Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Wikihounding from אומנות[edit]

I suppose one could argue I'm invooolved in this one way or another, but it's time to close it with no administrative action taken, for reasons explained by four respondents, only one of which was yours truly. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Brief history

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

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

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

Wikihounding

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

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

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

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

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

  • I can't judge the complaint easily (since relevant evidence via diffs is not given for hounding, for instance), though it's clear to me that the battlefield shenanigans between these two editors are disruptive enough: in the case of Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2011/GA1, they are initiated by אומנות but they predate the GA--and Wesley returns as much as he's given. (As a side note, though, I have to say that I don't see how that GA failure proves that Wesley's "new" format is successful and the old one is not: I don't see how the reviewer failed the article because of layout issues.) But I'm almost afraid to ask for diffs, since that will no doubt be a laundry list. I've been asked before by Wesley to look into אומנות's attitude, and found it difficult to blame one side more than another. It's a pity that both work in the same, relatively narrow, area. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I had provided the evidence via means of linking. However, if diffs are preferable, then I am happy to provide them although as there are that many then would it be possible to allocate time for me to do this? Especially with the current real-life situation that I had mentioned above. Wesley Mᴥuse 18:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I see links for the thanking of reviewers (not a relevant matter here) and GA reviews and a busy schedule. But you're asking us to investigate and possibly confirm your charge of hounding by the other user. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah yes I see what you mean. I thought the link to the Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2011/GA1 which contained the essay-like comments from אומנות, may have been sufficient. I'd happily accept if one sees my responses to the user following their essay, as being harsh, but when one receives multiple directly worded attacks and false allegations in essay-like statement, then how is one suppose to shrug it away under the carpet? It is like I said, if one pokes a wasp nest, then one should expect to be stung sooner or later.
  • Examples of what I see as blatant hounding; "Quality is based on team work with various users making changes and improving, which you don't correctly comprehend, and therefore alongside your work and improvement of articles, you also result in more hold backs and discussions that get stuck for improving. Your very comment above actually battles with others credit and acknowledgement right to those who you claim to be your colleagues, which ironically repeats the same ignoring from others opinions to improve at the last RFC you "helped" with.". Which implies that I am purposely hoarding all the credit and glory of GA's for some sort of personal gain. However, I easily disproven their assumption in the fact that in 2012 I issued a teamwork barnstar to the entire project. Issuing this via the newsletter was by far easier than it would have been to visit each and every project member's talk page and post one individually. I'm sure one would apprecaite time efficiency. Also the 2013 review has only taken place a couple of days ago, and the next edition of the newsletter has yet to be published, but when it does there is yet another teamwork barnstar attached to the newsletter. What project members choose to do with the barnstar afterwards is their personal choice. I cannot force them to display it if they do not wish. Other examples include:
  1. "You nominated this article which was not only still different with layout of style but also lacks fundamental sources and still written in future-tense..." - The user even acknowldges the difference in layout styles and the fact that it does not follow the layout style of previously awarded GA ones.
  2. ...and you further copied my words from Khazar2 talk page to justify the nomination and ironically trying to show that you are the sole responsible for 2012 and 2013 articles... - The user accuses me of "following them around talk pages", when I had never done so, and was not even aware of their conversation. I was under the impression that we're suppose to assume good faith, even if we may personally think otherwise? So why come out with that remark like they did, which is openly assuming bad faith.
  3. Thats after earlier you said you were "unwise" to nominate 2 articles together, and now you say that you knowingly nominated this article as differently written to verify for yourself that the 2012 and 2013 are good, which also shows no thinking for the reviewer's time... - This remark from the user actually contradicts their own allegations that I am following them. They have openly admitted to be following me around in a stalking manner. Especially when they quote phrases that I had made on my own talk page. For them to have known what I had said, then they had to have purposely visited my talk page.
  4. ...all this only speaks volumes of how much you focus on the “GA” as a kind of self-promotion and being in competition, rather than improve articles patiently and thoroughly. And says volumes on your perception of "quality". - I found this to be a perplexed allegation to make. And I disproven their allegation by providing evidence that I do not look for GA glorifying and selfishly snatch the credit. I share the efforts by means of teamwork barnstars distributed via the project newsletter.
  5. Anyway, this is really your problem and I only clarify as you should know by now, that I will fully and gladly express mine and others work on the ESC articles and enjoy this, and nobody will be eliminated by you from doing so. Try and learn to overcome yourself and share others good will and work. - Why would any user end their supposedly "innocent" comment with a clearly personalised and negative comment like that?
  • I'd also like to add that this isn't the first time that the user has also cast personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. The first such case was back in February this year, when the user assumed a discussion between myself and an administrator we're solely about them, when the discussion had nothing in connection with the user. Here are the diffs for that incident - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Wesley Mᴥuse 19:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Fellow admins, I hope some of you can drag your attention away from your ArbCom run long enough to have a look at this. I've been somewhat involved with these two in the past and my doctor told me I have to stop doing that. So please. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I see no evidence of this.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I provided evidence above. Firstly in February, I was having a discussion with another editor that had nothing to do with אומנות. Yet the user barged onto the talk page, accused myself and the administrator of talking nastily about them behind their back. And then went on to attack both the admin and myself. (string of diffs attached above). Then there are other areas where אומנות has in black and white written that they "followed me to other areas". Please bear with me though as there have been that many discussion, that it is like trying to search for a needle in a haystack. And then there are the wording of bad faith accusations that אומנות made in the long essay at ESC2011/GA. Even in that they admitted to following me around various talk pages and following my actions. אומנות brought up a phrase "unwise". That phrase was something which I said to a different user on my talk page, a discussion that אומנות was not even involved it. The only way would אומנות have known that I used that phrase, is if he visited my page to "monitor" my discussions. Also אומנות has this habit of using as their own personal attacking device, a debate that myself and one uninvolved editor had months ago. אומנות was not involved in the dispute between myself and that editor. So why would אומנות even need to use an issue that is of no business of their, as a weapon to attack me with?
The problem as I see it, is אומנות too easily jumps to wrong conclusions and assumes that when two editors are talking to each other, that they are secretly talking about אומנות behind their back. Many a time the user has misinterpreted context and then twist it around and uses it to cast false allegations not to mention assumptions of bad faith. If the user is not sure what someone is talking about, or what their intentions/ideas may actually be, then ask to clarify, don't just jump to a potentially wrong conclusion and result in poking a wasp nest. Wesley Mᴥuse 22:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, אומנות has clearly singled me out. All this behaviour stemmed off shortly after the RfC which took place at WP:ESC in 2012. If אומנות appears to have qualms with what was said in that RfC, and this is evident in the fact s/he keeps referring back to it at any given opportunity. If אומנות isn't singling anyone out, then please explain why אומנות only targeted myself from that RfC, and hasn't even conversed with others who also took part in that RfC. Wesley Mᴥuse 22:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. I nominated the GA for Eurovision Song Contest 2011, review talk page is Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2011/GA1.
  2. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but primary discussions for a GA review are between the nominator and the reviewer, right?
  3. Why did אומנות (talk · contribs) post comments directly to the reviewer's talk page (time-stamped 00:58), when he was not the nominator?
  4. Considering the length of the reviewer's closing comments, it took me quite some time to read through them all thoroughly, whilst also cross-referencing against the areas that were pointed out. It was at 01:25 when I finally got chance to reply to the closing comments. Yet I got accused of "copying text from another page". An allegation that I proved to be false.
  5. I assumed good faith when אומנות (talk · contribs) posted a comment thanking the reviewer, despite him not being the nominator.
  6. But why did אומנות (talk · contribs) use a talk page that is suppose to be about discussing article improvement, post a personalised and unprovoked attack aimed directly at myself? The user joined the talk page, posted a rather lengthy attack on me. That clearly demonstrates WP:HOUNDING - "the singling out of one or more editors..." (in this case myself) "...joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute..." (in this case the GA review which they were not the nominator, I was the sole nominator) "...in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." Something which has been ongoing for several months, and they even admit this in the way they address specific scenarios.
  7. He then continues by posting this perdsonalised attack on the same GA review page.
  8. And finally, a different editor has even noticed that the user should not have took the opportunity of the GA review page to voice any personal grudges which they hold against me. There is a place called the users talk page, where such discussions should take place. The same user even notes that אומנות (talk · contribs) clearly demonstrates the holding of some kind of grudge with myself.

