a child? I think his reaction was quite understandable. And no, a block is not justified here. Jonathunder (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't like it when waitresses call me "honey" at coffeeshops, but I don't think I'd mind someone saying I'm younger - even much younger - than I am. :-) But that's not the point. Let's assume it wasn't nice for x to call TWC a child on x's talk page. That doesn't give TWC the right to remove it, to label it a personal attack (which even in real life, let alone Misplaced Pages, it is not), and to warn the editor not to engage in personal attacks. In any event, that's just one factor among many in support of the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree, Bbb23 - "The Child" was an intentional slur. BilCat even admits to it above.--v/r - TP 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, it was intentional. I never said it wasn't. In fact I said it "wasn't nice". The correct thing for TWC would have been to ignore it. Removing it and issuing a warning is ... .--Bbb23 (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sadly, support TWC reminds me of someone I know who has a serious addiction: when that friend is off the drug, they're a nice person - would bend over backwards for you, and can contribute to society. One taste of the devil's-tool-of-choice, and they're unmanageable, and I wouldn't let them in the same room as a divorce attorney (as much as I dislike divorce attorney's, I wouldn't wish my stoned friend upon them). Now, I'm not saying twc would bend over backwards for anyone (nor am I saying they're a druggie), but they continue to have zero fricking clue about this project. They continually accuse others of personal attacks where none have ever existed; they continue to pull bullshit moves that annoy and are also against policy, and they simply cannot get along nicely with others; period. Maybe this is an age thing - put an indef block, but insist that WP:OFFER be 1 year out...any appeals within one year will be automagically declined, so just lock their talkpage for a year. This individual has been a timesink on ANI and elsewhere for too long ES&L 00:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Maintain my support TWC was offered mentoring in the past, and because he was not on the immediate verge of banning, he steadfastly declined. The only reason he would even consider accepting now is because he's 1 admin closure away from his site ban. That's simply playing games, and as much as I admire the attempt and the person making the offer, any acceptance of mentoring is pure bullshit/false ES&L 00:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support with reluctance, with the caveat about being involved in the issue. After looking into the past behavior of this editor it's clear attempts to help them become a productive contributior simply aren't being listened to. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As a completely uninvolved editor who has not interacted with almost everyone in this dispute I don't see anything coming close to sanctionable. The only incident that is recent is in response to Bilcat calling TWF as "the child". As far as I'm concerned such a statement is calling him a child and flies afoul of WP:NPA, and as such TWF is within guidelines at WP: TPG to edit the comment to remove the personal attack. What's more, his warning to Bilcat is in line with having received a Personal Attack and as such the claims of WP:IDHT by Bushranger regarding the talk page discussion just don't seem to fly. And finally the only diff by Toddst1 which is recent appears to be more of an intended noticeboard filing that TWF dropped. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "his warning to Bilcat is in line with having received a Personal Attack" - except he didn't receive any personal attack, and my IDHT mention had nothing to do with the talk page discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And therein is where I disagree. I am constituting that Bilcat's re-writing of TWF's username as "The Child" as a personal attack against his character. And I'm not seeing any Diff's which correspond to WP:IDHT as such I can't support that assertion. In order for me to support an indef block I would first have to see a recent incident that is sanctionable on it's own merits coupled with a history that is related to what the person is being sanctioned for. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You oppose without knowledge of this editor's history? Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I oppose because you haven't put forth any recent activity that merit's sanctions. I put forth two criteria to support a indef block, the first criteria the recent activity is why we block, the second criteria the history determines how long. Without any recent activity you're just digging up old issues. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think what you're seeing is a bunch of supports so far saying in effect the same thing: "In the context of all the previous bullshit, these recent issues are viewed in a different light and we're tired of it. The project would be better with out thewolfchild." It's not that the stuff with BilCat, Derekbridges or the sandboxes on its own would merit such a response, rather, for those who have followed the issue, these are all repeats of previous problems. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I see five diffs from you, 3 of which are older than the last ANI, one which is a link to the archive of the last ANI, and one which is about the recent personal attack. I am dismissing the 3 older ones because they are old, I see nothing wrong with linking the location of an ANI discussion, and finally it was a personal attack. There goes the original filing. If you're tired of bullshit, I recommend two things. One, stop looking for it. And two, stop throwing it. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed you have a total of 160 edits, 75% to talk. While everyone is welcome to comment at ANI, it definitely explains your context. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You know it's usually a sign of a weak argument when they have to resort to commenting on the person and not what they say. I believe such arguments are called Ad Hominem. --Kyohyi (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Usually, but not always. Also, note that the edit where TWC re-factored BillCat's post occurred on my talk page from which TWC has be specifically requested to stay off here. - Nick Thorne 01:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kyohyi, I wouldn't put too much stock in thewolfchild's seeming offense at being called "the child". If you look back through his lengthy history of arguments you can see that he has a long history of misusing the usernames of those who oppose him. In the last AN/I I pointed out that he had created a pun from User:Nick Thorne's name in a talkpage table calling him a prick (Get it? thorn - prick? Very droll.) Another clear example can be seen here (User:Calton's name was shortened to Cal and kept that way despite Calton's objections) It's an older example, but it's quite typical of thewolfchild's style. As far as recent examples of actionable offenses go, I direct your attention to the discussion at Talk:Amber Heard. Please keep in mind that this is a user who has been unblocked from an indef block on the condition that "any further violation of our policies/guidelines WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BATTLEGROUND will likely result in a new indefinite block that cannot be appealed." -Thibbs (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

First for Nick, my argument had nothing to do with if he took offense, my argument that it was a personal attack. If he has engaged in personal attacks, then appropriate actions should be taken towards him, my point was that he was attacked, and his response was within policy and guidelines. Now regards to Thibbs's comment, TWF's first comment under the section of Uncle. The last sentence was uncivil and unneeded, coupled with the unblock requirement I will strike my oppose. However I will note that he had a valid argument prior to his use of uncivil rhetoric and I would rather see him take up mentorship to drop that tendency then an indef block. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Along with Bbb23, ESL and several others, I supported an indefinite block of TWC in the previous ANI thread last month. His subsequent behavior is essentially along the same lines as the behavior that justified the block then. So, in the context of all the previous bullshit, these recent issues called out above are viewed in a different light and at this point the project would be better with out thewolfchild. The release of the previous indefinite block came with a civility and WP:BATTLE parole. Since then, TWC has repeated numerous behaviors that have gotten him blocked previously and repeatly gets into petty harassment of other editors which clearly violates WP:BATTLE. It's time for this to stop. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It is time for this to stop, and I think that's within your control. Kyohyi has it right. Jonathunder (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block per Bbb23 and ESL. Bedrieger (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support with the appropriate caveat that I have obviously been an involved editor. I note that TWC has also edited my talk page recently, despite being specifically requested to stay off it here. This editor's behaviour has been beyond the pale for far too long. I find myself reluctant to visit articles about one of my main areas of interest because of his contiued POV pushing and inability or unwillingness to understand that other editors not agreeing with him is not non-collegiate behavior and is also not a personal attack. I believe we do the project a disservice if we allow him to continue along his merry way. TWC consumes enormous amounts of talk page time and that, in and of itself, is highly disruptive. I agree with BB2 & ESL, the sanctions need to be of sufficiently long term as to send the message that disrupting the project is not tolerated. - Nick Thorne 01:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment thewolfchild is quite clearly still engaged in the same old pattern of uncivil battleground behavior. As has been mentioned earlier, this current AN/I thread is the third complaint against thewolfchild for exactly the same thing. I am saddened to see that as few as 2 weeks after the last AN/I he got involved in a major fracas with User:Flyer22 and User:Kww at Talk:Amber Heard. Both of these users (neither of whom was involved in the prior AN/I) in fact commented in that engagement that thewolfchild was acting with exceptional combativeness. Did this cause even momentary self-reflection in thewolfchild? The talk page thread speaks for itself. I'm having difficulties squaring this behavior and the general administrative disinclination toward intervening with the warning from User:Amatulic (the admin who removed thewolfchild's indef block for aggressive editing) that "any further violation of our policies/guidelines WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BATTLEGROUND will likely result in a new indefinite block that cannot be appealed." Were these just empty words? I understand that CIVIL is one of Misplaced Pages's weakest policies when it comes to editors who are capable of positive content creation, and I recognize that determining whether someone is a BATTLEGROUNDer requires rather an in-depth review of the editor's history of interactions with his peers, so I'd recommend that when this proposal fails someone should file an RfC/U. Thewolfchild is a habitual wikiwarrior and is very open about his belief that the indef block he received last year for being overly aggressive was invalid. An actual examination of his conduct at wikipedia at any point since he started editing here is enough to turn one's stomach. -Thibbs (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - All I've seen from Thewolfchild is some blatantly disruptive behaviour. Abusive remarks/comments, downright false warning templates, generic tedentious editing, etc, etc. A previous indef, and a history of these such things, means that keeping them here is a huge net negative. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• And yes, the mentoring acceptance has held no weight with me whatsoever either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. I'd completely forgotten this bit of childish hypocrisy on thewolfchild's part until the message system pinged me today. Yes, I've been lurking and reading, but being reminded of the pure and utter hyopcrisy of his current whine prompts me to add my two cents. --Calton | Talk 08:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Has the offer of a WP:MENTOR been tried yet? I'm not going to comment on the proposal for sanctions, other than to say it is apparent that patience is running out on TWC. A WP:MENTOR may well be the last chance for him. I think its encouraging that User:BilCat who appears to have borne the brunt of the problematic behaviour suggested this as a means of resolving matters and as such would suggest its tried before an indefinite block. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block per Bbb23 and ESL. Continued violations of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF demonstrate that we cannot waste any more time on this individual's actions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support less drama, more collegiality, more editing. Rklawton (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose There is an essay somewhere that explains my position well, but I cannot find it. I don't believe that consistently poking a person until they react is ever a good basis for a indefinite block. We have not taken the moral high road here. BilCat has already admitted to some wrongdoing and I am sure Toddst1 is not completely absolved of fault here. But what we have is an issue of WP:POLEMIC which belongs at WP:MFD. But poking at someone and then saying "See how awful they are" when they react is never, ever, ever, and if I'm not clear, ever a good reason to block someone.--v/r - TP 15:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean WP:BEAR or my personal favourite Misplaced Pages:No angry mastodons. :0) Wee Curry Monster talk 19:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither. The one I'm referring to was in someone's user space. Poking the bear and no angry mastodons are close, but not quite what I'm trying to express. This particular essay was more about people who poke poke poke until they get a bad reaction out of someone, then they run to ANI to complain and say "see, I told ya'all this person was bad." I'm not saying thats exactly what's going on here, but that's exactly the feelings I get with this proposal for an indefinite block.--v/r - TP 19:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Geogre/Comic? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was looking for.--v/r - TP 19:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the poor guy just seems to be poked into battlegrounding at nearly every single talk page he has entered since he joined... Compare examples of his pre-indef-block style of engagement (e.g. this discussion or this one) to examples of his current-day style of interaction with his peers (e.g. here or here or here, etc. etc.). Do you see any improvement at all? Are there any talk pages where his engagement has been collegial and collaborative? Is this the sort of behavior one would normally expect from an editor whose indef block had been lifted under the condition that "any further violation of our policies/guidelines WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BATTLEGROUND will likely result in a new indefinite block that cannot be appealed"? It's an outside possibility that in each of these cases thewolfchild has just been pushed and pushed until he had no choice but to engage in nasty, drawn out, disruptive and uncivil sniping sessions. If so he has sure had the worst luck of any editor I've ever run into. The other possibility is that this is pattern behavior and that thewolfchild looks for any excuse to turn peaceable talk pages into battle arenas where he can play the wikiwarrior. We can let him carry on playing his wargames or we can do something about it. Restricting your examination narrowly to the POLEMIC charge is missing the forest for the trees here. -Thibbs (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but the evidence for this block is focused on the 'tree' of WP:POLEMIC. Haven't you ever read about what motivates me?--v/r - TP 19:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• I lost my previous edit by mishandling an edit conflict, but that's OK because coincidentally, the editors I edit conflicted with handled it: WK handled the Geogre comic part, and Thibbs just handled the other art.