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

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

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

  • Hi again Drmies, yes I'm still awake at this ungodly hour a bit busy trying to organise a few things (off-topic: anyone know of reasonable priced hotels in Hawaii, for a honeymoon? if so ping me, thanks.) Now back to the topic at hand. In regards to point 4, you mentioned about no diffs being provided for my quote or who said it etc. It was this one from point 4. In the diff itself, look at the fourth paragraph down, seventh line which reads "and you further copied my words from Khazar2 talk page to justify the nomination". The user basically implies that my comments in response to the GA closure where a word-for-word copy of their own from a different talk page. But there are no similarities whatsoever. My rationale for nominating the 2011 article was purely for comparison sake to put my own mind at ease. The same discussion about whether or not GA's were as a result of the improved way of writing these articles was starting to get monotonous. So I thought for the sake of putting the whole issue to bed, that I would see if this was the case or not. If the article gained GA despite it not being written in the new style, then I would have agreed that what I had originally thought was irrelevant. However, as it failed, it provided something to work on, and by that I mean a style which had been changed via a RfC was showing evidence that it was producing better quality articles, compared to how they were being written previously (if that makes sense). All of this research was to assist myself to write an essay-type guidance for the project, which would provide some sort of rouge editors guide on how to write Eurovision-related articles to a good standard, and hopefully reduce number of factual errors, reduce edit reversions, and help the standard of writing flow easier. So my intentions were of a good nature. If people thought that my nomination was of a bad nature, then I do apologise, but that was not my intentions at all.
  • In regards to point 6, I didn't exactly ping him purposely. I read his previous comment (as quoted in point 5) and the way it came across was as if there were some confusion as to why the article had been nominated; which is why I took the time to explain as simple as possible, in case there might have been confusion. However, I never expected to get the long-winded reply that followed it, especially with some rather harsh and attacking phrases. For example "The above doesn't make sense in the presentation that clearly comes from angst to hog everything while trying to eliminate others" I was not saying anything in angst in my prior comment, nor was I trying to hog everything. And I found that to be rather uncalled for, to be honest. What is the meaning behind "So I will try to make logic for you, which may clear (and probably not) your comprehension or deliberate twists, choose the best of the 2 options."? I have noticed that the editor uses quotation marks as a way of adding sarcastic emphasis on certain words too. In the third paragraph, the editor raises examples of cases from discussion that he was not even involved in. So why use those for himself in a combative manner? Also in the paragraph 4, line 3; the editors writes "Your very comment above actually battles with others credit and acknowledgement right to those who you claim to be your colleagues" How can a comment that was trying to explain something in a simplified manner be twisted into a "battle" to take credit away from others? I have never taken credit away from other, on the contrary I share the credit. And why come out with a remark like "all this only speaks volumes of how much you focus on the “GA” as a kind of self-promotion and being in competition". I have never focused on GA's as self-promotion. Although if he wishes to look at the competition side of things, then perhaps he should be aware of WP:WIKICUP, which in one aspect is a competition between editors to see who can get the most GA's and FA's. If working towards improving an article for GA/FA is going to be twisted into some sort of personal "promotion" then I think the wikicup should be abolished, as that is basically promoting such combative competition between editors.
  • There's a plethora of places that the editor has very tongue-in-cheek cast attacks at me first, and then expects me to just sit back and take the blows! [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. The main issue is the casting of what I see as personalised attacks, the usage of other conversations between myself and other users, in a combative and attacking manner, despite the fact that he had no involvement in those discussion whatsoever and thus has no right to be using them for his own personal gain. If the editors wishes to receive civility, then he needs to understand that it also needs to be issued by himself in return. One cannot just cast false assumptions to others and not allow them to defend what has been said, and clarify any misconstruing areas. I'd be happy for that editor to just back off from me for a period of time. And to stop twisting my comments out of context, and then twisting them negatively. Something which he even did to one of your fellow administrators back in February. Wesley Mᴥuse 05:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Look, I'm not trying to argue that your opponent has clean hands, I hope that's clear. And if you like I'll reword "this wasn't really a good-faith effort to get the article nominated" to "it wasn't a good effort etc." I'm sure it was a good-faith experiment, but I just don't see enough investment; you did a lot more for the other articles (this wasn't really "your" article in the sense that many others are, so to speak). I see plenty of bad blood between you two, but I don't believe that the charge of hounding or of unacceptable personal attacks (that require intervention) has been proven. The best you can ask for, I think, is a mutual interaction ban, but that's hardly a positive thing given y'all's mutual interest. I still hope, by the way, that some other admins will give their opinion. Happy trails, Drmies (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh gosh no, I never thought you were trying to argue of the sort. I truly appreciate that you're being helpful and trying to resolve this peacefully with advice etc. It's just the way everything has gone about, especially the fact specific phrases that I used on my own talk page, in which the editor was not even a participant of that discussion, where being quoted by himself. That to me is showing that he had to have been checking up on my talk page to see what I had said. How else would he have known I used the phrase "unwise" in a discussion, and then use the word against me? That to me feels borderline hounding. I'm not sure if it is because the user's English is poor that they word things irrationally, so that it comes across as attacking. But in my eyes, a lot of the stuff he has said has been directed at myself, and negatively at that. Every time he makes a bad assumption against my actions, then I try my best to explain in more simple terms. But I do not expect to receive more abuse after my explanations. If you may recall, there was one incident where you even said some of his words were clear attacking, and I asked the editor to kindly remove them, to which they refused. So I followed the guidance and place the RPA template. He quoted a comment that I made at a TfD when I referred to someone as being "bitchy". If he took the time to read the entire comment itself, he will have noticed that I struck-through the negative comment and then posted an apology to the editor. Yet our Israeli friend (and I'm only referring in that way as I get myself confused with Hebrew text going from right-to-left when typing) concentrated more on the context of the word "bitchy" in a bad faith manner and not notice that I had retracted my comment and apologised to the user. There was just no need for that. I'm happy to move on, and work amicably. But is it not too much to ask for the editor to show some decency and avoid making remarks like he does? Keep his personal grudges about me to himself, no need to be airing them publicly which end up offending and distressing me. C'mon even you know how tough I've had it this past 18 months, what with bereavements and whatnot. Naturally I've had to thicken my skin, but I am still human and still feel the pain of suffering a loss. I don't need one editor to start being nasty with me for no reason. Wesley Mᴥuse 06:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • OK so we're not dealing with hounding as such. Please bear with me in regards to terminology here. How many times would one find the defendant (in this case אומנות), thank the plaintiff (myself) for reporting them to ANI? It comes across as illicit behaviour. And then to condescend another editor in this remark where they also come out with a surreptitiously comment that he "had a feeling to take a look" at the editor's talk page. The only reason a person would want to do such action is if they have a clandestine motive in order to stir-up disruption. The phrase "sly as a fox" springs to mind. What one person may perceive as a threat may not be seen as such to another. This is what makes each of us unique. No two persons are alike. The fact that I personally find the behaviour to be of a surreptitious manner, should not be discredited. If people feel both parties are to blame, then I hand-on-heart accept that we both get a grilling of some sort. But to be showing signs of defending one's actions over another is rather unfair. Wesley Mᴥuse 17:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrative findings[edit]

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

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

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

And again:

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

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

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

I sincerely understand your point of view on this, and appreciate the sentiment that you've put into it. A lot of it does make sense too, which surprised me personally. I suppose I am a rather overly-sensitive person at heart. I am passionate about the work that I do on here, and I'm not sure if that is evident or not. But it can be seen in the number of ways I try and get involved in project activities, including the re-boot of the project newsletter which has become a success yet again. I'm one that hates failure, and when I noticed the project was on a downhill slide, I looked into way to boost project moral. RfC's have been launched many a time on the project, but nobody on the project seems to care about joining in the discussion - which is a shame really. It is only when things change that people then start to moan about the changes, and at that point do they then realise there was a RfC that had closed down weeks/months prior.
All of this scenario however, has stemmed off a lot longer ago, and not just from the GA discussion last week. Which if people understood the timeline of events, would then problem understand the context of comments such as "blabbering" and "Although I kind of expected it, especially from yourself." Everything kicked off back in February, when myself and an administrator were discussing an issue unrelated to אומנות. However, the user wandered by to the admin's talk page, read the conversation and immediately assumed we were bad-mouthing him. He accused the admin of all sorts of devious plotting, as well has attacking myself back then. Ultimately in the end, the user did admit that he purposely took our words out of context in order to cause disruption, because he was upset that he thought 2 editor's were talking behind his back. Now I'm not sure if that event has played on his mind ever since, and has resulted in the way that he has conducted his manner over the months that followed. But no matter where discussions have taken place, אומנות has used the same tone as he did at the unrelated discussion in February. And the same tone which was again used at the GA, which was also noted above as being instigated by אומנות first.
אומנות had no reason to question about the GA, considering he was not the nominator. I was not even aware at the time that he also contacted the reviewer via their talk page. Ideally אומנות should have left the enquiry at that talk page and not filter it over into the GA one. And if it did need a broader look then he could have carried it forward to the project talk page. But when I noticed his first comments on GA talk page, I just assumed he was being polite, but the tone seemed as though he was confused with something. Which is why I responded to his comment by briefly explaining what I had done, and why it had been done. So why didn't אומנות keep to the discussion? Why did he then reply back with a very long essay-like comment and use negative and surreptitiousness tones? He already knows from past conversations how I react. So to make the lengthy remark that he did, he knew full well how I would have responded back. And I did respond back in the way he expected me to do. It's like I keep saying, if one (אומנות) wishes to poke at wasps nests (me), then they will get stung. I'm the kind of person who says things as they are, I never sugar-coat my words. And people even in real-life respect me for that, as they know that I speak with honesty, even if at times the words come out rather harshly.
I would like if both אומנות and I were able to work on a clean slate. But it would need אומנות to drop the stick and stop with the picking and twisting my comments out of context. And as you pointed out, to stop reading too much into my actions and assuming they are of bad faith, when in fact they may be just simple mistakes or good faith "test" ideas etc in order to try and improve the project for the greater good. I have already revamped the project which members have noted how easier it now is to navigate around the project space. The newsletter re-boot has done its job and helps to notify members of articles that require clean-ups (and I have noticed that articles which do appear in a newsletter, do get worked upon during the month). I have asked members for assistance on some areas, but none seemed to care and leave me to struggle with work on my own. And that is a shame, yet I get accused of not playing "team work". I do call for team work, but they never offer to help. So where is the team spirit from others in that? It is like most recently, I noticed a couple of articles did not have the {{EurovisionNotice}} assessment banner on talk pages. I had a rough idea that this would be a mammoth task and posted on the project talk page for help. But nobody has offered, and I've been left on my own to try and deal with the task of finding missing articles. I started this task in July and only got 10% of the way through. Going at that rate, it will take me another 45 months (approx until August 2017) to complete the task. That is just too much work for anyone to do single-handedly. But the project do not want to help, so there is nothing else I can do. If I started to demand for help, then I'd get accused of being a bully. What is one suppose to do? Wesley Mᴥuse 09:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Besides you, there's one more editor who appears to be interested in the subject... Drmies (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Forgive me for sounding blond here, but who? Wesley Mᴥuse 03:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, אומנות of course. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Wesley - I suggest you drop this. Several editors have assured you that the other editor is not hounding you. Regarding your disagreements with the other editor, you have been politely told that you are as much as fault as he/she is. I have noticed both here and elsewhere that you have a bad habit of talking far too much; it diminishes the impact of your message.
You asked the question, "What is one suppose to do?". The answer - take a break - do not over-stress yourself with this. When you are over-stressed, everything gets worse. The more you try to solve your problems, the worse they get. This is because, when you are over-stressed, you make mistakes, both in your technical work and in your relationships with other people.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


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

2012 RFC - I was never involved in this

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

February argument

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

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

Recent RFC

The RFC that I referred to in my arguments, is from a month ago – about his conduct. I proposed mentioning and shaping certain content briefly in prose-without tiny tables and without repeating flags, which also appropriate to guidelines and was eventually supported by two editors that initially objected to include this content even as prose: [22] and [23], and Wesley's support, only for it to be dismissed later by his opposite summary. After an argument started he changed the outcome – yet for a claim that every project-member needs to say his opinion, after he already extended that RFC for 3 months and contrary to previous discussions that were based on very few people. (Such example is a "Location" discussion with Drmies + Wesley + another user + me - and was agreed to be changed). At this stage I turned to the two former involved editors with an ad-hock message, and with writing I may have misunderstood to do my best to give benefit of doubt of any misinterpretation. Wesley then took it for accusing me of Forum Shopping, and redundantly posted on their talk pages – which shows who follows others: [24] [25] At this stage I got blunt about his behavior on my talk page and on the project page, from which he then deleted 2 whole paragraphs from my comment on the RFC. I simply felt suffocated. At this point I thought of posting here on ANI myself. However… I was afraid my complaints still won’t be sufficient to be addressed here and to get profitable answers, I knew I was also blunt as I already lost my patience and I also never came here before and so it looks intimidating.

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

General

Wesley's diffs above either rely mostly on the chain of comments from that same February-argument, either on the chain of comments on the RFC/my talk page, when I already admittedly lost my patience. On the other hand he doesn't understand who his ongoing involvement in fights with others is others buisness. Which emphasise this desperate milking of my argument with the admin from almost a year ago for all its worth. I precisely didn’t get involved in Wesley's fights with others because I didn’t want it to be used later as if I’m hounding him, which ironically I was eventually percieved by him as doing so here, and thankfully that was discarded… Naturally, arguments with few users who work on the same field of articles, bare great negativity. So fights has to do with a community and I need to show some things that may help express the concerns I still have and may especially help Wesley see more clearly how and in what areas he can be more accomodating and pleasent to talk to: Remarks as this proposals were brought up before and gave us all a headache, which me and others commented few times that it’s not helpful as clearly another editor thinks there is something to improve or to fix. During that same RFC and in regards to that same prose/tables debate, became totally combative to another user that simply said he doesn't think this content is notable to be included, which is one example of misinterpreting someone disagreement as a kind of a personal attack on him or his work.
Here are some as such: [26][27][28][29] [30]. Here again in reference to his GA: [31] Here another claim that someone has done something “stupid on the higest level possible”: [32]And this Project Newsletter remarks: May we all please remember to create the talk pages at the time we create new articles. Don't be lazy and expect others to finish off for you. This is not encouraging people... But flat ordering-complaining. There is a kind saying: “One can catch more flies with honey”. And finally - speaking about total twisting: Ironically I decided at the last minute to add a simple swift "thank you" for the ANI-notification on my talk page - that also included a "thank you" - so now this was also tried as a tool to claim as an illicit behavior... Come on...