So, Question: Can anyone who opposes an indef block point to one successful collaboration, or one peaceful talkpage thread that TWC has participated in since his previous block was lifted? I think that would help determine whether TWC needs someone to read him the riot act once more, or whether an indef block is the best solution after all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Is that really the right angle to look at it, Floq? Isn't the onus on those who want to block to provide the evidence? I see here some issues of POLEMIC which are easily addressed. Other than that, it looks like the same users poking. Where has TWC behaved poorly w/o the assistance of those who contributed to his last block?--v/r - TP 20:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking where has he violated POLEMIC w/o assistance? Or are you asking for evidence of the ongoing pattern of disruptive battlegrounding I mentioned above? Because I've already provided evidence that he has repeatedly and unapologetically violated the terms of his unblock. It's a matter of interpretation so I invite you to scrutinize his engagement with other editors for yourself. If you only want evidence of POLEMIC violations unrelated to the current complainants then I think you're out of luck. -Thibbs (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:TParis, I think it's the right angle to look at his overall behavior since his unblock, not just the WP:POLEMIC issue (in fact, the "polemic" issue is a little unimportant and silly, imho). I sort of defended TWC last month, as I though he and Toddst1 were mutually poking each other, but as I dig deeper I see that TWC appears to be, fundamentally, an editor here mainly to fight, both before and after his block was lifted. If that's the case, he should be re-indef blocked, no matter what minor issue brought him to ANI this time.

I agree, I suppose, that the "burden of proof" is probably not on him, but I plan to look at his contribs sometime this evening, and if I don't see some evidence of being able to get along with someone, I'm going to indef block him again. If I *do* find isolated instances of non-battleground behavior, I won't block right away myself, but a consensus seems to be developing along those lines any way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:Floquenbeam: Having looked through his contributions, I think he does valuable content work, especially regarding naval vessels. He does have difficulty, for whatever reasons, with interactions on talk pages. Perhaps some sort of mentorship could help. Jonathunder (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, Jona, I see you're not the first one to suggest that idea. Perhaps there's a remedy to be found in that. I'm certainly willing to give it a go, and volunteer for some mentoring. - thewolfchild 01:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to volunteer as TWC's mentor.--v/r - TP 02:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, worth a try, if you're willing. I suggest we give TP some breathing room to mentor TWC; it will either work, or it won't. If things go pear shaped, I'm sure TP will know what to do, and we won't need to be back here with another thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, TP. I'll msg you on your talk. - thewolfchild 02:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well this sounds like a potentially workable solution and I really hope it will produce positive results. TWC easily has the capacity to be an asset here if he is willing to make a bit of an effort at collegiality. I think a big thanks is owed TParis because I think this may be a heavy lift, and I agree that if this solution is accepted then TParis should be given some breathing room in his oversight. Obviously if we find ourselves back at AN/I for the exact same reasons after the mentorship has ended then this will be strong evidence that TWC's behavior is intractable, but I trust that TWC can and will avoid these behaviors in the future. -Thibbs (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Withdraw support for indefinite block. Although I have disagreed with TParis on points he has made in this thread, that, of course, doesn't diminish the respect I have for him. Based on his willingness to mentor TWC and TWC's willingess to be mentored, I no longer support an indefinite block at this time.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support User causes too much trouble. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Stern warning to BilCat against incivility

• Support stern warning - I'm proposing this in an effort to take responsibility for my own actions. I understand that labeling TWC "The Child" was uncalled for, nor matter the circumstances or context of the comments. While there is no consensus above that this was a Personal Attack, all, including myself, agree that, at the least, it was highly uncivil. If I engage in further uncivil behavior such as this, definable by the community, action should be taken against me, including short- or long-term blocks, as per policy.

Further, I have no intention of further direct interaction with TWC. It is clear that we are completely unable to work cooperatively together, regardless of the root cause. I would like that this be formalized as an interaction ban between me and TWC, terms to be defined by the community, if TWC is allowed to continue editing on WP, either now or in the future. - BilCat (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Good on you but I have a feeling that you've sufficiently warned yourself at this point and no further action is needed. Support interaction ban.--v/r - TP 15:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I would oppose a formal interaction ban at this stage, any record of such a ban will more than likely brought up, falsely I might add, in the future to imply User:BilCat is a problem editor and he isn't. I still have my topic ban from 2009 regularly flung in my face, despite the fact I behaved completely out of character when going through a bout of depression related to PTSD. I would suggest that User:BilCat and TWC undertake to agree to a voluntary interaction ban at this stage. If either breaks it, then that is the time to consider formalising it. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. It.s voluntary on my part already, but it's up to the community if it needs to be formalized now, or upon a later incident. - BilCat (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I would like to thank Bill for his comments taking responsibility for his actions. I just wanted the uncivil use of usernames to stop, and it has, so I see no need for any further action. As for a voluntary interaction ban, I already proposed one for myself with both Bill and Nick Thorne on the Aircraft carrier talk page, several days ago. I don't see why we can't self-manage this among ourselves. - thewolfchild 16:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck with the mentorship. Your article contributions have always been of good quality, and were never the issue here, beyond matters of consensus to make them. I wish you well. (Hopefully this reply doesn't violate the interaction ban!) - BilCat (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose We all do things we afterwards regret sometimes. BilCat is normally a stellar editor and will no doubt return to being one now that this momentary glitch is behind us. --John (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above. This indeed appears to be a momentary glitch. This may be naive, but I can imagine that due to their overlapping interests BilCat and TWC can actually enjoy an amicable working relationship down the road, after tempers cool, and after the mentorship. Misplaced Pages is at its best when its editors are able to interact like adults instead of giving each other the silent treatment. -Thibbs (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP violation in upcoming DYK