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

I wasn't going to respond to this, as I was adhering to dropping the stick. But in light of seeing some of my comments been misinterpreted, I felt that it be courteous to clarify some areas, to the other editor. I never implied in my opening statement that you were involved in the 2012 RfC. In fact I never mentioned any editor's in that part. If you read it carefully the only reason I mentioned the 2012 RfC was to shed light onto something else, as I was later mentioned about other RfC's and the GA nomination issue. This was so people would get a clearer picture of subsequent highlights that I mentioned thereafter.
In regards to the February argument. Once again you have read too much into an issue and wrongly assumed that I was referring to Tony. This is actually incorrect. If you must know, the user I was referring to as being relatively new is Mrluke485, who's editing pattern and manner of posting comments reminded me of another user Bleubeatle, who had caused several disruptions in a similar manner between myself and the admin who I was talking to. Bleubeatle was placed on a short-term mutual interaction ban between myself and 2 other editors. As for the points numbers 35 to 41, plus the newsletter. I would like to know how and why you can use something to slander me, when you were not even involved in those matters and do not know the full story behind them, which if you did then you'd know that I was not being uncivil. This is when one editor was enquiring why an article included runner-ups, and despite the fact that 2 editors explained why such information was included on the article, they still went ahead and removed the aforementioned content - and thus was going against a consensus. In this diff I used my usual tongue-in-cheek humour, which if you notice on previous discussions I hold with people that I have used similar, and 99% of the time people have taken what I've said with a pinch of salt. What one needs to remember is we are dealing with written conversation here, which has no facial expression. So how you read something, compared to how you would have heard the tone in a person's voice had they spoken the same context would be different.
When I use the term "d'oh!" it's like how Homer Simpson uses the expression when he has done something stupid to himself. Points 37 to 40 have no relevance with yourself, and I fail to see how you can use them for the sake of your argument. If you were involved in those then I could understand. But as you were not, then they are not your right to use for whatever advantageous purpose you may be intending. In regards to the newsletter, I always use slightly blunt tones when things depending on the nature. In fact this is something which has been done by previous newsletter coordinators prior to myself joining the editorial team. If I use somewhat stern tone, it is probably because I'm stressing across on an area of idleness that has been repeated time after time. Creating talk pages after an editor's created a new article is commonsensical and something which is set out at WP:TPL. It is an issue that has been raised in the past on monthly newsletters, even before I joined Wikipedia. So when editor's are, well basically being lazy and not creating them, then a harsh tone sometimes needs to be used to get the message across. You're the only editor to have taken offence to the phrase, whilst a few others raised their angst at talk pages being constantly left to them to create, even when they have not created the article. So one needs to understand this from everyone's point of view. In future, if you're not sure how my tone is meant to have been portrayed, then why don't you contact me on my talk page, then we avoid getting into these situations? 9 times out of 10 you'll find that you may have misinterpreted a meaning or taking something out of context by reading too much and reaching false assumptions. Even if we think someone's actions may be wrong, we should also assume they were done in good faith, if in doubt - ask the editor. Wesley Mᴥuse 03:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment by CT Cooper

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


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

User:Someone not using his real name personal attacks[edit]

Those aren't civil but they don't rise to the occasion of a full on attack. Example of an attack, "you are so dumb you should be locked in the kid room", "You are the dumbest contributor here" I am not claiming either of those things just examples. I'd say ignore it and move on leave your comments and that deflates the whole situation. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Questioning ones intellect to me is a personal attack and comparing it to those who read manga. Maybe it isn't for you but Wikipedia should not have editors who go around doing this to others when they know it is wrong. At the very least the statements should be retracted after the links I provided as it does not help the deletion discussion but focuses in on me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
There is an actual reason we have the competence is required essay. Grow a thicker skin, it will help you in the long run cause these are very minor attacks. It's annoying but it doesn't exactly shout block worthy. That's just my opinion so obviously i can be completely off base Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
There are different types of comments, the comments made by Someone not using their real name were meant to get a rise out of someone and into a heated argument, the only way the user found I was interested in manga was to look at my profile status as a way to get to me, I will retract my comments but I hope that Someone not using their real name can do the same. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
These comments certainly look like personal attacks to me. Something doesn't have to be name-calling to be a personal attack, and "maybe I should AGF that you are just extremely incompetent" certainly qualifies, especially when made in direct response to a request not to make personal attacks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
These are clear personal attacks, per what Prototime said. GregJackP Boomer! 15:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I apologize for perhaps being to too aggressive in tone in that discussion. But enough is enough if BLP is supposed to have any teeth. So my tone aside, I stand by what I said about me seeing only two plausible explanations for this post of Knowledgekid87--presenting various passing mentions in 2013 of the 2006 false confession as rationale for keeping Karr/Reich's separate bio page. An attempt to hoodwink or a (temporary, hopefully) lack of competence with respect to WP:BLP1E. If some of you angel admins can come up with a third plausible explanation, I'd like to hear it. I have to go offline now, but I'll check back tomorrow. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning, but you shouldn't base your arguments ad hominem, about what the user is, what he reads, rather than about the content of its comments. I see you can rationally explain your opinion, and there is no reason for labeling user competent, incompetent, manga reader etc, especially calling them names (even by using "<censored>"). You may be frustrated by someone's actions on Wikipedia now and then, but it's not worth it. Just be calm and civil, argue about the content, not the person, and your comments will be appreciated. Alex discussion 07:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The content is a person's post/points in this case. The view presented by some above is that calling someone's arguments nonsense is a ultimately a personal attack. Then so be it. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that Knowledgekid steer clear of any remotely controversial subject as they learn about wikipedia, then I discovered they'd been here since 2008. I suggest that a thick skin is developed real soon now. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Enough. @Someone not using his real name, Hell in a Bucket, and Roxy the dog: you all know what the fourth of the five pillars is. For those who came it late, it's "editors should treat each other with respect and civility". Please don't weasel around with words: saying someone should grow a thicker skin may or may not a "personal attack", but it sure as hell isn't treating them with the respect. My "Civility Police" uniform is still in the box it came in. I've put on a few kilograms since then, so I really don't want to put it on now. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Shirt58 that pillar is pretty well broken often and it never hurts to remind people to that "sticks and stones may break their bones but words will never hurt them" It takes the willy out of any bully if people actually practice it. The guidelines to personal attacks actually agree with that point of view. Sometimes the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all. Wikipedia and its debates can become stressful for some editors, who may occasionally overreact. Additionally, Wikipedia discussions are in a text-only medium that conveys nuances and emotions poorly; this can easily lead to misunderstanding. While personal attacks are not excused because of these factors, editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of others when it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
So let me clarify this. Since you are advising KK87 to not respond, it appears that you agree that the posts (a) were in fact personal attacks, and (b) were in fact "angry and ill-mannered." While that is good advice, it is also clear that whoever has not been civil should be admonished. GregJackP Boomer! 15:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Editing Wikipedia doesn't automatically entitle one to respect, Shirt58. Not from me anyway. How much respect have admins shown to the bazillion editors they've blocked anyway? Say, how much respect did Bonkers the Clown get on ANI? He was contributing similarly titillating articles (to the one in question here) not so long ago and has a DYK awards list a mile long. Still seems to be indef blocked. How's that for respect? As for Knowledgekid87, he seems to have had the moral fortitude to change his opinion in that discussion [36] [37] so he has my respect for that. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
You may have noticed that Bonkers was blocked a few times already, and indefinitely only after significant community discussion, not by one or a few wayward abusive admins. Note also that they were deemed guilty of some really egregious violations in regard to the BLP policy. You're shooting from the hip. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Let me respond to Hell in a Bucket and Someone not using his real name...
The single most excellent reason to be civil is that quite regularly, when you're not civil to other editors, it blows small arguments up into medium ones, and medium ones up into large ones. If you piss people off, they are less likely to come to consensus with you on something.
It's counterproductive. It increases the odds you end up at AN or ANI, it makes people confront you harder. Those reactions have nothing to do with whether you're right or wrong on point.
If you like being brought up to ANI, then be rude, by all means. But that's not building the encyclopedia. It's exactly the other thing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
All right, point taken. To repeat myself, I apologize for the unparliamentary language (if I may borrow the expression from another thread here). 02:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Red_and_black_partisan[edit]

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

Articles

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

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

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

Also, upon further digging this particular user was involved in several edit-wars in other articles. Naturally, because he was either adding content or changing content without any source. See [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49].