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

Can someone who knows how DYK works please remove the Murder of Ayakannu Marithamuthu DYK from the list of upcoming DYKs as a matter of urgency. It is asserting as a fact matters which have never been determined in court, and the persons accused of carrying out the alleged murder have never been convicted - a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. Please note in particular that the article makes clear that Marithamuthu's body has never been found, and the claim that he was cut up and cooked into a curry (the DYK hook) is nothing more than an allegation, albeit one supposedly made by one of the suspects. Frankly, I'm appalled that a flagrant BLP violation like this should ever have been proposed as a DYK. Do people not even read articles before proposing them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article was nominated by its author. @Bonkers The Clown:: any comments to offer us here? Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 00:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the BLP violations in the article need addressing, though I've removed the worst of them (I don't have access to all the sources, so can't check it completely). For now though, I'm more concerned about us not posting a BLP violation on the main page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You mean this Bonkers the clown???? ES&L 00:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There is only one. Though I suspect that we may well conclude after this that one is one too many... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I missed the unblock. Conditions are laid out here, User_talk:Bonkers_The_Clown/Archive_5#Blocked. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this article would directly breach the unblock conditions - but that is rather beside the point. Bonkers has not only grossly violated WP:BLP policy, but gone on to nominate the policy-violating article for inclusion on the front page, in a highly sensationalist manner. It strikes me that this is exactly the same sort of behaviour that led to the previous block. It seems to me that Bonkers simply cannot be trusted to contribute - s/he is evidently more concerned with tabloid sensationalism and controversy than with contributing objective and encyclopaedic content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Bonkers has changed his MO in an attempt to prolong his Wiki-career; previously trolling, now breaching BLP. Sigh. If I had more time I'd take this to ANI with a suggestion for an indef. GiantSnowman 14:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, this is ANI :) :) After observing Bonkers for quite some time at DYK, and interacting with him a few times, my theory is that he is not at all a child at play on Misplaced Pages (as I've seen others say), but that he does this sort of thing intentionally to highlight the systemic problems at DYK. Why is no one commenting on that aspect? Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Ayakannu Marithamuthu Why was this hook approved? (Quid pro quo reviewing, and absolutely no sense of what is a reliable source or of our BLP policy at DYK.) This happens all the time: on the talk page at DYK still is an example I put up only a few days ago. Why do admins routinely pass hooks like this to the main page? (No accountability at any level of DYK). And why has User:Mindmatrix, who passed this hook, not been notified of this issue so he can improve his reviewing? (Oh gee, lookie there, I went over to see if he had been notified, and found a brilliant example of the problems with quid pro quo reviewing: an editor saying, I passed yours, will you pass mine?) My hunch has always been that Bonkers does this outrageous stuff to call attention to how deficient the DYK process is, and something needs to be done about that, because this is not an isolated incident. Faulty sourcing, faulty medical hooks, and BLP vios have long been occurring at DYK. Yea Bonkers for pointing out how bad that process is and why it should be removed from the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: d'oh! - I'm an idiot. Was looking at the thread at BLPN at the same time and got them mixed up. GiantSnowman 18:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Mea culpa for failing to notice the BLP issue. I'm usually more thorough that this when I review DYK nominations. Regarding the comment on my talk page requesting that I promote a hook, I haven't accepted. Frankly, I'd prefer that the set of DYK article writers and nominators be entirely distinct from the set of reviewers, but that's not likely to happen, and wouldn't necessarily fix the problem anyway. Mindmatrix 15:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yea Bonkers for disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. Because if your assertion is true that's exactly what it is. Nice to know that violating policy is not just OK it wins praise when it's tilting at someone's favorite windmill. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, you got me there. But to the pointy point ... can we not do something about the underlying problem? It was not my intent to praise Bonkers (I had to clean up quite a few of his DYKs), and I'm sorry I did that. But I still think the bigger problem should be addressed, and I think his numerous DYK noms that have been pushed up the line for a very long time now served a purpose, which DYK regulars aren't hearing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries; I might have overreacted a bit myself, trying to reset my sleep cycle can make me cranky. I do agree that there needs to be some poking with sharp sticks in some directions, the catch is that (even if there is recalcitrance) it needs to be done in a way that doesn't drive people away from the discussion, that is the tricky part. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP enforcers save the day! Three cheers for them, hip hip hooray. I spent so much time trying to find the names of these suspects, but my efforts are in vain. The Straits Times, the most reliable newspaper in Singapore, explicitly lists the names of the suspects. But Misplaced Pages can't because of fabulous policy. I apologise for trying to enhance the article and flesh out more details for our ardent readers, when by doing so I upset the living people who have yet to be convicted. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Given the facetious nature of the above remark (and this post at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know), and the complete failure of Bonkers to address the issue of the gross violations of WP:BLP policy in the Murder of Ayakannu Marithamuthu article, I formally propose that Bonkers be indefinitely blocked from editing. Contributors may also find the title of Bonkers' latest article indicative of why we can do without such behaviour: . AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The Jimmy Kimmel "Kids' Table" incident has garnered immense media attention and thus I felt that it was wise to split the content to a separate article per its merits. I contributed little content to the split article. Perhaps you should read more than just the title, my myopic friend. It is aptly titled. I took clue from ¿Por qué no te callas?. Would you stop attacking my integrity, hm? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if you're paying very close attention to sumbuddy, or happened to see ¿Por qué no te callas? in "On this day" on the mainpage this week. Anyway, are you suggesting that the phrase We should kill everyone in China is going to spawn t-shirt sales and ringtones (enduring), and become a political/cultural slogan that outlasts the incident?

And while you are defending the BLP, could you please explain using a food blog as a source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because I don't do it now doesn't mean I will never do it. In fact the names have already been removed and the violations have been largely rectified. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

So you admit you violated BLP? You're a nuisance who seems to enjoy creating controversial articles. I don't know why we don't simply indef you and save ourselves a whole heap of trouble/effort in trying to "rectify" your many, many mistakes. GiantSnowman 12:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand BLP, but took into consideration how high-profile the Curry Murder case was, as well as the fact that reliable newspapers had explicitly listed the suspects' names. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK review

It seems to me that there is an additional issue here - the DYK proposal was reviewed by another contributor, User:Mindmatrix, who seems to have entirely missed the BLP implications of asserting allegations as fact - in particular, asserting as fact the very allegation that formed the basis for the hook. I'm reluctant to drag Mindmatrix over the coals for this, as frankly I don't see this lack of attention to detail as unusual regarding DYK's, and I think the error is symptomatic of the whole DYK process, which seems more concerned with competition between contributors, and with filling the main page with random questionable factoids than with actually providing our readers with encyclopaedic information. Having said this, Mindmatrix should probably at least explain how the obvious WP:BLP issues with the hook came to be missed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(after ec) Oops, see my similar post in the section above--- we edit conflicted. The problem is not Mindmatrix-- the problem is the process (which by the way, although I've been saying for years they should notify reviewers when faulty hooks are promoted up the line, and asking they get a template for doing so-- they won't). Also see my post above for the problem with quid pro quo reviewing-- you pass mine, I'll pass yours, and a big problem with the reward culture in things like WP:WIKICUP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I should be held responsible. I missed the issue in my review, which is surprising since it was a blatantly obvious violation. Mindmatrix 15:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement, Mindmatrix (and good on you), but yours is not a typical DYKer reaction to these sorts of issues. So, something still needs to be done about the wider problem. Based on your appropriate response here, it doesn't look like you are likely to continue to be a part of that problem, but it has been a problem for at least the six years I've been following, and when pointed out, very few react as you have. There is no accountability at DYK, quid pro quo reviewing needs to stop, and if DYK then can't handle the volume, they need to find a way to slow down the process so that they can. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Back-scratching reviews are generally one of the only effective ways to get DYKs reviewed at all. But I think Sandy is right, the over-assumption of good faith is more harmful at DYK than elsewhere where the main page is concerned.--v/r - TP 16:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is different from other mainpage highlights in having a take-all-comers atmosphere. There is no requirement as things are currently done that a hook be entertaining or interesting, or that an article be high-quality, interesting, or well-written. DYKs are passed by ticking a set of quite loose boxes - does the hook have a cite? is the article long enough? does the hook use an asterisk? - and generally it would be frowned on for a reviewer to impose a quality requirement on either article or hook. As a result, the process is more along the lines of "tick these boxes; if boxes ticked, DYK automatically passes" (which is probably why it's felt that uninformed reviewers are good enough; if you don't have to do anything but check prose length and check for a next to the hook sentence, you don't need to be all that familiar with DYK or even Misplaced Pages policy to do the review).