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


This user was warned time and again on his talk page [50] [51] [52]. This proves that this user was well warned before about his distributive and vandalistic behavior and have chosen to ignore it. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Vandalism is not what I see here, although there are some disruptive editing tendencies. Some edits look OK to me, but others are wholly unreferenced. Also, why are you accusing him of fabricating the existence of the Green Resistance? --Jprg1966 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
If I may ask, which one of those edits I linked here looks ok to you? EllsworthSK (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, part of the edits are OK in some cases. The diffs you provided show him linking to both reliable sources (e.g., BBC, Al-Arabiya) and non-reliable ones. In any case, it's obvious the editor is means well, so vandalism is not his problem. The problem is being able to discriminate between sources. --Jprg1966 (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Non-usage of WP:RS was only one of my critique. Another being that he twists RS stories to for his own means. As an example I can use Benghazi prison break - BBC article stated that many POWs who served in Gaddafi forces were held there and that they rioted. Source also mentions that prison was attacked during the riot (or to be more precise the warden said that to BBC). Partisan made from it nice article about how some Green Resistance mounted an assault on Benghazi prison, overpowered the guards and made out with prisoners. That is something completely different than what source says. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not add that, if you check you will find it was another editor, Not for the first time, you are accusing me of something I did not do. You made a similar false accusation about the Zintan brigade, which again was not me. I did not add in the source for the green resistance claiming ninety thousand soldiers;again, if you check, you will find it was put in by someone else. However, I have added sources to a journalist claiming the group exists and claiming to report an interview with one of its members [1] as well as sources from Amnesty International [2] and Russia Today news, [3] both alleging that the Libyan Government is committing crimes. Have you considered checking what you present as facts.Red and black partisan (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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.[4] 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.[5] Red and black partisan (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

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

If you wish to withdraw from a debate that you are clearly losing then that is fine by me. You do not consider anything a real source unless it confirms your prejudices. I added a source on the Green Resistance page that claimed a pro government militia was ambushed by Gaddafi loyalists in Bani Walid.[6] Red and black partisan (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator comment) - Just a quick glance at the Green Resistance article and I noticed that out of 49 refs, 13 are youtube, another 6 or 7 are blogs, and few others appear questionable. The article definitely needs to be cleaned up and anybody would be within their rights to WP:BOLDly remove those sources and all associated (unreliably supported) content, as per WP:RS and WP:OR. But that said, it certainly is a worthwhile (and notable) subject for an article, and there are plenty of reliable sources to cite content from. If the effort that has gone into arguing had instead been put into improving the article, it would be in much better shape right now. Anyways, since this is a content dispute, have you two tried any other means of dispute resolution? EllsworthSK, have tried bringing this to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Libya, for help? What is it you're hoping an admin will do for you here? - theWOLFchild 03:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not discussion about the article, but about the user. The article just demonstrated the bad faith of user and his inability to learn the rules, despite several warnings, his edit warring and breaking of several rules that were mentioned. I wanted to get to article once this is done and I shall do so, but currently the article is just an example, not the topic. And what I hope for is temporary ban after which Partisan will hopefully abandon his behavior and start abiding the rules. However that is for admins to decide. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Even though I must admit that currently that particular lolarticle is even more ridiculous than before. Just look at the first sentence and than ask any arabic-speaking person what ta7lob means. Its probably the most hilarious thing there. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Supercarslover[edit]

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

  • Blocked for 48 hours. If it continues an indefinite block is probably next. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Immediate resumption after block expired doing same stuff. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I've encouraged the user to discuss their editing here, if for no other reason than to save their own skin. --Jprg1966 (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
        • User ignored the request to contribute here and last edit [53] is more of the same. Don't see any valuable contributions from this editor and still appears to be deliberately disruptive. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threats[edit]

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. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 21:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think it is a PA either. It is important that people are the subject of articles and feel they have been defamed are able to say so, or else how can it be dealt with? Formerip (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • While he may have gone about it the wrong way in this case, we really should pay close attention when the subjects of articles feel that they're being libeled in our articles. I suggest posting on WP:BLPN. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
A slower and less emotional reading of my edit will reveal that I did not, in fact, include that passage in what I restored. My diff comment was "Restoring O'Carroll post. Nothing in it is reasonably interpreted as a legal threat (but removed the adjective 'libellous.'". It is not clear to me that zero-tolerance for legal threats is a ban on the word "libellous." In the context of that whole post, the author was not at all (IMO) making a legal threat. FWIW, I should note also that the mainpage in question has already been nominated for deletion by the same editor (here).— James Cantor (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The exact quote from WP:NLT: "A discussion of whether material is libelous absent indication of intent to sue is not a legal threat." No indication of an intent to sue was made. --NeilN talk to me 21:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

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

What are you talking about? Where is the personal attack and the refactor? --NeilN talk to me 21:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The alleged 'legal threat' was actually a personal attack, and the refactor was James Cantor reposting it without the word "libellous". 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 21:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
No, as WP:NPA suggests, the IP was "[c]ommenting on content, not on the contributor." And James' action was undertaken in good faith. I doubt anyone is going to "warn" him for that. --NeilN talk to me 21:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Two quotes:

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

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

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

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

And per that policy "Reports of editors engaging in such conduct should be made to the Arbitration Committee for further action, and should not be the subject of community discussion". I can e-mail them about this if you want, but I haven't gotten a chance to read through all the IP's comments yet. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
IP was blocked by another admin just before I posted this. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
You are perfectly correct about contacting ArbCom, and I will do that should a similar situation arise in future. I am not sorry if posting here led to the IP being blocked, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

BLP and edit-warring issue at Disappearance of Natalee Holloway[edit]

The initial section has been resolved. There have been several sections added complaining about various things. A certain amount of digression is common at ANI, but the issues have become too complex, too factionalized, and too unfocused to address. If editors still have conduct complaints, they should raise them in the appropriate forum, but this topic has spiraled out of control. Nor should editors be permitted to intimidate otherwise uninvolved editors or administrators from closing this down. Identifying every voice as being part of one "cabal" or the other (we might as well have a battle chart) is singularly unhelpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The link has been removed three times today by three separate editors (including myself), but each time has been restored by Wehwalt (talk · contribs) ([54], [55], [56]). I'm deeply concerned by the spectacle of Wehwalt—an admin and experienced editor—edit-warring up to 3RR in order to restore material which violates WP:BLP. Nor is there any support on the talkpage for Wehwalt's 3 reverts; see this thread). I'm not willing to edit-war, but would like some outside input as I'm very concerned about this material and the fact that it's being edit-warred back into the article by someone who should, in my view, know better. MastCell Talk 21:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have simply urged that the article remain status quo pending further discussion of the point, which has now been brought up at its fourth venue by MastCell and his allies (diffs to follow). I have no intention of reverting further and I urge people to allow the discussion on the talk page. It's only been open a few hours and many of the regular editors have not yet had a chance of weighing in.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Your handling of this issue is completely at odds with the proper approach to a suspected WP:BLP violation. Removing BLP violations trumps "status quo"—that's policy 101. You're also edit-warring against at least 3 other editors to keep the offending material in the article, which would inappropriate even without the BLP issue. MastCell Talk 21:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds to me like you are trying to generate as much heat and noise as possible, and provoke some unfortunate action. I already said I won't revert it. The discussion resumes on the talk page, where you are welcome to join in.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, the drama boards can be addicting, but not EVERYTHING needs to be brought here. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree. However, an admin edit-warring to restore a BLP violation seems to call for immediate attention. MastCell Talk 22:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I haven't had time to read everything on the website in question, but I'm a bit skeptical seeing as how some previous claims of "BLP violations" on this article have been shown to be frivolous... Mark Arsten (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the issue is here. Wehwalt restored the link a few times and then stopped doing so to avoid violating the edit warring policy. He has promised to stop reverting, and as long as he keeps his word I don't see any need for action. Coming here to complain Continuing to complain after he stops edit warring seems a bit pointless to me. Note that I've commented on the talk page a couple times, so I'm not really uninvolved here. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Suppose we leave it at this. I'm not going to revert, and if there's a change to be made as a result of the talk page discussion, I'll let someone else handle it. I'll also be more careful with reverts in future. If there is something further to discuss, I assume someone will let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
@Mark Arsten:: "coming here to complain after he stops edit warring"... That's not really fair, Mark. Unless MC is a mindreader, it's not really possible to know ahead of time that Wehwalt was eventually going to say he wouldn't revert again. When this report was filed, Wehwalt had reverted 3 times and his version was current. And I assume "and then stopped doing so to avoid violating the edit warring policy" was a simple mistake, and you didn't mean to imply that it takes 4 reverts to edit war; Wehwalt has already edit warred. It appears the reverting is over, the link is gone pending discussion on the talk page, and Wehwalt has promised to be more careful with reverts, so I guess this can be closed. But the "this isn't a big deal" attitude is disappointing. An admin edit warring to keep an EL that others believe to be a BLP violation until after discussion is a pretty poor example to be setting for others, and gives ammunition to those who say admins get away with things non-admins don't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
If you must know, I erred and thought I was only on 2RR, which I keep as a personal limit. So get down off your high horse and your arbcom candidacy by looking tough against a content contributor. I screwed up. It does happen. MastCell's haste to run here (discussing it on my talk page might have been nice) says how eager he was to take advantage of it. I've said I won't do it again and so if there's anyone else who wants to get on a soap box and puff his candidacy, could they do it someplace else? If anyone wants me, I'll be improving an article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
LOL.--Floquenbeam (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Admins, including MastCell, should try to resolve disputes with other users on their talk page before running to dramaboards. Indeed, as the notice on the top of this page instructs "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page". I deal with edit warring on an almost daily basis, and I always try to initiate a discussion with users about edit warring before taking them to a noticeboard to seek sanctions. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I tried to resolve this issue on the article talkpage before coming here, but Wehwalt persisted in edit-warring despite the lack of support for his viewpoint there. BLP violations need to be dealt with expeditiously. We don't sit on them and wait for Wehwalt to decide he's done reverting. Let's talk perspective for a moment. You have an admin racking up 3RR against 3 different editors to restore a potential BLP violation, in contravention of one of our most basic policies, and your biggest gripe about the situation is that I reported it to WP:AN/I? MastCell Talk 23:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and I make no apologies for griping about the creation of unnecessary drama, which saps the time of our most valuable users. As someone who patrols a lot of admin boards, I've felt for some time that running to dramaboards about minor situations that could have been handled with talk page notes is a problem. I tend to agree that the link in question isn't worth keeping, but the rhetoric about urgent BLP violations seems a bit misplaced. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I tend to side with MastCell on the content issue, and I think Wehwalt was mistaken to revert this material repeatedly when the red flag of BLP had been raised. Now that the edit war is over, what admin action is seriously being sought? --John (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
    • None at this point, given Wehwalt's agreement to cease reverting this material and let someone else handle whatever decision arises from talkpage discussion. MastCell Talk 00:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Sorry, but "what's good for the goose... etc". I absolutely do not know Wehwalt, and I'm sure they are a good person and all, but they did edit war, and the fact that they're an admin just means they definitely should have known better, There is already a perception around here that admins get free passes for policy violations. How is this any different? From this point, how can Wehwalt block other users for edit warring, and call it fair? Again, I harbor them no ill-will, but a block is called for here, even if just the minimum (1 hr?). And, not just because they did it, but also so that when/if they edit war again, the next time it won't be looked upon as a first offence. We have these rules for a reason and they apply to everyone. - theWOLFchild 20:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark Arsten's behaviour[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Now I wake up to this shameful performance.