If, on the other hand, there was a requirement, even a vague one, that DYK hooks be, well, something that "hooks" readers, or if DYK allowed reviewers to use their discretion in accepting and rejecting DYKs for article or hook quality, I suspect we'd have both far less trouble with an overwhelming traffic flow into the DYK review queue, and far fewer passed-by-rote DYK that turn out to be problematic. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. The DYK "rules" are at WP:WIADYK. See No. 4, Within policy; DYKs have to conform to core policies. Those are rarely checked, many quid pro quo reviewers don't even know core policies (including one freshly minted admin who recently put a BLP vio on the DYK mainpage), and in the instances when I have checked them, I've been attacked by various and sundry DYK 'regulars'. I do not know where the notion that DYKs don't have to conform to core policies comes from: it is clearly stated in the rules. DYK instituted quid pro quo reviewing because it could not keep up with the volume there. So, reduce the volume already, by removing the notion that any new or newly expanded article is automatically entitled to a mainpage appearance, and do something to encourage compliance and accountability. Many of Misplaced Pages's serial copyvio offenders and serial misunderstanders of reliable sources have been fed by this process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not disagreeing with that, Sandy. Actually, I think you and I are mostly agreeing as far as raising the DYK bar. My point is that there's a vast gulf between "skates past the line of policy" and "this is a well-done, interesting article that should appear on the main page," and as long as reviewers and creators have the impression that if you can eke out "this meets the most basic level of policy and box ticking" then an article is entitled to a DYK appearance, we can do very little about low-quality articles or hooks getting passed, because reviewers are led to believe they have little choice but to pass every article. That's not to say that, say, copyvio issues, which are covered by the current guidelines, are not also being let slip right now; it's just to say that raising the whole bar and removing the sense of articles being entitled to DYK appearances might improve both policy compliance and article/hook quality. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) In my opinion, one of the major problems with DYK is that some reviewers don't seem to bother inspecting the supplied sources or assessing their quality. Many reviews appear to be one-sentence approvals that give no indication the reviewer has done a careful inspection of the material. Despite always carefully checking the sources (and sometimes searching for other sources), I've still missed the occasional obvious flaw, with this case being an unfortunate example. Even attentive reviewers make mistakes, which is why DYK should implement a more rigorous review process. Aside: I don't object to the quid pro quo requirement, but I do object to the circular quid pro quo reviews that it seems to have engendered for some DYK article authors and nominators. Mindmatrix 18:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The QPQ requirement is corrupt. The problems with backscratching are magnified by the unlimited entitlement of article creators to dyks. Although there are some high quality dyks from prolific editors, there are other prolific authors that care more about their quantum output than the qualitative aspect. We've tried many-a-time to lay down the requirement in a checklist form, but there's no specificity when it comes to adherence to policies. What's more, the process seems to have slipped back to the one-sentence review that allows specific problem areas to go unmentioned, but just saying "hook is too long" or "not enough bytes" or "good to go". We ought to consider placing a limit on the number of dyks allowed per editor (per month?), and those dyks that are reviewed need to be done stringently and with a much lower tolerance for AGF. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 06:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with SandyGeorgia's comments. And yes, the QPQ was a desperate measure to drum up the number of reviewers that succeeded only in producing worthless reviews—now used to self-justify the system. Time to get rid of it. In fact, two years ago was the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to some of the opinions expressed above, this is not an example of the DYK process failing but of the process working. There are four steps involved in moving a nomination to the main page, the first is approval on the nominations page, the second is promotion to Prep, the third promotion to the Queue, and the fourth, promotion to the main page itself. In this case, the problem was identified at the second step. Failure of the DYK process only occurs when a defective article or hook actually makes it to the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

By "actually mak it to the mainpage", you mean, like this BLP impugning a scientist based on primary sources did?

And perhaps you meant to say this is an example of the BLP noticeboard working, since that is what brought GrumpyAndy in? Or did you mean to refer to the number of times that User:Nikkimaria and User:BlueMoonset have had to remove copyvios and other violations that have made it to the mainpage (or through the review process)? Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Removed SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" mentality, but from my own recent reviews I can see getting the submitter to go through four hooks before finding an acceptable one, a blatantly invalid submission, a concern about a hook, problems with accessing a source, suggesting a better hook and pondering if the article should be at AfD. The trouble with DYK is the same as everywhere, if you provide incentives and rewards for things, people will flock to try and meet them - see all the problems with poor quality AfC reviews we had recently. Ritchie333 14:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what noticeboard the problem was posted on, the point is that someone looked through DYK's prep area and detected it. If a fraction of DYK's critics spent ten minutes a day just checking the next update, threads of this type might be a thing of the past. With regard to your BLP issue, you can categorize that as a DYK failure if you want, but I think the issues you raised in that discussion were complex and not necessarily transparent to the average contributor. Nikkimaria does a fantastic job of identifying copyvios in the queue, but that's part of the queue's function, it's where the final two steps in quality control take place. Gatoclass (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, as I'm not an admin, by definition any removals I do are before hook sets are moved from Prep areas to Queues, and more usually I'll not promote an approved hook because there are issues in it, sending the nomination back for more work. If the original review goes awry, the promotion of a hook to Prep is a backup check point, and the admin-required move from Prep to Queue another one. The backup checks are why reviewers should not approve hooks they suggest, and not promote to Prep hooks they've approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The "admin-required move from Prep to Queue" is decidedly not "a backup check point"; anything is promoted to the main page at that point, with no accountability. And relying on one user (Nikkimaria) to detect copyvio is nuts. There are four simple things DYK can do to slow down the process, stop promoting a sloppy, reward-culture environment, and help resolve these issues:

1. Stop accepting WIKICUP nominations at DYK (easily rejected by bot-- the same bot that already flags them at FAC).
2. Hold the admin who passes violations to the mainpage accountable-- as in, make them stop doing that job. You've got a situation where any admin can push the button, and they're pushing it when clearly cursory reviews are made by reviewers unfamiliar with core Misplaced Pages policies. And the admins who are doing that, and have been for years, don't care.
3. Remove all nominations that take more than a month to get through the process.
4. Eliminate quid pro quo reviews. if you can't keep up with the volume after steps 1 to 3, do something else, but asking the blind to lead the blind with quid pro quo reviews isn't working.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There are over 100 linked articles on the mainpage right now. Evidence suggests unbolded links are almost as popular with readers as bolded ones - sometimes more so. Who, I wonder, has checked all 100 articles on the main page today for, say, BLP, MEDRS or COPYVIO issues? And if the answer is "nobody" or "I don't know", why is it always the DYK section alone that is singled out for criticism? Gatoclass (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Bait and switch. Reward culture. Who is promoting the reward culture by putting those unbolded links on the mainpage (no one except DYK). Example-- the aforementioned Porque no te callas ... "On this day" has grabbed the bloomin' thing three times now, over six years, simply because it is in good shape (not because I submitted it or want the coverage or need the "reward"). Methinks quality is a more reasonable criterion than reward culture. SOMEONE is reviewing the article and choosing it-- there is no entitlement assumption. And they aren't furthering massive and serial violations of same over many years by rewarding that (as DYK has, in the case of spawning many of our serial copyvio offenders, and continuing a forum where core policies and guidelines like BLP and reliable sources aren't even understood). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I assume from that response that your answer to my question falls into the "I don't know" category. Gatoclass (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Right (you know what they say about assuming). We have this discussion about DYK issues routinely. Here is, for the record, the last time we discussed a DYK murder that did get on the main page and was removed per the AN report. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think what people who believe DYK should be given a boot to the head and fixed should do is reasonably work to fix the process. While I'm sure she intends well, and while I'm sure there's a few regular bad apples there who would rather stick their heads in the sand than make reasonable changes, the pattern of what happens is always the same: an occasional bad article (and yes, occasional, because of all the hooks that get passed the vast majority are just fine) makes waves, a small group of editors - with Sandy as the most visible - immedately runs up the red flag of "abolish DYK" "WikiCup" "Reward Culture" etc., the DYK people look at this and, quite understandably, circle the wagons, and as a result nothing gets done. If your response to somebody shooting off a cherry bomb is to launch an entire time on target artillery barrage in response, you have nobody to blame but yourself when nobody wants to listen to you at the treaty talks. On another note, Fluffernutter's suggestion to require hooks be "intersting" is something that has come up before and will come up again and gets shot down in flames every time for the simple reason that it is subjective; about 95% of the hooks that I know other people go "WOW!" over get a "meh, BORED" from me. Every hook is interesting to somebody. And to WP:TLDR here, this is something that needs to be discussed at Talk:DYK not ANI, can somebody please close all this so that a discussion can take place in the proper venue? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The Bushranger Ummmm ... I have nothing to do with the testosterone-fest that took hold below, ala "eliminate DYK" entirely, blanking, blocking and other fests.

    I laid out what I believe to be an entirely reasonable four-point plan for addressing the issues above, which not surprisingly, has been totally ignored. I also disagree with your characterization; please reference my pleas at the DYK talk page. Seeing the craziness that has taken hold in the last 12 hours (this appears to be ANI's latest dramafest), I backed out of the discussion and have nothing to do with the proposals to eliminate DYK.

    I also disagree that ANI is not the place for discussion, because we have a curious lack of leadership/accountability at DYKs whereby any admin can promote hooks to the mainpage, while any "normal" editor cannot remove or fix hooks. It is an admin issue. I would add to my four-point plan above that DYK needs to come up with some sort of system by which they determine which admins are qualified to pass hooks to the mainpage, and hopefully those admins will be familiar enough with BLP, MEDRS etc to know which articles need a closer look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Bushranger, while I understand what you mean about "interesting" being subjective, the DYK guidelines actually already contain language regarding how hooks should be interesting: "When you write the hook, please make it 'hooky', that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. An interesting hook is more likely to draw in a variety of readers." The trouble is that that advice is largely ignored in favor of the more concrete guidelines (5x expansion, ref tag attached to hook fact, etc) because there is no provision in the guidelines for rejecting a hook because it or its article are of insufficient draw or quality.

    At any rate, however, you're right that ANI isn't the place to be having policy-making discussions about DYK; I was just throwing my thoughts into the conversation here because, well, there was a conversation here about something I had thoughts about. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer and autopatrolled removed

Given the"Niggers in the White House" incident mentioned above, the BLP violations in the article he created and nominated for DYK, and the cavalier response to the concerns, I've removed his reviewer and autopatrolled rights. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously sensible, thank you for doing this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Request indefinite block of User:Bonkers The Clown

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

I think this business with Bonkers has gone on long enough. The new "We should kill everyone in China" thing is the last straw in my mind. This is also a violation of Bonkers' condition for an unblock in August (making race-related edits/articles). --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have renamed that article to Jimmy Kimmel Live! controversy (for want of a better title). I pondered sending it to AfD per WP:NOTNEWS but there's too many sources to pick through to make a quick and correct decision on that. Ritchie333 15:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef - editor can not be trusted. GiantSnowman 15:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, this was an international incident. Bonkers is an odd cat for sure but I think he's here for the good of the project. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block - I've just spent about 15 minutes trying to clean up the Jimmy Kimmel stuff to make it not violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP (this edit in particular was blatant pot-stirring) and I'm now thinking "why should I have had to do all that?" Sorry, Bonkers, but having gone out of my way to almost spoon feed you how to get unblocked from last time, and given you seem to have an unhealthy interest in putting murder articles through DYK (eg: here and here), I'm coming to the conclusion your presence on the encyclopedia is starting to become a net negative. Sorry. Ritchie333 15:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Torches and pitchforks support No need allow continued disruption that requires extensive cleanup by neutral editors. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support His disruptive behavior, whether intentional or not, is becoming increasingly irritating Beerest355 Talk 16:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I agree this is way too much to go unaddressed, I feel an indefinite block would deprive us of his more numerous and uncontroversial contributions. See my proposal below.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support I am not convinced that the user is here for the good of the project. The user seeks to provoke. Misplaced Pages is not a forum for performance art, and Bonkers is not Lenny Bruce. The time required to monitor the user's contributions outweighs any marginal benefit from the benign edits. Kablammo (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per this. Troll. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Positive contributions must be weighed against the time and energy expended cleaning up after an editor. Gamaliel (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I strongly suggest that you give him one more chance. Extend the ban to all controversial/sensationalist issues whether they be racial, murders, rapes, myths etc. There's plenty of content which Bonkers does create which isn't controversial. I think you're overreacting here. That the article went through DYK clearly shows that Bonkers isn't the only one to blame for judging content anyway. I don't think he creates them to test DYK, but I do think he gets a thrill from creating edgy, interesting content which could be controversial and push the boundaries. I say ban him from creating controversial stuff and stick to pure encyclopedic run of the mill stuff. An experienced editor who knows how to format and source is too valuable to just throw away. Please reconsider.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The previous incident was clear evidence that this editor is in it purely for the trolling. This editor has long since used their last chance to redeem themselves. They chose to ignore that and carry on their disruptive behaviour. Their work, which was mainly DYK nomination work, will not be missed and their constructive edits does in no way make up for the amount of disruption and waste of time of other editors they have caused during their stay here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - IMO Clearly trolling & seems his/her previous block meant fuck all nothing .... Revoking TP access sounds great too!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Indefinite DYK and article creation ban

Bonkers the Clown is indefinitely banned from nominating any article to DYK and is indefinitely banned from moving any page to mainspace unless it is approved by an uninvolved admin.

• Support As proposer.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support this seems more reasonable than an indefinite block. Bonkers seems to go for quality over quantity when DYK credits are at stake, therefore causing them to have lots of issues, and this is a good way to make sure we still benefit from his decent contributions. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 17:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This seems like a reasonable compromise for those opposed to a complete block. Gamaliel (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Weak support. If people really can't bear indeffing Bonkers again, then this will at least help a bit. Ritchie333 17:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - he'll find other ways to troll. GiantSnowman 19:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- As a condition in the case of an unblocking, albeit it's likely going to require more conditions than just this. Sportsguy17 00:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support as condition of any unblock - for reasons already rather well-stated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

I've restored the indef block on this account. Some of you need to get out more if you don't realize you're being trolled, and hard. WP:ROPE was already amply applied when this guy was unblocked not even two months ago upon agreeing not to engage in racial content editing. Today he creates this and makes this edit? No, we've had enough. --Laser brain (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. And I'm with you—this isn't anywhere near a borderline case. MastCell  18:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• I support this indefinite block. Blatant trolling is unacceptable from anyone. (Disclaimer: I sanctioned him already by revoking his 'reviewer' and 'autopatrolled' rights.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - good block. GiantSnowman 19:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per my reasoning above.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - IMO Clearly trolling & seems his/her previous block meant fuck all nothing .... Revoking TP access sounds great too!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Whether it was trolling or just misguided, this user had already proven themselves to be a disruptive influence in the previous ANI case, which wasn't even that long ago. This time round has just reinforced it, and giving them the benefit of the doubt again is not going to help anyone. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Whether they meant well or not, the cost-to-benefit ratio of allowing this user to edit was too far to "cost" to do anything else. I'd also point out this which if it continues should result in a talk page access revocation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support Bonkers has caused enough trouble already. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Bold editing is explicitly encouraged and it is clear policy that new articles may be imperfect. Both the Curry Murder and the Kimmel incident were major news and the latter seems to be a significant international incident which has been reported in respectable sources such as Chinese government criticises Jimmy Kimmel show. As I understand it, the user is an ethnic Chinese Singaporean and so should not be expected to share the sensibilities of US people on such topics. For example, I reviewed his fish soup bee hoon — a soup made from fish heads which would likewise not suit western tastes. We have a well-recognised problem of maintaining a neutral point of view if we do not have a global perspective. Today's FA is about a game of American football, for example. We should not censor other tastes, perspectives and approaches. Warden (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleting userpages?

Okay, I thought the indef is a good idea, I thought sending his BLP articles to AfD/PROD is a good idea, but can we stop nominating all his userpages for deletion, too, please? He's blocked, we don't need to extirpate all record of the good he's done here, and these deletions seem without reason and--dare I say--petty. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm? Which of his userpages have been nominated? I saw that DavidLeighEllis blanked his userpage and replaced it with a blocked user template, but that's it. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 21:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bonkers The Clown/Shiny stuff‎ is the one I saw. I suppose you're right in that I indulged in a bit of hyperbole, but the blanking of his userpage is along the same vein, and given that Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:L'Origine du monde (2nd nomination)‎ is a very similar situation, coming today from the same user, I wouldn't be surprised if an actual MfD nomination for Bonkers's userpage is to follow. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Bonkers' userpage was kept before at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bonkers The Clown. So I doubt it'll show up again. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 21:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, it didn't keep 'em away from L'Origine du Monde's. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• I nominated one of his subpages for deletion, but this was only because it was a WP:STALEDRAFT which is probably not going to have any foreseeable use. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 22:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Would you like to give us a link to the user subpage which you nominated for deletion, please, User:Taylor Trescott? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bonkers The Clown/Death by ice cream. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 00:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• What was it that made you think it was important to nominate that particular page for deletion, today? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Because it was going to become a WP:STALEDRAFT since the topic was determined non-notable and nobody was going to edit it. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 01:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• How would it becoming a WP:STALEDRAFT harm the encyclopedia? Please explain. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• WP:STALEDRAFT says that userspace is not to be used to store articles indefinitely. Since it would see no foreseeable use, I nominated it. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 00:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Propose not deleting userpages without justification

• Userpage deletion should be done under due process, including notification.
• In this case, since the userpage owner cannot respond, notification should be done here as a minimum.
• I propose any administrator that acts on a deletion nomination not suitably notified, should be subject to an arbcom proceeding regarding their competence.
• Support as proposer. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Point (1), provided the speedy criterion don't apply, is quite reasonable. I have no clue what point (2) means. Point (3) is admin abuse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

For point 2, I presume Demiurge1000 is saying in cases like here where User:Bonkers The Clown is indef blocked and is less able take part in MFDs or otherwise defend deletions, people should mention deletions here. I'm not really I sure I understand why "here". And in the case of MFDs (perhaps not speedies or PRODs), we already have a place we list them. I don't understand why someone being blocked means we need to mention them here or anywehre else, at most it would suggest a special section at the place we already list MFDs. But even that seems unnecessary, in the case of any xFDs, even with notification it's resonably possible the person who receives the notification may be gone or away at the time despite not being blocked. The whole point of the xFD process is that while we may notify creators as a courtesy, we're not supposed to require their participation to receive a good outcome. Also, I assume a block won't generally stop participation. Generally speaking we mostly only allow people to request unblocking when blocked but I presume in the case of a deletion request for their user page, we would allow resonable responses. Of course in a case where the person has also lost talk page access, that doesn't apply. The only other thing is, in the case of a STALEDRAFT or similar, an indef blocked person can't resonably claim they will continue it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK limited to one set per day