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

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

I believe we discussed this a bit on my talk page, here. I believed you were acting in bad faith because you made a comment about intending to mock the Holloway editors shortly before you got involved with the article. That, to me, seemed like a declaration of bad faith. As I said then "few good-faith editors begin their involvement with a dispute by announcing their intent to mock the other participants". At the specific time I made that remark, you had suggested that you might seek sanctions against Wehwalt for misrepresenting the contents of the talk page archive, but you also admitted that you had not read the entire archive. That struck me as an assumption of "bad faith", as well. I may have been mistaken about you, and I haven't pursued the matter further.
I don't believe I insulted MastCell above, I have a lot of respect for him so I will apologize if he feels insulted. I was slightly concerned with some of his conduct though. My concern was that an issue was being taken to ANI that could probably be settled by a talk page discussion. That has been a bit of a pet peeve of mine for a while, not about MastCell specifically, but I think a lot of discussions that are opened on this page (the present one included) really don't need to be handled at ANI. I often try to encourage people not to come to the drama boards before talking the matter over with a talk page, or just trying to walk away and get some perspective.
I'm not sure what kind of admin action you're seeking here, but if anyone has a problem with my behavior here, rest assured I'm willing to take their concerns onboard. Note that I consider myself WP:INVOLVED with the Holloway article (as I mentioned above), and don't plan on ever taking admin action on this subject. My involvement with the article before this thread has been limited to a couple comments on the now-closed FAR and my suggestion that you not rush to seek sanctions. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I left that comment on Sandy's talk page at 18:53 12 November. I had been engaged on the Holloway talk page since 07:01 12 November. So, no, I did not make "a comment about intending to mock the Holloway editors shortly before (I) got involved with the article." My derision sprung from 12 hours of flipping through that article's talk page archives. You didn't even bother to look at when I got involved with the article. You just jumped in to intimidate me and defend your mates.
I'm not seeking any admin action, and would have no problem if you want to move this to AN (except that might break a few wikilinks). I'm here to ask whether there is a history of mindless knee-jerk partisanship between you and Wehwalt (and maybe Kww). If others tell me there is, I'll take a look at your history. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you felt that my comment was an attempt to intimidate you, that was not at all what I had in mind. I was simply suggesting that it was a bad idea to rush to seek sanctions against a well respected user, and that given the tenor of your comments such an action might be perceived poorly. I suppose my comment was technically inaccurate, in that you announced your intent to mock the other editors on the page shortly after you got involved, not shortly before. But I stand by my perception that bringing up the idea of sanctioning Wehwalt for misrepresenting archives that you admitted you had not read appears to suggest bad faith.
Furthermore, describing me as "mindless" is a personal attack, and I suggest you withdraw it. I also dispute that I'm engaged in partisanship, since I did not oppose your plan to move the article nor MastCell's desire to remove links to one site. My concern is that you both seem too eager to seek sanctions against those who disagree with you; seeking sanctions should not be one of the first steps in a content dispute.
Well, since you're not seeking any admin action, I suggest this be closed once again. You are free to investigate my history as much as you like though. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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

  • You imply that I would "rush to seek sanctions against a well respected user." That's interesting. Wehwalt referred to (him?)self as a well-regarded user a couple of days ago on that talk page, in the context of "how dare you?" Now you're doing the same. What is that about? Is there some sort of protected class of "well-respected user" here that I haven't been told about? Who says he's well-respected? Judging from what I've seen in the Holloway archives, anyone of that view is sadly mis-informed.
But, regarding my "rushing to seek sanctions": How do you get to that from "If the above pattern of misrepresenting consensus [that I found in the first half of the archives] continues to the present day (and a glance at the contents of the current talk page is not promising) I'll be proposing appropriate sanctions."[57]? You are misrepresenting me.
  • Regarding "...you announced your intent to mock the other editors on the page shortly after you got involved, not shortly before": I think I effectively did mock them on that user talk page. I had/have no intention to mock anyone on an article talk page, you're misrepresenting me. And your use of "shortly" here to describe 12 hours of engagement is misleading, and clearly intended to minimise your carelessness. Can't you just say, "I was wrong, sorry?" I guess not.
  • Regarding "I stand by my perception that bringing up the idea of sanctioning Wehwalt for misrepresenting archives that you admitted you had not read appears to suggest bad faith": I'll repeat my statement you're referring to, and leave it to others to judge whether you're misrepresenting me: "If the above pattern of misrepresenting consensus [that I found in the first half of the archives] continues to the present day (and a glance at the contents of the current talk page is not promising) I'll be proposing appropriate sanctions."
  • Regarding "Furthermore, describing me as "mindless" is a personal attack, and I suggest you withdraw it:" "Mindless" always refers to an action in my experience and it means "without thought or concern" which accurately describes your behaviour there. If you still believe I have described you as mindless, we're in the right forum for you to seek support for that view.
  • Regarding "My concern is that you both seem too eager to seek sanctions against those who disagree with you": How many times have I sought sanctions against someone, Mark? Mmm? Just a rough estimate would be good.
  • Regarding "seeking sanctions should not be one of the first steps in a content dispute": That implies I'm threatening sanctions in order to get my way in a content dispute. I'm on the record there as not really giving a toss which title is used, since both alternatives will find the article. While there was a content dispute, the sanctions I telegraphed were with regard to deeply troubling behaviour over seven years. Consensus is a fundamental principle here and when two editors repeatedly misrepresent consensus to new arrivals at an article, vaguely waving towards "the archives", and this is demonstrably a falsehood, something needs to be done quite independent of any content dispute. I was giving both Wehwalt and Kww plenty of time to address my concern (and, as it happens, the concern of multitudes of other editors) and flagging escalation was just a part of that.

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

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

I'm a bit unclear as to why you re-opened this thread for the second time, since previously you said that you had no objections to this being closed after a few hours if no one responded to you, which seems to be the case here. I guess I have nothing else to say other than I stand by my statements above, and I find your latest wall of text unworthy of a response. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh. Didn't I make that abundantly clear? You misrepresented me, so it was necessary for me to put the record straight.

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

(Non-administrator comment) - Anthony, I don't see where Mark has done anything wrong, certainly nothing to justify a re-open titled "Mark Arsten's behavior". This could easily be entitled "Anthony Cole's behavior". You're upset that Mark wrote: "You're free to propose sanctions if you like, but beware of the WP:BOOMERANG effect, given your self-declaration of bad faith."? (with a supporting diff). This is something that has been said by a thousand admins, a thousand times. It's advice. It's harmless, perhaps even helpful. Conversely, you have twice accused him of "...mindless knee-jerk partisanship..."... that is a personal attack. I have no beef with you, this is just imho; you should apologize and let this go. - theWOLFchild 21:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Purpose of ANI[edit]

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

I think it's entirely appropriate for ANI threads to be closed if no admin action is being sought. The purpose of ANI is to seek admin intervention--it's not a general forum for people to voice their dislike of admins who have disagreed with them (or blocked them in the past). I don't think I did anything wrong in my comments in the above section, since I explicitly noted that I wasn't here as an uninvolved admin. Per longstanding practice, involved parties are allowed to comment on matters as long as they don't try to pass themselves off as uninvolved. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
It's curious that you mention "or blocked them in the past", considering your involved and spurious block of me, (which pretty well contradicts the picture you paint of yourself above), although I had not even weighed in on the thread that you took upon yourself to deal with in spite of your prior involvement, and your involvement in the issues at Natalee Holloway subsequent to your block of me. Saying in small print that you have "commented on the talk page a couple times' is such an inaccurate description of your involvement that it makes you appear either obtuse, or trying to deliberately mislead and influence the discussion. Is there someone else in this discussion you have also blocked while involved? Arsten, when you weigh in on anything related to Natalee Holloway or Wehwalt or me, you are involved, and you are opining as a regular editor. This little group of admins defending other admins to influence a content dispute needs to end. For similar reasons, I'll thank Hahc to stop closing threads. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of closing threads, what is the point of this thread? Just to complain that disagreed with you and your friends about this article? That's all I've done, and that's not against any rule that I know of. I clearly indicated that I was an involved admin in my comment, and in my capacity as a regular editor suggested that the instructions at the top of the page be followed. But anyway, I have as much right to participate in this discussion as you do, and your assertion that I misrepresented my involvement with the article is not true. I've made one comment on the article's talk page and two on the FAR. So while I was technically inaccurate to say I made a couple edits when I actually made three, I think you're definitely overreacting. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Your posts to the FAR seem to have had no basis in having actually engaged the article or its history, since anyone reading the version you approved should have been able to see the clear problems. On the other hand, Anthonyhcole did engage the article archives, with a thorough review; the appearance is that you showed up for personal reasons, while Anthonyhcole showed up to, you know, build the encyclopedia. As you seem to have done here at ANI, and at other times on this issue, with no knowledge of the history.[58] It looks like Anthonyhcole's reasons for re-opening the thread were to address false statements you made in it.

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

You appraisal of my edits on the subject are mistaken, I believe, but ultimately that's for the FAR delegate to decide. And as I've said in the past, I have no plans to block you ever again. Besides, as an SPI clerk I deal with sockpuppetry ever day, so I think my record shows that I support aggressive action against socking. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Deflection. The FAR is not my concern, nor is the condition that article is in. It's been POV for seven years, it probably will be for seven more. Your tactics on this page, and elsewhere, are what the reopened discussion is about. You had no reason to shout down MastCell, you made false charges against Anthonyhcole, you had your finger on the trigger to block me for an interpretation only you could make of a post here to ANI, and the three-admins-on-one against good faith user (Overagainst) for trying to neutralize POV at Holloway obviously intimidated him.[59] What brought you to Holloway ?

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

You concerns about my behavior have been noted, and I will give them the consideration they're due. BTW, I was brought to the Holloway article when I saw a FAR had been filed, since I glance at WP:FAR every now and then. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Would it make everyone feel better if we desecrated Mark's userpage and burned him in effigy...ok then, either open a RFC/U or get over it. I agree with Mark if no admin action is requested it's time to shut down shop. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Admin action was being sought, in the appropriate forum, for an ongoing incident. The admin who most weighed in to influence the discussion was an involved one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting admin action of some sort was required in the first place, or that involved admins should not be allowed to comment as editors? What admin intervention do you seek now, over that first section? Do you believe Mark violated policy or damaged the encyclopedia or community?
Even assuming something went wrong here, which is not evident, would ANI be appropriate or necessary, or is a user conduct RFC the right venue? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Can you read? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. In reading all the above, I still do not see you asserting a specific claim of either administrator policy violation or user policy violation that justify administrator intervention. There is no evidence admin intervention was required to resolve the first incident; the report was fine, but sanity prevailed on its own. If you believe a specific intervention was required that Mark discouraged somehow, please explain. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear, you are tedious. Did you read the post by Floquenbeam at 22:46, 22 November 2013? There was a need for admin intervention, and an involved admin shouted it down and ridiculed it. Then that admin made false statements to Anthonyhcole. All combined, we have three admins working to create an intimidating environment on the article, at the FAR, and at ANI. Since you want policy:

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

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

Per Georgewilliamherbert request[edit]

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

All combined, we have a climate of intimidation being created around this article,[60] with three admins backing each other up, and the clear possibility of someone who has made bad blocks before doing it again. And when Arsten throws his weight around in here, influencing debate about a legitimate complaint, admins like you shouldn't be trying to push it off the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only person "creating an atmosphere of intimidation" around here, Sandy, is you. You just dive into something that you claim to have been complaining about for years, viciously attack everyone who disagrees with you, and accuse everyone else but yourself of various crimes against wiki. I cannot fathom what your problem is here, and I suggest you take a few deep breaths before you hyperventilate further. Montanabw(talk) 03:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for presenting me with the opportunity to complete the loop. For seven years, the article had three defenders: Wehwalt, KWW, and AuburnPilot. As shown by Anthonyhcole's documentation, no matter how much consensus was against them, the three of them prevented any change in the article. But, AuburnPilot left Wikipedia, and two more editors showed up expressing the same issues with the article that have been recurring for five years. Suddenly, a horse editor, Montanabw, who has never gone near Holloway, shows up to defend the status quo in the Holloway article. The only connection I know of between horses and Holloway is Wehwalt calling her a dead filly. Considering your other alliances with Wehwalt, what sparked your sudden interest? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
note: Wehwalt did NOT call her a "dead filly". The exact wording was "the filly from Alabama". FYI. - theWOLFchild 22:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
There was a neutral eye needed over there, I started out that way and offered my opinion. However, the tendentious editor involved chose to escalate to the current drama, and suddenly I become "involved." No win: The people who worked on the article for years "own" it and anyone new coming in to offer an outside view is suddenly suspect if they happen to agree with the previous consensus. I happen to have a lot of respect for Wehwalt, having helped a bit with the Richard Nixon, Thaddeus Stevens, and Ezra Meeker articles that he was working on. I have interests other than horses, but I choose to work mostly on horse articles because, as we all can see with this example, there appears to be even more drama and stress elsewhere. Montanabw(talk) 17:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
"Horse editor," Gracie?