DYK removed entirely

AndyTheGrump blanking articles

It seems AndyTheGrump is tracking down various articles Bonkers the Clown did on murders and blanking them with little explanation other than insisting they are BLP violations. Shouting BLP does not absolve him from providing an explanation. As it stands, the most he has offered me is that any article with "murder" in the title is a BLP violation unless there is a conviction, which is not an argument for blanking the article as the title can be changed easily enough. Even if it were, he should at least nominate the article for deletion, rather than just blanking it. He is just blanking repeatedly and doing nothing else. His blankings don't even do anything about the title, which is still there. Should he think these are non-notable crimes he should nominate them for deletion and not blank them repeatedly and trying to use BLP as an excuse for breaching 3RR. I restored one of the articles, retitled it, and even removed every instance of the word "murder" being used in the editorial voice to accommodate him (explaining all that in the edit summary), but he is still blanking the whole thing as a BLP violation. Could someone please intervene here?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, can someone intervene by blocking The Devil's Advocate for multiple WP:BLP violations - both in the content he has restored, and in an edit summary (now redacted). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Since when is blanking articles the way we handle deletions at WP? Andy, my friend, three words of advice: Articles for Deletion. Carrite (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't 'handling deletion'. I was handling multiple blatant WP:BLP violations. Per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a right and a wrong way to do these things. Removing the alleged BLP violations is the right thing. Blanking the whole article and threatening death and destruction to anyone reverting the decision is the wrong thing. If the edits are truly defamatory, we have an oversighting procedure which should be followed. If the subject is not notable, the proper venue is AfD for controversial deletions, PROD for less controversial deletions, and the Speedy process for articles meeting those very specific criteria. Unilaterally blanking lurid "true crime" cruft is not the way it is done. You know that. Carrite (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I won't address the last point, but when objectionable content is removed it should not be republished, regardless of who removed it and regardless of what else was removed with it. Kablammo (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Blanking the whole thing? Seems like POINT to me. Blanking sections which are unreferenced and/or violate BLP on any article? I support fully. GiantSnowman 12:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but if the whole article is blanked, the whole should not be restored if objectionable content is thereby restored. The principle of innocent dissemination likely would not apply to protect the republisher. Kablammo (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's ask the actual question here: was Andy blanking articles that contained BLP violations, or blanking articles created by Bonkers the Clown assuming they contained BLP violations because of their authorship? The first would be valid. The second would result in a block for WP:POINT, WP:VANDALISM (for that would in fact be what it would be) and "grave-dancing". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

At no point have I blanked an article that didn't contain an obvious WP:BLP violation. Evidently, I'm going to have to do it again: AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, Bushranger—put the v-word back in its holster. Even if we suppose (arguendo) that AtG was blanking the articles on the mere assumption that Bonkers' articles were likely to contain BLP violations, it wouldn't be vandalism. It could be POINTy, and it could be poor judgement, but it wouldn't be vandalism. Steps taken with the ultimate intent of benefitting Misplaced Pages – even by removing content, and even by methods which may be perceived as sub-optimal or even disruptive – are almost never vandalism. Re-read the policy, and learn the difference: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages....Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Pulling out an unwarranted, unjustified suggestion of vandalism only serves to inflame a dispute, and is in itself intrinsically and inherently disruptive.

That said, Andy's argument suggests, prima facie, that his actions are an appropriate response under WP:BLP. The remedy of 'blank article pending rewrite with quality sources' is far from unheard-of in the BLP arena. Typically it comes up after Misplaced Pages receives a complaint from an article's subject, but I see no good reason why we shouldn't be equally proactive regarding bad articles we identify for ourselves. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's be absolutely clear about this. It is a requirement of WP:BLP policy that articles not contain violations. It isn't remotely an option. Both articles (which incidentally, I didn't find by "tracking down" - but learned about through a post on my talk page ) contained multiple self-evident policy violations. Even the article titles violated WP:BLP - asserting that individuals had been murdered before any court had determined as such - and the creator/troll's past history was such that a thorough checking of sources would be necessary before any content could be trusted. As a contributor, I had at least a moral obligation to see that WP:BLP policy wasn't violated, once I'd had my attention drawn to the matter. I did so. And that is where my obligation ended. No contributor is ever obliged to edit a particular article - and given the provenance of the articles, and the dubious notability of the content, I was damned if I was going to waste my time cleaning up after a troll. If others wish to put work into the articles, it is all there in the history - but they are absolutely obliged to ensure content complies with policy before restoring it to public visibility. That is their responsibility if they wish the article to be visible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

If a biography really, truely needs to be blanked immediately, then nominating it for speedy deletion as CSD G10 is the most appropriate course of action. Otherwise, it should be submitted to AFD. Deletion-by-blanking has been rejected by the community. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't some sort of backdoor implementation of Misplaced Pages:Pure wiki deletion (your link); it's just plain WP:BLP: very much an accepted and necessary policy. And WP:CSD#G10 – which specifically and narrowly addresses 'attack' pages – doesn't necessarily cover all biographical articles (or content) that violates WP:BLP. WP:BLP is very clear on where the burden rests with regard to adding or restoring biographical content and articles—and it isn't on the person removing the material. Would it be nice if Andy also added deletion nominations to these pages? Sure. Is he required to as a condition of following WP:BLP? Definitely not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Either an article has such noxious BLP problems that all of the current and prior text requires immediate removal, or it doesn't. In the former case, it should be properly deleted by an administrator. If the CSD are being interpreted to forbid this, then the policy is overdue for a modification. In the latter case, some portion of the article can be left in place during an AFD discussion. The reason deletion-by-blanking is a failed proposal is that it doesn't really delete anything. Any user familiar with Misplaced Pages can and probably will pull a previous revision from the page history. We don't bother to revdel every BLP violation ever removed from the current version of an article only because having a non-empty current version discourages leafing through the article history for dirt; revdel is thus saved for particularly obnoxious material. Blanking entire articles certainly makes a point, but doesn't accomplish anything useful. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It ensured that BLP violations were removed from immediate view. Which was not only useful, but necessary. Which is why I did it. It was then open to anyone who considered either article actually to cover anything of note (which the current AfD discussions seem not to support) to check the sourcing etc, and then edit one or both to ensure compliance with WP:BLP policy. The suggestion that I did this as some sort of backdoor route to deletion is not only supposition, but based on a false premise. I was fully aware that blanking an article doesn't delete it, so suggesting that deletion was my objective makes no sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

To this end, I have proposed a new CSD to allow the proper disposal of any articles which really, truely require immediate deletion for BLP reasons. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm on Andy's side, especially as I've done the same before. BLP demands immediacy. Sceptre 16:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'm on Andy's side, too, but am dismayed that this dramafest is obscuring the bigger picture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• So, are you two suggesting that if I were to find an easily-fixed BLP violation on part of the page for Barack Obama I could instead repeatedly blank the entire article, breaching 3RR with impunity, and anyone undoing that blanking action would be accused of violating BLP? There is a reason why policy says blanking should only be used when there is no way to address concerns through normal editing. Andy has not given any indication that this is a case where blanking was necessary. In fact, his initial argument seems to have been less that he could not fix the article but more "I don' wanna" because no one "should have to waste time cleaning up after a blocked troll" in his words. With the initial case that prompted all of this Andy did go in and fix the underlying issues, and that article had more problems that were much more egregious than any possible issues with these two.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• The Devil's Advocate, rather than inventing hypothetical scenarios for the Barack Obama article, would you care to address the actual issue here, and explain exactly why you repeatedly posted BLP-policy-contravening material in full public view in the articles concerned? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• I do not believe any actual BLP violations were restored that I did not promptly fix myself. One article did not involve a named suspect and in the case that did involve a named suspect, I edited the material appropriately. The problem is when you blank the entire article without nominating it for deletion, rather than fixing it, and fail to even identify what you consider a BLP violation, you are essentially forcing other editors to figure out everything that you might consider wrong with the article and fix it for you. If they do not find everything you consider an issue, then you blank it again and accuse them of violating BLP. Do you really not see how that is not the appropriate way to approach the issue?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• If you sincerely believe that an article that asserts as a fact that an unconvicted suspect "...solicited sexual intercourse from , and after she rejected him he hit at least three times on the head with a 10-kilogram dumbbell, killing her instantly" isn't a BLP violation, I have to question your competence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• The suspect was not named in that article so I simply looked to make sure there was nothing truly egregious. You can make this about me all you like, but if you had actually pointed out or addressed specific violations, rather than blanking an entire article the whole situation would have been avoided. As I said to you before, WP:BLP is clear that if a violation can be fixed without blanking or deleting than that is what should be done. What you are arguing is that you should be able to do whatever you want to the article when invoking BLP, even blanking it without nominating it for deletion or mentioning specific violations, then force other people to fix every possible issue you identify with the threat of repeated blankings and cries of "BLP violator" if they fail to satisfy you, and that is not supported by policy or common sense. Your actions were no different than some random IP blanking an article and saying "this article is false" or "this article is defamatory" as it does not offer anything constructive to allow someone to address whatever concerns you have with the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• The above response clearly indicates to me that you lack the elementary competence to edit articles where WP:BLP policy may be an issue. The article stated as a fact that the suspect killed the victim. There can be no doubt whatsoever that this is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy - and your attempt to shift the blame onto me for your utter disregard for policy is beneath contempt. Stay the fuck out of BLPs until you have learned how policy applies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• The fact the individual was not identified did not make it an immediate BLP concern to me.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• The article stated that a particular individual was in police custody. The article stated that this particular individual killed the victim. It makes no difference whatsoever that the individual's name had been withheld - the article was asserting that the individual in custody was guilty of murder. Though your suggestion that 'immediate BLP concerns' were in any way relevant to your behaviour is entirely disproven by the fact that your initial revert, after I had blanked the article, did precisely nothing to address the BLP issues. . Did you make any effort to address the issues at that time? No. Did you make any effort to contact me to ask what the issues were? No. You reverted the article, in the full knowledge that I'd made it clear that there were issues. You violated WP:BLP policy. Repeatedly. And then you had the audacity to come here and complain that I was reverting your violations of policy. Your behaviour is beneath contempt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• That the individual is unidentified makes a big difference and I do not think anyone would objectively suggest it does not make a difference. As far as contact, with regards to this article it was brought up in the AfD and you raised your concerns, which focused exclusively on use of the term "murder" to describe the crime. If you mean the other article, well, there was only one actual BLP violation and I addressed it right away.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not liking the Pointy gravedancing going on here. Blanking pages with no rationale doesn't build an encyclopedia. Take it to a normal venue and let process run its course without indiscriminately blanking Bonker's articles. KonveyorBelt 22:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