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

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

The "tendentious editor" has a POV shared by numerous others in archives. Beyond My Ken, obtuseness is unbecoming. Of course we can all work wherever we want; the problem occurs when groups of editors seem to always travel together. It would be nice if you could be one of the editors stepping forward with a collaborative spirit, Montanabw, rather than refusing to acknowledge that there are problems in the article and the "tendentious editor" was working in very good faith to address them. It is interesting that with the onslaught he faced, he behaved rather more admirably than others in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course, it's not just groups of editors who can cause problems, individuals can do so as well.

It would be nice to present evidence when criticizing other editors, rather than attempting to ghettoize them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


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

I also found that there were only two other dissenters after Anthonyhcole presented this data: Montanabw and User:Gerda Arendt (two of the few remaining members of the QAI of the "FAC shenanigans".[61])

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

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

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

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

I've only reviewed the first half of the archives. I may do the remainder today, but something shiny just came into my field of vision. Regardless, evidence of their lying up to then is clear. Kww and Wehwalt have had plenty of time to refute it and they can't. All they've done so far is complain that I haven't yet reviewed the second half of the archive. If they had acknowledged what they'd done in the first half, I would have dropped it. But they haven't. They lied. The evidence is irrefutable. Nevertheless, they deny it. As you would expect of liars. The opinions of editors who don't have a history of mutual support or animosity with these people will be valued. (As would brief commentary on the involved/uninvolvedness of commentators.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your question, Why did Wehwalt protect (the now redirect) Natalee Holloway? given the atmosphere there and his deep, deep involvement in the article, it does indicate poor judgment on his part to use admin privileges - but perhaps that's a prerogative we allow highly-regarded admins. Perhaps highly-regarded admins don't need to trouble themselves with the rules. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Kww and Wehwalt[edit]

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

Anthony, this latest comment of yours includes no diffs. The comment of yours to which it refers contains no diffs. Point to the diffs, and then the crickets will cease.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
See (Permalink) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
May I ask how long the article has been named "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
A few days. The thread at the above Permalink contains the move discussion. I don't have a good grasp on the political landscape here. Would you mind telling me if you have a history of alliance or animosity with any of the main players here, particularly Kww, Wehwalt and SandyGeorgia? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, when I scroll a few miles down, I do now see the heading for a move discussion. I have nothing but affection for SandyGeorgia based on lots of April Fools articles and some other things. I don't know Kww. I've had one or two pleasant experiences with Wehwalt, I think it was at Frank Buckles and maybe one or two others. But, look, evidently I'm a numbskull for not realizing I was supposed to scroll way down, so I'm going to take a pass here. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
May I suggest if you don't know how to figure that out yourself, you might not be helpful here? [63] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I just knew something like that was coming. Thanks for the link. How was I supposed to know that there used to be an article titled Natalee Holloway? I dare say that a reason for the crickets was the opaqueness of the situation. Anyway, I guess I'm dumb, so I'll let the crickets come back now. Cheers. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. This is a convoluted mess. It's not that I expect anyone to grasp what's happening just from this thread, I'm just surprised that an editor can call two highly-respected/regarded admins liars at ANI and it drifts past to the keeper. (That permalink pretty much explains it all. About ten minutes reading, if you're slow like me.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
AYW, how well you know me :) ;) I just want to keep this on track, ok? Let's not have a bunch of off-topic trying to figure out who's on first. Best, the other numbskull, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
That's fine, I initially looked at the revision history for the current article and somehow missed the move on November 21 at 06:19. I need to get some sleep, goodnight. P.S. When calling someone a liar, it's good to pinpoint it with a diff, rather than linking to a treatise, with no introduction to the treatise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
(I just made it a bit longer.) Short version: Pretty much everyone who's ever opined on the title of the article has wanted it moved from Natalee Holloway to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Kww, Wehealt and a few others opposed, but Kww and Wehwalt were able to keep it at their preferred version by vaguely waving toward the voluminous archives and saying the majority of people want their version. Most of that treatise is just a chronological list of people saying it should be at "Disappearance of." I'll tidy it up. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Timing[edit]

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

Well, if we wait a few days, maybe we can have KWW help decide whether to accept this case or not. Why the push for an ArbCom case right now? I find the timing of the ANI and the call for ArbCom at this time very troubling. BTW, I don't care what the title of the article is, nor anything else about Holloway. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 08:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you asked about the timing, and happy to respond. A rather novice Overagainst brought a Featured article review on Holloway several weeks ago. The fellow bringing the FAR (for quite legitimate reasons) had been intimidated on article talk for weeks.[64] The FAR was so acrimonious, it had to be put on hold, hoping some issues would be worked out in a month or so. Here is my part in trying to calm that situation: Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway/archive2#Purpose of FAR and here. Immediately after that very good faith initiative (with a good deal of prodding to get everyone to calm down and accept the FAR being put on hold so things can progress), the first thing that happened was the Wehwalt edit war which started this thread. Literally-- within an hour after the FAR going on hold, Wehwalt editwarred. The FAR had been put on hold after Wehwalt erupted when MastCell made a perfectly normal according to FAR process post to the FAR about a disputed External link: exactly what the FAR page is for. Wehwalt didn't like it, the FAR was put on hold so everyone could calm down, and Wehwalt edit warred instead. Not a good start, and the second edit war in as many weeks; KWW had editwarred earlier. The next thing was Arsten-- involved-- jumping in here. The third thing was KWW accusing me of "knowingly making false statements", and refusing to back down even now. And finally, Montanabw, with a long history of same here involving WP:QAI, shows up. So, to the extent there is any unfortunate timing with respect to arb elections, it is all entirely the making of KWW, Wehwalt, and their associates. I have been involved at FAR since 2006, and do not recall any FAR ever being put on hold, the editors of Natalee Holloway were given an extraordinary second chance to get their house in order, and this was not even close to the most acrimonious FAR I've seen, so putting it on hold was a very extraordinary allowance. If this is the best they can do behaviorally when given a chance, sheesh. The problems have been festering for years, and yet an edit war erupts as soon as the FAR is put on hold? And Arsten-- involved as heck-- can't just stay out of it? I would be perfectly willing to avoid an arbcase if they'd all stop this kind of behavior. If not, let's get on with it, because this has gone on for too long, and is much bigger than just this one article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
As far as the topic of this subthread goes, we don't need an ArbCom case. The evidence is incontrovertible and the two parties don't acknowledge their culpability. We should deal with them as we would any editor. Or is there a special process for highly-regarded admins? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
And I don't know why GregJackP is jumping to having someone "accept" an arbcase, when I was talking about how to "avoid" one. That would most certainly be optimal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to ask you to retract the above statement unless you can show where I asked anyone to "accept" an arbcase. It completely misstates my position. GregJackP Boomer! 17:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I see right up there "decide whether to accept this case or not", followed by your sig (08:38, 24 November). I am happy to have you explain whatever it is that I misunderstood, but I'm not seeing it-- pls clarify. I'm hoping it won't have to be a case, and the word I used was avoid. I hope that one of this group will step forward-- as I did on the FAR[65]-- to take the lead and encourage the others to end the battleground that has occurred at every step of dispute resolution. We are here because even after a plea from me and an unprecedented exemption was granted at FAR, the dispute continued immediately, false accusations continued at the BLP noticeboard, and then some here wanted to close the discussion without examining the behaviors or ways to stop it. Let's stop it without the need for further escalation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, it should be fairly clear - KWW is running for ArbCom, and if elected would be deciding if ArbCom should accept the case as a committee member. It should be clear from the context since 1) you are aware of the election, and 2) you are aware that KWW is a candidate. I'm questioning the timing of this at ANI and the your bringing up ArbCom at all. I'm not involved in the FAR on the Holloway girl, nor do I care about it. I do, however, care about the elections and that everyone get a fair shot at it, without any Nixonian type tricks. GregJackP Boomer! 18:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I would recuse myself. As for any timing, it would be the result of User:EricBarbour and his delusion that I am in the employ of the Aruban government. He's been vocal about that on Wikipediocracy recently, and I suspect that digging into his rantings is what drew Anthonyhcole's attention to the article. I'm not aware of any linkage between that and SandyGeorgia.—Kww(talk) 19:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I was