How exactly does a statement that the article grossly violates WP:BLP policy amount to 'no rationale'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Konveyor Belt and The Devil's Advocate above, Blanking as opposed to more careful removal of only such content as actually violated BLP was unwarranted and inappropriate, and reversion was desirable. DES 23:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You think that restoring BLP violations in articles is 'desirable'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

@KB. Can I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:BLP - the first paragraph (clue - the bold bit) rather than slinging what appear to be rather immature and apparently incorrect accusations at a fellow-editor doing the correct thing. Leaky Caldron 23:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently some have misinterpreted my comment as vandalism. BLP says that if a section is in violation it should be removed, it says nothing of deletion by blanking. KonveyorBelt 01:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Andy started "careful removal" on the article which began this, Murder of Ayakannu Marithamuthu. The majority of the content of that article was a series of BLP violations. Now, three days, seven editors, and several dozen edits later, it may possibly comply with BLP, but should be deleted as not meeting the bar of notability. The other articles Andy blanked also did not meet that bar, while clearly violated our BLP policies.

The articles in question were created for the express purpose of shock, getting as many lurid allegations as possible, whether proven or unproven, into articles on the main page. There is no reason that should be tolerated. There is no reason why the survivors of the victims should encounter lurid retellings of a tragedy, mirrored across the internet, while Misplaced Pages goes about its ceremonial ways in deciding whether to delete, save, merge, or tinker with articles on the subject.

And it is never appropriate to revert to a version of an article containing BLP violations. Never. Kablammo (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to blank an entire article because of a few issues that one could easily fix without blanking the article?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Given your evident inability to recognise a gross BLP violation in plain sight (see above), I hardly think that you are in any position to comment on what is 'appropriate'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If an editor posts gross BLP violations to an article, there is nothing wrong with reverting the edit entirely, even if only some of the added content violated policy. I would never chastise an editor for failing to tease out only the offending content. The onus is on those who want the content restored to find a way to do it without violating BLP. As far as I'm concerned, the same principle can apply when the "edit" was the creation of an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Including the namee of a accused person in an article on a crime is often an ambiguous situation, because the rule for removing the names is based on Do No Harm, where the names are so widely published it makes no difference, and this is a matter of judgment. In doubt, we remove the names, but there is often a very strong disagreement, & where there is good faith disagreement, discussion is needed. . I cannot think of any case where having just this as the violation would been blanking the entire article, much less deleting it, unless there was no other content at all; even if the name was in the title, a rename takes care of it. BLP is not a free pass to remove contentthat is not harmful. The BLP noticeboard exists for a purpose, and in undoubted violations the action is very rapid. (In those few cases where the decision came to me, I've usually removed the names--I take the policy very seriously.) I also take seriously that it has limits, and I am concerned that some people use it to override all considerations, including that of consensus. It often does over-ride other considerations, but nothing over-rides consensus. We are not here to shoot first and think later, or to apply our own interpretation in cases wherewe know or ought to know there is disagreement. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with DGG. The blanking of entire articles comprised of sourced content, under the guise of a suspected BLP, violation is not appropriate. Fix the violation rather than blanking the entire article. These kinds of BLP concerns come up every day and they are handled in a timely manner via procedures (BLPN, CSD or AfD) which involve the community as a whole. There's no need for systematic, unilateral blanking.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. . . . Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. . . . The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages rests with the person who adds or restores material." Kablammo (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Proxy editing request

Bonkers The Clown has written a new article on his talk page and has asked that it be moved into the article space, with a request that a DYK submission also be made on his behalf. I'd be inclined to remove talk page access as it's designed for discussion of his block and requesting an unblock, not as a way to circumvent a block and to continue editing, but as there's still some discussion going on here and he could still require access to his talk page in the immediate future to discuss the block, I'd rather there's some discussion about whether to remove talk page access. Nick (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed the offending text, and I was tempted to remove his talk page access. Looking at his contributions since the block, he seems intent on continuing to push boundaries and rattle sabres rather than construct a legitimate unblock request. --Laser brain (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well, there is an unblock request there now... but it feels more like trolling than any legitimate promise. Also, we went through the same "final chance" not that long ago, and look what happened. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I doubt there is intentional trolling there. His offered unblock conditions don't look unreasonable. My main concern, given his apparent immaturity, is that a too swift unblock may send the wrong message and encourage him to continue testing boundaries to his own detriment. Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Of course those don't look unreasonable. But look at the rest of the request; it smacks of pure trolling. Particularly the attempt at playing the "I'm a prolific contributor, I beg you to unblock me" card (which isn't that much of a paraphrase of the wording). This guy is a reasonably intelligent troll who knows how to play the system. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how pointing to one's contribution history can be considered trolling. Gatoclass (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oh come on. This user has done a hell of a lot of things that are clearly trolling; the pseudo-"grovelling" in the unblock request smacks of yet more trolling. And given the responses of the two admins to it, it seems that they didn't buy it any more than I did. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative595

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

The page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Sean_Harris

The revision history: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sean_Harris&action=history

The user: alternative595

This began in October. I stayed off the page for a month, thinking the user would cool down.

User repeatedly removes my edits which consists of updating credits, dates of release for films and source material or correcting misspelled names or adding the name of the character. Further, they place "hidden" messages with threats and foul language stating that my "****ing edits will be be removed" and then some name calling -- see history or edit where they "hide" the message within the text. They have been warned. I wrote to wiki media (cannot insert e-mail address here) but all they could do was to warn about the hidden warning messages with the foul language. They cannot stop this back and forth undo of my edits.

And a new foul/hostile message appeared this evening, despite the earlier warning. Yet, when alternative595 performs an undo, they revert back to old, incorrect or misspelled information.

They do not own the page; they did not even create it. This began in October and I stayed away for one month because the person is hostile, angry and the hidden messages are foul and threatening. When I arrived, the page was cited for lack of source material. Yet as I added source material, this user began removing and undoing. Now they undo or remove everything I add. I do not revise their material, or any former material. I update credits, synopsis, dates of release for a film, and provide a source for a statement or credit.

Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Legaleze (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• I gave them an only warning. That page is pretty poorly verified, BTW, but that's not my concern here. Please re-report if they lose their cool again; they promised they wouldn't — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 14:55, 18 November 2013‎ (PST)

And again, before the warning but after the promise. 2Awwsome 23:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As I was preparing a response, they undid my last edits again. Of course, doing that made the offensive foul language message reappear AGAIN.

There is some odd attachment by alternative595 to this page, and they can have their foul language hidden messages, and the repetitious undo of any contributions. Yes, it is poorly sourced and verified; I was attempting to contribute but I think I am done with someone who feels the need to repeatedly hide foul language hidden messages in order to prevent contributions. Something is wrong with alternative595. Thank you for trying.

Legaleze (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked Alternative595 for 24 hours, for the insertion of hidden abusive/foul comments into a BLP when told not to by Drmies. I've asked that Alternative595 provide some sources and to start discussing their edits if they would like to be unblocked early, similarly, I've threatened to extend the block if they refuse to collaborate with others. I'm unable to keep an eye on things until morning now, so if there's progress, any other administrator has my blessing to lift or alter the block as appropriate. Nick (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I hoped in vain that this could be dealt with by maturity on their part instead of a block on our part. I might pry a little further. What does experience tell you, Nick? That this ends with an indefinite block? Let's hope you're wrong, if that was your answer. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• I don't see anything in the editor's history that explains this--the hidden warning and the blatant disregard for a bunch of warnings and an ANI thread. Perhaps a momentary lapses. I hope this can be closed tomorrow this time. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, it's a bit unusual for the editor in question. I've just had a look at Alternative595's talk page and I see they've removed your warning and my block notice so we do at least know they've seen our warnings. I'll leave the block to expire and see if that brings a change in behaviour, this was encouraging but four hours later we've got this so it's worth giving the editor another chance to see if they're going to improve their behaviour. The problem we're facing is that it's BLPs that Alternative595 is editing and we can't be allowing them to go around making unsourced edits, reverting without discussion and leaving obscene comments hidden in the markup for the page, so if there is no real change in behaviour, we will have to consider blocking the user again. Nick (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Experience tells me that it will not end, even if I stay off the page (which I will do). Eventually, there will be someone else or the page will just age-out. I posted on their talk page that this discussion was going on and invited them here, as instructed. Why are they not here explaining what is going on? The page is unverifiable/unsourced (they removed that Wiki message too; the page had been flagged as unsourced more than once). I don't know Wiki's options, but there is some issue going on about edits; the page will never become verifiable/sourced. If the option was to remove the page, that would be my decision. Think "King Solomon."

Legaleze (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is for user Drmies, in reply to above. I disagree that there is nothing in the editor's history, alternative595, that explains this. Yesterday you flagged the page for lack of verfiable sources, and posted same above here in response to me. Your flag was immedately removed by alternative595'; check the history at the top. One cannot update or source the material when another controls the page.

Furthermore, in the history, if you go back, on October 26th, a user, Dream Focus, also removed a similar and virulent hidden warning of foul language and threats. At that time I was already on hiatus and had stopped making edits weeks earlier because I saw what alternative595 was doing; I had not been to the page for weeks. In fact, is it not a consideration that the indiscriminate and repetitive use of "undo", as alternative595 uses it, is something that Wiki asks to be avoided?

Realizing that in some part this is all very childish, alternative595 is also using bully tactics and that most people will just go away and leave the page alone, rather than complain. I was thinking I am done here, but I see no reason why anyone needs to be intimidated by this alternative595 who also chose not to come here either. This tells me that there is no defense for such actions of intimidation and harrassment of other users.

My vote, if I had one, is to remove the page entirely now. It was once flagged for deletion, much earlier. It's of little value; one cannot update the page; information is lacking or simply wrong, and updates or edits are rolled back to incorrect information. The page is being used solely for the purposes of intimidation, harrassment and control of others -- certainly not for informational purposes because they would want it updated. It makes no sense. It's become a bully tool for alternative595.

At the least, there has to be some way to prevent the repetitious inclusion of foul language threats and name calling that are hidden within the text, even if Wiki cannot prevent abuse of the "undo" feature. Because when there are no reprocussions for this continued behavior, what stops using any page as a vehicle of intimidation? Just something to think about because this can escalate into a bigger problem if alternative595 gets away with this and is allowed to continue. It may now be helpful to examine alternative595's other histories to see if there are other pages with similar hidden threats. Thank you for your help.

Legaleze (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if I bullied you in any way. Those comments were not meant to harass but as of late, people have been deleting Sean Harris' page and replacing it with things like "FBFJBFJfjdbbfa" and the hidden message was meant to thwart those people. That was wrong on my part, and definitely not the right way of going about it. Also, I accidentally saved a copy of Sean Harris' page holding that same hidden message, so when I reverted the page I accidentally left those hidden messages along with it. That would explain why it seemed that I may have been 'constantly' threatening the editors; a complete misunderstanding! As for my edits, I was totally in the wrong. I saw Beware the Night and realized that the date has been pushed back to 2014, I was acting frivolously and I apologize. Before I began editing Sean Harris' page, it consisted of nothing more than a few paragraphs of information, and I took the liberty of giving him a table featuring his film and TV work. I never meant to be a bully and those hidden messages were out of line, and were not directed to the edits concerning his early short films. I got rid of those short films because I didn't find them on IMDB, but now I realize I shouldn't have done that either and I apologize dearly. I would very much like to start anew, and I thank-you for your edits and help on Sean Harris' page. He's a great actor, after all. Alternative595 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• OK. I think this should be the end of it. If Alt595 pulls a stunt like this again they'll be blocked much longer, perhaps indefinitely. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• Ah well. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HCPUNXKID

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

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

I think he means COI. 2Awwsome 21:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:AfricaTanz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of references by User:AfricaTanz

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

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

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

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

Propose indefinite block

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

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

Wikihounding from אומנות

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

Brief history

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

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

The same layout style was then used on Eurovision Song Contest 2013 and on 27 June 2013 I nominated the article for GA review. At the time I then decided that it would be a good idea to also nominate one of the older articles that did not use the layout as per RfC, and on 7 July 2013 I nominated Eurovision Song Contest 2011 for GA, whilst keeping that article in its older layout format. At the time of nominating both these articles I had anticipated them both being reviewed at the same time, but also understood that the likelihood of that happening also being 50/50. However, as I had plenty of spare time at that time of year, then I was prepared to deal with both reviewers in the event they were to be done at the same time. On 14 November 2013 the 2013 article passed its GA review. And I thanked the reviewer on the same day. The 2011 review was also started at the same time, and I had informed Khazar2 the day prior of my unexpected busy schedule. As I'm sure most of you would appreciate, nobody ever knows when their partner decides to pick the moment to make a proposal of marriage. As I had accepted the proposal, I then realised that my real-life time and my Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages community. Sincere regards, Wesley Mᴥuse 17:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrative findings

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

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

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

And again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ivan Volodin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OwenX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 and deleting sources he doesn't like , while Alexbrn just nukeandpaved almost the entire article when he came to join the discussion today . After reducing the article to a stub, he nominated it for deletion On my objection, I was simply told I obviously don't understand WP policy regarding secondary sources . When I reverted his nukeandpave, he threatened me to be blocked because of edit warring .
As laudable as the works of QG and Alexbrn are in clearing WP of pseudoscience and bogus alt med content, they're overshooting the mark here. Could someone please look into this? Of course I'm willing to discuss anything regarding content and sources, but I feel a little helpless against their rapid actions. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I think you mean "of poorly-sourced material" - good stuff eh? We're here to improve Misplaced Pages, after all ... Alexbrn 09:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

SPA, POV-pushing IP being disruptive at Bukharan Jews

Special:Contributions/24.12.209.241

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This website is an even more patently unreliable source .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BANNED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eritrea- Possible conflict of interest

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alexis Reich (2nd nomination) the attacks are here: , here: and here: . I shouldn't have to ask someone three times to stop doing something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand your reasoning, but you shouldn't base your arguments ad hominem, about what the user is, what he reads, rather than about the content of its comments. I see you can rationally explain your opinion, and there is no reason for labeling user competent, incompetent, manga reader etc, especially calling them names (even by using "<censored>"). You may be frustrated by someone's actions on Misplaced Pages 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 07:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Editing Misplaced Pages 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 so he has my respect for that. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


(too many edits to point out)





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

Also, upon further digging this particular user was involved in several edit-wars in other articles. Naturally, because he was either adding content or changing content without any source. See .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poking a COI hive

Editors

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

Articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Courier-Mail

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

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

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

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

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

Think of the people who want to become sysops! A bit of vandalism reversion can't hurt an RfA! 2Awwsome 18:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on Allegro Development Corporation page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supercarslover

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

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

Legal proceedings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe give a warning for the attacks and for refactoring the comment. No blocking should be necessary, it isn't a legal threat. 2Awwsome 21:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

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

The alleged 'legal threat' was actually a personal attack, and the refactor was James Cantor reposting it without the word "libellous". 2Awwsome 21:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No, as WP:NPA suggests, the IP was "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 21:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Two quotes:

"the way Squeakbox did it was patently designed to give headline prominence to the negative aspect of my record" "First of all, I would like to thank those who have opposed the changes proposed by Squeakbox, which seem entirely contrary to the spirit of open access to knowledge in which Misplaced Pages 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 21:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

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

BLP and edit-warring issue at Disappearance of Natalee Holloway

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

The link has been removed three times today by three separate editors (including myself), but each time has been restored by Wehwalt (talk · contribs) (, , ). 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  21:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I'm not sure what the issue is here. Wehwalt restored the link a few times and then stopped to avoid violating the edit warring policy. It seems like he won't keep reverting, and as long as he doesn't I don't think there's any need for action. Coming here 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)

1. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KlzFldNd6XM
2. http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/libya-al-gaddafi-loyalists-risk-revenge-death-sentences-2013-08-02
3. http://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. http://voiceofdetroit.net/2012/01/05/resistance-in-libya-continues-green-flag-flies-in-many-cities-heavy-fighting-in-tripoli/

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards