Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866

User:ChrisGualtieri's behavior at Shooting of Michael Brown

ChrisGualtieri doesn't recognize how consensus, or any process resulting in consensus, contributes to improving disputed content. This behavior has been disruptive at Shooting of Michael Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and needs addressing. Below, I've made a summary of his behavior, but I think it should be noted first that Mandruss already spoke to ChrisGualtieri about consensus. ChrisGualtieri disregarded Mandruss's urging him to find and follow consensus and ultimately made no recognition that consensus is important at all. Because of this, I don't think this'll be resolved outside of ANI. Cwobeel has disputed ChrisGualtieri's editing heavily and has been reverting a lot of it. Bob K31416, JBarta and Mandruss were also involved in the talk page discussions, so I hope they'll share their perspectives here.

When ChrisGualtieri entered discussion of the article, he started a section basically declaring that the article was extremely biased, citing an ANI discussion as proof of consensus [1]. After it was made clear that ANI discussion does not make consensus, ChrisGualtieri made a concerns section where he infodumped analyses of sources used in the article. JBarta brought up a concern regarding ChrisGualtieri's infodump, and the following discussion indicated to ChrisGualtieri that BRD and consensus was important to article-building [2]. He collapsed it without good reason, effectively disregarding it. I brought up the idea that the infodump should be refactored, but consensus was against it. When featured article criteria was brought up tangentially by Cwobeel, ChrisGualtieri said that BLP articles should be treated as candidates for GA/FA. After further discussion about how ChrisGualtieri should slow down and take it step-by-step, ChrisGualtieri agreed to work with the other editors [3].

He then said that the reception/controversy section of the article was not NPOV since criticisms were in the majority. Despite counterpoints by Cwobeel and me regarding adding minority opinions and due weight, ChrisGualtieri cited not wanting to edit war as a reason to not contribute but made no arguments for the original idea [4]. He also stated that The Huffington Post and Vox were unreliable sources and proposed removing them on those grounds, but editors reminded him that their reliability is on a case-by-case basis [5]. He went into a case-by-case analysis of 4 sources following that. In Huff source 1, Cwobeel found an NYT source that says effectively the same thing as Huff source 1. ChrisGualtieri followed by saying the Huff source needs to be removed because the Wikipedia paragraph based on it is false, and that he would remove it since Cwobeel introduced the source into the article [6]. Huff source 2 was also disputed, ChrisGualtieri saying it was a BLP violation and Cwobeel saying it was a valid commentary on Wilson's testimony [7]. Huff source 4 was undiscussed for some time. Only Huff source 3 had a consensus for removing it [8].

After all of this, ChrisGualtieri mass-removed chunks of info from the Shooting of Michael Brown article without having consensus for it. The removal was undone by Cwobeel, with some minor edit warring, and a section was started on the talk page [9]. Citing BLP, ChrisGualtieri said that Huff Post "was once on a 'shit-list' [...] If the material is false or not of high quality, you [in response to Cwobeel] don't insert it in the first place." He provided no consensus basis for removing the sources. JBarta suggested going over it on a case-by-case basis. ChrisGualtieri posted the issue at RSN, but the only consensus from there is that Vox is ok, but HuffPost is questionable and case-by-case with no actual discussion of the sources themselves. After the revert, discussion continued on Huff source 1 [10], and I brought up the point that Huffington Post referred to detectives in the county spokesperson quote, so it wasn't contradictory with the NYT source. Cwobeel agreed with this point. ChrisGualtieri and Bob K31416 continued discussion, disregarding my point entirely. ChrisGualtieri then removed Huff source 1 and the relevant information without reattributing to NYT or looking for further opinion. Cwobeel then reverted. I reiterated my opinion but have received no response. Since then, there have been minor bouts of edit(-warr)ing and discussion about other topics, but no real consensus on the Huffington sources. The result of ChrisGualtieri's behavior is a breakdown in consensus-making and unwillingness to actually do anything with those sources because of a mass-source-review with dubious scope. This needs some sort of resolution. --RAN1 (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I strongly believe that ChrisGualtieri's heart is in the right place. I believe that he is one of many experienced editors who feel that doing what's right for an article is more important than any silly rules about consensus, unable to see that what's right for the article can never be an absolute in a collaborative environment. Essentially such editors carry ignore all rules around like a bible, and use it, consciously or not, to justify whatever it takes to achieve their righteous goals (while avoiding bright lines such as 3RR). I personally feel that IAR does more harm than good, for that reason. I don't know that it's fair to single out one example of the problem for attention on this board, but if the problem is going to be addressed I guess it has to be addressed one person at a time. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Looks to me as if this more a request for punitive action than prevention of anything. Since we aren't supposed to be looking for punitive but prevention (and there doesn't seem to be anything emergent to prevent), perhaps this report is more suited for Dispute Resolution? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, if you want us opening a new issue at DRN multiple times a day. I don't think this is about any particular content issue(s). ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• That is a talk page full of talk. It could do with the POV of more editors. At the heart of the matter is whether Vox Media and (to some extent) HuffPo are acceptable as sources. Chris is arguing on the talk page that a HuffPo piece cited in the article is wrong in many ways; let a couple of experienced BLP editors look at it and make the call. Skimming the points I find Chris's argument to be persuasive--but I've only skimmed it. As for Vox Media--I would not put that much faith in it, and the collection of edits gathered in the single diff linked by RAN, frankly they strike me as unproblematic (and removing a number of sources in such an overreferenced article isn't really a problem). So what's the real problem? Editors refusing to agree with each other? That's par for the course on Wikipedia. But as long as there is, for instance, no evidence presented for edit warring of a blockable degree, what is being asked for here? A block on Chris for hardheadedness? But that should apply to his opponents as well. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we're asking for a recognition of the primacy of consensus. Chris has multiple times agreed to that, and then violated his own agreement by editing either without consensus or against it. But that should apply to his opponents as well. No, other editors are not doing that at this article, at least none that have been around since Chris arrived. It's not about hardheadedness in a discussion, it's about respect for the process. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• I removed the unused references which were commented out one time. I dealt with many WP:BLP matters that filled the talk page and pissed off editors because I was reviewing each source and found issues with many. See Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Concerns. Also, I took the Huffington Post and Vox matter to RSN with @MastCell: and @DGG: making arguments founded on the same concerns I had with WP:RSOPINION and WP:IRS as a whole. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

After a long and contentious few days, ChrisGualtieri has agreed to abide by WP:BRD,[11] and don't believe, given his long participation in the project, and his standing, that he will not follow up on his promise. So, let's give this some time. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For reference, here's the activity of editors on the article. [12]

I haven't had a problem with ChrisGualtieri. I think the article has a problem with POV because of an editor that is so active that he or she is difficult to keep in check. ChrisGualtieri is a potentially active editor that is needed to bring the article into balance. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I think the POV problem in the article is mainly due to Cwobeel. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Bob, that's a bit weak since many experienced editors sat by and watched Cwobeel edit and did nothing. Cwobeel may be POV to the max, but he merely exercised the B in BRD, per routine process. The rest failed to exercise the R. Who's more at fault? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you realize WP:BLP does not follow WP:BRD, yet I have tried to explain every case in excruciating detail before I remove it now? Some of the stuff in that article and on McCullough's page is ridiculous. The fact it is sourced doesn't change that comments like this are on the page:

Mark Weisbrot, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, referred to McCulloch as "one of the best attorneys anyone in [Wilson's] situation could have had," stating that McCulloch made the decision not to indict Wilson and that he presented the grand jury proceeding as a trial."

Some editors seem to think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that being in the article because it is sourced. WP:RSOPINION and WP:QUESTIONABLE are still relevant with WP:NPOV when you got a whole slew of these type of "reliably sourced criticisms" in a huge section. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd normally be against commenting on this so soon after writing what was admittedly a pretty heavy ANI post, but to clarify: (1) I am not for the article the way it's currently set up. It's a mass of non-impartial quotes with potential BLP implications and something needs to be done for that, BUT (2) TL;DR of what I was trying to say is, --> WP:CONSENSUS <-- --RAN1 (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Chris, now we are debating content in the wrong place, and I wouldn't participate in that here even if I were competent to do so. My suggestion is to choose the most important specific content issue and take it to DRN. In the meantime, please recommit to the process, and to patience. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 07:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(to Ran1) Two days ago I did the removals, but not since (save Knafo), because its complex and there are plenty of editors with differing opinions. If you agree there is potential BLP implications - then please also recognize that WP:BRD doesn't apply as normal. Typically, suspected problems are removed and discussed before reinsertion - they do not remain during it. That's where I started with. I saw gross violations being inserted in and given section, being copied to other pages and attacking state representatives. Honestly, McCulloch made some big errors and many are not even covered in the article, but I cannot agree with adding to the WP:QUOTEFARM or piling on more criticism when the context and balance is lost. I am removing my lengthy rebuttal below. There is a misunderstanding which I've been trying to resolve for two days now. I did not collapse this because I was ignoring it, I collapsed it because Jbarta was right. To save space, I'll detail it on your talk page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no BLP issues whatsoever, as material is well sourced, that would entitle you to bypass WP:BRD. If we can't get that agreement, then this will be a protracted battle with no end in sight. Many editors have already asked you multiple times: (a) go slow, one step at a time; (b) use BRD. Following these two suggestions would allow us to work through and improve the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There is at least one BLP problem that I know of, for example the baseless hypothetical speculation by Lisa Bloom that you put into the article that you got from the transcript of a one-sided opinion type of TV show that is negative towards Wilson and is inconsistent with the facts. Because of our previous discussions with your incessant fallacious reasoning, I'd sooner not get into discussions with you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I just went over to the article to delete it and I couldn't find it. Maybe ChrisGualtieri deleted it. If so, good going ChrisGualtieri. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the core of the dispute:

• Chris strongly believes the article violates BLP (despite the fact that a substantial number of editors with diametrically opposed POVs, have been actively involved for months)
• Chris does not accept consensus that there are no significant BLP violations (all editors agree that may be a few issues and that article can alwways be improved), and acts unilaterally
• Chris starts extensive discussions in article talk, but does not wait for the discussions to find compromises, and acts unilaterally again
• Chris accuses others of defamation, with templates in user talk [13]
• Chris gets his wrist slapped for doing that by Nei [14]. He removes the template after being asked by NeiN
• NeiN comment is telling And all this is a matter of sourcing and what you think is appropriate or not. "Should not be used" does not a warrant a third-level defamatory warning for material which you now agree is not defamatory or for material that appears in a reliable sourced but that you feel isn't adequately enough sourced.
• Chris agrees to respect consensus, only to forget his promise and act alone again.
• Chris promises to follow BRD and DR , only to disavow that again today[15] (this is Chris fifth time over few days: [16], [17], [18], [19]) in which he removes the material still in discussion), based on an extraordinarily narrow interpretation of BLP, against consensus and against advice from others.

Houston, we have a problem. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with BobK's take on this, Chris has tackled some of the obvious POV pushing in that article, and as a result, his "behavior" in identifying and correcting those issues is now being criticized. Part of the problem is that editor's don't really look to see if his edits are an improvement to the article. Instead, most of the time, they simply revert with arguments of "there is no consensus for that edit" or "there was a prior consensus for that edit", without even bothering to see if the edit in question was an improvement for the article. IMO, his edit's are improvements and have all been in line with bringing back a balance of NPOV to the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If an edit without consensus is "an improvement to the article", why is it without consensus? Sorry but that's nonsensical. There is nothing wrong with getting consensus first, then editing, unless you prefer edit warring. I'm of course speaking only of disputed edits here, not saying that no edit should be made without prior consensus. BRD works fine. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - This looks much more like Chris is pushing back against the phony consensus that can be "developed" by small tag teams of highly motivated editors running roughshod over a drip-drop of single editors trying to make improvements. These editors have constructed a POV they like and then gang up on the single editors who raise issues with that POV and claim "consensus", between themselves. It's clear that a particular POV had cemented itself into the article in question and editors are circling the wagons on needed changes. Chris' edits seem policy complaint and constructive. This article needs outside help to break up the laager. GraniteSand (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In most cases, your argument would apply. But not here, when we have a very diverse group of editors collaborating for months, with long discussions and quite a bit of contention. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• FWIW this looks like an editor trying to act as a 1 man repair crew on an article that has a serious NPOV problem. Unfortunately I see this kind of POV pushing under the guise of "consensus" way too often on the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's wonderful. So anyone can take a quick look at a situation and declare this alternate universe where the ones following the rules are the bad guys. Perfect, and just what Wikipedia needs. Thank you for that insight. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• It looks to me, as someone who has said before I'm a local who has been subject to media overload regarding this topic and don't consider myself objective, that Chris is trying to remove or replace content which seems to him to violate policy. I tend to agree with Drmies above on most of his comment. So far as I can tell, there haven't been that many calls for outside input from editors who haven't to date been involved or have like me disqualified themselves for existing bias. What the article needs is a good, uninvolved, editor to look it over and try to make it more compliant with what an outsider considers policy, rather than the possibly flawed consensus of a number of people who have been in regular contact with each other, and the saturation media coverage of this topic, for some time now.
• I've noted before that the article is under discretionary sanctions, and that AE is certainly available for enforcement, and am somewhat curious why this has been posted to ANI instead. I think that the saturation coverage of the topic, and the probably honest attempts of all those who have been involved with the topic for some time to reflect as well as possible the media reportage, may well have, to some degree, overwhelmed the editors involved, like it has me, and made their judgment suspect.
• If there is an apparently flawed consensus, as some others above say, that is a flawed consensus and not a true consensus. I'm honestly not sure how to go here, but I have a feeling, horrible as this sounds, that maybe the best thing to happen now might be for those who have developed the article to basically leave it alone for a time, and allow newer editors who may not have had to be involved in the disagreements and agreements which led to the current state of the article to review it and make any changes they think required based on their possibly more neutral views regarding policy. Saying nothing against the editors who have worked to develop the article to this point, it is all but impossible to imagine that they are not to some degree prejudiced by their following the contemporary, often sensationalist, media coverage as it happened, and their prior involvement in the discussions which led to the current consensus at least in part based on that sometimes sensationalist coverage. It might not be unreasonable to take this to AE, as is permitted, rather than here. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

My point, to clarify, was that ChrisGualtieri made no attempts to find an actual consensus prior to making disputed changes to the article. I wasn't trying to say that there was any consensus on the article, and in fact that's the main reason I pushed this to ANI. The complete lack of consensus should have been a clear indication that he should have stepped back and tried to look for compromises that everyone could agree on, or at least tried to look for other opinions at BLPN. I wasn't sure if AE was the appropriate venue, but I'm now considering passing it along there since it's becoming clear that this needs cooling down most of all. --RAN1 (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I think AE might rule in Chris's favor. The following quote from the BLP notice at the top of the talk page, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately" could very reasonably apply to at least one of the pieces being considered, as the material is perhaps both "poorly sourced" (depending on the specific definition of "poorly") and clearly contentious, if it is, in fact, apparently wrong. It is far from unknown for modern media in sensationalistic topics which get a lot of attention to get some of their facts wrong. The fact that they get their facts wrong does not however does not necessarily mean that it should be included because it might be properly sourced. I think, by policy, and the specific quotation I provided above, there does not exist any reason by policy to wait for consensus for something which that template says should be removed immediately. That is one of the reasons why I suggested that those who have developed the article take a bit of a break and allow others who haven't had to be involved in the required and generally productive fights over content to review it. Their status as uninvolved in the previous discussions might give them some neutrality and lack of POV that those involved in the previous discussions would likely lack. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, in any case, Cwobeel's already been informed, and I just alerted ChrisGualtieri. I'll go ahead and post to the BLPN, this has more to do with content on second thought. --RAN1 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I want to say that the response to ChrisGualtieri's edits from Cwobeel and others is almost exactly the same response I received when I tried to edit this article. The article is still very biased in many places, and several editors, not only Cwobeel, feel that removal of content is never justified without consensus. On the contrary, I think much of the content is clearly biased, and it's impossible to improve the article if it requires a consensus, particularly because "consensus" essentially means "Cwobeel's permission" in many cases.

This is the second time an editor has been told things like "you act as if you're the only one who knows policy" and that changing material without consensus is destructive. It may mean something that the same group of editors is responding in the same way to at least two editors who have tried to improve the article. Roches (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

An addition, and a question. One thing that would help this article is a clear decision on this question: "Is a list of points of view an acceptable form of neutral point of view?" Much of [the] supposedly anti-consensus [editing] is about removing specific points of view.Roches (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:YESPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, inclusion should be based on the merits and whether or not they receive appropriate coverage. We have an actual case which criticizes the prosecution because the defense could not have a rigorous cross-examination of the evidence in the grand jury proceedings. The grand jury process, by law, does not allow this, but a preliminary hearing does. So how is that proper and relevant criticism? For persist and major concerns raised in multiple sources, they do need to be given space and coverage by NPOV - even if they are wrong. Also, we cannot pass judgement or declare them to be wrong, we must instead provide a clear and unbiased counterpoint to the argument. Nothing is ever simple is it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(e-c) To answer the question, no, it is not necessarily in all cases acceptable. As you haven't given specific examples, I will make up a few particular cases and why it would not necessarily work there.

First, it implies an equality to the opinions chosen, which is itself problematic to determine, and seems to also implicitly indicate that there are no facts involved. If there are clear facts, or clear statements which have been recognized as fact or at least accurate, they are to be given priority over viewpoints. This can be particularly relevant in cases where for instance, the public, in its emotion and perhaps lack of consideration of all evidence presented to a grand jury, comes to conclusions about the actions and motivations of those involved which are not necessarily themselves reliably sourced elsewhere.

Also, in some cases, opinions of academics or experts as to why an individual, perhaps a lawyer or government official, may or may not have acted in a particular way are also problematic, as they can give undue weight as per BLP relative to the stated reasons given by the individual themselves. In cases where the individual stated no specific reasons for specific actions, it can also be problematic.

There may or may not be sufficient grounds for a "reaction to" events section or sections, and such sections can include public response. But, in short, again, no, NPOV need not be achievable by attesting multiple POV. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't provide examples. I think the number of quotations has been reduced, but here are some examples (all from one paragraph):

Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., director of Harvard Law School's Criminal Justice Institute, said that McCulloch avoided responsibility for the result, calling the case an unusual use of a grand jury's resources. Jeffrey Toobin, a legal analyst for CNN and The New Yorker, criticized McCulloch for implementing "a document dump, an approach that is virtually without precedent in the law of Missouri or anywhere else".James A. Cohen, a law professor at Fordham University, said that prosecutors normally present evidence to help grand jurors understand it.

All of these are opinions that suggest misconduct in the grand jury hearing. None of them entertain the possibility that this hearing was standard practice in Missouri. This is a problem, because it's suggesting wrongdoing when all it should be doing is making a comment about an imperfect system. These opinions state that something "should have" been done differently without considering whether that was even possible.

John Carter, both of your examples apply in this article. There are viewpoints on the grand jury hearing, but I don't see facts about investigatory grand juries in MO. There are criticisms of the prosecutor, and few opinions in favor. If such content is considered well-sourced reporting and immune to deletion because editors can't decide whether journalists are right or wrong, the article will stay biased. Also, there have been cases where journalists clearly made errors in facts, and I don't think it's right to keep statements that are clearly incorrect simply because they come from a reliable source. (An example: An incident report was entered in a database on August 19; that doesn't mean it was "filed ten days after the incident.") Roches (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources do exist and document the topic of criticism and the options that existed. [20][21][22][23][24] Some criticism is that the defense didn't get to cross-examine the witnesses at the grand jury - which don't get to do that. Examination of the sources and their arguments are needed to restore a NPOV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This kind of content-related dispute has no place on ANI, request that all posts above including and after Roches' 18:19, 16 December 2014 post be refactored into Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown. --RAN1 (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Famous Music

Some eyes needed at this article. We have MusicHistoryBlog - who I assume is identical with 2001:5b0:26ff:ef0::3c and previously 50.243.237.254 [ speculation removed.] - attempting to insert an unedited and unsourced personal CV into an article about the music publishing company, and also adding their name into other related articles (such as Donnie Elbert, here). It's a nuisance to deal with, especially as they keep moving between accounts. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

MusicHistoryBlog blocked indefinitely; we routinely block users as spam-only accounts, and this is a good example of one. I'm not going to touch the IPs, since maybe they're assigned to someone else now, but if they (or others) resume this, feel free to report them for block-evasion. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Community ban needed for Joshua Bonehill

• Joshua Bonehill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bonehill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jooner29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jooner29/Archive
• Prior ANI report

User has socked under different IPs, has been blocked as Jooner29 for disrupting the article about him, and is currently disrupting the article about him as Bonehill. He is known for deliberately publishing racist hoaxes and is not needed here at all. While his behavior is such that his accounts would result in their blocks eventually, it's a waste of time for the community to have to go through every process with him each time.

This edit refers to a portion of the article as "libel," which we can go on and pretend is a legal threat.

Aside from a block on his current account, can we at least get a formal community ban so that his edits can be reverted and accounts blocked on sight? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the time being. He's holding himself out as the subject of the article, and to that end, it's not a bad thing if he's allowed to participate in discussion of the article. I said as much in a message at his talk page, where I both invited him to participate in discussion at the talk page and cautioned him that he could likely get blocked for anything but civil discussion on the talk page. If he's willing to go through discussions and work toward consensus, I'm okay with him participating. If he isn't, then it's probably time for formal sanctions. —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, per C.Fred. I can't see why trying to get "internet troll" removed from the lede of his article on the strength of a single source should be ban-worthy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support This guy makes a living by creating racist hoaxes that have attracted death threats toward his victims. We can handle the lead of an article about him without his "help". I'm not comfortable with someone with his level of habitual lying and racism participating here.--v/r - TP 22:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Seems like he badly needs a block for edit warring. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems like he badly needs a block for being a racist jerk. --Golbez (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban from all pages, because his BLP article is not unreasonably a possible target of vandalism by people with, perhaps, no tighter grasp on reality than that of the subject. I would have no objections to a ban from all pages in the encyclopedia but the talk pages of any articles which directly relate to his own biography, and, potentially, related wikipedia-space discussions. I believe ArbCom at least once considered (and rejected) such a proposal elsewhere, and I could see that as being reasonable and appropriate here. Mind you, I also would have no objections to the British government making the article's status as a BLP outdated, but I probably shouldn't say that. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• oppose ban, support restriction Bonehill will not go away – he will either post, or he will sock. His vast online history of multiple identities supports this. We could best manage this by allowing one identity, with further sanctions available if he socks outside that.

Per COI, he is able to discuss issues at talk:. Given his past editing history he should be sanctioned from any editing of the article directly.

As to the content, then there are two group of content in this article. One group, "moronic troll and hoaxer" (with variations) is thoroughly sourced and if Bonehill doesn't like it then he should lay off the drunken burglaries and the Twitter harassment. Another group, "political leader", is tenuous at best. His beliefs and racism are unchallenged, but whether he has any support or engagement with others is doubtful. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Bonehead since his block has started uploading libelous entries on Wikipedia users at the Daily Bale. I won't link to them here, but he has "Notorious Marxist WIkipedia article Perverter, Andy Dingley exposed". I tried to tell people Bonehead is a nasty troll, yet "troll" was removed from his page intro. FossilMad (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm notorious, how sweet! I hope he cleared copyright on the newspaper photo he "borrowed". Some of what he writes is even vaguely accurate, although he did get most of the details wrong (I don't know how, it's not hard to find). I was just about to send him a Christmas card too. I was even thinking about sending him a bottle of whisky, but you know how much trouble he gets into when he drinks. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Community Ban - I see more than enough to support this. If he creates socks, block them and keep blocking them. At some point his interference here may merit further action by the WMF, but they need to see that the community has had enough of this disruptive editor, for once and for all. Jusdafax 09:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Extend page protection though. This expires soon and it would be useful to have it past his sentencing date at least. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not entirely convinced we should have an article about his non-WP:NPOL-passing troll with a couple of misdemeanours and a hateful (childish) blog. The majority of coverage is from his local paper. I'm inclined to think that a similar individual from the US or Australia (trust me, we have plenty) wouldn't get a look-in. Yet we're wasting valuable time trying to work out if this fellow should be allowed to edit his own article to remove what was said about him. If we have to suffer an article about him, he shouldn't be editing it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Multiple voting in AfD

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

---

In an Article for Deletion discussion, is it improper for one editor to "vote" multiple times during the discussion by including the bolded word Keep before each of several comments? Certainly if one looks closely the multiple voting becomes apparent, but if you're not looking for it, editors considering the issue may see all the Keeps and be unconsciously swayed. It seems like a blatant abuse, but I couldn't find anything specific in policy covering this. – JBarta (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It is customary to strike the "Keeps" out (leaving one) and ask them to stop. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Any competent closing administrator will discount multiple !votes. Feel free to strike out multiple Keeps, leaving a polite remark explaining that a bolded AfD recommendation should be left only once. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. – JBarta (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Competent admins--meaning those who can actually count. Hint: I can't even count up to 62. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I got a feeling this isn't the end of it, I might be back naming names. – JBarta (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Even Drmies will notice 62 "keeps" from the same editor (and socks). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Multiple votes are more than just a nuisance for admins to count (or discount), they create a bandwagon effect which can skew a discussion. I also believe that doing this is a deliberate attempt to "game the system". I was, quite honestly, surprised not to find the practice specifically addressed. – JBarta (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The AfD discussion is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of John Crawford III. Please note this was not a "blatant abuse", per editor Jbarta's ad hominem accusation, nor was it an attempt at votestacking. I initially wrote my comments all in one place, but then (after hitting an edit-collision), as explained in the discussion I thought it clearer to label the points and place them in the relevant sections of the discussion. I had thought the greater concern was editing in good faith and reaching a consensus through structured dialogue, not voting (i.e. WP:CONSENSUS, not WP:VOTE). But I have no problem removing the labels and boldings if this is the norm.

If we are tallying votes and clarifying through the use of bold font, then would it be appropriate for someone to add a bold Keep for the comment by user Roger Asai/71.220.210.127, who in his Edit Summary (but not in the discussion) wrote: "My vote to keep articles like this. Sorry I don't have the skills to make the bullet - hopefully someone can fix that part." A bullet was added for him, but not the word 'keep'. I have commented on this in the discussion.

Please also note that editor Jbarta has been warned for violating WP:CIVIL, e.g. "the absurdity of [your] original comment," "you are welcome to blow your admonition in some other direction". His/her 'playing the refs' here, and his/her continued personalization of the editing process (rather than assuming WP:GOODFAITH) -- e.g. "I also believe that doing this is a deliberate attempt to 'game the system'." -- are not in the spirit of WP:CIVILITY.

Finally, an editor who uploads to WikiMedia three versions of the 1860 cartoon titled "The Nigger in the Woodpile" may not be the best choice for editing articles which involve sensitive racial issues. Thank you. Benefac (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh my goodness.... that's funny.... uploaded three versions of Nigger_in_the_Woodpile. You can't make this stuff up people ;-) – JBarta (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

As a participant in a couple of thousand AfD debates, I can't recall a single one that was influenced by multiple !votes. Leaving aside newbies, socks and meat, everyone sees this instantly, and pulls their antennae to the full upright position. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Cullen: you seem on good terms with Jbarta, but are you suggesting that I was trying to stack the vote, or do you accept the explanation that I offered here and on the AfD page? I.e., I wrote: WP:CONSENSUS, not WP:VOTE. "Consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)." "Most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion." It was more clear to label my points and insert them in the appropriate places as replies, where they furthered the conversation, rather than to not label them or combine them into one comment. See also WP:Votestacking. I'm sorry if I didn't know the norms on AfD pages, I don't recall ever having participated in one (though it's possible). I had assumed every comment that expressed a clear opinion in a discussion thread would or could be labeled as such (Keep, or Delete, or Comment, or Redirect, or Merge, or whatever). I had no idea that such labeling is considered a 'vote'. How would anyone know this, the first time? It is not mentioned in the article's AfD Notice, nor on the AfD Discussion page. On the WP:AfD page, it says: "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote." And "When participating, please consider the following: The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." That's pretty clear, and that's what I intended to do. Now that I look further and 'read the fine print' on that page, I see it also says: "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." Fair enough, now I know. But to assume I was trying to stack the decks or that this is 'blatant abuse' or 'gaming the system' is not WP:GOODFAITH. Fair enough? Benefac (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: How could you know with such certainty that multiple votes didn't have an effect on some editors? Is it possible that some skewing happened and you just didn't realize it? – JBarta (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2014 (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.

Just a followup to this discussion... I was bold and made this addition to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. – JBarta (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised that it wasn't already in there. Thanks. ansh666 01:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring IP

I noticed an ip removed content without explination, I reverted it. He removed it again, I told him to use edit summaries, left a message and once again added it back. He reverted again. This is the third time I am adding it back, and I do not want to edit war. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabe_Polsky&diff=637827558&oldid=637639197 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabe_Polsky&diff=next&oldid=637827558 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabe_Polsky&diff=next&oldid=637828264 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabe_Polsky&diff=next&oldid=637844524 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabe_Polsky&diff=next&oldid=638405451 Thank you Weegeerunner (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Routine vandalism; I've left a simple {{uw-delete3}}. Should it continue, feel free to report the IP for a block. We normally want an IP or user to be given a final warning before blocking for simple vandalism like this, but a fourth piece of vandalism like this will qualify as edit-warring, and we can block the IP for that without waiting for all the warnings to pile up. Note that WP:3RR specifically excludes anti-vandalism edits: you can revert the vandals as many times as you want without being "eligible" for an edit-warring block. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring and disruptive tag removing

Two of the users on Battle of Chawinda disruptively removed the issue tags[25] without ever addressing about each and both of the times they used bad edit summaries.

Now one of these users started to use IP for edit warring. Please do something. VandVictory (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Fully protected for 24 hours. Be thankful I didn't block you for edit-warring. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong's Vendetta: Page Fredrick_Brennan

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.

---

Ryūlóng (琉竜 is an editor with a grudge against 8chan and Frederick Brennan, and is currently engaged in a passive aggressive attempt to either turn this page into a propaganda sheet or else the usual whittle-then-remove deletionism that his ilk is infamous for. Wikipedia allows this to happen and editors like this are smothering this site in petty vendettas and narrow agendas. There's a reason the community around here is dying and editor's like Ryulong, and the policies which support them, are the biggest part of it. I fully expect this critical commentary to be answered with some barrage of WP policies and snow-jobs, but I just wanted to leave something on record -- until the page is deleted of course. 95.44.220.10 (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, Kotaku In Action is once again brigading this page with their off-Wiki canvassing efforts. That's where the above comment comes from. Silverseren^C 22:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There's the new Wiki In Action board, too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even know about that one. So they now have an official board for COI canvassing of Wikipedia? Silverseren^C 22:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not from KiA or whatever that other wiki place is is. Keep making up bogeymen and deflecting, but the problem here is Ryulong, not the page. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral, informative encyclopedia (regardless of this weeks definitions), and a biased editor with a vendetta is taking control of the page. It's patently obvious that neither KiA, or 8chan have any real influence over articles around here whatsoever. I also haven't made edits as they would be pointless in the face of an editor with an agenda like Ryulong. He could be elsewhere improving other articles, but he's here, re-painting an article he has an interest in to his own liking. The honest editors left around here know that this is wrong, but are probably took busy pulling holes in the rest of the ship to be interested. I'm simply leaving these statements here for the record. I won't pretend to appeal to the consciences of the persons involved. 95.44.220.10 (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) May I do the barrage bit? You know, since I'm not on Ryulong's "side" at the moment? :-) Comment on content, not on the contributor. Ryulong is right now making an argument. Whether that's because he has a grudge or not, doesn't really matter. What he is writing matters. If you disagree - and lots of us, I believe most of us, disagree - make a good argument on the other side. That's what we're trying to do. Convince people what should be done with the article, and it will happen. Saying bad things about other editors doesn't help. Saying things about how to write the best possible encyclopedia article, often does. Not always, but often enough to be worth trying. --GRuban (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong is the problem. His contributions can be assumed biased by default based on his previous actions. In Ryulong's case, the contributor is the content. He's biased. Pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest and contributing to the problem, not only on this article, but across the site as a whole. Wikipedia has allowed standards to slip, and editors like Ryulong and ultimately bias, uninformative, and outright deleted pages are the end result. 95.44.220.10 (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Another editor User:TheRedPenOfDoom is now deleting my complaints as they are "screeds". Again, this is part of the problem. We can't have a discussion about editors with biases who shouldn't be working with articles. This is a general problem with Wikipedia, but an specific one to this article. Discussion and correction of issues is impossible in such an environment, and a biased editor taking control of this article is still a problem. The only "solution" people can come up with is to just give in, and the editorship which results is entirely predictable.95.44.220.10 (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have been deleting your screeds as we are here to write an encyclopedia and not cast aspersions against other editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The editor is the problem. He has a bias against the article. An encyclopedia should not be written under such conditions. Ryulong is the problem. 95.44.220.10 (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you continue to make unsubstantiated rants against other editors, you WILL be blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Why the hell was this wholesale copied here? This IP should be blocked for disrupting the project and attacking me. He's not here to edit. He's here to push an agenda.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm here to point out that you are pushing an agenda on the page. You have a conflict of interest and should not be editing that page. It's that simple. You have a duty to recuse yourself.95.44.220.10 (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Predictions about Wikipedia "dying" have been issued like leaves falling from autumn trees ever since this website became popular about 13 years ago. We are alive and thrive. Carry on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have warned the IP editor. One more edit in which they play the man, not the ball, and they should be blocked. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The editor is the ball. Ryulong's incidences with 8chan, and Frederick Brennan are infamous at this point. The conflict of interest editing is the issue on the article, plain as day. Blaming me for pointing out the obvious is killing the messenger, who's telling you the scribe is spilling ink. Blocking me is not going to deal with the issue of a biased editor working on an article, and instead of dealing with the issue the only response thus far has been to accuse me of "personal attacks". Pointing out CoI is not a personal attack, and abusing blocking privileges is not going make CoI go away. 95.44.220.10 (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(Arguably all this comes under the Gamergate sanctions (8chan is directly tied to GG) if not clear already. No comment either way otherwise) --MASEM (t) 16:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Ryulong-Brennan stuff has been mentioned by Loganmac at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence, so I'm not sure there's any value in discussing it here. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Why has this thread been allowed to go this long without a single shred of evidence being brought forward? Now that's it gone to arbcom there's even less point to keep this open. Blackmane (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2014 (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.

Could someone unblock User:FredrickBrennan, please?

With this notice, User:Salvidrim! blocked User:FredrickBrennan because the username matched Fredrick Brennan, founder of 8chan.co. Salvidrim wrote that he didn't personally doubt the identity, but as a precaution until it is verified. So, Fredrick Brennan posted https://8chan.co/wiki.txt as proof that he is, in fact, User:FredrickBrennan. However Salvidrim! seems to have left for the night (I posted on his talk page, and it's been a while). Would an admin be so good as to unblock? And if there is some sort of official stamp of identity, if you could place it on the U:FB user or talk page? Thank you kindly. --GRuban (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Unblocked. There's really no official stamp of identity, other than a userbox that says basically "this user has confirmed his identity through OTRS". Lacking OTRS access, I can't place that, so I just included a link to wiki.txt in the block log. Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If it has been confirmed through OTRS, drop me a note and I'll do the relevant papertemplate work. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Living Persons and Author

I created a page for "Christina Krusi". Swiss author/painter. Her book centers on 5 years of abuse in the Bolivian jungle by missionaries. A documentary by SRF1 was also done. She also opened a foundation for the protection of children. Since creating the page I have a user SolaryVeritas that continually edits the page with negative insertions about Krusi's book and documentary. In turn, I have kept 90% of the edits on the page to satisfy the user, including calling a ritual child murder she claims to have witness as "Satanic", detailed sources that attempt to negatively affect Krusi's reputation, insistence on inserting 'alleged' into all her claims both in the book and documentary, inserting 'expose' for documentary, putting a full paragraph on 'Status of Abuse Claims" (which include defaming Krusi's diary despite not public, emphasizing her lack of support from parents, subjective sentences such as "Krusi's central story of witnessing a child sacrifice and drinking its blood conforms to many similar accounts of Satanic Ritual Abuse. Kenneth Lanning of the American FBI reports that all such accusations have failed to shown evidence.[22] Chris French, Science journalist for The Guardian, writes that stories of satanic abuse are based on false memories.[23"]and goes on to attempt references of how the user does not 'believe' a word Krusi says). Overall over the past month, any insertions of text by SolaryVeritas are inserted with intent to defame Krusi. Please assist.KHBibby (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That section on the veracity of her claims appears to consist largely of unpublished synthesis, and there's a definite POV issue there (use of weasel words, as you point out, as well as scare quotes). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This whole this is funny since I was about to start an ANI concerning the Christina Krusi page.

There are 4 editors involved in trying to remove anything negative in this article 3 of whom are SPA.

• Coco353 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Conflict of Interest Editor who stated "I have the permission of C. Krusi to do this."
• JonathonWings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - SPA editor who started editing on 5 December 2014, has only edited Christina Krusi and Talk pages.
• NYWest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Brand New Editor, Started 15 December 2014, has only edited Christina Krusi

The fourth is the article creator and OP here

• KHBibby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Creator of Christina Krusi,

Based on comments made by each of these editors it seems clear there is some off wiki collaborating. In addition strong not here behavior from at least the three SPA editors, especially Coco353. I suspect sock puppet or meat puppet as well though I do not have proof. My suggestions is Boomerang on OP. VViking_TalkEdits 13:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

One last item, with this edit[[26]] Coco uses legal language, such as defamation and liability concerns. Followed by this statement that seems to be an attempt at intimidation 'As well, KHBibby has evidence that SolarisVeritas is a not an objective user.' Thanks, VViking_TalkEdits 13:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

KHBibby almost certainly works for or is affiliated with Krusi given he uploaded an obvious press photo of her and one of her works (both in web resolution, and both later with permission confirmed by OTRS). Given one of those three other editors has admitted to having an association with Krusi, I think it's more likely we have a group of coworkers working on the article. In other words, I think what's going on should counsel care, not a boomerang.

This is especially true if you look at what SolarisVeritas actually added. The second paragraph begins with an unsourced sentence stating that Krusi's account conforms to similar ones about satanic ritual abuse, and then immediately brings up two respectable-sounding sources (a law enforcement expert and a prominent British journalist) for the contention that claims of satanic abuse are all false (neither source mentions Krusi at all). It's blatant synthesis to support a negative POV in a BLP. As frustrating as they can be, COI-afflicted editors can be right sometimes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

After reading SolaryVeritas complaints, which he has caused on Krusi's page (not the other way around) you will compare the initial page I started, and what he has done to it over the last two months (the negative insertions are his), notice his stalking of the page with his edits, are all undermine Krusi/book/documentary. So, having created the page, I read your A+B+C and think, do you get this? Author/painter/foundation, etc. - why do other biographers write a book on themselves and SolaryVeritas doesn't go thru it with a fine tooth comb and pull out any dirt he can find, make sure its verifiable, and then insert it into their wiki page? Why not? Because it is obvious from me and nine other users that SolaryVeritas has a bone to pick with Krusi and cannot stand to see her page balanced (both positive and negative). On top of that, SolaryVeritas inserts are over one-quarter of the entire page and finds anything negative he can pull out of article that contain MANY comments from Krusi - verifiable facts from the same articles that SolaryVeritas ignores in order to find his (subjective)inserts. HOWEVER this is Christina Krusi's WIKI PAGE - a living person and open for all users to help develop not destroy. Between SolaryVeritas Satan Ritual obsession (numerous talk notes to me on that subject - please read his/her edits on this subject), Krusi's mental states, etc. (it goes on)it appears SolaryVeritas intent is to turn the page into a three page tabloid of sensationalism. I also have a copies of all the 'side' talks SolarisVeritas and summary of the outright liable insertions in order to get his/her user account blocked but told by other users SolaryVeritas will just open up in another user name. I also contacted Krusi only on the request of SolaryVeritas because of his/her curiousity about years. Her website is on her wiki page and contact info there for anyone. SolaryVeritas is intent and obsessed with Krusi's page. I am willing to meet halfway, as I have shown, for example, if you compare the pages from early last week - all his/her changes were put in. Then suddenly add in a 'Disclaimer' paragraph with new header to highlight his/her findings. I also made sure i started lines with 'Krusi claims' or 'alleges,' and ensured fairness to Krusi, SIL and Wycliffe. As well, provided links to Wycliffe's website where it talks about Krusi, apologies, and other details. I also put in the SIL quote from the Child Safety Officer, the parents not supportive, examples of conflicts between verifiable facts (e.g. child murder, time constraints, diary - yes she wrote it, yes, I put it as not published and SolaryVeritas has to add 'a secret language' - why?). SolarisVeritas also goes on to talk about therapists, parents lack of support, etc. in great details which are all in the books, interviews, documentary - so why pick 10 things out of 1000 things Krusi has talked about without balancing it with stories of the horrors of abuse, etc.? Pretty obvious. Try A=Krusi writes a book (her story and it is published), B=a major station (SRF1) investigates it and does a documentary on her abuse, and C=goes onto open a foundation for abused children and becomes a notable author and painter. It is ok to be an author is it not, to write a biography and expect a two paragraph 'balanced' summary (SolaryVeritas wanted the page shortened 'much cleaner' he/she wrote on my talk page). Please don't forget the living person part. I would appreciate more feedback from other users, the page doesn't need any more complaints from SolarisVeritas.KHBibby (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

After reading Synth I wonder if I understand it correctly. Synthesis involves joining two propositions and making third conclusion. I do not intend to do this, but maybe poorly done. Both sources (Lanning and Fitch) state that SRA accounts are not believable. (A = B) Krusi's claim is SRA - not debatable. (A) The conclusion, yes, is implied. (Krusi's claim = not believable) But this is not "A + B = C". It is only "A = B". Question: Is this synthesis? Thank you. SolaryVeritas (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is synthesis, and your A = B analogy is incorrect. You say "Krusi's claim is similar to SRA" and "SRA accounts are not believable", with the implied conclusion that Krusi's claim is not believable. A is similar to B, and B is C, therefore A is C. That is synthesis, and it is not allowed on Wikipedia. Find a reliable source that says Krusi's claim is not believable and it won't be synthesis (but it may be subject to other policies that would still demand its exclusion). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Helpful. Thx Mendaliv for the clarification. SolaryVeritas (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, this first edit on WIKIPEDIA for me. Learning fast. Question about "synthesis": Can such information be footnoted? I try to refrain from derogatory comments to subject, but unfortunately, providing balance raises questions about claims made by Krusi. Not sure of solution.SolaryVeritas (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis of sources is forbidden. This link may be of assistance. Blackmane (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Having problem/w editors deleting contributions w/o consulting. I think they are disruptive. Would like to request review. Thx.SolaryVeritas (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Wtshymanski hammering his personal knowledge into articles again

This is at the article Ladder logic. Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is once again trying to enforce his personal opinion into an article. I wasn't sure whether these should have been two ANI's but here goes.

In the first place, on the 10th December he added this tag claiming that something in the article has been synthesised from some source or other. However, no clue was left anywhere, not even on the talk page, as to what had been synthesised (or even from what). Accordingly I deleted the tag as superfluous.

Wtshymanski has repeatedly restored the tag [27], [28] and [29]. In each case claiming that there is a discussion on the talk page. Nothing has been added to the talk page since the 28th April (and that was vandalism) and the last post before that was 25th August 2013. It is possible that Wtshymanski is refering to one of the past discussions, but without any clue as to which, any problem is unlikely to be fixed.

Second: from the talk page, it is clear that Wtshymanski holds the view that ladder logic did not exist in the days of relay logic. The article contained a couple of statements that were contrary to this opinion which Wtshymanski had {{citation needed}} tagged (fair enough I suppose as it was not referenced at the time). I managed to locate and add a reference that supported the claim that ladder logic was used for relay logic and added it here but {{citation needed}} tagged a sentence that was not covered by the ref here. I subsequently located a reference that proved that last claim was not true and deleted the claim and added the reference here.

The problem is that this is flying in the face of Wtshymanski's personal knowledge and so he declares it an unreliable source here and as usual without providing any supporting reference for his opinion. He also adds a hidden comment as justification, but the content of that comment is not in the reference. This is a continuing and refuring problem and has been going on for year.

These two problems demonstrate a continued refusal to take notice of the RfC (here that was raised as long ago as 2012 concerning his continued tendentious editing. 86.174.67.173 (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, the comment above the notification on his talk page looks like a personal attack on somebody User talk:Wtshymanski#Important to remember. 86.174.67.173 (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It is right that you lumped these two reports together because they are actually closely related. They are both the product of Wtshymanski resurecting an old edit war. If you look back further in the edit history you will discover what he was claiming to be synthesised. This occurs because he inadvertently put the {Synthesis} tag next to the sentence that he was claiming was synthesised [30]. However, when the tag was added there was no reference for the sentence to have been synthesised from so the tag was incorrectly applied.

What Wtshymanski was doing (as the edit summary suggested) was, once again, attempting to enforce his personal belief that ladder logic was not used in the days of relay logic. This had been touched on on the talk page but only as two throw away comments at the bottom of an unrelated discussion so can hardly have been held to have been discussed as claimed. The material is now referenced courtesy of our IP addressed friend. Wtshymanski's problem is that because the references do not square with his personal opinion, that thay have to be wrong (though, as ever, he does not provide any over-riding references to support his fringe theories that are not supported by anyone else).

You were slightly incorrect in that Wtshymanski didn't just target your second reference, he targetted both. The {unreliable source} tag is following the first reference despite the fact that 'allaboutcircuits.com' is frequently used throughout Wikipedia without any problems. As you note: the hidden comment that he added in the second is not stated in the reference.

Personally, I am not convinced that the name 'ladder logic' per se was used in the relay logic days, but unlike Wtshymanski, I know that my personal opinion carries no weight - and anyway, I cannot find any references that specifically say so. Logically though, since the diagrams look like ladders, I find it hard to believe that engineers did not give it a ladder related name of some sort (such as 'ladder diagram' - Oh! and a quick Google turns up lots of hits, many relating to relay logic!). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

On the face of it, this looks like another content dispute and thus not an ANI issue, but there is an underlying behavioral issue. Wtshymanski consistently starts with his personal engineering experience, puts it into articles, and if challenged rejects any citations that don't agree with him and searches diligently for citations that do. When he is right about how the technology in question works -- which is most of the time -- the result turns out to be pretty much the same as if he had started by finding out what the best sources say and making the article match the sources. The problem is that in some areas of engineering Wtshymanski is a true believer is what can only be characterized as the engineering equivalent of pseudoscience, and in those cases he rejects what is in reliable sources and tries to retain his incorrect information through the use of poor sources combined with a very aggressive and sarcastic interaction style. This is known as "finding an arrow stuck in the wall and painting a target around it".

There are some related issues that are not Wtshymanski's fault, but which make it difficult for admins to deal with this behavior. First, these are engineering issues, and many admins don't have the engineering background to fully understand the content disputes. Secondly, Wtshymanski's opponents are usually newbie Wikipedia editors. They may understand engineering (or not -- we get our share of fringe claims) but they certainly don't understand Wikipedia policy, and often react as if they were in the comments section of a blog somewhere. In my opinion, many of these newbie editors could grow into very productive editors if they don't leave in disgust after tangling with Wtshymanski. And finally there is the unofficial "he does a lot of good work so we are willing to look the other way when he misbehaves" effect that we see in so many cases.

PS: This is not, in my opinion, a pure content dispute, but nonetheless Wtshymanski is wrong on the content. As this PLC history explains, when PLCs first went into commercial production, they were made easy to understand and program for the technicians and maintenance electricians of the day who very used to relay schematics and wiring -- what we now call ladder Logic. In fact, you can implement a ladder logic diagram using relays instead of PLCs. (For some odd reason some Japanese companies offer this as an option and some of their customers pay a premium for it despite PLCs being clearly superior). Also see this page (PDF) (look at the section titled "Comparison to Relay Logic") --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a patent filed in 1958 that clearly shows a ladder diagram. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Guy, that observation should really have been on the article talk page, as it is a content matter. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Point well taken. I wasn't thinking. I have stricken the comment; please disregard. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after posting to ANI...) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI is the worst place to discuss article content. Sure there are diagrams of relay logic. But was it called "ladder logic" at the time? That's what I'm objecting to. It wasn't called "ladder logic" till after PLCs came along. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

We are not discussing the article content here. We are discussing your unacceptable editing style. However, you have underlined the essential point being made here because in spite of your assertion, "It wasn't called "ladder logic" till (sic) after PLCs came along", you have not provided any reference that is more authoritative than the one in the article that says that it was and just rubbish the one that is there - and that seems to be one of the main planks of this complaint. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Collapse discussion about content and not ANI issue.

::: I haven't edited the article in dispute here, but Wtshymanski's point (that it was initially called something else) can simply be made by adding one sentence to the article, instead of tagging it. There are lot of math articles in particular where 5 different sources will denote the same notion using 5 slightly different terms. We'd never have an article on those if we got stuck on such trivia... As long as you can agree that's the same notion (usually easy in math) it's overly strict an bureaucratic interpretation of WP:SYNT to tag an article for having two different names for the same thing even if no source explicitly says they are the same. This isn't even the case here; if I search for "ladder logic" and "relay logic" in Google Books I can find 20 different books telling me what the historical and practical relation is between these two, e.g. this is the first hit. Also see WP:COMMONAME (for using the latter/common name) and WP:NOTDICT for not splitting an article into two based on name-before-PLCs-came-along and name-after-PLCs-came-along. Hope this helps... 86.121.137.150 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your input, but I think you may have missed the point. If it was called something else then a reference is required supporting that notion, in which case I would agree with you. The problem here is that there is a reference claiming that it wasn't called something else, so the addition would not be supported by the existing references. Please note that as this post is about the content and not the behaviour issue, it should have been on the article's talk page. I note that you are a fairly new editor, so this slip up is understandable. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Well, we do have two different but overlapping articles on relay logic and ladder logic, even though that's an silly choice according to most sources I've seen; see Talk:relay logic. 86.121.137.150 (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Could we have some administrator input, please? A bunch of engineers talking at each other about this issue has been done to death and we really don't need yet another rehash. Either tell us what behavior is expected (on both sides -- WP:BOOMERANG may very well apply) and put some teeth into it, or tell us that ANI is the wrong place so those of us who have been around a while can tell the next newbie who tangles with Wtshymanski to not bother coming here. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Having to intervene in the affairs of adult contributors who don't know how to behave themselves is probably the worst part of being an administrator. --Laser brain (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • So true, but sometimes needed. Watching the same issue hit ANI every few months with no real attempt to solve the problem isn't exactly fun either. Alas, we really do need admins to address behavioral problems. Remember back in '62 when some hacker made all the admins blocked users and all the blocked users admins? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Federal Way Public Academy Criticisms

Federal Way Public Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Over the past six weeks an individual has been consistently posting an inappropriate section on the Federal Way Public Academy Site. It is labeled Criticisms. In the posting negative claims, some about possible illegal activity, are listed. The linked source is an opinion based website (Rate My Teacher). The links clearly identify the teachers. This is clearly inappropriate - a BLP violation, and is a not a neutral viewpoint. It also borders on libel/defamation. three editors have removed the posts, and have commented on the editors talk page, but it continues to reappear. The editor has also been given a warning from wikipedia, but the post just reappeared under a new user name.

Hallway monitor (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Hallway Monitor

I think that semi-protecting the article might be the best option here - the source being cited clearly isn't acceptable, and it seems that the contributor responsible has no intention of stopping, so blocks alone may not work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Obviously not appropriate sources, and the IP probably has a personal axe to grind. However, speaking of SPA's, the complainant here only started last Friday, and the article in question seems to have been built largely by a series of SPA's. "Promotional" SPA's are no more appropriate than "critical" SPA's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Constant disruptive edits and frauding of the sources (keeps going)

Billybowden311 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is since the moment he/she joined Wikipedia busy with making a huge amount of disruptive unsourced edits.[[31]][[32]][[33]], [[34]][[35]][[36]], falsifying sources,[[37]][[38]],[[39]] and spreading Pakistani nationalism,[[40]][[41]][[42]][[43]][[44]], with a clear agenda mostly on West Asian (Turkish/Iranian), Afghan, and Indian-related topics while promoting a pro-Pakistan stance on everything.

Even though he got a notice on his talk page that he had been reported for this, he is again continuing with this. He loves to fraud/vandalize sources in order to spread his agenda. This is a high nuisance to the content of Wikipedia.[[45]]

He has been notified of this before,[[46]], but he obviously still doesn't seem to care much. Look at his edits (this is just a fraction) and then at the other thousands of other Wikipedia "users" who make an account to do the same. 94.210.203.230 (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for clear hoaxing: adding information from a dead link, proposing that Kurdistan is partly in Pakistan, etc. Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hope it's not THE Billy Bowden... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Nangparbat

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

---

See also: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nangparbat

Nangparbat has been edit warring and making personal attacks on a number of pages. Meanbuggin is the new account that he is using. I had recently filed a new SPI. Until now there has been no response. Even at this moment, the banned user is WP:NOTHERE. Dennis Brown and Black Kite used to handle this case before, but currently they don't seem to be active. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

A widespread long massive problem with another user

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.

---

BeyonderGod"/"HagoromoOtsutsuki"/"OfficialRikudouSennin"/likely others, was first banned from several wikis that he has participated in for systematic multi-wiki trolling vandalism, harrassment, and continuously insulting unreasonability.

He was permanently globally blocked by wikia staff for several months of the above across several wikis, as well as plagiarising the original Outskirts Battle Dome wiki name and widespread systematic lying about his ownership across several communities (his wiki was deleted when the real owners complained), long disgusting homophobic slur texts inserted as insults on other people's user pages, singlehandedly edit-warring to extremes with entire wikia communities, and a written guide in how to successfully troll people, and another about the people who get emotionally hurt and/or exhausted from his absolutely relentless neverending trolling, whom he consistently call "butthurt", naming me by name.

In addition, he has already created various power listing wikis, and they continuously kept a very lacklustre quality with lots of apparently deliberate inaccurate information strictly to troll fans of different franchises.

After his global Wikia block, he has continued to spam several communities, including ComicVine, Spacebattles, Killermovies, MovieCodec, and even Deviantart. Constantly going on and on about the Beyonder forever, and systematically slamming other franchises to cause hurt feelings for their fans over a sum total of a few thousands of separate posts.

He also constantly calls himself an omnipotent god who lives in heaven, but I don't know whether he actually has a god-complex or just does so to provoke people?

He especially has a major mad-on for Tenchi Muyo, strictly due to the fact that I love the franchise, and thus he has consistently attempted to hurt me by relentlessly attacking/slandering/inserting illogical and uninformed misinformation about the franchise.

List of his trolling and harrassment on the Powerlisting wiki alone, back in mid-September, with lots more to follow in the 3 months since: http://powerlisting.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Antvasima#List_of_BeyonderGod.27s_trolling

Here he admits to doing lots of trolling vandalism to "get rid of competition": http://factpile.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:BeyonderGod/Admin_ship

His usual trolling homophobic slur insults, and comments about me being a "butthurt" systematic victim of his trolling: http://definithing.com/antvasima/ https://imgflip.com/i/dio9g

Here he ignores the global Wikia ban with several of his school network's auto-generated ip addresses to systematically troll and harrass me again: http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/152.26.230.108 http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.56.5.190 http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/152.26.228.91 http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/152.26.228.85 http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.56.4.140 http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/176.50.191.153 http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/152.26.230.115 http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/152.26.230.114

However, he has not yet performed his most objectionable behaviour here, beyond the edit-warring, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Tenchi_Muyo!_characters being] unreasonable, creating nonsense articles or writing minor threats.

Given all of the above, I am very worried that I will have to constantly deal with him for another 5 months or more, as by my experience, he never ever lets up, and will relentlessly continue forever to troll me and others for his own amusement, and our emotional exhaustion.

I have already requested mediation on the talk page "discussion" that we have from the anime and comics communities, but haven't received any yet. I have also attempted to compromise by leaving his last edit to the Beyonder article, with only attempted grammar corrections. I have also suggested that we could remove the word that he objects to altogether from another article here that has been an issue of content.

Thank you very much for any help. David A (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

David A did not notify BeyonderGod of this thread. I have now done so. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything to be done here just yet. We're not going to import any sanction from Wikia. Furthermore, this seems to be related to a dispute that was handled at AN3 just yesterday (link). I don't believe there's been any issues since that warning/page protection came down. As such, this ANI report would seem to be very premature. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I also note where you refer to OmniverseGod as a sockpuppet of BeyonderGod. I see you had also filed a SPI on BeyonderGod in relation to the OmniverseGod account, where no action was taken because there was no indication of a violation of the sockpuppetry policy (and only fairly poor evidence even linking the accounts, just that OmniverseGod's only two edits were to the article on Beyonder). I think it's inappropriate for you to be calling OmniverseGod a sockpuppet of BeyonderGod at this point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, he has already started edit-warring here again after we were reprimanded for this yesterday, including removing another user's talk post, and I think that all of the above serve as a precedent for what we can expect from him. He has matter of fact relentlessly systematically trolled and harrassed others for months, and is only here on Wikipedia to simultaneously market his favourite character the Beyonder, create nonsense articles, and to slam the Tenchi Muyo franchise, since he knows that I care about it. I just don't want to constantly have to deal with him everywhere. I am tired after all of these months and several hundreds or a few thousand edits and posts. I just don't have the energy anymore, but at the same time, I do have a "right is right" obsessive-compulsive disorder, so it is very hard for me to just ignore when he makes extremely unreasonable modifications and claims.

As for OmniverseGod, BeyonderGod calls his latest wiki "Fictional Battle Omniverse", and both handles made the same edits, so I get suspicious. But you are correct. I will remove this.David A (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ima request you delete MY personal links as you already going though my history without clear permission nor do you have THE right you wouldn't like me even more antvasima if I post your fanfic hentai around the web so don't do it to others YOU also had my wikias vandalized already for posting the links so ima have Wikia staff do something about you sense you are now getting into personal areas where I don't condone now for this false report that it seems useless I will now request you NOT to go though my history or go anywhere near my sites and other links now thank you Mendliv for tagging me to this false given report where he always assume a user is me based on name and the fact people don't think a fictional character is omnipotent and antvasima having Obsessive-compulsive disorder as a excuse here as people you insulted on many wikias have disorders yours isn't special nor an actual reason for your assumptions/baseless actions here so ima request again for you not to Mention me in anything else or ima start reporting you for cyber harassment. Beyonder (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod

I wrote that story between late 2006 to mid 2008. That is a long time ago. And it was a social satire with only part of a single chapter being sexually explicit. It may have been in bad taste to include it at all in retrospect, but nevertheless, it was only a few % of the story.

Also, as you admitted yourself in one of the above links, you actually have done all of the above, including harrassing me to extremes. Threatening me doesn't change that. David A (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Section break

David A is trying to bring up an issue regarding BeyonderGod, who he has encountered as a disruptive editor in various Wikias that BeyonderGod was apparently globally blocked from participating in. He has discovered BeyonderGod is making the exact same edits locally, and on top of that is attacking him here in this thread.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• BeyonderGod, I've reviewed your edits. And David's too. A strong suggestion is, stop complaining, both of you! Go back to editing. Start afresh. Keep your discussions restricted to the talk page of the respective articles rather than to each other's user/talk pages or other editors' talk pages. Also, restrict comments strictly to edits rather than each other's character. Stop attacking each other. I could have blocked both of you for edit warring and disrupting this project day before. Don't take that leeway easily. So understand the following pointers for both of you starting right now: (1) Start with a clean slate and stop attacking each other (2) Restrict your interactions to talk pages of respective articles (or to administrative noticeboards if further disruption occurs) (3) Any comment on the character of the other person, anywhere on this project, will lead to an immediate block on either of you, starting right now. I've already started blocking editors on the talk page of the articles where you're editing. Please note - this is the final warning before I block any of you if either of you attacks each other again. Are the above mentioned pointers clear to you? Wifione ^Message 05:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

All right. I think that it is deeply unfair to lump me in with him given the history and threats, including above, and that I have been a good wikipedia editor since 2006, but I understand. Is it acceptable if I tell you if he starts fulfilling his threats or uses more slurs towards me outside of Wikipedia? David A (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, provided you're able to give definitive evidence of Beyonder's involvement (not conjectures, clear evidence). And I'll prefer if such a complaint is posted on the ANI for more eyes to see, and not just on my talk page. In case of threats of violence, you could report directly to emergency(at)wikimedia.org. But please don't use the email channel for random complaints. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 06:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. The reason why I did not link to his several other considerably more severe homophobic slur texts (far more extreme than the insult you deleted towards me from "IAmTheBeyonder") or to his guide in trolling above is that Wikia staff deleted them (after the first he received a temporary global block, and after the second a permanent). But if you wish, you can ask SemanticDrifter at wikia support for confirmation that what I am telling is true. David A (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Read my post above David. Start afresh and drop old grudges. I'll await for BeyonderGod's confirmation too that he understands the points I've noted above. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 10:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue is that David A feels that BeyonderGod has not changed his deleterious behavior that he encountered on Wikia and this may cause problems down the line on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm starting to get really WP:NOTHERE vibes from BeyonderGod. All the same, I believe this thread is premature. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@David A: Wikipedia is a strange place where people do not care what happens elsewhere, with very rare exceptions. A brief mention of the Wikia business may be in order to show the basis of your concern, but there will be no action against an editor unless they edit inappropriately at Wikipedia. I have not looked, but according to Wifione you have been sucked into some edit warring and personal attacks. The correct procedure is to grit your teeth and pretend you do not know anything about the background of editors you encounter here. If they make an edit that you think is unhelpful, take a suitable action (revert or edit or talk-page comment), but do not comment about another editor. If the situation is as you suggest, the nature of the problem will become clear soon enough, and a new posting at ANI with evidence of current problems on Wikipedia should get some kind of action. Johnuniq (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I will do my best. David A (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't admit to anything as YOU harassed me your little friends informed me YOU still talk trash about me even thou i haven't mentioned you until 2 weeks ago because of YOU! my wikias was in the crossfire as if we all go on your power listing wikia we can clearly see you bad mouthing (insulting) me without proper knowledge and you think you are better because of grammar yet VSbattles/power listing have people with bad grammar so again if YOU mention me in anything ima have to retaliate back so if you don't wanna feel "Harassed" then don't cause yourself to become a victim of justice because i have had TO hold back my friends from seriously spamming/causing trouble on the wikias because of your actions you seriously talk soooooooo much its annoying

• You insult without reason like this "The Russian IPs starting with 37 are just N Agizar. The people at the Anime Characters Fight wiki tell me that he is a massive troll."
• "And that comment classifies you as a troll with no understanding of fundamental spatial geometry. Your kind blather completely illogical nonsense forever without any ability to learn or comprehend anything beyond a very miniscule scale of thought. Also, I see that it isn't BeyonderGod, it is N Agizar again. Most people at the Anime Characters Fight wiki seem to hate you and consider you an unreasonable idiot troll."
• "Higher-dimensional nature automatically brings with it infinite scale and reality warping of lower-dimensions, as exemplified with the 5-dimensional Mister Mxyzptlk. It doesn't matter what you think. Kami Tenchi's omnipotence has been stated outright within the show. He is dimensionally boundless, absolutely infinite, as is listed on the Anime Characters Fight wiki. Heck even the Choushin likely are. And yes, they have still been stated outright to have created an infinite amount of universes. (Is that you trolling me BeyonderGod?)"
• "You should really stop obsessing about characters that you know nothing about "BeyonderGod", much less stalk somebody who is completely uninterested in your entire existence."

you actually believe you are so smart about a series which isn't the case if you would have scans and official sources telling me i wank and ride beyonder?.......do i get mad nope yet you make fun of people thats why i insulted you by calling you a "Tenchiwanker" as term of users like you because all you do it just talk about him like he is sooooo powerful which people like me believe he isn't thats why its a debate! YOU need to stop and actually learn to debate instead of crying to admin when you lose N Agizar is correct about the contradictions in tenchi muyo and you straight say he was a Troller which means purposely getting someone angry HE WAS STATING FACTS you seriously assume a troll because of others you have a serious problem you need to take care of because you insult him without reason and then proceeded to talk about me and my sites even though the fact VSBattles<FBO has been confirmed by many users you can keep talking about me if you pick to and my friends can make memes/accounts about you because i don't care for you Antvasima aka David A. you can get harassed not by me but by my friends its your own choice dude so again let me make a good clear request

• Don't mention me
• Don't talk about me
• Don't give out my personal info or ill have to give out yours.

Simple and easy as i dont need to harass you what purpose do i have? i tell the honest truth dude dont like it then dont try people online without backing up on the actual facts ok? Beyonder (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod

Okay. I admit that I probably eventually overreacted to N Agizar's many (banned) ips constantly appearing to troll me and others at the wiki over hundreds of posts back and forth, especially as several administrators from the Russian wiki had told me that he was deliberately systematically attempting to push people's buttons. I usually try to be as polite as I can, but I have an upper limit. I probably owe him an apology, and will attempt to keep my temper in check when dealing with him in the future. It should also be mentioned, that I actually consider myself pretty stupid nowadays. David A (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I should probably mention that I asked BeyonderGod to refactor the above comment, and he indicated that he might not have time to do so just yet. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have now apologised to N Agizar. David A (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I want a apology also before i erase anything because i haven't done anything wrong and i can show everyone the many times he has mentioned me without a proper reason :@Ryulong: :@Richard Yin: :@Mendaliv: i will delete it when David A. says he is sorry because i don't think i deserve to be called a "Retarded trolling psychopathic maniac" by this guy FOR NO REASON. Beyonder (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod

You know yourself that you have harrassed, insulted, been completely unreasonable, taunted, and provoked me to extremes for over 5 months, to the point that I recurrently have turned thoroughly mentally exhausted, have had to continue replying to you for over 12 hours straight several days in a row, and cannot sleep properly, and so onwards to the point that it was completely destroying my quality of life, so I have genuinely found you the most difficult person to deal with that I have ever encountered in my 16 years online. I don't remember going that far in my responses towards you, but if I have at some point, although it was likely tinged with hair-rending frustration from my constant neverending dealing with your antics, combined with what I read about troll psychology, I agree that if true, it was over the line, and apologise for any such instances.

However, I would like to request in exchange that you will please permanently stop harrassing me, leave me alone in peace at the places I visit in the future, stop uploading long disgusting homophobic slurs about me on various places on the Internet, stop threatening me, much less carry out the threats, and preferably that you also stop constantly relentlessly attacking the franchises that I deeply care about, especially Tenchi Muyo. In exchange, I will do my utmost to not mention you anymore, despite other users constantly bringing up the subject to me, and avoid you even more than previously. However, it should be noted that I haven't followed you into any of the forums that you currently post on to respond to your constant provocation threads. You repeatedly went after me on the VsBattles wiki in clear violation to your global ban. Just please leave me and Tenchi Muyo (and preferably all the fans of other properties that you constantly provoke) alone, that is all that I ask. An apology for constantly turning my life horrible over at least several hundred instances wouldn't hurt either, but is not necessary. David A (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So, do I understand it correctly, that the locus of dispute is the omnipotency of a certain fictional comics character, and from diffs like [47], [48], [49] I gather that you two are in agreement that the fictional character in question is somewhat omnipotent, but disagree on the exact level, sophistication and capabilities of said omnipotence? Do you guys realize, that this has potential to become WP:LAME material? May I kindly suggest, for both of you, to:

1. Take a short editing break from Wikipedia
2. Stop reading Marvel comics for a while, they are bad for your health and not suitable for all audiences anyway.
3. Realize that the Q continuum is the only real source of omnipotency in the universe, a fact every trekkie knows.

All the best, jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 20:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, my autism makes me emotionally retarded and gives me very severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. I think that BeyonderGod just cares very deeply about and self-identifies with his namesake, in combination with wanting to constantly severely provoke lots of different people. Or at least that is my best guess. David A (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, not quite true. Whereas I always show respect for the Beyonder character. BeyonderGod has almost constantly mercilessly slammed and trivialised my and other people's favourite franchises utterly and completely. This may stem from that he has kept mixing up the definitions of "higher-dimensional space" and "pocket dimension". Constantly slamming and trivialising the former concept as the latter. Which has turned frustrating after I have explained the difference several dozen times.

You are however correct in that Marvel Comics have been very bad for my mental health. They are too chaotic, hopeless, insane, incoherent, and dystopian for me to handle well. I have only continued to read them out of compulsive habit. David A (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Beyonder, I'm closing this discussion here. Don't beat a dead horse by repetitively mentioning you want an apology. Read the pointers I noted in my reply to David above. And read my closing statement. Stick with it. No mention of each other on any Wikipedia forum (except administrative noticeboards) from this point onwards. You should interact only on talk pages of respective articles; and your interactions should only be on actual editing diffs and not on each other's character or past. I can't repeat this more - this is a final warning to two editors who I should have blocked two days ago for disrupting this project. Don't let me regret that decision. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 02:32, 19 December 2014 (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.

Man Haron Monis

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.

---

* Courtesy link. 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. This section refers to the person identified as the perpetrator. (Which isn't mentioned below) --220 of ^Borg 04:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Could use a few extra admin eyes on Man Haron Monis. It's full protected at the moment (should arguably be reduced to semi), but in the meantime there's been quite a few edit requests on the talk page as it's a pretty rapidly developing story. I've been dealing with most of them but it's 4am here and I probably won't be at it too much longer. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is locked but with a [cite needed] tag that needs to be sourced or removed. And queries are being added to the Talk page. This is also WP:BLP issue. AnonNep (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please remove the full protection from the page. I don't think full protection was justified. Among the recent edits, it looks like the only vandalism edits were from IPs, and anything that could have been considered a BLP violation was initially added by IPs. Semi-protection would have sufficed. Also, since many reliable sources are now reporting that the subject is dead, BLP no longer is a concern. The full protection seems to be keeping the article from being updated in a timely manner, which is problematic for an article that will likely be widely viewed. Calathan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Calathan: From WP:BLP, subsection WP:BDP: "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." This, to me, is a particularly gruesome crime. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think that is a valid point, but the article still never should have been fully protected in the first place since the problematic edits were only from IPs. Also, I was in the middle of writing something on your talk page when I saw this . . . I'll finish writing it there. Calathan (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the protection level has been changed to semi-protected. Thanks, User:HJ Mitchell, for changing it. Calathan (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Why does that article even exist? WP:BLP1E is very clear; should be merged or redirected into the article on the incident. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The article was created in 2010. Apparently, he was previously known for sending letters harassing the families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan. The article says the resulting court case reached the High Court of Australia, and apparently received coverage as a case testing the limits of freedom of speech. If he was only known for the hostage situation, then I would agree he should be covered in the article on that event. However, given the previous coverage of him, I think having a separate article is appropriate. Calathan (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Calathan - he was previously moderately well-known for the letter writing campaign and high court challenge, long before this event. When there's time ( and fewer edit conflicts) I can add additional sources on these to the article, if required. - Euryalus (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Black Kite, I was thinking the same thing and then checked the history: they may have been marginal beforehand, but at least there was something there, and even if this is a BLP1E, that was not the reason for creating it. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: At Talk:2014 Sydney hostage crisis#Is the terrorist a wikipedia editor?, a Wikipedia editor has been implicated as being involved with the attack, and possibly as the perpetrator, based on extremely poor speculation. As User:Fram suggested at that section, it's quite surprising the claim has not been oversighted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I sent this to oversight some three hours ago. So far no reaction. Fram (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The shooter's dead, so if he's editing Wikipedia that would be quite a news story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I jumped up and down on IRC and it's now been oversighted. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately wiping out diffs for hours of conversations...but oh well, such is life. Good job, even if a bit late. ansh666 03:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Can't the diffs be more selectively deleted without deleting the hours of unrelated discussions??? Please attend to Talk:Man Haron Monis#Did he edit this article_?.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No, keeping a diff means keeping the whole page as it was at that time, i.e. with the outing included. perhaps some method could be created that removed the page, but kept the diff only, but that is currently not available. It would also make rev-deling and oversighting a lot heavier, as one would have to check with every diff whether the text-to-remove wasn't visible in it, instead of just taking first-last and removing everything inbetween. Fram (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was hoping there was a 'clever' script available to admins that could just strip out the offending material from the intervening diffs. Oh well. :/ --Jeffro77 (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2014 (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.

Priyeshndixit

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

---

This is not a legal threat, but a threat to "go to police and complaint against you", apparently directed at Vigyani. I would not bother reporting it, but after Vigyani and I both encouraged him to withdraw his threat, Priyeshndixit repeated it. See the talk page on Ashutosh (spiritual leader). Maproom (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually that would be a legal threat. Priyeshndixit first challenged Vigyani to "go to the police" if what Priyeshndixit was saying was false, and then suggested that he himself would go to the police "and complaint [sic] against you for showing biased [sic], defaming [sic] and hateful article". Classical NLT-style language that's used to suppress other editors. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another admin may feel differently, but to me blocking this guy for legal threats would be to use a sledgehammer to swat a fly, just so as to teach it not to talk back. Theoretically, I suppose it's sort of a legal threat, but do you really care, Vigyani? Do you feel chilled by it? Bishonen | talk 23:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC).

I agree. I can't speak for Vigyani, who appears to be a conational of Priyeshndixit; but I would rather have Priyeshndixit report me to the police than be struck with a feather. However I would like someone to persuade Priyeshndixit to specify what he wants changed in the semi-protected article, with accessible sources, rather than making threats. Vigyani and I have already tried. Maproom (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Maproom. Issuing legal threat by brand new users is very common in India related articles. And in this case things are spiced up by the devotional sentiments of Priyeshndixit toward the subject Ashutosh. Normally in such cases, I ask them politely two to three times to withdraw their threats. They themselves are not taking these threats seriously, neither they don't understand how WP works. There are other easier remedies then block. In this case, I have refused to entertain their edit request until they remove the threat, lets see how it goes. As far as their edit request goes, most of it is already said in the article. They cited one court order for a change they wanted, but that link was not accessible to me.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 00:48, 18 December 2014 (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.

Obviously WP:NOTHERE

Several editors participated in this discussion and despite earlier personal attacks and accusations, Darreg didn't return to comment on subsequent commentary and the article was deleted. Yesterday, Darreg re-created both the article and the talk page (the article has since been deleted per G4) and filled the talk page with personal attacks and profanity. The profanity I don't care so much about (though it is obviously designed to be as offensive as possible) but the personal attacks suggest this is someone who clearly isn't here to build an encyclopaedia. There are obvious personal attacks made against both myself and Wikicology.

Then there was this on Philosopher's talk page after he deleted the article again and this suggesting that for his personal attacks he was looking at a 24-hour block. Obviously I'm suggesting something more... indefinite... than that.

This is someone who is unapologetically homophobic and seems intent on demonstrating that he can be as offensive as humanly possible without repercussions. Please prove him wrong. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it makes sense that this person be NOTHERE any longer. John Carter (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like an issue is going on. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Gamaliel (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Opinion:– Since I was pinged on this, let me start with the fact that Darreg has clearly proved to the community that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. The editor has shown that they no longer have the interest of the project (Wikipedia) in their heart, hence the need to act fast before a bad situation become worst. However, it is disheartening that an editor with the Autopatrolled flag could intentionally violate the WP:CSD#G4, recreating an article that was previously deleted per consensus at AfD (a disccusion he participated) ignoring the deletion review process (meaning that wikipedia's policies no longer matters to them). This destructive behavior clearly suggested that their privilege to autopatrol their own article should be speedily withdrawn as the right was designed for editors who clearly understand and respect the core wikipedia policies, which Darreg has clearly demonstrated to lack irrespective of the numbers of articles they had created. To be honest, I no longer have confidence in all the article they had created since they had been granted this flag ( a proper check may be necessary). For example Jide Kosoko, an article they recently created is just only one sentence with about 4 or 5 films listed in the filmography section. I can't consider a single sentence an article even if the subject obviously meet WP:N. This is unexpected of a member of the Autopatrol User group.

Let me continue with the fact that they have no respect for the blocking policy and any admin action for quickly suggesting that they will only be blocked for 24 hours before they intentionally carried out their destructive behavior. We can prove them wrong on this, perhaps indef block per Stalwart suggestion above. Let me conclude with the fact that since they are not here to build an encyclopedia, Wikipedia will have nothing to lose if they are kicked out of here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 02:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Gamaliel, I certainly appreciate the prompt response but I'm not sure that will resolve any of the longer-term issues. The conduct in question came either side of a half-month-long break for personal reasons. Either side of that break, his conduct includes disruption of an AFD, personal attacks, the pointy recreation of a deleted article, more (and more severe) personal attacks and commitments to continue editing in the same manner. I'm more than happy to return here in 24 hours but the disruption here is much longer term than anything a 24-hour-block could resolve. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• You may contact me directly if he acts up again. I also have no objection if another administrator wishes to impose a stronger sanction, I just don't feel I've done the necessary research that I feel is required before I will impose an indefinite block. Gamaliel (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate that, thank you. You've removed it (so you obviously saw it) but I'll add this atrocious personal attack and commitment to harass another editor to this report for the sake of those less familiar with the editor in question. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather

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

---

Ok so upon release from her block aside from loudly arguing she lied about socking, maintained a [|WP:BATTLEGROUND ], and opened a damn near duplicate SPI [[50]] without actually providing new evidence. Can an admin jump in and stop the madness and harrassment of a user, User:EChastain? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The prior SPI was declined as stale. How is another SPI report going to accomplish anything? Otherwise, I see this ongoing discussion regarding an IBAN between Hell in a Bucket and Lightbrreather. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That was my thought as well, it's complicated by the fact that the process was a damn near a proxy violation the last time, part of which resulted in revdel for outing family members of the person they were accused of being a sock for. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have asked Hell in a Bucket repeatedly to stop casting aspersions about me. He has accused me of lying several times now, and that is a serious allegation. If he's referring to my insistence that I recently edited anonymously for a legitimate reason, here is my answer to that: [51] (scroll down).

If HIAB is referring to my insistence that the IP editor who caused my recent 1-week block to be extended by 1 week, at least four editors besides myself [52] support my claim:

• Gaijin42 I think there is a possibility that this is someone stirring the pot. Lightbreather and I have has issue in the past, but she does not seem dumb enough to do something so blatant, particularly while being blocked.[53]
• OrangesRyellow I request you to take a fresh look / reconsider the block decline and not to overlook the possibility of a joe job.[54]
• GorillaWarfare The extension of this block seems silly to me. I disagree that this is an Occam's razor situation—we had many IPs editing the arbitration case, and it seems equally likely that this could be another person or a joe job.[55]
• Scalhotrod: I can genuinely understand her outing concerns and even the "it wasn't me" claims with the sockpuppeting.[56]

HIAB: Stop presenting your opinions about me as facts, and stop casting aspersions.

As for the Sue Rangell SPI, I will answer questions about that there. (And if you're worried that my request is a mistake, why are you broadcasting the current editor's user name here in this much more public forum?)

And finally, please consider my offer for a voluntary Iban between us, which at least three admins think is a good idea. Lightbreather (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I just realized that HIAB linked the word "battleground" above to message I posted on Neotarf's page. Another editor thought that "sounded like warfare," too. My answer to that is here: [57]. IMO, some people have been warring on WP so long that everything looks like an act of war. Lightbreather (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather As I've explained on yourpage, that will not serve any purpose, it certainly wouldn't have stopped the spi or the lies, or the outing you did later to disrupt the encyclopedia to make a point. I've decided you can keep saying I'm casting aspersions but everyone on this site knows you lied about editing logged out, no admin in their right mind will take a claim like that seriously. You are helping show why you should not be here though, WP:COMPETENCE issues abound. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• The thing that bothers me the most is the WP:POINTY redoing of an already closed SPI. The case had been closed as stale so I see nothing to be gained by redoing things here. Anyways I thought EChastain had left Wikipedia? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• I too am concerned about the repetition of the SPI, although the evidence here seems to indicate that the retirement might not have lasted as long as we might have thought. John Carter (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• I expended an extraordinary amount of patience dealing with LB when reviewing her unblock request. I am getting to the point where my patience with this user is exhausted. Since the block has expired this user has continued to do all manner of things other than building an encyclopedia. Chillum 23:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• @User:Knowledgekid87 they stated they were going to quit but quite a few of us talked to them about it. I don't see problematic article editing by Echastain so even if they returned we still have the ongoing behaviors of outing (apparently above the issue is we use their username and this somehow made the outing more ok) and the laundry list of other behaviors as well. I've seen her lash out at User:Two kinds of pork, User:Sitush, User:Drmies and just about anyone else that has disagreed with her. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, dragging another editors (EChastain's) name into an ANI scuffle isn't warm and fuzzy itself -- perhaps Hell in a Bucket could simply disengage from Lightbreather; if her disruptive behavior continues, someone else will notice sooner or later. Secondly, given Lightbreather's statement about socking above I recently edited anonymously for a legitimate reason, it seems the socking block wasn't long enough, and should be extended until such time as she agrees to follow Wikipedia policies. NE Ent 00:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:NE Ent, it's customary to notify an involved party about an ANI thread no? They weren't notified of the SPI (no requirement there as far as I know) but if the actions being discuss directly involve you pinging them and leaving the talkpage notification is the standard. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If an ANI thread isn't opened then no one has to get notified. NE Ent 03:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Support renewed block on Lightbreather based on self-declared repeated violation of WP:SOCK. Under the circumstances, I would have to think that this block should be an escalated one, as is standard for repeat offenses. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Err to the best of my knowledge she didn't sock again after the ip block evasion. If you mean the repeated sock investigation with the same evidence from her page and spi which was reviewed by various admin then you are correct. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I recently edited anonymously for a legitimate reason, When she said that, she was speaking about her logged out edits for which she has already been blocked. She has already accepted that that set of edits was her, and there is zero prospect of her doing it again. Seems people are misunderstanding / misreading things and are trigger-happy enough to happily indulge in double jeopardy. She could not participate properly in the previous SPI because she got blocked. I understand that SPI resources are currently overstretched, and have been like that for quite some time. If the repeat SPI is a problem, how was she to know that ? If a repeat SPI is a major problem, the thing to do is to swiftly close down the SPI. That should be enough to get that message across.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is their zero prospect if the previous violation was "for a legitimate reason"? Presumably the behavior would be repeated if another "legitimate reason" came up. Until the editor acknowledges there wasn't a legit reason the probability of recurrence should be considered. NE Ent 03:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

While she says the edits were for a legitimate reason, she also says that she can see why others saw that as a blockable offence. So, she clearly understands that despite her view that it was legitimate, the community sees it as a blockable offence. She has said this many times on her talk page, and that is why there is zero prospect of a repeat of that. She knows and acknowledges that others see it as a blockable offence.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I see it as disruptive, if she had the evidence why didn't she include it in before? More important why isn't Light working on improving articles and wasting the time on a SPI that just closed as stale? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A grey beard's suggestion:
1) Alow the second SPI to commence, as LB was blocked during the first one. Besides, Echastain is suppose to be retired, so where's the harm.
2) LB's already admitted to having 'edited' while logged out in the past. Note: that LB's registered account was retired & not blocked at that time & so it's not as big a deal.
3) LB & HIAB should have a temporary IBAN (1 or 2-way). GoodDay (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by Joshclark82

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

---

User Joshclark82 (talk · contribs) posted in this edit "If you don't allow me to update with correct information, I will have to get my lawyers involved for violating my freedom of speech, and violating the terms of Wikipedia."

This was in response to a warning about edit warring at Orion's Belt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Alnitak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where they user is inserting material that fails WP:RS (for the record, I only reverted the editor once on each article). See also the discussion on my talk page at User talk:Barek#Orion's belt where I attempted to explain the problem with the material being added. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Clear legal threat. WP:DOLT analysis indicates there's nothing even remotely worth making legal threats here: Joshclark82 appears to just be inserting the name of Alnitak as has been entered in the International Star Registry (which is a dubious distinction at best). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 Blocked for making legal threats. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The block is "by the book", but he didn't even have time to retract the threat after he got the explanation he was looking for. The guy is obviously a newbie and got flustered, and he was demanding an explanation for what he erroneously thought was the deletion of legit info. He got more templates than explainations, overall. Doc talk 08:10, 19 December 2014 (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.

Continued disruptive edits by User:László Vazulvonal of Stockholm

I previously reported this user a few days ago here, but nothing seems to have been done. Other IP editors have raised concerns over his edits on my talkpage. I'm raising this on their behalf. A case of WP:CIR. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Qscvb

Please block Qscvb (talk · contribs · logs) for continuing to upload copyright violations. --ManFromNord (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio images deleted, user blocked for a month. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Binksternet violating WP:BRD

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

---

User:Binksternet reverted 24 of my edits in the article namespace [58] without providing a reason. This is a violation of WP:BRD which says

"BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed."

"restore proper URL" is not a reason, since non is more "proper" than the other. So it comes down to "restore URL". Please stop this user from doing so again. John B. Sullivan (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

BRD - bold (you making an edit), revert (Binksternet's reverting the edit), discuss (the next step) - have you two attempted discussion before running to ANI? GiantSnowman 12:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I've also notifed the user as you failed to do so. GiantSnowman 12:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I did notify, take more care next time with claiming the contrary. Also, you failed to properly parse the "r" part of BRD. John B. Sullivan (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You notified 2 minutes after me and 6 minutes after starting this thread... GiantSnowman 13:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I was still editing on this thread after having it started. Then I went straight to the BRD violating user's talk page. John B. Sullivan (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason for reverting appears to have been provided at WP:AN#Tango link changes need reverting. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it has not. All User:Binksternet contributed there is "This is disruptive behavior by John B. Sullivan. I agree with Andy that all such changes should be reverted.". But no reason given. John B. Sullivan (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A thread that John B. Sullivan has been taking part in for 3 days - so we can add FORUMSHOPPING to his BOOMERANG. GiantSnowman 13:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Would User:GiantSnowman dare to handle the reported BRD violation properly? John B. Sullivan (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd probably be reconsidering my strategy at this point... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ummm... "I've also notified the user as you failed to do so" at 12:57 for a thread posted at at 12:53? Really? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett explained the reason for these reversions on your talk page, John B. Sullivan. He should have been notified of this discussion. In which, I feel I must point out, you are failing to make very many friends. --Yaush (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2014 (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.

Further discussion about giving the user four minutes to complete his edit is at User talk:Guy Macon#ANI discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Cal 505

He/she removed "pop rock" with source two times on Native (album). Oh yeah, Cal 505's patterns seems similar to Special:Contributions/Jimi Lewis. Destiny Leo (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Notified user. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Impersonation

Resolved

User:CrenshawKing81, who is almost certainly User:NakowY is impersonating Ryulong - [59] after warning [60]. Hipocrite (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Salmazanaty - report #2

Hi, I reported user Salmazanaty here. The report was archived for lack of participation. User is committed to adding hoax content to articles. My first ANI report contains all the details. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Can't move incorrectly created page

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.

---

Talk:Igor Janev has just been created, but it contains the article itself. I can't move it because the article page is protected. I guess it needs an admin to either move it or delete it. Squinge (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It is because it is salted and the involved admin forgot to salt the talk page. You can request unprotection for the page on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, or directly contact the admin who had deleted the page last time. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't know whether it should be unprotected and moved, or deleted, and the two deletions were a long time ago - hence my request here. Squinge (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the best thing for me to do is ping the two deleting admins - @Reaper Eternal: @Rschen7754: Squinge (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a considerable history to this - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Operahome and m:Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2013-08#Igor Janev. For the moment, I have moved it to Draft:Igor Janev and will add the new author to the SPI. JohnCD (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Squinge (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2014 (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.

Gerbilee00

Made a legal threat to shut Wikipedia down on Talk:Leeeeo. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 18:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Not worth bothering about - this is a child trying to write about the "album" he is going to make for his family next year. He will either give up or get blocked quite soon. JohnCD (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI - User has recreated the article in question. Eik Corell (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Westat

Mehmetaergun and I have a small disagreement with adding the category of Employment Discrimination to the Westat page which is a company which has had an issue with employment discrimination, I believe this category should be for articles for incidents/laws of such discrimination and not to categorize company articles having such incidents (which might be pretty much any with a referenced employee-employer lawsuit). We decided to get neutral feedback and as the article talk page is not very much visited I am here. Thanks in advance for your inputs if you have any.  A m i t  웃   20:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@A.amitkumar: Is this a dispute you cannot discuss on Talk:Westat? --Richard Yin (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Richard Yin: As i mentioned the article talk page is not getting much attention.  A m i t  웃   20:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:DISPUTE might be useful to you. – JBarta (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @A.amitkumar: zzzz I can't read, sorry about that. Anyway, the other pages in Category:Employment discrimination all seem to have to do with legal cases or law, scientific concepts, or general overviews for large regions. I would agree that a page about one company probably doesn't qualify for inclusion. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we show this IP the door?

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.

---

Kinda cute actually but I feel that someone else might get offended. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked already. AIV in the future, thank you. —Dark 05:30, 20 December 2014 (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.

Content dispute and other issues

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.

---

National Centre for Excellence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Rahulmdinesh1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rahul has been disruptively editing the National Centre for Excellence (NCE) page since it was approved back in October when CutestPenguin approved the AfC draft. The main point of contention has been the inclusion of the student council list (which should not be included because it is a major privacy concern since they are minors). Starting on 11 December Rahul has reverted attempts to remove this text a half dozen times ([61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]) and an AfD template twice ([68], [69]). During the course of this, Rahul broke 3RR once and avoided it a second time by IP edits and socking with the 1234 account. Most recently, Rahul added an in use template and an under construction tag in order to discourage editing. When I placed a notice on the talk page in order to garner discussion about what should or shouldn't be included on the page, Rahul simply deleted it with his 1234 account.

Rahul has received multiple notifications and warnings on both of his accounts ([70], [71], [72], [73], [74]) with respect to his activity (including the sock account), but has ignored them, choosing instead to open a vandalism report against me and pester CutestPenguin to revert me.

In summary, Rahul seems to feel that he owns the page (a fact corroborated by the "Maintained by Rahul M Dinesh" tag he keeps placing at the bottom of the page) and is thus preventing any changes to the page that don't fit in with his view of what is encyclopedic. Primefac (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: In the ten minutes since posting this notification, Rahul has reverted yet another editor's edit who was attempting remove NPOV content. Primefac (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2014 (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.

Opencart article creation locked

Hi, I cannot find a place specifically dealing with this kind of request, so will try here. I am attempting to create an article on the OpenCart software. This article has been created a number of times before, and deleted due to not indicating notability. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCart

This software is notable in the e-commerce world and I believe would survive future deletion requests. However, it cannot be recreated as it looks like the administrator who most recently deleted it, User:Kww, has blocked recreation attempts. I am requesting that the creation block on the article be released. There have been numerous requests on his talk pages, both by me and others, but the administrator is not responding, probably due to a busy workload. I believe one administrator cannot hold the article creation process up in this way. The article should be reviewed by the community and deemed notable or not.

It's reasonable to ask whether the software has a chance of proving notability before releasing the block. I know the field quite well, and OpenCart is one of the more notable examples of e-commerce software, far more so than many with articles. I am not saying these are reliable sources, but a quick search shows OpenCart consistently appearing on various unaffiliated lists of top open source e-commerce software. For example, [75], [76], [77].

OpenCart has also had it's share of controversy. I'm not sure if this is the right link (it's down now - it's Reddit and will hopefully be back soon! - [78] ), but I remember some quite notable criticism, and this should be included in the article as well. But this cannot be started if the article remains locked from creation, so I am requesting that the article be permitted to be created. Greenman (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

When asked to unsalt the article, I always make the same request: show me a set of reliable sources that examine OpenCart directly and in detail. Not a quick mention on a list or a blog, but reliable sources that examine the topic directly and in detail. When someone produces some such sources, I will unsalt the article. Not before.—Kww(talk) 21:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding this time Kww. To add to the lists I found before, the article already exists in 6 languages on Wikipedia: [79]. It is unreasonable for you to presume that you can personally decide when an article is worthy to be created or not. I understand that it has been abused before, but it is a community decision, not yours alone. If quickly Googling returns a list of results that almost all include OpenCart, and by blocking even the first step in creating an article, you are taking upon yourself the sole responsibility to decide and have imposed a far higher standard on this article than for the creation of a regular article. Greenman (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you, User:Greenman, create the article in your sandbox and ask User:Kww to review it in your sandbox? However, as Kww says, you need to source it with reliable sources. The title is currently salted because the article was created five times and was not encyclopedic any of those times, and re-creation was blocked to avoid wasting the community's time. Until you create a sandbox draft that passes Wikipedia standards, this request is also a waste of the community's time. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I will, but I would prefer to work in the spirit of Wikipedia and contribute to an article as part of a community, or contribute to improving an article once it's been created, and would prefer that the community decides on its worth, not a single administrator. The article to me is self-evidently notable, but there is an administrative obstacle to working on the article collaboratively. For example, there was a request to User:Kww by an editor in June where they claimed to have written an objective article, which was not responded to. [80]. Perhaps this could have been a good starting point. Unfortunately the request was never responded to, and the user never contributed their work. Potentially valuable editors should not be chased away because of an administrative decision. The option you propose asks me to single-handedly research and create an article outside of any potential community input, and have it approved by a single administrator, a far higher barrier than for creating a regular article. I strongly feel this is an abuse of process, and a hoop that few other editors will be able to jump through. I don't see any policy that an article that in the past has been abused can only be created if a single administrator decides to permit this, and if there is such a policy would object strongly. Greenman (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Greenman, please don't paint this as some kind of thing a single administrator has done. We've had two separate versions of this article go through AFD and two more administrators speedy-delete subsequent versions under G11 and A7. The community has spoken as loudly as the community ever does on such things. I prevented it from being recreated specifically and intentionally to prevent it from showing up again until someone could produce a draft of an acceptable article. If you want there to be such an article, create such a draft using acceptable sources.—Kww(talk) 22:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The community has loudly spoken up about previous versions of the article saying that those versions gave no indication of notability. I understand your reasons User:Kww, but am saying that intentionally preventing an article from ever appearing again unless you personally are satisfied is not policy, nor is it reasonable to expect an editor to navigate these hoops before contributing to a future article. Most editors would not find this page (or even easily know to request on your page), and in at least one case in the past when you didn't respond, simply left. Perhaps the editor in June did have a satisfactory article. You were maybe too busy to respond at the time, but it is unreasonable to require you to do so each time before an article can be created. Greenman (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on [81], I did reply, and the requestor came back with a vague and unsatisfactory complaint. In February, I told you that you didn't have any suitable sources. Today, I've told you that you don't have any suitable sources. I'll say it again if it makes it more apparent that I'm listening: you don't have any suitable sources. When you have suitable sources, feel free to come back with a draft article that incorporates them. So long as you don't have suitable sources, there's no reason to unsalt the article.—Kww(talk) 23:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit it here: Draft:OpenCart. Once it's sourced adequately Kww or any other admin can move it into mainspace. NE Ent 23:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Have to agree with NE Ent and others here. I don't see any good reason why the article can't be worked on in the Draft space or a sandbox. There's nothing stopping you "contribute to an article as part of a community" or "contribute to improving an article once it's been created" in the draft space and this isn't something extremely unusual. Nil Einne (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'll weigh in here on some of the statements made here. I'd love to say that in a perfect Wikipedia society an unsourced article would be edited and sourced moments after its creation, but unfortunately the process here is far from perfect. The onus is on the article creator to provide sources to establish notability from the moment the article is posted in the mainspace. You should always assume that your hands and eyes will be the only ones that will potentially show notability for whatever article you create- don't assume or expect other editors to come in and supply sources or to rescue the article before they nominate it for deletion. Ideally yes, editors should try to find coverage in reliable sources, but I can personally state that this does not always happen for various reasons- maybe they couldn't find sources, maybe they didn't look enough, or perhaps sources just didn't exist that would pass WP:RS. (Mind you, I am not stating that WP:BEFORE wasn't followed in this instance nor am I endorsing notability for the article, this is just a general statement.) I honestly do wish that this didn't happen, but this is something I've learned through my own experiences on Wikipedia. Arguing that an article should be made, that someone else will add the sources, and ultimately saying that you don't really want to do the work just aren't good arguments for inclusion. I know that searching for sources and writing out an article is a meticulous, time consuming process- believe me, you don't know how many times I've combed through the Internet looking for things for various articles, only to find that I've wasted hours of time on something that fails notability guidelines. It's not a pleasant experience in many circumstances. But it has to be done and you just can't expect others to do the work for you because quite honestly, if nobody did this the first five times that the article was created (assuming that nobody searched for sources, which is likely not the case here) then odds are that they won't do it on the sixth or seventh time something was created. If you really want to ensure that something is done, you have to do it yourself. Some will try to help and meet you half way, but in 99% of the time you'll have to do the work yourself. (Although I certainly understand the frustration with AfC.) That's the long and short of it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• I know that this sounds cold and maybe even a bit condescending, but this is something I've learned the hard way. I've had several instances where I've asked people for help in finding sources... and got no help whatsoever. There are people on here that will respond to requests and are more than happy to help, but there are also a lot of people who won't. I've just learned that when it comes to showing notability for articles I create or edit, it's up to me to do the leg work and to create the article. That's actually the whole reason I joined Wikipedia- I got tired of waiting for people to create or update pages and I realized that if I didn't do it, odds are that others wouldn't either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Chris Alexander redux

This may be jumping the gun slightly, but I'm going on past events here. Long story short, last year there was a kerfuffle surrounding the Chris Alexander (editor) article. It had been nominated for deletion and Alexander himself came on to the articles for deletion talk page and accused one of the nominating editor of being someone that has been going around to various pages and trying to make his life miserable. The AfD ended as no consensus, partially because I had been able to find sources to show notability. Soon after someone came on to the page and began removing content from the article, including removing Alexander's bibliography and filmography. It was pretty clearly done in order to make him look as non-notable as possible and similar edits were made to Blood for Irina ([82], [83] these are a few examples, there are more blankings on both pages). Eventually it required a non-involved admin to step in and semi-protect the page until February 2014. I also want to note that there were attempts to merge the page into the larger page for Fangoria and on more than a few occasions I've been accused of being a friend or family member of Alexander's.

A few months after that expired, IPs came back into the page and began pulling the same shenanigans, removing information and adding a controversy section about a review Alexander wrote for one of his films under a pseudonym. I'd cleaned it up somewhat and changed it to a briefer mention, but this was contested on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate got involved and eventually Alexander himself came on to the page to defend himself, saying that this was a well known pseudonym of his and that the name of the pseudonym (Ben Cortman) was a tip of the hat to it being Alexander himself. Eventually it was decided that including the bit about the pseudonym was a BLP issue since largely nobody cared about it enough to write about it and as such we have to go by what Alexander said: it was apparently known that the review was written by himself. However despite this, the page got edit warred to where the page got re-protected several times and some of the accounts were blocked.

So what has happened now is that recently an IP asked if it was possible to create a page for the sequel. I was a little concerned over the light coverage, but decided to create the page with the intentions to redirect it to the main article. I found a mini review from NOWToronto, which kind of made me feel like it barely squeaked by notability guidelines for films enough to warrant a mainspace article- but I did stress that I'd be fine with it redirecting to the main article for the first film if there were any serious issues with it (ie, it going to AfD). Now an IP has come to the page and looks to be the same editor that came onto the Alexander article.

From what I can see, all of this is mostly the act of a blogger that really doesn't like Alexander at all, Dave Pace. (He openly identified as such at the Alexander page.) I did try to give him the benefit of the doubt with the stuff on the Alexander article, but I'm pretty much forced to acknowledge that he's essentially trying to use Wikipedia as an outlet to harm Alexander's credibility and career. I'm not posting here to get backup for the Queen of Blood article's notability- I honestly have no problem with it getting redirected to Blood for Irina. However I can pretty much easily state that this will end up much like the Alexander article and will need a few good editors to come in and try to run interference. Since the whole Alexander thing ended with some account blocks (for edit warring and as possible socks), I'm somewhat afraid that this will become necessary here, especially since the IP in question was previously blocked as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• I forgot to post a link to the BLPN discussion about the whole Cortman/pseudonym issue. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's a issue that can be watched. If Dave does something on the article again that suggests his point of view again, i'd suggest a Topic ban. He has too much of a Non-neutral point of view to contribute to the article in my opinion. Lor^{Ho ho ho} 07:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'd have no problem with a topic ban, assuming that he would agree to this. My biggest concern is that he'd log on with a different IP or create an account to try to get around this. There are a few SPA type accounts that have made me slightly concerned about sockpuppetry, although those were never pursued. I suppose I should probably tag them so they're mentioned in this ANI in case they are Pace or maybe even if they aren't, since they were pretty much editing with a similar modus operandi. The accounts in question are User:Cthwikia and User:Bud Cortman. Bud Cortman hasn't edited since July, but Cthwikia has made an awful lot of Fangoria and Alexander related edits, plus they've made similar COI accusations on their talk page, accusing NPR of having a COI with Fearnet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, there've been a couple accusations thrown my way, none of which I treated seriously. User talk:NinjaRobotPirate#Chris Alexander resulted from me requesting temporary semi-protection on Chris Alexander's bio after another edit war broke out between what I assume is Dave and Chris. Very few other people on the planet seem to care about this mess. I think that it's prudent to view any new accounts who take part in the conflict with a degree of suspicion, especially when they reference Dave's blog as a citation. If they were both posting as logged-in users, I'd say that an interaction ban and topic ban would be appropriate. But I don't know how useful such would be in this case, since both seem to primarily contribute as IP editors. I think Bud Cortman and Cthwikia both ran afoul of the duck test, but neither has been especially disruptive beyond the usual POV edits associated with this drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Now the IP is saying that I deliberately brought it to ANI because the page is protected and he couldn't post his side of the story here. He's also saying that he's not Pace and maybe he isn't, but the IP does have a similar edit style and also tends to make similar arguments of various people being associated with this or that person. If he isn't Pace then there would probably still be a benefit in making a wider topic ban for this IP as well because of how very similar the Alexander related edits and arguments have been. NinjaRobotPirate, do you think that I should make an SPI in this case to see if the accounts are linked in some way? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Since each has denied any sock puppetry, yeah. They all have a rather brief list of contributions, so it's not hard to spot the same patterns in each account. If no uninvolved admins want to block based on WP:DUCK, then I guess SPI would be the best course of action. I wouldn't bother requesting a checkuser. Bud Cortman (talk · contribs) is stale. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• NinjaRobotPirate, I've opened the SPI here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Rubeus Hagrid

Hi, I have been trying to upload a photo I have taken onto this article but I have been directed here for help. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jack

What is your query?--5 albert square (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Jack, the way to do this is to upload the image without using the word "Grawp" in the image name. Because of an issue with a vandal account that often used this word in vandalism, the abuse filter will cause you problems if you do. Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for your help. I will try again and rename the file. Jack1956 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Should I submit un-aired episodes on the lists of episodes?

Hi there. I want to know that should I submit un-aired episodes on TV shows with unknown description and airdate but with a reference? Minecraftseeds (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Likely better to ask that question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. This forum is suited for user conduct issues more so than content style issues... (and I honestly don't know the answer. If you can reliably source the anme of the episode, I'd guess it would be okay. But the Wikiproject folks know TV articles infintely better than I do.) Courcelles is travelling (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Sounds more like something for List of lost television broadcasts too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

He's probably talking about not-yet-aired episodes. --NE2 00:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User 117Avenue persistent vandalism

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

---

User:117Avenue has been persistently flagging Smooth_Island_(Ontario) and Smooth_Island_(South_Australia) for deletion.

While I admit the pages are currently stubs, appropriate references have nevertheless been supplied to justify keeping the pages listed.

The editor made no effort to discuss the issue of deleting the articles with me in advance. Instead he insists on keeping the Request for Deletion banner listed on the pages.

The editor has still made no effort to discuss the matter with me, and instead has resorted to using a bot (Cyberbot 1) to keep the RFD notice listed.

These two geographical sites are legitimate and are a work in progress. They are not legitimate RFD candidates.

117Avenue needs to stop being so ruthless, discourteous and hasty with his edits, particularly RFD notices.

It makes it less appealing for volunteers like me to build pages with sophisticated content when he flags my pages for deletion just as I'm researching the topics further about to add more content.

117Avenue's behaviour needs to stop, or his administrative privileges need to be revoked. His behaviour goes against the general etiquette I've experienced from all other editors on Wikipedia. Jkokavec (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jkokavec: The articles have been nominated for deletion—in good faith, as far as I can tell—by 117Avenue. (Even if the nomination was quick, it doesn't mean it was bad faith.) Per WP:Articles for deletion, the headers need to remain at the top of the article until the deletion discussions conclude. This alerts all editors to the ongoing deletion discussion, so they can weigh in on whether they think that, per WP policy, the articles should be kept or deleted.

As a result, it is inappropriate for you to remove the AfD banners, as you have done.[84][85] to two articles. —C.Fred (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Update:

At the very least, the individual who posted the blackmail to my user talk page must be chastised, as I'm simply following the ANI instructions. This behaviour must be dealt with.Jkokavec (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What blackmail? It was a reasonable suggestion that you should file the ANI report before posting the notification (and then post the notification to the user's talk page, not their user page). —C.Fred (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jkokavec: you were notified that removing AFD notifications was wrong, before you persisted to remove them again. 117Avenue (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I am being told that if I include a link to Smooth Island (Ontario) at Smooth_Island I could be blocked from wikipedia without warning. How in the world is it "disruptive editing" to make the article more comprehensive. The only distruptive editing is coming from 117Avenue. I was happily working on these articles, trying to enrich the content before he decided to step in, disrupt the constructive work I've been doing, and abuse his power.

Several of my co-contributors will be watching very carefully how much support we get from moderators here.

It certainly appears to all of us that 117Avenue is just being disruptive and obstructing our efforts to write high quality articles for Wikipedia.Jkokavec (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, nothing about this or this immediately strikes me as disruptive editing (although the latter one is an error on your part, since you put the notice on their user page instead of their talk page). But you've also been repeatedly removing the deletion notice from Smooth Island (Ontario) while deletion discussions were underway, which is not allowed; you shouldn't do that. --Aquillion (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Jkokavec, I'd like to suggest that you give up on this witch hunt for tonight before it escalates any further with your being blocked. Just abide by the warnings you've been given and if you disagree with the AfD nominations, post your opinions there. Debate the content. Do not hide behind negative claims against other editors. Stop editing for the day. Come back refreshed tomorrow. Take the advice of others here and read up on the definition of vandalism.

Moreover I'd have to seriously suggest you not passively threaten the admins. (Non-administrator comment) ♪ Tstorm(talk) 07:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You are implying it's ok for User:117Avenue to threaten me with an ANI but, if visa versa, I become threatened with being blocked. This is nothing short of Authoritarianism.

I want others to realise that the comments under the heading of 'December 2014' User_talk:Jkokavec amount to blackmail and that User:117Avenue must be reprimanded for his/her behaviour. Blocking me for trying to bring awareness to the misdemeanours of this user will only make the matter worse.

I'd like a formal response from the management committee of Wikipedia about this matter, please.Jkokavec (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop removing AfD tags from the articles. Debate the deletion in an appropriate forum, with reference to relevant policy. This matter does not merit further attention as long as you follow proper procedure. —Dark 07:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue at hand is not the AfD tag deletion. The issue is that User:117Avenue aka User:Chris_troutman responded with blackmail. A formal response to this users behaviour by Wikipedia management is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkokavec (talk • contribs) 08:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Warning you is not blackmail. I suggest you drop the issue. —Dark 09:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I advised him that I was making a ANI (as per the guidelines), and he responded by threatening me with 'blocking'. This is blackmail. I will not let this matter rest until a qualified member of management mediates here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkokavec (talk • contribs) 09:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Jkokavec (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As you do not seem to understand subtlety, I'll make it very simple. If you do not drop the issue and keep up your current activities, by alleging that the editors are blackmailing you and advocating for sanctions against them, then I will block you for disruption. I've already told you that your allegations are not actionable. I suggest you listen. —Dark 09:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What position do you hold in the Wikipedia management structure, User:DarkFalls? There are a number of comments above which indicate a consensus has not been reached. Thus, if you are just a entry-level administrator, I doubt you have the authority to make a 'ruling' here.Jkokavec (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2014 (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:László Vazulvonal of Stockholm (editing unlogged under the IP 213.114.147.52)

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Vazulvonal_of_Stockholm (editing unlogged under the IP 213.114.147.52), after repeated warnings: [86] on his talk page, continues to add unsourced data to biographies of living people: [87] [88]. This is the third report on this topic (first: [89], second: [90]), the first 2 were not answered. Administrators. do your job! 07:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.43.239.162 (talk)

I guess they're all OK with dubious additions made to BLP articles. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:09, 21 December 2014 (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.

Disruptive tagging by Redban

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.

---

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

Hi all,

Redban has recently been going on a mass-tagging spree of pornbios, without properly evaluating the notablilty in question (including [91][92][93][94]. This type of tagging appears to be this accounts only type of edits, so I smell a WP:DUCK here as well. Further insight into this, however, will probably be beneficial. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The user is actually tagging the articles in a retaliatory manner. See this comment by the user: "Either this page remains or you remove 99% of the pornstar biographies on Wikipedia". Nymf (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yesterday I have questioned on Redban's talk page about three specific templates, Riley Steele, Kayden Kross and Lorelei Lee (all of them passes WP:GNG as well as multiple point of their relevant SNG), without receiving any response on why they were supposed to have notability issues. As Nymf said, everything started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Bitoni (2nd nomination), where he tried to keep the article on the basis that "her twitter page has 134,000 followers" while "Gracie Glam has 91,000 followers on twitter", and saying "Either this page remains or you remove 99% of the pornstar biographies on Wikipedia". Once Bitoni was correctly deleted, he tried to fulfil his threat and started a series of retiliatory AfDs, often introduced by plainly inaccurate and misleading rationales, some of them are early snowing (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Fontana, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gracie Glam, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rebeca Linares, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marco Banderas). Then he started this indiscriminate tagging, most of it with a 30-seconds-time-rate and without any edit summary/talk page rationale. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, so a few of his AfD/tags could be incidentally right, but this does not change the fact his actions are blatantly disruptive and a book case of WP:POINTY. Cavarrone 18:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Wow ... well, as I said in the talk page, I didn't know that "tags" could be disruptive. I thought I was simply alerting to the community to a page's possible flaws. As for the Afd's, the only ones complaining are the same three or four people who, I presume, are extremely protective of Wikiporn pages (such as Caverrone, Rebecca1990, Guy1890). Like the tags, I didn't see how these Afd's could be disruptive because the community makes the decision to delete an article, not I. I simply start the discussion; the others give the verdict. Lastly, the admins must acknowledge that these complainers will quickly cite Rod Fontana and Gracie Glam's Afd but never acknowledge these, or rarely offer an honest Delete or Keep opinion on them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lanny_Barby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sky_Lopez_(2nd_nomination) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Memphis_Monroe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shyla_Stylez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nikki_Nova https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Jaymes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tory_Lane_(2nd_nomination) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angelina_Valentine

The truth is that the same people complaining about me are the same people who never support any pornstar deletion, however obvious. I see no reason to be draconian for the sake of a few unhealthily avid porn fans on Wikipedia. They are not complaining of disruption; they are complaining about losing their beloved porn pages. I'll also note that I already gave my word on my talk page that I won't make another Afd until the ones currently open close. At least give a new user some leeway. As for the point about my contributions to Wikipedia, often I forget to log in, so these are also my work here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/108.41.160.197&offset=&limit=500&target=108.41.160.197 Redban (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• "The same people complaining about me are the same people who never support any pornstar deletion, however obvious" is obviously inaccurate and calling me "avid porn fan" smells of personal attack as well. I started many deletion discussions about pornographic actors (eg [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]) and voted to delete dozens of them; when I voted to keep them I was very, very rarely contradicted by the close. Your disruptive AfDs include votes by User:Morbidthoughts and User:Milowent, your tagging was reverted also by User:Nymf, User:Qed237 and User:Avono, two AfDs were speedy closed (and later reverted) by User:Dusti as disruptive, this topic was opened from User:Mdann52. You were warned in your talk page by multiple editors. I am active on a large number of fields, particularly cinema, music and comics, very rarely edit adult-related contents. You are virtually only active on pornography-related articles (excluding some insignificant copyedits on Wrestling articles). If you are trying to depict your disruption as a good-faith editor harassed by "avid porn fans" you are for tough times. The only avid porn fan are you as it is obvious reading your comments in Bitoni's AfD. Cavarrone 19:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Suggestion for all -- If you disagree with the taggings and Afds, then simply discuss them on the particular page (Afds) or Talk page (tags). I see no reason for a complaint like this for something as consultative as Afds and tags. I sincerely believe that this complaint, as well as the baseless but repeated "disruptive" and "pointy" insults directed at me, have the sole purpose of protecting the pornstar pages, not preserving Wikipedia's peace or integrity. Again, this topic has no merit. Redban (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Redban, indiscriminately and randomly tagging for notability dozens of articles, within a 30 second timerate, almost always without any edit summary is disruptive and pointy, sorry if you don't like the terms. When I asked you about three specific templates in Riley Steele, Kayden Kross and Lorelei Lee articles I received no specific response (and I asked you about Lee twice, and I am still waiting). When I pointed on how inaccurate was a deletion rationale by you, and I also provided several sources in support of the notability of a discussed subject [100], your answer was a complete joke, if not offensive trolling [101]. Here there is a pattern of disruptiveness, that's why we are here to discuss about your behaviour. You are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Cavarrone 20:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

So origionally, I have also raised this report at AN3. However, after looking at it, it also appears that there are wider issues than just the original taggings. Qed237 and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz have also been edit warring over the tags, without any discussion. Following me reporting him, HW has said my report there was incompetent, harassing him and should be sanctioned for raising it. Therefore, I'm referring it here for further insight. --Mdann52talk to me! 19:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Mdann52 brought a 3RR report citing 2 pairs of reverts on different articles, made no effort to discuss the matter with me before filing the 3RR notice, and ignored the fact that I had opened discussion of the substantive issues in three different places. That Mdann52 repeats their false claim that I did not engage in discussion underlines why I believe some sanction is appropriate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware of any discussion as such - all I can see is removed messages and warnings. Of course, if actual discussion have been taking place, please link me to it and I will strike the relevant comment. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I already posted the links in the 3RRN discussion.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm really wondering why Redban hasn't been blocked already. This has been going on for almost a week. If a user did this to articles on mainstream actors, they would have been blocked already. It's funny how Redban went from believing that Audrey Bitoni (a porn star who fails WP:PORNBIO & WP:GNG) was notable enough for a Wikipedia article, to asking that we delete articles on porn stars who do pass PORNBIO and/or GNG because in his opinion, they aren't notable. This sudden change of mind occurred within a few days. Redban has absolutely no concern for enforcing notability guidelines, he is just disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. He stated "Either this page remains or you remove 99% of the pornstar biographies on Wikipedia" in Bitoni's AfD. Most of his additions of notability tags to articles have been reverted because the subject passed PORNBIO and/or GNG. Most of the AfD's he has started have a consensus leaning towards "keep" with a couple having several "Speedy keep" votes because of how obvious it is that the subject is notable. We've had several discussions with Redban on the AfD's he's started, his talk page, the notability guidelines talk page, etc. where he continues to dispute the consensuses in favor of our current notability guidelines and the consensus in favor of keeping the articles on individuals who pass these guidelines. Redban's defense ("I didn't see how these Afd's could be disruptive because the community makes the decision to delete an article, not I. I simply start the discussion; the others give the verdict") is flawed. We don't initiate deletion discussions for every single page that is created, just those that don't appear to meet our notability guidelines. His defense for tagging articles is "I didn't know that "tags" could be disruptive. I thought I was simply alerting to the community to a page's possible flaws." First of all, most of the pages Redban has added notability tags to have no flaws, secondly, he's been warned about these tags by several users and most of his notability tag additions have been reverted and he still claims that he doesn't know that adding these tags is disruptive. Gracie Glam is among the most notable porn stars he has started an AfD for. In Audrey Bitoni's AfD, he voted keep and argued that her 134,000 Twitter followers demonstrated notability and compared this to Gracie Glam's 91,000 Twitter followers. Why did he choose Glam? Because he knows that Glam is a notable porn star, if he didn't know this he wouldn't have chosen her to make this comparison. He also argued that Bitoni's AVN Best New Starlet NOMINATION was evidence of notability, but he somehow thinks that it isn't evidence of notability for Glam, who actually WON that very same award. He is clearly aware of how notable the subjects of the articles he is trying to delete are. He is presumably a fan of Audrey Bitoni and he is upset that her article was deleted, so he now wants all articles on porn stars he isn't a fan of to be deleted as well, particularly males which he thinks "should be held to a higher standard than the females". He doesn't agree with the direction Rod Fontana's AfD is headed in, so he now wants to get AVN Hall of Fame inductions removed from PORNBIO and have all of its recipients articles deleted. An induction into the AVN Hall of Fame is among the most prestigious accolades in the porn industry and there is absolutely no controversy whatsoever over its significance. No one besides Redban has suggested we remove it from PORNBIO, in fact, everyone who responded to him on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) opposes his views on the Hall of Fame criteria, but he continues to insist that we remove it anyways. Redban should be blocked immediately. Just look at all the warnings on his talk page; we've given him many chances to rectify his behavior but he refuses to stop. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• This complaint is misbegotten and inaccurate. Redban's tagging was prolific and sometimes inaccurate, but the claim that it was indiscriminate is unfounded. While a few tags are quite wrongheaded, the great majority are clearly appropriate and should not have been removed summarily. For example, Mdann52 gives four examples of supposedly inappropriate tagging:

1. Sandra Romain There is a solid argument that the subject is not notable. All of the listed awards are "scene" awards, which per WP:PORNBIO #1 do not count towards notability. The biographical content in the article is fairly slight, and the references are not clearly independent and reliable. Ref 7, for example, is a PR piece promoting a trade show appearance. The tagging is clearly reasonable.
2. Sophia_Rossi Rossi has no claim to notability under PORNBIO. No awards, no nominations, an unbilled role as an unnamed movie character, and an undescribed role in a single TV episode. A clear fail. The news item is quite trivial, and does not approach what the GNG requires. The tagging is clearly reasonable.
3. Lorelei Lee (pornographic actress) The subject has no awards, only nominations, and is a poor fit for the standard PORNBIO criteria. However, the cited extensive coverage and mainstream film involvement leaves little reason to doubt she satisfies the GNG. The tagging is inappropriate.
4. Juelz Ventura The subject has no individual awards, only nominations and scene awards, no mainstream credits, and no independent reliable sourcing or biographical content The subject therefore apparentlyy fails PORNBIO and the GNG. The tagging is clearly reasonable.

Rather than cherry-picking the small number of bad tags out of a very large set, I've reviewed the full set of nearly 100 tags. By my reckoning, more than 70 are clearly reasonable, perhaps a dozen are arguable, and about a half dozen look to be wrong. (See User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Redban tags for details. Reviewing the full set also demonstrates that the tagging was not indiscriminate, but was done with considerable care. The majority of the articles tagged covered porn performers who had no individual awards, only scene awards or nominations, which do not count under PORNBIO. Some others asserted only non-notable awards from non-notable award-givers (eg, NightMoves), which fail the well known/significant test in PORNBIO. A few others asserted individual awards in ersatz categories like "Dirtiest Girl in Porn", "Best Butt", "Orgasmic Analist", "Unsung Siren", and "Superslut", which have been viewed skeptically in PORNBIO discussions and which do not likely establish notability. A few of the tagged articles list appropriate individual awards, but are so deficient in providing independent that it is quite reasonable to question whether GNG failure should trump technical SNG satisfaction. Some tags look wrong to me, some are debatable, but the great majority are consistent with practice regarding such tags. By my rough calculations, about 80% are OK, 13* raise questions, and 7% are wrong. That's a pretty good track record, and pretty solidly establishes that Redcap's actions were not indiscriminate or disruptive.

In contrast, one of the most vocal complainants/detaggers, User:Rebecca1990 always !votes keep in porn-related AFDs. Per the Scottywong AFD tool (discounting one spurious !vote), lining up with consensus only about 30% of the time (35% if no consensus outcomes are excluded, roughly 50% if NC is equated to keep). That's no better than a coin flip, and can fairly be described as indiscriminate. Another perpetual keep-!voter, User:Subtropical-man, lines up with consensus only 20% of the time, barely 30% if NC is equated to keep. That's really indiscriminate. If Redcap is going to be blocked, these two have been far more disruptive and have earned much stronger sanctions. Funny, isn't it, that nobody's proposing that.

Really, that's not supposed to be how Wikipedis works. Editors are allowed to make mistakes or express unconventional opinions. (Unless one of the petty martinets in the admin corps gets involved, but that's a different kettle of rotting fish.) And we certainly don't punish editors for being only 80% right. How many editors could meet that standard? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

to be honest, I'm not an expert in the relevant notability guidelines, although GNG is plenty enough IMO. That's why I've raised it here, in order to get more attention on it. In any case, the edit warring over the tags is not really ok, and the best way to resolve all this may be at AfD (which I don't have time to pursue). --Mdann52talk to me! --Mdann52talk to me! 08:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo),

1) I or Rebecca1990 often vote for keep for articles because we believe that the articles are encyclopaedic, you often vote for delete because you have own reasons. We (I, Rebecca and you) are the same only on the other side of the barricade, so.

2) The activities, mass tagging by user Redban are clearly disruptive, and has clear signs of trolling. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 10:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• If HW is correct and 70-80% of Redban's taggings are reasonable, then that is certainly not either trolling. That 20-30% is a larger error rate than I'd like, but it's not a disruptively bad one. What would sort the problem out is if all the "correctly" tagged ones were sent to AfD. I realize that you and Rebecca1990 would !vote Keep on most if not all of them regardless, but AfD generally comes out with the correct result. Black Kite (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• What? 90% of Redban's taggings are not reasonable, mass tagging by user Redban are clearly disruptive, and has clear signs of trolling. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 14:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hullaballo's views on pornography are well-known, very strict and often persuasive, I respect them, but sometimes his are not the majority views. He is the only one to endorse the IMHO plainly wrong nominations for deletion of Gracie Glam and Marco Banderas, and he reverted two speedy closures in two discussions that are inevitably moving to be closed as keep. Even if I agree that several tagged articles could be deleteable, I don't see any reasonable chance that articles on Romain (who is full of coverage in mainstream Romanian news-sources, and the ones in the article are just a little extempt), Olivia Del Rio, Alexis Texas, Kristina Rose or Annette Schwarz could be actually deleted. Some of the tags were virtually very correct, some of them debeatable, some others wrong and several others spectacularly wrong, the main point is that it is obvious from Redban's previous own words and behaviour they were agenda-driven and part of a larger retaliatory pattern. Unsurprisingly he started the tagbombing LITERALLY TWO MINUTES AFTER he was asked by an uninvolved editor to slow the rate of his deletion-nominations. The time-rate of the tags leaves little if no doubt he did not even checked the articles he tagged: when I asked about some of them, he was unable to explain the reason WHY he put the notability tags on such articles, and his first 70 or so tags were put in about one hour, well below of a minimum standard it is reasonable to expect by a responsible, good-faith reviewer who analyzes sourcing and contents of the articles. His communication alternates trolling and personal attacks, not what we should expected on a collaborative project, and often smells of wikilawyering and other WP:GAME techniques. His bias and his agenda are crystal clear just looking at his own comments. The worst thing is that in spite of warnings and discussions, I don't see any sign he intends to change his attitude. Cavarrone 14:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• • For the record, the two AFD closes I reverted were invalid NAC closes. Per WP:NAC, non-administrators cannot close AFD discussions before the standard seven-day period has run unless the discussion qualifies as a speedy keep. These were not closed as speedy keeps, but as snow keeps; therefore each non-administrative closure was simply invalid. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Also, Redban is new user (from end of October 2014) and half of number of his edits are edits in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Apart from the fact that he can be sock-puppet, his overall contribution is highly controversial (half of edits by Redban are nominations and votes for delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 14:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz listed Ashlynn Brooke, Olivia Del Rio, Brooke Haven, Ariana Jollee, Katja Kassin, Kinzie Kenner, Sunny Lane, Marie Luv, Daisy Marie, Julie Night, Taylor Rain, Amber Rayne, Amy Ried, Kristina Rose, Olivia Saint, Annette Schwarz, Monica Sweetheart, & Taryn Thomas as OK to tag even though all of them pass PORNBIO's non scene/ensemble award win criteria. You listed Sunrise Adams, Lexi Belle, Alektra Blue, Roxy Jezel, Jada Stevens, Alexis Texas, Ava Vincent, Vicky Vette, & Lezley Zen as arguable tags even though all of them pass PORNBIO's non scene/ensemble award win criteria. I guess the rest can be considered arguable although I believe that almost all of them pass either another criteria of PORNBIO (mainstream appearances, starred in blockbuster, etc.) or GNG. When me and most of the other editors reverted these notability tags, we left edit summaries explaining what guideline(s) they passed and why. Redban clearly doesn't care about enforcing our notability guidelines and he does not truly question the notability of these porn stars, he just thinks that if his favorite porn star, Audrey Bitoni, can't have an article, no one can. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you have no problem pointing out that I always vote "keep" in AfD's in an attempt to discredit me, but you conveniently fail to mention that you almost always vote "delete", even in articles which are subsequently kept because consensus determined they were notable. Many porn articles kept at AfD had an almost unanimous keep consensus with the only delete vote coming from you. Don't try to discredit me by claiming I have a bias, which I don't. I have voted keep in articles about porn stars I dislike. And stop defending Redban, there is no justification for his disruptive behavior. Every other editor who has encountered Redban's edits has noted that he is disruptive and wasting our time. Rebecca1990 (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Deliberate dishonesty and disruptive behavior. Rebecca1990 is misrepresenting the express terms of the PORNBIO guideline. The applicable criterion (#1) states "Has won a well-known and significant industry award". It adds that scene/ensemble-related awards are categorically excluded, but does not on any way presume that other award categories pass the "well=known and significant" test. Rebecca's position was soundly rejected in the extensive rounds of RFCs that resulted on the current guideline text. Morbidthoughts summed up the matter quite accurately, saying that, "The debates or contention in [various deletion discussions] have been whether their nominations are significant enough to satisfy PORNBIO simply because they are performer awards. No, they are not and consensus had made clear when we last edited PORNBIO that the category is important in determining significance."[102] Categories like "Orgasmic Oralist" [103] have been characterized as too insignificant to satisfy the PORNBIO test. It is one thing to argue for change in policies and guidelines. It is quite another to falsify guideline text to claim that your soundly rejected position has consensus support. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't like to be negligently misquoted, Wolfowitz. Your forgetting to close the quote on my summary is misleading because you also chained another editor's opinion about that XRCO category as reflecting consensus when it has not. This type of rationale would not be permitted for article content under WP:SYN and should not be accepted here either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear God, will you assume a little good faith. You're taking great umbrage over a punctuation error when the ref clearly signaled the end of the quote. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If I had not assumed good faith, I wouldn't have been using the words, "negligently" or "forgetting". Even if the punctuation had been correct, your chaining still would have been misleading, "deliberate" or not. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have to admit something about the user just doesn't add up!, And I have to agree that IMHO it seems the user's pissed off about this article getting deleted so thus he's sticking to his word and nominating every other article just to be a pain in the arse (had there been real concerns in regards to the state of the articles I wouldn't have a problem whatsoever but they all seem fine and it does just come across as retaliation for his favourite article getting deleted), Personally I'd like to see him blocked for a week but that's just my opinion. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Any normal Wikipedia action will generally be considered to be run the risk of being considered disruptive if done en masse, unless there is a clear and widespread prior agreement that the mass action is acceptable. The only way to get that agreement is with some kind of centralized consensus discussion, which did not occur in this case. It's clear from this very discussion that views on the appropriateness of the tagging differ widely, and that, in and of itself, is an indication that Redban's bold edit was not, on the face of it, one that would have easily received a consensus agreement. Redban's mass edits should be mass-overturned, he should start a centralized discussion regarding the subjects he (or HW) believes should be tagged (and that discussion should not take place here), and Redban should take onboard the lesson that there was a better way to go about what he wished to do. Should he do it again, he should be considered to have been suitably warned, and should be blocked for deliberate disruption, and individual editors who take it upon themselves to re-tag these articles without prior discussion should be warned to stop and talk before acting. BMK (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• I've only seen a little bit of Redban's activity as I must not be an "unhealthily avid porn fan", but he appears to have a POV that is anti-porn and is tagging outside our standards. This discussion is probably getting too long for anyone to know what to do, but basically Redban will lose any credibility to get anything deleted if he acts in this manner.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• I'm wary of anyone who mass-tags or mass-nominates AFDs, as such behavior is nearly always disruptive, generating ill will in the community and polarization in discussions. Any new account that does those things deserves outright suspicion if not blocking on sight. We don't do agendas, and we expect competence and care in our editing, which requires proper time spent on each decision we make when we choose to act. And we certainly don't do retaliatory editing, and the timing of this spree coming after they "lost" an AFD on the same subject matter is definitely concerning. If Redban persists in tagging or nominating articles for deletion, they should be blocked immediately as it's clear there is no consensus for their actions and the end result has been entirely nonconstructive, merely generating a lot of fuss and a lot of work for others. They should feel free to participate in discussions others have started, but there's no trust for them to start their own and no reason to let them do so. postdlf (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• I've got a long history of agreeing with HW about porn articles, but in this particular case I don't agree. This is a brand new account whose main activity is large-scale AfD nominations. Whoever this is, they're on a crusade. We shouldn't tolerate it.—S Marshall T/C 03:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I've been quite careful to avoid the suggestion that this editor was acting in good faith, wanting to leave them enough rope to hang themself, and they've done a pretty good job of it. We have a new editor -- no, a new account for a plainly experienced editor -- who surfaced as a vigorous porn enthusiast, did a 180 degree turn into a rabid porn deletionist, went on a tagging spree that mixed 80% reasonable tagging with some howling bad calls that virtually called attention to themselves, and raised a shitstorm of zealous porn defense here, far out of proportion to the minimal disruption involved. They've stirred things up so much that people are reverting stub tags placed on one- and two-sentence articles [104] [105] [106][107], which in any rational context would be seen as perfectly acceptable. The provocateur's behavior and the sometimes deliberately disproportionate reaction to it, have polluted things so badly that an impeccably presented and argued AFD nomination by Morbidthoughts (who's only had one nomination turned down in five years!) has been caught up in the circus and appears to be failing (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Stevens (2nd nomination)). There's deliberate disruption going on, all right, but not the simplistic sort. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Looks like I have to go and elaborate on my nomination to make it impeccable since redban had done all the arguing for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal - TBAN

I believe enough has been said. May I formally propose a tban for Redban from pornbios, including tagging and AfDing, subject to the usual exclusion. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 13:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:POINTY Avono (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time - I don't think there's been a sufficient history to justify a topic ban right now. Redban should be warned that their behavior was disruptive, and told that if they do it (or anything similar to it) again, they will be blocked. At that time, a tban might well be justified. BMK (talk)
  • Support - per Redban's current behavior, as revealed by Cavarrone below. The editor clearly has not taken onboard the advice inherent in this report, and seems clearly to be on a personal mission in regard to pornbios. BMK (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Such sanctions are intended to be preventive. When his behavior was challenged, the user stopped. It's pretty clear that some of the users calling for his scalp either don't understand banning/blocking policy or are willfully ignoring it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by what you take "preventive" to mean in this context. "He doesn't happen to be doing it while we're discussing it" isn't really an argument, and stopping in and of itself doesn't establish that they understand what the problem was. Topic bans are always meant to prevent future disruption of the same kind caused in the past, sending a clear signal to the editor that "you've proven you can't be trusted to work in this area" and that they will be blocked if they ignore that. postdlf (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • He was challenged. He stopped. He engaged in discussion. What else do you want a user to do? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
      • The only promise I see from him right now is "I'll stop while the current batch are pending." That's far from an acknowledgement that there was a problem, and instead he attributed the criticism of his deletion agenda purely to an agenda to keep rather than any problem with his methods or judgment. More editors who have no involvement in that subject area have since commented (and all critically), but he has not yet responded to that. But note as per my comment below, I'm basically in agreement with BMK that this discussion constitutes a warning that resumption of the same conduct will result in him being blocked, and I don't think it's (yet) necessary to ban him from any involvement in porn articles. Unless he shows new methods of disruption in that area... postdlf (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
        • ...which he has now. postdlf (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think we have call for banning from the whole subject matter, but it's clear from the above discussion that if Redban resumes rapidfire tagging or mass-nominates any more articles, they will be blocked. postdlf (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• I was for echoing the postdlf's and BMK's comments above, but apparently this individual has not stopped anything... he has just reprised with this unhelpful tagging and his last tag has as edit summary announced future AfDs: "Article full of nothing ... I'll put the tags for now before deletion". Interestingly the article lists several reliable book sources and already survived an AfD based on the subject passing GNG. This editor has no other interest than making his crusade. Sadly support at this point as the community have better things to do than loosing time reviewing his edits and challenging his work. Cavarrone 22:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sigh... I've blocked them for 24 hours for disruption. Their responses to BMK on their talk page are hard to read as anything but trolling. I suspect the nonsense will resume when the block expires, so support topic ban per above, and I'd favor a ban on any tagging activity regardless of article subject. postdlf (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, the trolling, the personal attacks and the combative attitude are also a part of the problem, the main part IMHO. Some of his comments/actions smell of sockpuppetry, too (eg the almost immediate reply to BMK with a citation of a rather little known essay is not what I expect from a brand new editor, as Redban pretends to be). Cavarrone 23:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I wondered about that as well. postdlf (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Looks like s/he gave up, guys. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 14:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
          • The use of that retired template is also unusual for a new editor. I can't say I put a lot of trust in its use here. My inclination is now to indef block the account so they have to present an argument for reactivating the account, rather than letting them sneak back when no one's paying attention. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Yes, almost everything about this editor just cries out "returning editor trying to obscure their identity." In my opinion, a block would be prophylactic. BMK (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Input. Now I havent read all of the massive paragraphs posted on here by people, but to me I think the conduct has ceased so a ban isn't appropriate cause of the rules in our WP:BLOCKDETERRENT and WP:NOPUNISH. The quotations are: In general once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not seen as appropriate ......... Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased.

You guys are inclining or suspecting that he will come back but suspicion isn't enough for a ban since banning needs utmost caution and care. If we give the fella' the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has given up, then just let this go and move on. If he comes back and decide to start trouble again, then report it again as well as this page and you can likely get him banned easy.

I would also need to question the level of disruption by asking if its really enough to warrant a ban. From what I see above, he started tagging A TON of porno-people for notabilities yet even then the majority of the tags were actually arguable. Right now most the tags have been removed and he hasnt put anything back (so no edit warring). Was his actions really disruptive enough to deserve a total ban from Wikipedia, guys?

Also, the guy is new on here and our rules say, Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future. See Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers. Since 2007 the amount of editors on Wikipedia has been going down a lot and a lot of people say our bureaucracy is the cause of that decline. Lets set a gentle precedent right now and let this go and move on. Its Christmas season after all. Let it go, guys! Move on with it! Percentagesign (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

By posting using an account that is less than 24 hours old you are illustrating the actual issue: many problematic users are not "new". Further, any declining editor participation is more likely due to failure of admins to take action against problematic users who drive away other contributors. However, let's assume the editor in question is completely new and simply is at the center of a disagreement. Why has this section dragged on for a week? A good-faith new user would see there was opposition to their style and would say "Oh, sorry, I'm new ... I'll stop doing that and take some time to figure out what the problem is". If that had happened, this would have been finished a week ago. Perhaps the new editor is right...they just need to proceed more slowly and collaborate with others. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead with the block, notwithstanding the comment posted here out of the blue as the 30th edit of an account that wasn't even 24 hours old. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support of indefinite blocks of at least the following editors: User:Redban & IP address 108.41.160.197, the latter of which is "Redban"'s admitted (above) IP-address when he was editing while logged out. The very recently-created account of User:Percentagesign has also been editing in the same areas as these two accounts...see: editing along with the "Redban" account, editing along with both the "Redban" & the above IP-accounts, and editing along with the above IP-account. All three accounts have been editing in similiar areas...NYC-area school & baseball-related Wikipedia articles...with the "Redban" & IP-accounts both also editing in the pornography & literature-related areas as well.

After reviewing the vast majority of the edits from the "Redban" account, most of them, IMHO, have been highly questionable or obviously diruptive, which pretty much means to me that this (not at all new to Wikipedia) editor is not here to to build an encyclopedia. Attempts from above to try & defend this editor's behavior on Wikipedia are, at best, misguided. Enough is enough people...far too many editors have had to waste time undoing or fixing edits from these Wikipedia accounts. Guy1890 (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that together. I think WP:DUCK clearly applies, so the "new" account is getting blocked as well (hell, their comment above is a textbook DUCK example). postdlf (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• TBAN warning from an admin willing to re-engage on the issue if Redban does not take the advice being offered here to heart in a hurry. Looking at the context and pattern of the edits, I'm inclined to agree that there can be very little doubt that underlying cause for these tags is a reactionary (if not outright retaliatory) response to findings connected to similar issues in another AfD. In other words, an extensive fit to make sure the WP:OTHERSTUFF meets the same fate as the content said editor wanted to keep, whether the cases are equivalent or not. The fact that some of these tags may or may not have been incidentally on the mark is really secondary, because, in the long run, editorial activities carried out with these kinds of goals in mind inevitably ends up disruptive and counter-productive on the balance, usually by a significant margin. I'm less concerned about Redban's edits to the pages themselves than I am their attitude in discussions, including a propensity to downplay concerns about their behaviour and frame the motivations of their critics in terms of (often insulting) straw man arguments, even when the vast majority of involved editors are trying to tell them that their approach is disruptive. It seems doubtful there will be a change towards a more measured and good-faith approach until Redban admits that there is a problem to begin with. Even if the tagging abates in this case, similar problems on other topics are likely -- if a change in editorial approach and priorities are not stressed -- since the core issue is respect for process, not a matter particular to porn actresses. All of that being said, I really don't see enough in terms of blatant policy violation to justify a block or ban at this point. Surely some form of administrative warning is appropriate first. Yes, I'm a little dubious it will get the desired effect, but pro forma it seems the right thing to do. Snow talk 07:48, 20 December 2014 (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:Calidum is arbitrarily removing material up that being discussed on the Talk Page

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

---

User:Calidum is arbitrarily removing material up that being discussed on the Allies of World War II Talk Page. The editor has been notified that the text is being currently debated on the talk page, yet the user still removed it. And, started to use swear words against myself for informing him of that the debate is not closed yet. That kind of behavior is condescending and inappropriate.

• Is this a fucking joke? You've now reverted three separate editors. You're the only one edit warring. -- Calidum 23:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I ask that this situation is restored, as there were several editors including User:Calidum who did not comment on the talk page, yet decided to just remove the disputed material. A proper debate on the issue needs to take place on the article talk page.

Please do not remove this request, it is a valid item and should not be deleted as before form the Admin page. --E-960 (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You know there's isn't alot to go on here. Do you by chance have any diffs?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a debate on long standing material on the Allies of World War II Talk Page, and user User:Calidum goes in along with some other editors and just start to remove the debated material, no comment on the talk page or anything. Than starts to swear at me for reverting his nonsense. Can we calm the situation?

• (cur | prev) 19:33, 20 December 2014‎ Calidum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (95,527 bytes) (-62)‎ . . (Undid revision 638941401 by E-960 (talk) no consensus, no sources) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 18:10, 20 December 2014‎ Srnec (talk | contribs)‎ . . (95,527 bytes) (-62)‎ . . (no consensus and no sources) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 21:40, 19 December 2014‎ Nick-D (talk | contribs)‎ . . (95,527 bytes) (-62)‎ . . (Undid revision 638805793 by E-960 (talk) it's a clumsy exercise: did these countries all really call the allegiance the "allies" exactly in their native language? I bet they didn't.) (undo | thank)

This is completely uncalled for and breaks the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle --E-960 (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking I'm not seeing anything wrong. You don't have a consensus for what you want as they have pointed out on the talk page. Here's a link for you: WP:DR. This is about dispute resolution. It will list numbers of ways for you to handle your content dispute.RFC's. noticeboards, and a lot of things but not ani.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I would be more careful of you violating 3RR than the conduct of Calidum. Cease edit warring. —Dark 00:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Serialjoepsycho and User:DarkFalls Sine this material is long standing and one user suggested that I should find reference sources to back it up. I should be allowed time to do so and not have some other editor pull the rug from under me. This Talk Page discussion only open on December 20th. I have a feeling that some senior users are using bullying tactics to close this discussion before I have a chance to present my sources. --E-960 (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You can present sources on the talk page. No excuse for edit warring. —Dark 00:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Five people oppose you; none agree. It's time for you to back off, as consensus against you this time. You need to remove the content. Even if sources are found for the addition, you will need to get consensus, as some people objected on grounds other than the lack of sources. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@E-960: No one has revoked you talk page access. They have a concensus to remove it and if and when you get a concensus you can put it right there where it was. This is a content dispute. You're gonna win your content dispute on ANI. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Edit warring on Electronic Cigarette by Doc James

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

---

I have just edited the Electronic cigarette article to reflect the findings of a new secondary source. User:Doc James has reverted my edits twice without explanation. Given the history of this article it looks like edit-warring to push a POV.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Here Fergus removed two 2014 review articles [108] calling them obsolete

Here Fergus removed another 2014 review article from the journal Circulation [109][110] calling it obsolete

Here again they remove a 2014 review calling it obsolete [111]

In this edit [112] they added "However this is contradicted by the Cochrane Collaboration, whose 2014 review found no evidence that electronic cigarette use is delaying or preventing smoking cessation" Which part of the ref states this?

The review did not state "no major health issues associated with electronic cigarette use". They found "low to very low" quality evidence of no major health issues

This is also not exactly correct "No serious adverse effects from e-cigarette use are known;"

So yes issues Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate, is it, Doc? "None of the RCTs or cohort studies reported any serious adverse events (SAEs) that were considered to be plausibly related to EC use."--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

[ec with Doc James] Your "Cochrane2014" source (link) isn't trustworthy on this subject; to quote their own opinion, The quality of the evidence overall is low because it is based on only a small number of studies. This is one of those articles meant to draw attention and research money to the subject, saying basically "we can't say solidly yet, but we really have potential here". Also, you removed sources such as Harrell from the journal Otolaryngology and "Drummond2014" from the Annals of the American Thoracic Society. One new source with admittedly shaky conclusions doesn't mean that all previous research is junk: per WP:NPOV, we need to represent all significant views on the subject, and you're removing the view that these things are of uncertain efficacy. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I removed the claim that there is no evidence. Now there is. I made clear in my edit that this evidence is tentative, but to claim that there is no evidence is now incorrect and should not be in the article. There aren't any actual reviews that contradict the Cochrane one's (tentative) conclusions, just opinions. Doc seems determined to downplay this as much as possible, despite the fact that a larger review about to be published in Circulation came to exactly the same conclusions.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I to look forwards to reading that review in Circulation when it is published. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So do I. Going by the abstract it looks quite promising. And of course, what with the status of Circulation, I'm sure nobody will challenge it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The article in question has been under protection for several weeks due to edit warring. FergusM took advantage of the expiration of the protection to make 8 back-to-back POV edits for which there was no consensus and regarding which discussion was ongoing on the Talk page. His engagement style on the talk page is excessively confrontational, dismissive, and makes no effort to reach consensus. I suggest a 24 hour block.

• "They're "obsolute" (sic). Their central claim, that no evidence exists, is demonstrably wrong. Stop this. You do not WP:OWN this article.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 7:43 pm, Today (UTC−8)"
• "That's sadly true; there are people too stupid to recognise sarcasm. However life's too short to waste time on them, so I shall sail merrily on my course and not give their miserable, humourless lives another thought.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles"
• "He doesn't have a point; he's just POV pushing again.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 6:53 am, 14 December 2014, last Sunday (4 days ago) (UTC−8)"
• "My guess is that most people who come here want to know if e-cigs are effective for smoking cessation, which they are. Sadly many of them will be discouraged by the article and will probably keep smoking, meaning half of them will die. It's a shame that ANTZ ideologues put dogma before health.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 4:50 pm, Today (UTC−8)"

Formerly 98 (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made numerous efforts to reach consensus, most of which have been dismissed or ignored by Doc James, QuackGuru and Yobol. The talk page makes that quite clear. I suggest a 24-hour block for Doc James and an indefinite one for Quack.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• I smell a boomerang. FergusM1970 seems to be the one clearly pushing a POV, strongly in favor of e-cigs and removing any information possibly critical or undecided about them. Softlavender (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed claims that are now obsolete. It's stupid to say there is no evidence for efficacy when there now is. As for POV-pushing, didn't you just suggest two links to some quack's website as reliable sources?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I submitted two compendium-type articles by an MD to the article's Talk page for other editors to review and decide on, noting that the citations to the articles contained some MEDRS sources and information. Nice attempt at deflection. If the "claims" that you removed are "obsolete", then you need to post RS studies that dispute the claims, rather than remove cited information. Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I posted an RS containing evidence that e-cigs are effective for smoking cessation. Clearly, any claim that there is no evidence is now obsolete. That's pretty basic logic. And you posted two links to "the world's #1 natural health website", which is liberally speckled with links to fluoride cranks, anti-vaxxers and other assorted nutjobs.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It is quite clear from the talk page discussions that there was no consensus for FergusM1970's unilateral removal of sourced content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD. Anyway the fact that it's sourced is irrelevant, because it's now obsolete. The strength of the evidence can be debated, which is why I used the word "tentative" in my edit, but to claim that there is no evidence is simply wrong and makes the article misleading. Far too much WP:WEIGHT has already been given to hypotheticals and vague "concerns", whereas there seems to be a determination to play down actual research. Go read the article; it's a mess, mostly because every trivial review with a truckload of "concerns" is cited. The facts are buried under a pile of "concern", innuendo and sludge.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats not completely true. There are a lot of people in agreement for removing parts of the page dealing with obsolete wording. link. While FergusM1970 changed things, so did Doc James while the discussion was ongoing in a series of 11 edits.diff AlbinoFerret 04:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

...none of which he had consensus for.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD? That's bold-edit, revert, discuss. Not bold edit, revert, run to WP:ANI and call for everyone you disagree with to be blocked... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is very contentious, this content dispute is an example. Discussion needs to be done before anything is done. WP:BRD leads to edit wars on e-cig. AlbinoFerret 04:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As Andy stated, BRD means bold, revert, DISCUSS. Discussion does not lead to edit wars, it leads to talk-page discussion and consensus, and the cessation of removal or altering of existing content until an adequate case is made and consensus is reached. There's nothing about that process that leads to edit wars; it prevents edit wars. Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As you describe it, it sounds good, but when something is found to have no consensus and should be removed or retained it will be reverted by multiple people who disagree. Its best to discuss things first. Perhaps small non contentious things its ok, but anything major or likely to be disputed, talking first stops problems. AlbinoFerret 06:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

What you wrote does not even make sense, and I'm not sure you even understand BRD, least of all as pertains to this case, because you haven't given any evidence that you do or have even read BRD. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Fergus is recently back at this article after a 6 month topic ban for aggressive and non collaborative editing. He probably needs an indef topic ban. Zad68 06:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• One set of edits that he did that were reverted is not reason for a topic ban. This is a content disagreement and should not end in any ban. There was no edit warring. AlbinoFerret 06:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

He's being proposed for a topic ban for returning immediately to a contentious article he has had a 6-month topic ban on, edit-warring on it, and then instead of discussing per WP:BRD, coming to ANI to request that the editors who disagree with him should be topic banned. It's not hard to see there's a pattern here. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. I discussed all of this extensively on the talk page before making any edits at all. When I undid Doc James' first revert I asked him to discuss. He didn't; he just reverted again. Without consensus. He has serious WP:OWN issues, right down to the fact that an article about a consumer product is laid out as if it's a medical article. His justification for this, presumably based on psychic abilities, is that "That's what people come here to look for." How does he know that? And does it matter? It still isn't a medical article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The only pattern I see is that editors from the medical Wikiproject like to try and get editors who they disagree with about content topic banned. Its much easier than having to work with them. AlbinoFerret 11:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can't work with somebody who's goal is to subvert Wikipedia to promote a fringe POV or a corporate POV. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That e-cigs are effective for smoking cessation is hardly a fringe POV. It's accepted by many qualified tobacco control experts and several NHS smoking cessation services.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Those are pretty serious allegations. Just because someone disagrees with another editor does not make their point of view fringe or corporate. This whole blow-up is over a Chocrane Review, hardly fringe. There was discussion, and on this page its needed before editing. The article is now protected, and while I was against it. Perhaps its needed for a longer term. There is no compromise or discussion, just jump in and have a revert fest on the part of multiple editors. AlbinoFerret 14:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't say stuff like "The only pattern I see is that editors from the medical Wikiproject like to try and get editors who they disagree with about content topic banned. Its much easier than having to work with them" unless you want to get replies like mine. Jehochman ^Talk 16:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I assume it's me your slurs were aimed at, so how about producing some evidence that I promote fringe or corporate POVs?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban of FergusM1970 per Zad and others. Their editing is disruptive at this topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry what? It's not me who tries to terminate discussions with "Ah no". As the user page makes very clear I have been actively involved in trying to find consensus on many issues, which you have not been doing; you just oppose every change that's not to your liking and refuse to engage in meaningful discussion. There are several discussions going on right now, for example about rearranging the article sections; you haven't contributed anything except to oppose the change without any explanation. It is not me who is being disruptive; it is you and QuackGuru.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Another example: There is a discussion, started by Formerly98, about reducing the emphasis on the highly contested Grana/Glantz paper. You have repeatedly resisted any attempt to remove claims based on this paper, but you are taking no part in the discussion. I think we both know that this does not mean you agree the paper is being over-used, and are happy to see its use scaled back. You seem to think you can ignore attempts to build consensus, then just step in when any change is attempted and veto it. This is disruptive to the process of improving the article, which frankly is in a very sorry state - and that isn't a reference to its POV issues; I mean it's a badly written mess.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So, in attempting to find a record in ANI archives of the six-month topic ban mentioned above, I find lots of threads about disruption from FergusM1970, but I'm unable to come up with this six-month topic ban. Could someone post it, please, so others can opine as intelligently as possible? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a community topic ban, it was agreed to by FergusM1970 about 3/4 of the way down at User talk:FergusM1970#Unblock request, as a condition for John unblocking the account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Floquenbeam. I'll catch up before entering an opinion (but I sure see lots of threads about disruption on lots of topics). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You'll also see a lot of spelling and grammar corrections, new articles and general Wiki activity. Most of the issues I've had have been either with a) a well-known Irish Republican tag team or b) Doc James, whose editing style does not involve an awful lot in the way of meaningful discussion or consensus building.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll focus on drilling down into your role in the Venezuelan situation, since I know who's who in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. The sockpuppet allegations were particularly amusing.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Another fine mess (but no, you don't strike me as Alek Boyd, and I've edited around him for years). So,

Looking at Derwick Associates (another controversial article that has appeared many times at ANI) and trying to determine if there is a pattern of disruption, I find FergusM1970 generally correctly removing non-reliable sources and making some good edits. But,

1. Yes, you removed several non-RS here, but why is elmundo.com not a reliable source?
2. This is original research; if that text is in that source, please point it out to me (I speak and read fluent Spanish). Same here.
3. Here, you say in edit summary that Justiciero1811 is Alek Boyd (a well known Venezuelan blogger). Law.com is giving a dead link right now, so I can't determine if the text you deleted is reasonable.
4. Here, you are rightly deleting some non-RS, but why are you removing ultimas noticas and el universal, for example?
5. Same here, what's wrong with el mundo?

OK, so on that cursory review of your older editing patterns in a topic I know, I am getting the idea that you remove reliable sources to support a POV. Convince me I'm wrong. I'm not going to weigh in on the med situation, since I don't want to give fuel to the fire that WP:MED editors are aligning against you. It does appear that either controversy follows you, or you follow controversy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can definitely assure you that I'm not Alek Boyd! Anyway I don't speak Spanish at all and relied on machine translation plus calls to my sister in law, who's Spanish. As I recall (and this was a while ago) my statement about Batiz regularly publishing anti-Derwick articles was based on the large number of anti-Derwick articles he's published. I realize that may count as WP:SYNTH but I was less knowledgeable about Wiki rules then. I honestly can't recall what suggested to me that Justiciero was Boyd. I removed the sources you highlight because, in my estimation, they didn't relate to the article; Justiciero seemed to be loading the article with cites to hostile articles that didn't necessarily have a lot to do with what it said. I don't think my edits there constitute pushing a POV, because the article as edited by me still mentioned the allegations against the company. The issue was that Justiciero had made it even more POV than the e-cig article currently is. I submit that it was a lot closer to NPOV when I finished than it was when I started.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll just add that the editor who complained about me in that case was a self-confessed sockpuppeteer who made malicious allegations against me.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any topic ban This is a content dispute. Some discussion on the talk pages and some edits that were reverted do not rise to the level of a topic ban. There seems to be a pattern of trying to topic ban people who disagree with editors from the Medical Wikiproject link while defending those they agree with regardless of the disruption. This whole blow up is a result of editors who dont show up to edit, but to shut things down. If it is found that one party is indeffinatly topic banned, both should be banned. AlbinoFerret 23:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Now that is quite a fine mess, but I'm not seeing the WP:MED alignment you mention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

One example: Doc James is insisting that the article, which is about a consumer product not licensed as a medical device anywhere in the world, should conform to the Medical Wikiproject layout. This despite a recent RfC which found no grounds for doing so. There's an ongoing discussion about changing the order and his sole contribution has been "No, there's no reason to change it." His supporters are principally Zad68 and Yobol, who also seem to share his views on a number of other medical articles, and QuackGuru, who's just appalling.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, one would hope all this ongoing fuss is about more than order of sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It is. The reason I opened this discussion in the first place is that, earlier today, I added a MEDRS-compliant source outlining evidence on e-cigs. At the same time I removed a number of older statements claiming there was no evidence, as these are clearly no longer accurate. I made clear in my edit that the evidence is tentative (what in science isn't?) and Doc immediately reverted me twice. The new source had been discussed on the talk page without any input from Doc James beyond "I disagree." Rather than push the boundaries of 3RR I brought it here. I would ask that either Doc James is put under 1RR or that he agrees to engage meaningfully on the talk page from now on, rather than the somewhat dictatorial way he'd been doing up to now.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think its a good idea to require discussion from everyone before editing the article to avoid edit wars. I do agree that there was little discussion on the edits before the edits were done. I will also point out that Doc James at the time of the reverts called them "Good Faith Edits" diff. AlbinoFerret 00:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There's plenty discussion. It's just that Doc James doesn't participate except to say "I disagree" or "There's no reason to change my preferred wording".--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing is a content dispute. As for not seeing the alignment, look at the defence of QG in the link I gave. AlbinoFerret 00:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Move to close this ANI as ridiculous, and a ridiculous waste of everyone's time, or to issue a boomerang result for failing to follow WP:BRD and gain consensus and instead rushing to ANI to get everyone else blocked. Two reverts (and two diffs) are not edit-warring, and ANI is not AN3 (which this case would not even merit to begin with). This inappropriate ANI has turned into an endless round of self-justification by the filer, devoid of diffs, and is wasting everyone's time. Enough is enough. Softlavender (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hyperbole much? Where have I asked to have anyone banned?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You asked for an indef for Andy QuackGuru (which amounts to a ban), and a 24-hour block for Doc James. I've now changed the wording to block. Softlavender (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I asked for a 24-hour ban for Doc. I didn't suggest anything for Andy. I also asked for an indef for QuackGuru, which given his history seems perfectly reasonable. Hardly "everyone else" though, is it? Still hyperbole.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I meant your request of an indef for QuackGuru (for whom you have provided no diffs); now stricken and corrected. I've already stated several times above that you are trying to get those who disagree with you blocked via an inappropriate, nearly diffless, and wildly unwarranted ANI, rather than establish consensus per WP:BRD. Softlavender (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've spent half the day trying to build consensus on a number of issues. Doc James has not. He just issues proclamations then reverts any edit he doesn't agree with.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You did not do any such thing before you filed this ANI. You made two cursory posts on the Talk page and then filed this ANI without cause and without any prior attempt at reasoned discussion or finding out and establishing consensus. Your continued self-justification here is, again, just wasting everyone's time. I'm sure you'll have a self-justifying response to this as well, but I've no interest in wasting my own time further. My motion to close this unwarranted ANI still stands. Softlavender (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Try actually reading the talk page. I started a discussion about the new review. It was discussed extensively. Doc James agreed that there was now evidence of efficacy. Then, when I removed the now-obsolete statements that there is no evidence, he immediately reverted me twice. At that point, rather than risk breaching 3RR as I have done before, I brought it here because further discussion with him would be, from bitter experience, pointless.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cig part II

We've just managed to get a major improvement made to the article, after building a consensus that brought in editors from both the "MED" and "non-MED" camps (I know we shouldn't be split into opposing camps, but that's the reality on that article). The admin who made the edit characterized those opposed to it as "bleating 'no consensus" from the sidelines, without actually specifying their objection to the proposed change'. The opposition was Doc James and QuackGuru. This is exactly why I brought this case; Doc James (and Quack of course) seems determined to maintain the article in his preferred state but cannot, or will not, give any explanation beyond "It's fine as it is." It is very frustrating and unhelpful to the process of trying to build a better article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So yesterday, after discussions that have dragged on for months, we managed to get rough consensus on the order of the article and (while the article was still protected) got an edit request approved. Doc James just reverted that edit without any discussion at all. He is editing disruptively and needs at least a 1RR restriction.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And reverted again, still with no attempt at discussion.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And, despite having reverted an admin-approved edit twice in a few minutes with no attempt to discuss or seek consensus, he has now posted a message on my talk page accusing me of edit-warring!--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The page has now been locked as a result of the edit war started by Doc James with his preferred wording in place, which I can only assume was his aim.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Next, QuackGuru. There are three daughter pages from the Electronic Cigarette article; one deals with safety and another with legal issues. Quack has been duplicating and mixing up content across these. Earlier today I moved a legal paragraph from the safety article to the legal one; in the process I deleted half of it which dealt purely with safety issues that were already covered elsewhere in the safety article. Quack's response was a rambling series of accusations in which he accused me of "not wanting the information on any page" despite the fact that it was right there at the top of the first section. This is definitely a WP:COMPETENT issue and quite possibly a WP:AGF one as well - both issues that have been repeatedly raised against Quack across multiple articles. His continued presence at the Electronic cigarette article is not helpful. I note that a lot of progress was made today and he contributed nothing. When he does contribute the article instantly gets bogged down in conflicts over his edits and WP:IDHT behavior.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And he's done it again. Obvious, massive competency issues.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And again. WP:IDHT, WP:COMPETENT, and the FSM knows what else. It's impossible to have a discussion with him.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And yet again. This time it's a discussion about a new paragraph for the Usage section. Quack clearly has serious reading comprehension difficulties because he's now insisting it's about the lede. I request that User:QuackGuru is indefinitely banned from editing on electronic cigarettes, broadly construed, because quite apart from any other issues he is utterly incompetent to do so.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And now he's just posting nonsense.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban of FergusM1970 per Zad and Doc James. Disruptive. Cloudjpk (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Show evidence of disruptive editing.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

FergusM1970, admins are no different than any other editors in content disputes, so referencing "admin-approved edits" isn't helpful. Doc, MEDMOS order of sections is just a guideline, and I'm not seeing clear consensus one way or another for order of sections here (if I missed it, pls point it out). I'm glad the article has been protected; if all of these editors can't find more productive ways forward, then extended protection or topic bans may become necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia the content had been in the previous order for many many months. It was changed to a different order on Dec 19th 2014 after one day of discussion following 21 days of discussion that found no consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It has been in the previous order for many months because you have flatly refused to discuss any changes to it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. The point I was making is that an admin approved the edit request yesterday while the article was protected, as he judged there was a rough consensus for it. After it was unprotected today Doc James started an edit war to revert that edit with no attempt at discussing it. An RfC had just found no grounds to impose the order he wants, and commented that it doesn't look NPOV. If he wants this order he should offer a convincing reason for it; he has not even attempted to so so.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

what about placing it under community sanctions then? Since it has already reached Reductio ad Hitlerum levels ... Avono (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The point SandyGeorgia is that its never ok to edit war to get your way. Whats even worse is placing Edit warring warnings on the talk pages of people who revert you once while you revert 3 people.diff1 diff2 It shows you know what you are doing is wrong. AlbinoFerret 20:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The locking admin has just reverted Doc's edit on the grounds that the admin yesterday ruled on consensus.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are referring to Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Sections_Reorder_Proposal, a few days of discussion with a handful of editors reaching no clear consensus doesn't impress me. (Neither does Doc's concern about the order of sections, though.) With this amount of intransigence over minor issues, I suggest it may be time to visit community-imposed 1RR sanctions on the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there was no consensus for that order to be used in the first place, but Doc and other MED editors have refused to consider any changes even though the article is not medical. I'd like to see 1RR for everyone, but I'd still request an indef topic ban for QuackGuru.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• There was no consensus

We had a RfC here regarding the layout of the article which was closed by User:FormerIP on Dec 17th, 2014 after 21 days as "no consensus".

Another discussion regarding the section ordering was opened the next day at 18:18 [113] which had people on both sides of the discussion 4 supporting / 4 opposing (now 5). The page was fully protected due to many issues. User:MSGJ made the change after only one day of discussion and without clear consensus or really sufficient time for discussion or consensus.

The page protection was removed and the article restored to how it was previously by myself. From my understanding one needs consensus for a change not consensus to keep an article the same. The article has now been fully protected again by User:CambridgeBayWeather and they have

With User:AlbinoFerret and User:FergusM1970 each making more than 100 edits pertaining to e-cigs per day and lately only editing this topic things can become a little hard to follow. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Doc, could you please explain what FormerIP said about the order you are insisting on? Did he say there were grounds for it or not? Did he say it looked natural and neutral, or not? Overall would you say he supports it?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There is never an excuse for edit warring to get your way. There is dispute resolution. AlbinoFerret 20:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban for Doc James While this section was open, on the same page as was a problem before Doc James reverted the page order 3 times leading to the page being protected. Previous version of page order reverted to Admin MSGJ changed the page order in two edits after it was discussed on the talk pagediffdiff. Doc James Reverted the page order diff I reverted it back diff. Doc James partially reverted the order diff FergusM1970 changed it back diff Dock James reverted a third time diff They may be partial edits , but eeach restored the Health section to near the top. This is clear edit warring. Doc James knew he was warring because he placed eddit warring warnings on other people who reverted once diff1 diff2 while he continued to revert. Doc James has been warrned for edit warring on that page before link AlbinoFerret 20:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's Quack who urgently needs topic banned. If Doc will agree to discuss meaningfully, rather than relying on stonewalling and a handful of stock phrases, a ban might not be necessary. The problem is that he's very high-handed and won't let go of the belief that it's a MED article. If he can accept that and engage with people maybe we wouldn't have these problems.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Each side wants the other side topic-banned: tit-for-tat. So, how about all four (Fergus, Ferret, Doc and Quack) agree voluntarily to no edits for a month after protection is removed, so the community doesn't have to impose something more severe, and we'll see if some other editors can clean up what is, as of now, rather a dreadful article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, on condition that Ferret and Doc also agree, but I think Quack merits a closer look. Even disregarding his behavior, he's incompetent.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll also voluntarily agree to a six-month 1RR on all e-cig topics, on condition that Doc also agrees to that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that you have this wrong, Doc James involved himself in an edit war to win an edit. Policy says those that engage in edit warring should face consequences. I have done nothing and dont think I should take a break because another editor decided to engage in edit warring. There is no excuse for it. AlbinoFerret 22:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That is of course a valid point, especially because the reason this AN/I exists in the first place is Doc started an edit war yesterday as well.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Analyzing last 1,000 edits for each of the four using Wikichecker for top five pages edited:

AlbinoFerret, 1000 edits since 20 Nov

• Talk:Electronic cigarette[WP] (449)
• Electronic cigarette[WP] (73)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[WP] (71)
• Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes[WP] (68)
• Talk:Legal status of electronic cigarettes[WP] (50)

70% of edits in the last month on e-cig topics.

FergusM1970, 1000 edits since 10 Jan

• Talk:Electronic cigarette[WP] (368)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[WP] (78)
• Electronic cigarette[WP] (66)
• Safety of electronic cigarettes[WP] (45)
• User talk:FergusM1970[WP] (40)

56% of edits this year on e-cig topics

QuackGuru, 1000 edits since 21 Nov

• User:QuackGuru/Sanbox[WP] (187) (seems to be mostly e-cig stuff)
• Talk:Electronic cigarette[WP] (166)
• Electronic cigarette[WP] (125)
• Safety of electronic cigarettes[WP] (72)
• User talk:QuackGuru[WP] (47)

55% of edits in one month on e-cig topics

Doc James, 1000 edits since 9 Dec

• Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents[WP] (72)
• Wikipedia:Education noticeboard[WP] (67)
• Talk:Electronic cigarette[WP] (52)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine[WP] (43)
• User talk:Doc James[WP] (26)

No such pattern.

There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that need improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There are. I use Wikipedia for work research on a daily basis and I make a point of fixing spelling, grammar and any other mistakes I find, just to raise the quality slightly. However I am somewhat irked that the e-cig article is such a mess. It and its daughters are, in large part, unreadable - huge chunks look like they were translated from Korean to English by someone who only speaks Greek - and that thanks to intransigence by MED editors it's impossible to improve. Am I POV pushing? I don't think so. Yes, I think e-cigs are a great smoking cessation tool, but I am not trying to expunge negative material from the article; I just don't think having lots of speculation, or six consecutive sentences saying "We don't know about..." makes the encylopaedia more useful or accessible. We could easily have one sentence that says "We don't know X, Y and Z." That's what I've been trying to do at the Safety article, and apart from QuackGuru (see diffs above) there have been no complaints. I'm willing to step back in the interests of progress if Doc will reciprocate, but again, Quack is not a competent editor. He has massive IDHT issues. He appears to have reading comprehension problems. He cannot write a coherent sentence or choose words that preserve the meaning of a source. I don't think there's any chance he will ever become a productive editor on this topic, whereas with a bit of nurturing, guidance and North Korean brainwashing techniques Doc, Ferret and perhaps even myself might.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia:As has been pointed out numerous places, I seldom make one edit and leave. It usually takes 4 or 5 edits or more for me to get things perfect. The topic interests me, but it isnt the only interest I have. I am also a member of the Citation cleanup Wikiproject and like to answer RFC's. The article has lots of discussions and I like activity because I am a disabled person who spends time online. But my activity is no excuse for another editor to edit war. AlbinoFerret 21:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. If we take a month off from pointlessly banging our heads against the grim ramparts of Fortress Medmos I can teach you to indent properly. :-)--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Do it like this then; it's clearer.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I did, I wasnt replying to you.AlbinoFerret 22:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the silver lining in these unpleasantries is that at least y'all are funny :) Albino, I understand the limitations of editcountitis; mine show a similar pattern. I did want to give you all the opportunity to comment on whether we are seeing evidence of unhealthy fixations on individual content areas. As Fergus points out, the articles are dreadful, and something has to give. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it's worth (and they make some pretty small coins here) is that the MED point of view has to give. It's an article about a consumer product with no known health risks when used correctly beyond making some people sneeze. The article should definitely make clear that there are concerns from some people, but the insistence on stuffing it with speculation and alarmist statements is not helpful. Yes, some e-cigs (the disposable and cartridge-based ones that tobacco control and the tobacco industry demand are the only ones on the market) release metal nanoparticles, but the level of these particles is between 10 and 50 times lower than the FDA safe limit for asthma inhalers! You won't get that from the article though. It reads like a medical journal, albeit one written by someone who learned English from watching Beavis and Butthead. For the average reader - the person it's meant to be aimed at - it's just impenetrable and alarmist. Even Formerly98, a self-confessed MED partisan, is arguing that we should cut out the wilder claims of potential, but entirely hypothetical, dangers. Why can't we just say "There's some bad stuff in there but not very much; it's way safer than smoking but, yanno, not quite as safe as lettuce."?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I should probably note that even the article on actual real cigarettes, which really are dangerous, doesn't follow the order Doc wants, with health effects first. So I see no reason at all why this one should, and I'll reiterate that the MED crowd had no consensus for changing to this order in the first place. That makes the outrage at "no consensus" now seem vaguely invalid.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: The articles is dreadful because no one wants to discuss things and work to make them better. Its just dump and revert. Personally I think a long term protection is the best. It may make the article progress slowly. But it will force people to work together and compromise for the good of the article to get things done. Short blocks just have people waiting till they are over and start the nonsense all over. As for my editing, I am forced to use the source editor and even that has bugs on my distro, I dont type that well and spelling errors always seem to show up after I have saved it, but I have tried to make an improvement and preview twice before saving. I tell you what, I would trade being able to post a lot for being able to leave one of two rooms for most of the day and having to get people to help me if I want to leave the house for simple thing like a doctors appointment. AlbinoFerret 22:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said, Albino, I understand the limitations of editcountitis, and my editing is the same (it takes me five edits to do what most editors do in one). But for whatever reason, there is an unhealthy dynamic at that article. I have little experience as far as knowing which kind of sanctions to apply (1RR, extended protection, topic bans, whatever), but something has to give. For everyone to be calling for everyone else to be topic banned doesn't seem to be going anywhere. If long-term protection is decided by those more accustomed to dealing with protracted disputes, so be it, but it seems to me that the most collegial way forward would be for all four of you to agree to sit on your fingers for a month, and see what others can make of the situation. At least that is preferable to having something imposed upon you or the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bore, but I still don't think that suffices for Quack, because I can tell you exactly what he'll do. He'll spend a month working up a massive edit in his sandbox, then five minutes after the month is up slap it on the article without any discussion. Next he'll argue, edit-war and disrupt to keep it there. I will lose my temper with him and get blocked for six months. Everyone else will walk away from the article in disgust. It will be brought to AN/I repeatedly. Doc will argue in favour of Quack. The whole mess will start again. The article's future will be at lest slightly brighter if it has no QuackGuru in it, because he's both abrasive and incompetent.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've never edited around QuackGuru, so can't agree or disagree. I did just take a look at cigarette, and think it's not a very good model; for something as proven dangerous as cigarette smoking, the health section there seems to be downplayed, which I find curious. Perhaps it's never been an issue because, well, it's uncontroversial, and we have health effects of tobacco. Would e-cigs have been invented if not for health issues? Is Safety of electronic cigarettes given too much or too little weight at e-cig? Your argument about Quack (above) seems to indicate that some combo of article protection or 1RR sanction might be needed. I hope you can all come to find some middle ground on the health issue, so you don't end up in an arbcase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, digression. No, e-cigs wouldn't exist if it wasn't for health issues. The inventor was a heavy smoker whose father died of lung cancer; they were explicitly designed as a safer replacement for lit tobacco. I think the summary of the safety issue is about right just now bearing in mind that no serious risks are currently known and the toxicology suggests long-term risks are likely to be quite small. There's a lot of additional info in the Safety article, although I do think that should be further streamlined without removing any actual information.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, he has a bit of a block log and the same issues - IDHT, tendentious editing, edit warring and incompetence - come up over and over again. He's even worse than me, and it's not even a case of him being a difficult editor who can make good edits. I'd be much happier if he was the subject of at least a 1RR sanction, and if you did that I'd voluntarily accept one myself to balance the scales.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As for the one month time out, as I said, I'm happy with that if the others agree.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

...although Doc apparently doesn't, as he's now reopened the whole section order argument again. Can you please make it an order?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) "... if you did that I'd voluntarily accept one myself ... " ??? Fergus, I'm not even an admin, and I rarely get involved in discussions of article or editor sanctions. I'm in this discussion now because you pinged my talk and asked me to revisit; not sure what I can add that admins more experienced in protracted disputes couldn't better handle.

I see we now have a Third RFC on the matter. Perhaps this time folks will give it the time needed for an RFC to come to any meaningful conclusion, and having the article protected in the meantime should help that happen. But seriously -- all of this over order of sections, when the actual content needs so much work still? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought you were an admin! Anyway Doc clearly isn't going to accept your suggestion. I'm going to get drunk and sing sea shanties at the cat. My faith in Wikipedia is at one of its lower points tonight. He just won't accept that these are not medications despite the FDA, EU, Health Canada etc. specifically ruling that they are not. There's no reasoning with him.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Lets look at the heading of WP:MEDMOS. It says "Drugs, medications and devices" Is nicotine the active ingredient of e-cigs a drug? And smoking is a top importance article at WPMED [114] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus. This like an idée fixe. Why do you keep bringing up MEDMOS? It is not even vaguely relevant. These are not medical devices. The EU say they are not medical devices. The FDA say they are not medical devices. Health Canada say they are not medical devices. The WHO say they are not medical devices. Only you, Doc James, insist they are medical devices. There's no gentle way to put this: You are obsessed with single-handedly reclassifying e-cigs as medical devices. Will you please, for the sake of Wikipedia, just accept the facts and LET IT GO?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never, as far as I am aware, said they were medical devices. Can you provide a diff? They are a drugs. Similar to caffeine Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If e-cigs are "a drugs similar to caffeine" I assume that, for the sake of consistency, you also describe a coffee machine as "a drugs similar to nicotine." If not, why not?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The comparison is more like a cup of coffee being a drug. Yes yes it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No. The comparison you are making is to the cup being a drug, which is of course wrong. Cups can contain a drug. E-cigs can contain a drug. However cups and e-cigs are not drugs. Do you understand this?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable. They are not drugs. They are devices. The liquid you put in them may or may not contain nicotine; the devices themselves, however, are not drugs by any definition to be found anywhere in the English language. I don't think you can contribute usefully to an article on a consumer product when you don't even know what it is.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah if that is your position, since this Cochrane review compared "e-cigs with nicotine" against "e-cigs without nicotine" [115] it does not support "One review found evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid". The article is about devices that contain nicotine with ones that do not as the control. You have not provided a diff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to disregard that because it was utterly irrelevant, to the extent that I don't think you understood my last comment. E-cigs are not a drug. They can be used to deliver a drug, but they are not a drug. Do you understand that? --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Emphasis added:

• These are not medical devices. The EU say they are not medical devices. The FDA say they are not medical devices. Health Canada say they are not medical devices. The WHO say they are not medical devices. Only you, Doc James, insist they are medical devices. There's no gentle way to put this: You are obsessed with single-handedly reclassifying e-cigs as medical devices. Will you please, for the sake of Wikipedia, just accept the facts and LET IT GO?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

But:

• They are not drugs. They are devices. The liquid you put in them may or may not contain nicotine; the devices themselves, however, are not drugs by any definition to be found anywhere in the English language. I don't think you can contribute usefully to an article on a consumer product when you don't even know what it is.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

But Doc James never said they were medical devices, and now the discussion is going in semantic circles. So, Fergus, based on the rhetoric and hyperbole you aimed at Doc James in that exchange, while he provided sources in response, I'm suggesting it may be time to push back from the computer and edit something else for a while. You're going in circles over order of sections, and the argument has been reduced to semantics. I'm still not understanding why anyone would consider the structure of cigarette as a valid example, not only because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but because it makes no sense to me that the known health consequences of smoking cigarettes are buried at the end of a long article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is he provided sources on how a medical article should be laid out, and this is not a medical article. His wording on the new RFC, which looks like IDHT, confused me and gave me the impression he was calling them medical devices. OK, he isn't, but he is calling them a drug and that's wrong too. In fact this is an example of why he's so unhelpful at getting agreement; he won't give straight answers, he won't take any account of other people's comments and he won't listen to anything he doesn't want to hear. This boils down to "Doc, they're not medical devices and this isn't a medical article." "Sure, but the article is laid out wrong; look, MEDMOS says it should be like this." The idea that the article doesn't fall under MEDMOS in the first place is something that he simply refuses to consider.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This would be a good time to take DarkFalls' suggestion, and pursue the semantic issues on article talk. Getting heated and going in semantic circles isn't productive. Usually, focusing on sources is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It is being pursued at the talk page. He's refusing to address comments about IDHT and misrepresenting the outcome of the last RfC, while continuing to insist that e-cigs are a drug and not a consumer product. This is a common pattern with him. He refuses to engage constructively, then blocks any change he disagrees with.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• The current protection appears to be adequate for now, although it may be lifted once a proper consensus is reached regarding the content of the article. In that respect, a 1RR sanction is unnecessary considering the article will remain locked. As further admin action appears unnecessary for now, I would recommend proceeding with the conversation in a more appropriate forum. However I should note that further discussion of the dispute should not be closed prematurely, please allow consensus to develop. —Dark 01:02, 21 December 2014 (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.

Greek genre warrior – TECHNO rampaging maniac .

This guy has been rampaging on Wikipedia, replacing trance and house with techno to everything he sees. Can you find the IP's and block them. Thanks JG Malmsimp (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Not without at least a clue as to which articles are affected, no we can't. Black Kite (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The only article I've been immediately able to identify, based on Malmsimp's contributions is Aiii Shot the DJ [116]. The IP there was 5.55.243.208 (talk), whose contributions all stem from today. The history of the article shows that this person was likely using 79.166.75.10 (talk) in late July. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Dispute between two users

• At 22:16, 19 December 2014‎ two users started a dispute with accusations in my user talk page, at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Report. See also User talk:Actionfanman. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Could someone close this please? The other editor's bogus warnings or deletions on several editors' talk pages have been reverted, and he has been indeffed as a sock. The next probable sock, User:Thekillerofmeters has already been indeffed for continuing the harassment, and his death threats against me and my family have been RevDeled from my talk page. If you don't want to take my word for it, check with the other editors who were targeted by or dealt with Actionfanman: User:HelloThereMinions, User:Avono, User:JamesBWatson, User:Kansas Bear, User:Worldexplorer2014, and User:Skylark2008.

I also suggest that User:Anthony Appleyard be a bit more careful about his wording at ANI. I didn't start a dispute on his talk page, and I didn't make any accusations there. I made exactly one edit to Appleyard's talk page. I simply responded to the other user making a bogus request for me to be blocked, with links to the correct places to make such a request (either ANI or AIV) here.

And if someone is going to drag me to ANI for something like this it would be nice if they gave the mandatory notification. I wasn't notified, and neither was Actionfanman. Meters (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If there's a problem, I'm sure Anthony can take it up with User talk:Actionfanman. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• The main discussion about this matter is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#Template:Infobox Song Contest. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I was not involved in that and Actionfanman was not involved in that. Neither was Thekillerofmeters, or the master Theshitman and his other known socks. This is getting very strange.

Again, would someone please look at this matter and close it. Meters (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:File:Revell Logo.png - unhide previous revision?

Given that File:Revell Logo.png is now licensed as PD-ineligible-USonly instead of as non-free content, would it please be possible to consider unhiding the previous higher-resolution revision of the image? Thanks. --Elegie (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible disruptive editing

After working on some pages that TheriusRooney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited, I began to notice a trend with their edits. TheriusRooney either creates or edits existing pages by adding both needed and questionable information. TheriusRooney adds to automobile and racing car articles, placing large lists of highly technical data in a "Technical Specifications" section. Some examples: I worked on the Audi A4 DTM and Audi A5 DTM pages, which is where I first noticed the edits, then I went to the contribs page and saw this, this, and this. Most of this user's other edits are along this line. TheriusRooney has just over 1800 edits as of now, without creating a user page or ever replying once to a post on their talk page.

My dilemma is:

1. This extremely detailed information is not needed in the body of the article, just in the infobox categories. Should it be removed?

2. Would this be considered vandalism? I considered posting on that noticeboard, but had second thoughts and decided this was a better option.

3. As far as I can tell, never once does this user cite a source for all of this information. This is clearly an issue, and most likely a copy-and-paste situation. I also considered posting on the original research noticeboard, since this probably falls into that category.

Is this grounds for some sort of review or inquiry? I haven't reverted any edits, just cleaned the aforementioned Audi pages up a bit, so there is no edit war going on here. I just want to get a more experienced user's perspective on this situation. I feel like Rooney is making all of these edits and going unnoticed for it, and it seems fishy.

Thank You! Cheers --Stratocaster27^t@lk 04:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Some help would be appreciated on this issue, since TheriusRooney is continuing to do this at this very moment.--Stratocaster27^t@lk 16:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. The user isn't required to make a user page. Have you attempted to communicate with them on their userpage? As far as content I can't say anything. If you think the material has no place in the article and it's unsourced then remove it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

New editor claiming my photo as her own

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.

---

New editor CeruleanSkye (talk · contribs) is claiming that the Bag Balm photo I took and uploaded in 2008 is their own work, taken with their phone camera. Since the picture's metadata shows that it was taken with a Kodak Easyshare, I suggest the editor may not be here to improve the encyclopedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

All this fuss over a photo of Bag Balm? Agreed the editor does not seem to be here to improve things and question why all the effort wasted over this photo when you are the one who clearly took it in the first place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

They've made all of 3 edits so far. Maybe try talking to them before coming to ANI with it? --Onorem (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Methinks that Knowledgekid87 and Onorem need to develop a deeper appreciation for copyright. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what administrator action is necessary here; very little in the way of communication has taken place with the editor before coming here and this could easily be a misunderstanding (referring to a different picture than what you assume, accidentally linking to the wrong page, etc.). Sam Walton (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there has not been any evidence that proves that CeruleanSkye took the picture before 2008. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeffing the account. The Pinterest site clearly states "found on en.m.wikipedia.org" so CeruleanSkye is a joe job troll. NE Ent 01:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that too: [117]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The description there also says that the user started using it two years before the post (46 weeks ago). Very conservatively that puts the posting around 2012. Even throwing an extra year in there only pushes it back to 2011. The image was uploaded here in 2008. Pretty clear who's wrong here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The claim of authorship has been proven to be a hoax: we do not tolerate hoaxers, and we block them if they persist. Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Or it could just be a person who has a woeful (and common) misunderstanding of copyright. I don't see much in the way of "persistence"... though I do see yet another swatting of a fly with a sledgehammer. I'm sure indefinitely blocking a clueless newbie feels mighty good, but maybe a little actual effort to communicate and giving these folks half a chance might be a better option. – JBarta (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, there's hard proof of a hoax, have you got evidence of their being a clueless newbie? Do clueless newbies generally claim to own things that don't belong to them, regardless of what their state of knowledge of copyright law is? And as far as that goes, where's your evidence that the blocking admin took their action so that they could "feel mighty good"? Seems to me all your AGF is going towards the person that there's convincing evidence against, and you've got no good will left over for the people who protect us from hoaxers, vandals and disruptive editors of all kinds. BMK (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

1) You'd be surprised what clueless newbies come up with... all sorts of weirdness due to their own misunderstanding of things and maybe a little immaturity thrown in. 2) Administrative sanctions, while necessary and welcome, should be used with discretion, moderation and (in these sort of cases) rarely as a solution of first resort. – JBarta (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Before we go too far with this I'd like to point out that the account wasn't actually blocked despite the threat of doing so. Sam Walton (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. I was under the impression he was blocked. I thought I checked, but maybe I confused him with another. If he wasn't blocked then I take back my slam of the (apparently non-existent) admin and apologize for getting frosty over (apparently) nothing. – JBarta (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree - per my comment above it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that the user is just mistaken. A block seems an incredibly heavy handed way of dealing with this; they were hardly causing disruption. Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

[118] This shows more than a mistaken belief in copyright. I'll leave the matter up to Ne Ent but I find it difficult to assume good faith given the evidence available. —Dark 00:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

So it appears that she wasn't blocked and just stopped editing out of her own volition. Now I'm confused. —Dark 00:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

DarkFalls, you are correct (and I was wrong), this is not a matter of copyright misunderstanding, this is a matter of two people claiming ownership of the same photo. – JBarta (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

At this point the person has been neither blocked nor warned... and she has neither repeated the claim on her talk page nor has she edit-warred over Sarek's reversion of the credits page. I suggest a warning and then see what happens. Neutron (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that the user should be warned, if it is a mistaken case then so be it, I have not seen the user continue to remove the image or push the discussion any more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for causing confusion about blocking; I didn't mean to make it look like I'd blocked CeruleanSkye. My point was that the user should be informed that we know they're wrong and warned not to continue; if this kind of thing continues, we should warn them; and ultimately, we would need to block if nothing else worked. My main point was that a block potentially would be warranted, that we shouldn't necessarily consider it a bad idea. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Re "claiming ownership" -- for the record, File:SarekOfVulcan with Bag Balm.jpg. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan Hmmm..... idk doesn't look legit, are those DVDs in the bottom left corner? I bet you have one all about how to make perfect replica's of bag balm tins. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid - If you don't have something useful or helpful -- or actually, you know, funny -- to say, please don't clutter up the boards with your posts. BMK (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2014 (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.

Bullying, intimidation, and ownership of articles

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

---

I have made thousands of edits to city articles, and have added 159 new articles to Wikipedia. I feel I am a respected editor, and have never been censured or blocked. For the past month I have tried to contribute to articles about New Jersey, and have been repeatedly harassed by User:Alansohn If you look through my edit history, you will see that nearly every edit I have made to an article about New Jersey has within minutes been reverted or tinkered with by User:Alansohn. Sometimes his corrections were so sloppy they seemed almost made in haste, and I needed to go back and fix them (see Bear Tavern, New Jersey and Aserdaten, New Jersey). There real problem is that this sort of ownership and intimidation scares editors away from articles about New Jersey. I have twice reported to you his incivility and desire to "own" New Jersey articles, see here and here. He has left this edit summary for me last week. Today, when he was unhappy with one of my edits, he left a message on my talk page and concluded "You are operating in very dangerous territory here." Please take action against this editor with a long history of incivility. I edit on Wikipedia because I want to build an encyclopedia. No one on here deserves to be bullied and intimidated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Archive link to previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#New Jersey is NOT owned by one editor. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Magnolia677 is currently involved in his latest edit war in which he insists that there must be a standalone article for Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey. I have pointed out to him that the article is for a location that is exactly the same as Marlboro Township, New Jersey. I raised the issue on his talk page (here and here) and he refused to respond. I raised the same issue in more detail at User_talk:Tinton5 (here), and he again refused to provide any explanation, instead choosing to blindly undo the reverts before replying that the place appears on a map as his entire argument. He was bold and recreated a standalone article for Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey. I reverted the change and provided a rather clear explanation for my position based on the available data. Google maps and MapIt all seem to think that the GNIS point for this "other" Marlboro is at the southeast corner of Vanderburg Road and Hudson Street in Marlboro Township. There is no evidence that Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey is anything other than Marlboro Township, New Jersey. Per WP:BRD, I have tried to raise the issues rationally with Magnolia677 and encourage him to discuss, make his case and establish a new consensus overriding the longstanding status quo ante that has Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey as a redirect to Marlboro Township, New Jersey, as there seems to be no way to make it a meaningful independent article. His choice of action is to come to here to WP:ANI. Any suggestions? Alansohn (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If your position is that the Marlboro article is, in effect, a duplication of the Marlboro Township article, why not breing it to AfD and let a consensus decide, rather then repeatedly making the decision on your own? If it is as obvious as you say, then the outcome should be in your favor. BMK (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please recognize this "smokescreen" and look into my ongoing concern with this abusive editor. Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken, the community finds it rather rude and disrespectful to go straight to deletion, even for articles like Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey that have no prayer of retention and will result in a redirect. Instead, WP:Deletion policy suggests trying to edit the article and trying to merge the content into another article. I've done my part, but User:Magnolia677 has refused to have address the issues and simply refuses to consider a merge. I am more than happy to pursue resolving this issue via WP:AFD, but the underlying problem of Magnolia677's refusal to work on a collaborative basis needs to be addressed. This is the third ANI he has initiated in just a few weeks and this is the third report that will go nowhere. It is well past time for Magnolia677 to face appropriate sanctions for this chronic disruption. Alansohn (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Going to AfD cannot possibly be more "rude and disrespectful" than deleting it yourself on your own. Let the community decide, that's what it's here for, to decide consensus, and what AfD is meant for. You may well be right, but pushing your opinion in the face of disagreement from another editor is not ideal. BMK (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't delete anything, I'm not an administrator, but I can change a non-viable article back to a redirect, which is exactly what I did. You may want to speak to User:Magnolia677, who has refused to discuss per WP:BRD, blindly reverted his changes and than ran here -- for the third time -- to ANI. Alansohn (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't be disingenuous, converting an article to a redirect is tantamount to deleting it. BMK (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I was tempted to take some sort of action here, but I ought to be considered involved, as I've had enough encounters with Alansohn of the same sort as what's being mentioned here. Part of the problem is that Alansohn appears to come into everything NJ-related almost immediately after its creation, e.g. doing big makeovers on Aserdaten about ½ day after its creation and Bear Tavern about ½ hour after its. Yes, big makeovers can be helpful, but by coming in so soon, without discussion or explanation (I see nothing on either talk page, and Alansohn's first comment about Aserdaten on Magnolia's talk page came after most of the edits were made. If you've looked at many of these NJ place articles, you'll understand what Alansohn means about the standards (they're pretty much all formatted the same way, so it's unhelpful to have exceptions without good reason), but as far as I can see, the standards are simply mentioned without explanation or even offers to explain. Meanwhile, look at Marlboro: no discussions at Talk:Marlboro Township, New Jersey or Talk:Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey, and everything in the final sections of User talk:Magnolia677 and User talk:Tinton5 makes it appear that Alansohn doesn't understand what's going on, and when it's explained to him in simple terms, simply contradicts and continues saying what's already been disproven. Magnolia provides clear evidence that community and township are different concepts, but Alansohn repeats what he said before, along with an obviously false claim that the community is a point, not a community. Even here, we see the same attitude: outside of New Jersey, community articles of this sort are routine in the USA, but Alansohn assumes that the community will back up his highly unusual idea. Part of the issue, of course, is a content dispute over whether community and township ought to have separate articles, but regardless of whether they ought to be separate, Alansohn is enforcing a local standard without obvious explanation, ignoring or discounting explanations given by Magnolia, and so badly demonstrating ownership that he assumes that his highly idiosyncratic approach to this situation is based in the community consensus with which he is actually so greatly at variance. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Are not the "standards" for NJ articles ones which Alansohn created himself? That, at least, is how I interpret "I am looking to create a structure to load expanded information into pages for all of New Jersey's 566 municipalities" from his talk page. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but – just as with the Manual of Style, which ArbCom has told us should not be treated as if it was immutable policy – standards, guidelines and consistent formatting should never get in the way of presenting the specific material in a specific article in the best possible way. BMK (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I tried the remove the categories he created and then insisted on adding to the "notable people' section of New Jersey articles. Look at the nightmare I faced here, here, and here. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:NE2 raised the issue at AfD (see here) that I should support the deletion of other, similar place articles where there is no assertion other than the fact that it exists, such as Beacon Hill, New Jersey. I'm no fan at all of such articles, but I'm extremely reluctant to delete such articles as there appears a legitimate chance that they might have room for expansion. For a Marlboro / Marlboro Township pair there seems to be little likelihood that there is anything to distinguish the two, there seems to be no benefit to having an independent article and this has been the status quo / consensus for nearly ten years and I had nothing to do with that redirect. I've reached out to Magnoli677, encouraged him to state his case, and all he has done to back up his edit war is state that it exists. Feel free to disagree, but trying to use an edit to my user page from nine years ago as an argument seems to be something of a stretch. Alansohn (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Reached out?? A week ago you told me it was "time to cut the crap and learn to work collaboratively". Magnolia677 (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

After much arbitrary deletion on your part, you were dragged to Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, where the result was "My independent input is that Magnolia677 seems to essentially concede your points in favor of including the cat link." (see here), and that included having a shill chime in on your behalf after a rather blatant WP:CANVASS violation on your part here. You win some, you lose some, but your approach of trying to get your way but edit warring, refusing to discuss and running to ANI is not how Wikipedia works. Alansohn (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Alansohn: what harm are these articles on real communities doing? If you were interested in improving our information on places, you would at the very least merge any independent information into the township article, rather than simply redirecting.

As for the specific example of Marlboro, this appears to be older than the township itself (for those unfamiliar with NJ government, townships are somewhere between counties and towns/cities, comprising areas of the state that have not been otherwise incorporated). http://www.marlboro-nj.gov/DOCUMENTS/Master_Plan_Re-exam_adopted_July_2012.pdf has some information for expanding the article about the unincorporated community (search for 'village'). http://www.marlboro-nj.gov/DOCUMENTS/Marlboro-Community-Vision-Plan.pdf (p. 41) shows that there is a defined "Marlboro Village Historic District", so it does have boundaries (not that such things are required to be a notable place). --NE2 04:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

My abilities to edit Wikipedia have been severely restricted lately by personal circumstance, so I am often unable to follow or respond on this page (Mostly seeing Wikipedia on my phone, and this page is usually too large for my phone to load), but much of the problems Magnolia is experiencing with Alansohn started a bit prior to his edit drive on small NJ places (for which I applaud him. Stubs on tiny communities are a very useful addition here. They allow someone who may know of some obscure sources a place to "build up" info that they may have otherwise just not shared). Magnolia backed me up on some edits removing COI from St. Augustine Preparatory School. Alansohn took exception to this action by myself and Magnolia and brought his argument to my talk page here. After repeated back and forths regarding the edits (my position being that the editor was an indisputable COI editor and the quality of her edits were of a secondary concern to that. His being that the edits were good and so should remain.) in which he refused to address the COI issue and only would talk about the quality of the edits, I asked him in no uncertain terms to quit wasting my time as we were obviously not going to agree (keep in mind, this is on my talk page). He refused to respect that so I told him on his talk page to leave me alone and stay off my talk page, while telling him I would be more than happy to discuss any edit with him on any article talk page (here). I was not the most polite with him at that time...in fact I was a bit rude. After re-factoring my comment on his talk page here he did leave me alone for a while, until the 1st of December, when he stalked me to a brand new users talk page here, and then again appeared on my talk page, insisting on debating something with me on my talk page. Alansohn seems very confused as to the respective uses of article and user talk pages, and the accepted method for obtaining consensus here on Wikipedia (see above and here). Referencing the archived discussion mentioned above, Alansohn's notion that he might ever get to see the content of any email and his attitude that Magnolia and I discussing a similar problem we had both had with him was somehow actionable here is very indicative of the attitude all the rest of Wikipedia is dealing with from Alansohn. It is telling that there has been no-one, in either of the discussions here that has come forward to defend him. As a member of the Editor Retention project, I find his attitude of ownership and self importance (witness the above referenced intrusion on a brand new user's talk to make a point with me) to be very destructive to recruitment and retention of new users and his ownership of all things New Jersey to be destructive overall to our coverage of US places. I know I have not behaved as well as I could here either, and will accept a sanction for it without complaint if you feel it needed. But when I get maybe two hours a week to actually use a PC and try to do some substantive editing (the phone interface sucks) it is very frustrating to have to waste my time dealing with the fallout of some other editor's overblown ego. I don't care if Alansohn has 400,000 edits, 4 edits or 4 million edits: his behavior is detrimental to the community as a whole. John from Idegon (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The article for St. Augustine Preparatory School is instructive. User:John from Idegon took it upon himself to arbitrarily remove content from the article and to restore content that he knew full well was incorrect, inaccurate and out of date, without taking any action to distinguish between edits that improved the article and edits that might potentially be problematic. For someone who claims to be deeply involved in "editor retention", John from Idegon has consistently demonstrated an inability to work with users to keep and add content, instead preferring to remove content with often inappropriate warnings, which seem designed in every way possible to discourage new editors from participating. It is this kind of arrogant attitude that leads to discouraging editor retention, from both new and experienced editors. It's no surprise that User:John from Idegon has shown up here, acting again as a shill for User:Magnolia677; the two do an excellent job of covering for each other's actions (see here for a pair of edits from Magnolia677 to help out John from Idegon). I can't imagine anyone having the gall to compare an editor to Adolf Hitler, but if this edit is an example of User:John from Idegon's editor retention efforts, we're all screwed: "The only editor that is not going to be retained is ME. I have had my fill of arrogant pricks like the asshole above. He stalks me to a brand new editors talk page, addresses a venomious message to me there and doesn't even say boo, good morning or get fucked to the editor whose page it is and I AM THE ONE BEING ORDERED BY YOU TO RESPOND? Fuck this. I've told him to stay off my talk page and it is my understanding that is to be honored. Another editor told him if he doesn't like the guideline he has said he doesn't think needs to be followed he should address his concerns there. What a crock of shit. I have nothing but respect for you, 7 and 6, and it puzzles me why you would get involved in this. But I am done with this. Zigheil, mein Fuhrer Sohn." If this is how WP:Editor retention works, we have bigger problems here than I ever imagined. Alansohn (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Alan, the quote you provided clearly states that you yourself violated a very clear behavioral standard in continuing to post on a user's talk page after being told not to. If you believe an editor using admittedly over-the-top language to describe someone who apparently by his actions took it upon himself to violate basic standards of decorum is generally unacceptable, I might not disagree, but that behavior was apparently brought on by similarly unacceptable violation of decorum, in this case your own, and that should be taken into account. Your conduct in this matter does give the impression of being problematic. Having said that, the conduct of some others doesn't seem to be conduct which they would want the teacher to tell mommy about either. You do not have the right you seem to believe you have to violate conduct guidelines. I think that much of the problem is at least in part based on your own conduct, and your apparent refusal to engage in reasonable discourse. I don't have any reason to think the specific article on Marlboro Township necessarily qualifies for inclusion either, but unilaterally turning it into a redirect without any apparent discussion isn't proper either. I believe the time has come, perhaps, for you to recognize that your conduct includes some problems that are far bigger than you seem to have ever imagined, and that the time may have come for you to act in a more genuinely cooperative manner than that you seem to have often displayed to date. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I first approached User:John from Idegon after he removed extensive edits from the article for St. Augustine Preparatory School (see here), in which I couldn't have been more polite in suggesting that there might be a better way to deal with the situation. John from Idegon responded here with a bad faith personal attack. Sure he's merely a passive agressive jerk, who demands that I respond reach out to him and say hello on his talk page and then goes bezerk when I do. But there is no excuse for John from Idegon's for "Zigheil, mein Fuhrer Sohn" and even John from Idegon seems to recognize that it crosses a line, but it takes a special kind of person like a User:John Carter to rationalize one of the most unacceptable personal attacks I have ever seen. If changing a contentless article back to the redirect it was for nine years "isn't proper" but "Zigheil, mein Fuhrer Sohn" is acceptable behavior that you are willing to condone, we're far more screwed up than I've ever imagined. Alansohn (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Alansohn, you seem fixated on the fact that because an article has been redirected for nine years, then it is set in stone. Time changes stuff on Wikipedia you know. I mean, look at all the disruptive editing you were blocked for just six years ago. You've changed, right?

• April 29, 2009 - "persistent assumptions of bad faith; incivility; personal attacks in violation of editing restrictions".
• April 14, 2009 - "incivility; violation of editing restrictions at several recent CfDs".
• January 22, 2009 - "incivility, violation of editing restrictions".
• October 10, 2008 - "incivility".
• July 28, 2008 - "abuse of process at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Rlevse#Oppose and general violation of editing restrictions".
• June 17, 2008 - "violation of arbcom ruling".
• January 21, 2008 - "personal attacks and Tendentious editing".
• January 15, 2008 - "gross incivility after request to refrain from gross incivility".
• January 9, 2008 - "edit warring". Magnolia677 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Again with your egocentric attitude. I thought my implication was clear but since it's not I will just flat out say it. Wikipedia would have much less problems retaining editors if the likes of you were not here. If Magnolia and I in totally separate instances at totally separate times experienced your bullying ownership attitude and at least one other editor (an admin BTW) also has, I would have to say it needs to be treated like the police treat child molesters. If we know of three times there are probably 300 more. You may have made 400,000 edits, but that includes all your posting to people's talk pages. Just how much of it is constructive? I would gladly trade all of your work to get you censured so you quit driving off new users who are capable of understanding that Wikipedia is not going to work the same way now, with over 4 million articles and 10,000 editors as it did when you started editing and there were a few hundred thousand articles and less than 1000 editors. Times change. You are absolutely refusing to. What is your explanation for taking a dump all over that new editor's talk page, where you were not involved and he was not involved with you? You did not even mention the editor whose talk page it was at all. How can that be anything other than stalking and bullying? And how totally rude of you to totally ignore the poor brand new guy who is left staring with his tongue out going, " WTF just happened?" Here's a piece of news for you, Alansohn. Neither I, nor any other editor in all of Wikipedia ever has to talk to you. NEVER. Yet you have repeatedly posted on my talk page, even though you were told to stay away, that I must talk to you. You have done the same on Magnolia's talk page. My personal opinion is that there is no value whatsoever in retaining editors like you. My efforts are at intercepting the new ones that get thrown in with us lions and no chair and try to give them some tools to survive. Mainly, anymore, that includes giving them the tools to survive the likes of you. You bent me out of shape, and I reacted poorly. I will not apologize to you, but I will gladly apologize to the rest of the community. However when you come to my talk page and demand things, AFTER YOU WERE TOLD TO STAY AWAY, you should probably expect a less than stellar welcome. And just so you are absolutely clear, Alansohn...I would applaud you leaving Wikipedia forever and have absolutely no intention of doing one single thing that will promote YOUR retention. You are about the only one I will say that about at this time. It is only useful editors that are willing to work with each other that I have any interest in retaining, and that will remain one of my main concentrations here. I will gladly agree to leave Alansohn alone, as long as that does not mean I cannot continue to work on school and place articles in New Jersey. I am probably not going to be able to respond here again this week. Ping me if a response is imperative and I will find someone to proxy post for me. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And just as you find the over the top, but categorically accurate comparison to the dictator Adolph Hitler unacceptable, I find your use of the word "shill" to describe any of my edits to be yet more of your uncivil bullshit. I guess since you have undoubtedly driven off any allies you ever had here, you find it impossible that two editors would share similar beliefs and edit cooperatively on subjects they share interest in. An action that is not, BTW, against the rules unless there is canvassing, which is not the case. I have many articles on my watchlist that Magnolia has on his. I also have many articles that Nyttend or Kudpung have on their watchlists and tend to edit those articles in a similar manner. Does that make me their shills? Or are they mine? Or are you just being the egocentric jerk we all know you are? John from Idegon (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I would propose that Alansohn be topic banned from any article related to New Jersey for a period of three months. I would further propose that he issue a heartfelt apology to the poor new user that got caught in his tirade toward me. I will gladly take the standard 24 hour Civility block for my calling up of Hitler's name...that was completely unacceptable. Perhaps after three months his attitude of ownership will wear off. John from Idegon (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please notice how quickly Alansohn redirected Fair Play, New Jersey, without so much as a talk page discussion. In one edit summary there he stated "article has no content and should not be created until genuinely useful content can be added". Yet on dozens of other New Jersey geo stubs created from nothing more than a GNIS reference, he is happy to add some minor tweek and not redirect (as if to say, "Alansohn has been here"). See, for example, Cedar Run, New Jersey, Millhurst, New Jersey, and Georgia, New Jersey. For goodness sake, Gilford Park, New Jersey doesn't have ANY sources and he was happy to add his name to the list of page editors! This is nothing but bully behavior. All I've tried to do is add some new articles to New Jersey, and I've had nothing but intimidation and bullying. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:GEOLAND, the notability guideline that applies to geographic features, states that "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally-recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." The Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey article that User:Magnolia677 recreated -- after over nine years as a redirect -- contained a single source and no content other than a pair of roadways. The single source provided offers nothing more than a one-dimensional point. In no way, shape or form did this article have any of the "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" required by policy. Magnolia677 couldn't even bother to explain where in the county this place was located, nor could he explain how this one-dimensional point differed from the parent article for Marlboro Township, New Jersey, an article with more than 250 sources that made no mention of a same-named hamlet within the township or the existence of a "Marlboro Village". Given that there seemed to be little likelihood of this article ever distinguishing itself from its parent, a reinstatement of the redirect seems to be more than approrpriate. I would have gladly merged any content into the parent article for Marlboro Township, New Jersey, but there was none. Both users have several years and tens of thousands of edits under their belts. Both of them ought to be vaguely familiar with the fundamental Wikipedia policy that makes Intercourse, Pennsylvania notable -- the existence of ample reliable and verifiable coverage included in the article -- and explains why there are no articles for Mule Piss, Minnesota or Ass Wipe, Arkansas. The existence of a bare GNIS entry does nothing more than provide the possibility that an article might be created that meets the notability standard. Nor does it seem that User:Magnolia677 understands that making AWB edits to articles -- such as Cedar Run, New Jersey, Millhurst, New Jersey, and Georgia, New Jersey, or any other such article -- hardly constitutes a seal of approval, nor the fact that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't make any equally crappy article notable. I'm still not sure what it is about an editor pointing out the most basic failure to create articles with reliable and verifiable sources that drives people like User:Magnolia677 to run to ANI at the drop of a hat. Nor can I understand how this edit trying to explain that sourced content should not be deleted can turn folks like User:John from Idegon into fits of insanity that justify calling me Adolf Hitler, a madman who murdered tens of millions of people, though maybe Hitler also allowed editors with a potential WP:COI conflict to add useful contents to articles. Alansohn (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"On a case-by-case basis" means via a community consensus discussion, not by the decision of a single editor who appears to be predisposed to reject communities as non-notable unless he personally is involved in the creation or writing of the article about them. Articles about New Jersey communities are not Alansohn's private domain, and being bold only goes so far. If disagreement with Alansohn's bold actions arises, he needs to open a consensus discussion, and not to step up his pushback efforts, as he has done here. All of his comments here are positively dripping with an ownership mentality, in this case not for a single article, but for a class of articles. BMK (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Convenience break

If this is strictly about behavior, not about content disagreements, then the example of the history of the Fair Play, New Jersey article does give a sense that some basic issues exist. It's not a good idea to redirect unilaterally in the manner shown in the history after being invited to discuss on the talk page. This is the kind of thing that should be discouraged, because it doesn't look like great behavior no matter what the issue is with the content.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• The current edit war that User:Magnolia677 has engaged in at Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey is most relevant here, but Fair Play, New Jersey is also an excellent example of an article that was created (see here) as a substandard article consisting of 13 words based on a single source, which simply states that the place exists. I know full well that there are people who believe that this is a paradigm of Wikipedia's best new articles, but per WP:GEOLAND such articles for unofficial places need to have "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." and that '"If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally-recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." After much back and forth, Fair Play, New Jersey now includes five sources, all of which are trivial mentions. Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey presents great potential issues, which have already been addressed by Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey, its many participants and other Wikipedia editors. The article had been a redirect for nine years, having been turned into a redirect in 2005 by User:67.108.122.62, not by me. The new standalone article created by Magnolia677 was made up of 24 words and, yet again, a single source. My revert was based on the fact that there was no apparent distinction between Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey and Marlboro Township, New Jersey. I reached out to Magnolia677 on three separate occasions here, here and in greater detail here), clearly laying out my concerns. Magnolia677 refused to address these issues and followed up with a blind revert (here) with the insistent edit summary that Marlboro is "listed on GNIS and on a map", with nothing more than that. After a few more blind reverts, he created this ANI case here an hour later (here). There are 565 municipalities in New Jersey and virtually every one of them has a pair of GNIS entries listed both under "civil" and "populated place", and Magnolia677 apparently plans to create an article for every one of these non-places. There are 17 Wikipedia articles that exist in the format "placename, countyname, New Jersey" and nearly every one is a redirect, including Bloomingdale, Passaic County, New Jersey (created by User:Anthony Appleyard, not me), Franklin, Somerset County, New Jersey (created by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), not me), Greenwich, Cumberland County, New Jersey (one of several created by User:ChrisRuvolo, not me), Jersey City, Hudson County, New Jersey (created by User:NE2, not me), Red Bank, Monmouth County, New Jersey (by me), Shiloh, Cumberland County, New Jersey (created by User:GTBacchus, not me) and Waldwick, Bergen County, New Jersey (created by User:Steven Russell, not me). Sure, I did create one of these redirects, but there is broad consensus among editors here that there should not be a separate article created for such places. User:Magnolia677 is more than entitled to disagree and the source uncovered by User:NE2 might possibly be useful here in creating an article for the Marlboro Village Historic District, though this search turns up only four sources in all of the Internet. If there is something that I have done wrong here on this article -- adequate to merit Magnolia677 maliciously creating this ANI case after a series of blind reverts or for User:John from Idegon to label me as an Adolf Hitler -- I'm not seeing it. I think that my actions were based on a good faith effort to comply with Wikipedia policy at WP:GEOLAND and to engage in the community discussion required by WP:BRD. I am merely one of dozens of editors who have set the consensus that such articles should be redirects and I hope that User:Magnolia677 will start engaging in discussion in the future, preferably before he starts overturning longstanding consensus. Alansohn (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

TLDR. It's a fact that Marlboro Village is a small place within the huge Marlboro Township. --NE2 19:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ex post facto that's an excellent argument, but the article was created on a standalone basis solely based on the existence of an entry in GNIS, nothing more. The issue was raised to Magnolia677 on three separate occasions asking what the difference was between Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey and Marlboro Township, New Jersey and Magnolia677 offered no answer. Marlboro Village does appear to exist, but it was never mentioned before in a parent article with more than 250 references, appears in only four sources (per Google, none of which are in-depth) and was discovered only after the fact. The standard to redirect to the parent article for such places is longstanding and you are one of the editors who helped establish that consensus. If only Magnolia677 had done the research you had done and had added the source to establish that the two places are not identical, there would be no issue. But as it stood when it was created as a standalone article by Magnolia677, Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey only included two dozen words and a single source. I am merely one of dozens of editors -- you among them -- who have set the consensus that such articles should be redirects. Alansohn (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"appears in only four sources" - entirely false. Here's one of many sources that use the disambiguated "Marlboro Village" form of the place name: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/legacies/NJ/200003335.html

"you are one of the editors who helped establish that consensus" --NE2 20:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the section you TLDR'ed, where you were among the editors who ensured that articles in the format "placename, couny, New Jersey" were turned into redirects. "appears in only four sources" is entirely accurate; Just click on the source I provided. You've dug up some sources that mention a "Marlboro Village", but this source is a great source about the Marlboro Tree, but only mentions Marlboro Village in passing. That's why the Marlboro Township article has a section for the Marlboro Tree, but not for Marlboro Village. Again, you've found some potential sources for an article for a Marlboro Village Historic District, but this source was found after the fact and my recommendation would be to start it as a section within the Marlboro Township, New Jersey article. Alansohn (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"Just click on the source I provided" - I see no source provided by you, only a Google search in which you deliberately used the Marlboro Village Historic District form to produce fewer results.

If you mean my creation of Jersey City, Hudson County, New Jersey, that's a perfect example of you refusing to accept that Marlboro (Village) is a separate place. Nobody has ever claimed that there's a separate place within the city of Jersey City called Jersey City. But there is a Marlboro (Village) within Marlboro Township, water is wet, the Pope shits in the woods, and the climate is warming. --NE2 20:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

After the fact, you've done a fantastic job. Credit where credit is due. But I did several searches for "Marlboro Village" and those come up with more than 20,000 sources, none of which talk about a section of Marlboro Township. Your best source is about a tree. Where are the in-depth independent sources and where were they when the article was created? Why do you refuse to accept the fact that my objection to the standalone article was based on my good faith search for sources, which found none? Alansohn (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

None of this addresses my point. Redirecting a page three times in the face of requests to discuss is not great behavior, no matter the rationale. It doesn't matter how wrong you think the other editor was. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact, it does. After dealing with User:Magnolia677 at Fair Play, New Jersey, I learned my lesson and did exactly what anyone could possibly have asked me to do. After he turned Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey into a standalone article, I explicitly reached out to Magnolia677 on three separate occasions here, here and in greater detail here), clearly laying out my concerns that there was no apparent way to distinguish between the two Marlboros, based on my re-reading of the article and my review of the potential available sources. I made the good faith effort to reach out and discuss as required by WP:BRD, Magnolia677 refused to do so. If my reaching out regarding this article justifies User:Magnolia677's running off here to ANI or for User:John from Idegon's utterly repugnant "Zigheil, mein Fuhrer Sohn", I'm not sure what I did wrong here or why these "not great behaviors" by both of these editors are being ignored. I've changed, and I look forward to Magnolia677 starting to be a constructive partner in dialogue when he seeks to overturn broad consensus on such redirects. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(One of those three separate occasions just looks like you added a link to comment you made five minutes earlier.) The Hitler comment's horrible, but that's not something you can lay at Magnolia677's feet or use to justify anything that happened before it or separate from your own earlier talk page etiquette. If you've changed, then great; the only long-term goal is productive non-disruption. It did look like you were acting unilaterally before, on a good faith assumption you were right. Your claim Magnolia677 refused to do so doesn't look completely supportable, as those good faith "reaching out"s you reference seem to have had responses and discussions when you made them.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I note that John from Idgeon proposed a three-month topic ban on Alansohn here. No one seems to have directly responded to that proposal yet. It raises the question whether there are sufficient bases to consider sanctions of some kind in this matter or not. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

User:John from Idegon? He calls other editors Hitler ("Zigheil, mein Fuhrer Sohn") and he's the one who's coming up with sanctions. Perchance do you have any prior connection to User:John from Idegon that you would want to disclose? Alansohn (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Damn, you got me. John from Idegon is the conjoined twin of my secret male concubine (as opposed to my out-in-the-open male concubine the Marlboro Man). --NE2 20:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nicely done, but I think that User:John Carter may have a clearer conflict that he ought to disclose. Alansohn (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

On what evidence? That the usernames share the letters "ohn"?__ E L A Q U E A T E

Considering that I have from the beginning, back when my user name was warlordjohncarter, made it clear that the name was taken as an homage to the Edgar Rice Burroughs character, I also find myself forced to question even the possible basic rationality of this accusation. Alan, displaying what some might not unreasonably consider blind paranoia is in no way helpful to you in this matter. John Carter (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You know, my younger brother's middle name is John, so maybe he's a sock of John from Idegon too! Of course, he doesn't edit Wikipedia (a wise choice on his part), so maybe not. BMK (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Funny, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention includes some recent conversations between User:John Carter and User:John from Idegon, who not only both are John's but seem to be part of a mutual admiration society. I do give credit to John from Idegon for this edit, where he talks of himself as the very model for "Editor of the Year" based on his work as "an editor that wonks around and neatens and cleans like myself" but begs off based on his "recent poor behavior". So, the two of you never met before or is there at least a legitimate WP:COI that ought to be acknowledged? Alansohn (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for effectively proving beyond any shadow of a doubt, at least to my eyes, that the question of paranoia I raised before is a rather valid one regarding your conduct. In all honesty, I had forgotten John edited on those pages myself. In all honesty, I didn't even place the name until you just now brought it up. This transparent continuation of the frankly irrational behavior of yours which led to this thread being started in the first place raises I believe even stronger questions regarding your capacity to function in a collaborative environment. And, for what it is worth, no, to the best of my knowledge, I have never met any other wikipedia editors in any capacity. I have actually made it a bit of a point to avoid any meetings myself, partially because they tend to be rather far removed from where I live, which is Saint Louis, Missouri, and, partially, because I actually don't see much productive in them. The fact that you continue your stupid harping on the acknowledged misconduct of others while at the same time continuing your own habit of grossly unacceptable conduct Makes me believe that there is a very strong possibility that the only way to stop your indulging in the kind of unacceptable behavior which led to this thread being started would be some form of sanctions against you. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI isn't SPI, and this is such a silly looking accusation that I can only see it hurting the accuser. If you're not going to make an actual accusation, then please stop this, as it's a goofy distraction. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe that Alansohn is trying to spin some kind of COI out of this totally innocuous discussion. It doesn't even fit his description of it as a "mutual admiration society", since other editors were involved and the two Johns barely even referred to each other. BMK (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Alansohn, some advice:

• (1) Stop posting extremely long blocks of text, divide your comments up into digestible paragraphs, otherwise few people are going to read what you have to say.
• (2) Stop obsessing about John from Idegon's repugnant remark. He shouldn't have said it, but having said it doesn't invalidate his points concerning your behavior.
• (3) Stop taking upon yourself the sole burden of deciding what happens to New Jersey community articles. There's a Wikipedia community out there which will decide, you must allow them to. Sometimes you'll be right, sometimes you'll be wrong, the world won't end either way.
• (4) Start taking some responsibility for the behavior which has been reported here. You say you've changed from 2009, when you received a number of blocks, but the behavior we're reading about right now seems very similar to that behavior.
• (5) Stop lashing out at everyone who criticizes you, it makes you look very bad, which is not a good thing on ANI, since it can lead to unwanted results.

BMK (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And since I just read your comment above, (6) Stop finding conspiracies in the perfectly normal Wikipedia activities of other editors. This report is not about everyone else, it's about you, and if you don't calm down and deal with the problems which have been brought out here, you're likely to be sanctioned in some way, which I assume you don't want. BMK (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• • @Beyond My Ken - (1) I have addressed the issues raised here.
  • (2) I've demonstrated that I made a good faith effort to find sources to demonstrate that Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey was different from Marlboro Township, New Jersey and that none were found.
  • (3) I've provided links to three separate edits in two different places where I reached out to User:Magnolia677 and made my case per WP:GEOLAND that articles for such places need to have "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." and that '"If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally-recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it."
  • (4) I've provided links showing that several other editors -- other than me -- have turned articles in the "placename, countyname, New Jersey" format into redirects.
  • (5) I've shown that User:Magnolia677 made no effort to make a case that the Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey was different from Marlboro Township, New Jersey before starting this ANI, which raises the appearance of bad faith.
  • (6) I've provided links showing that I have dealt openly and honestly with Magnolia677 and learned from the situation with Fair Play, New Jersey.
  • (7) I acknowledge that the sources User:NE2 has found might well have been an effective argument for an independent article, but that I had no foreknowledge of such sources.
  • I hope that I have addressed your issues and I hope that Magnolia677 will start working on a collaborative basis in the future, much as I have tried to do so. Alansohn (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • No, actually, you have sidestepped the most important one again with your final comment: it's not about other editors, it's about you. If you can't give some believeable assurances that you're going to deal with other editors and their work in a less imperious and entitled manner, then I'm going to have no choice but to support sanctions against you. BMK (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow! I've struggled as to how to participate in this conversation...I just want to comment that I have appreciated the contributions of Magnolia677, Alansohn, and John from Idegon. All have put in considerable time and effort, but this has gotten out of hand. Alansohn, I agree with the crowd here that you "own" New Jersey. You've made great contributions in that area, but you need to accept the value of other editors work. Magnolia677 and John, if you don't regret some of your comments already you surely will soon. I think maybe everyone ought to take a week away from New Jersey articles to cool off, then try to find some common ground and a positive way to move forward. All three of you are too good to waste your skills fighting among yourselves. Again, thanks to all of you for your many fine contributions to Wikipedia. Jacona (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure: John Carter and myself are the only two members of an inactive Wikiproject on Southern Gospel Music. I guess that means we must be the guys on the grassy knoll, eh? I agree completely that this thread is rapidly spinning down the toilet, being pushed by a plunger in Alansohn's hand.

Just one last thing: Several miles ago in this thread, I clearly stated that accessing this page is difficult for me and asked that if my attention was required, that someone ping me. Since that time, Alansohn has pinged me no less than 5 times, and absolutely none of it required my attention. Not that my personal situation matters, but let me explain it as so to shed some light on what problems Alansohn's attitude and demanding nature can cause. I am visually impaired and cannot drive. I am also in the midst of some economic hardships and cannot afford to have an internet connection in my home. So, because of Alansohn's persistent harassment of me via pinging, I took the time and effort to walk the 3 miles I need to travel to reach a PC that I can use. All to hear of myself being a sockpuppet and to rehash my prior bad actions which I had admitted to and apologized to the community for. I even indicated my willingness to take any punishment the community saw fit. I am sorry, but his behavior is what gets swept up after the parade is done and nothing more. He needs to be stepped on to teach him a lesson. John from Idegon (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And now, since I am done with anything constructive that can be added here, I am going to take some of my limited time on a PC and do what supposedly we are all here to do...I am going to go work on an encyclopedia that people can use for a while. Something I have been able to do very little for the past month, primarily due to the repeated interruptions from Alansohn demanding that I deal with his issues. Yes I lost my cool. It was not the right thing to do. In form it was very poor behavior, but in substance it was right on the mark. Alansohn's demanding behavior is obviously being perceived by others in the same light as I perceived it...dictatorial. It is well beyond time for the community to decide what to do about it. John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions against Alansohn

I note once again that another editor has proposed sanctions against Alansohn, specifically a three-month topic ban, above. I also note that the behavior of Alansohn in this thread itself seems to be primarily a continuation of the behavior which led to this thread being started, and that between his previous behavior and his current conduct here the basis for thinking that perhaps the only way to end his disruptive and unacceptable behavior is a short sanction. I would with reservations, as someone who actually doesn't know New Jersey related content very well, I suppose support such sanctions. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Other John, I am in agreement, however I still think, especially in the light of the harassing behavior illustrated above, that a short block should be included, and perhaps a strong message that further obstructive behavior such as these TLDR diatribes, answering discussion points by changing the subject, jumping in on uninvolved editor's pages to wage his (sorry, no better word comes to mind) vendetta, refusing requests to leave an editor alone or to end a discussion when asked, etc. will be dealt with with escalating sanctions. John from Idegon (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(1) I have learned how to develop better tactics to deal with Magnolia677 since Fair Play, New Jersey

(2) After a lengthy discussion about the use of see also categories, we had a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, where we were able to reach a consensus. Not perfect, but a consensus.

(3) I have raised no issues with any articles Magnolia677 has created since Fair Play, and my issue with Marlboro was based on genuine, good faith concerns.

(4) In the Marlboro article, I reached out to Magnolia677 and tried to make my case for discussion where other, knowledgeable editors could provide input.

(5) I have pinged John from Idegon, as required where mentions are made, and I had no idea what the effect was on him based on computer access. Sorry.

(6) I don't own any article -- let alone any state. Nobody does. Alansohn (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

None of which addresses the concerns regarding the conduct which led to the current discussion, or, unfortunately, the content of much of your commentary here. Or, perhaps, the rather dubious thinking which seems to have been involved in the creation of the commentary here. John Carter (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Alansohn, with regard to #2..."we were able to reach a consensus" at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. You invited input to deal with a dispute, then called my input a "failure", and denounced another editor's input as "rambling nonsense". Get real man. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Diffs, Magnolia? How do the words "failure" and "rambling nonsense" count as worse than, "shaking my head" and "get real man"? μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously unfamiliar with the everyday usage of "shaking my head" and "get real man"? Not to mention that your argument is a complete red herring. Blackmane (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I suggest that Medeis is just trying to muddy the waters here, to distract our attention from focusing on Alansohn's behavior. BMK (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Blackmane (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This whole dispute seems to have more than one kicking horse, and based on the fact that there's more than one person outlining heavy paragraphs of text and giving almost passive aggressive edits, it wouldn't seem right to sanction any single editor, excluding all other disruption within this topic area. Given that, there does seem to be some conflict in the form of a content dispute--I recommend WP:DRN or mediation for settling this. Often times, personal behavior disputes stem from content disputes, and once that content dispute is resolved, it ultimately resolves the personal behavior dispute as well. Tutelary (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So because more than one person is wrong, we do nothing? Resolving this one content question (which BTW, I am not substantially involved in) will NOT in any way solve the problem of the long term poor behavior of the very long term editor who certainly should know better. At least one of the content dispute articles is at AfD. How will DRN assist in that? AfD will determine the communities position on that particular article, which should speak to the others as well, but Alansohn will not accept that historical AfD results speak to the community's desires. Place stubs are not an issue anywhere else in the United States except New Jersey. They are an issue in New jersey solely due to Alansohn. Just what is DRN supposed to do about that? There isn't even one specific article to have DRN on. The issue is Alansohn's inability to understands that he is beating a dead horse on a subject that the community has already spoken on. John from Idegon (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Here's what I propose. (1) Alansohn be indefinitely prohibited from conversion of geographical articles to redirects, be they in New Jersey or elsewhere. If he has a problem with the notability of any such piece, his correct course of action is hauling the piece in question to AfD for decision by others. (2) Anticipating a possible problem, Alansohn be indefinitely prohibited from making multiple notability challenges to lists of what he feels to be problematic articles — one article per AfD. (3) Everybody who needs a trout for edit warring, consider yourselves slapped. Carrite (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I would accept that as a reasonable solution, but will remain skeptical that it will end the issue. Alansohn needs to accept that Historic AfD decisions and broad article guidelines do represent the community's wishes, even if he did not participate in the discussions that formed them and learn what to do if he does not like said guidelines (engage in discussion to change them, not slug it out on each individual article. That wastes everyone's time). John from Idegon (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Carrite's proposal. It may or may not solve the problem in the long run, but it is a good faith attempt to solve the problem in the short run. Should it prove insufficient to resolve any long term problems, the evidence of that might be enough to make it reasonable to take other steps. John Carter (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "indefinite".....reminds me of "double secret probation" from the movie "Animal House". An "indefinite" sanction is what you would expect from a judge in a totalitarian state. I think any sanctions should be short and definite in term. The object should be to gain recognition that there is a problem, thus changing behavior, not to humiliate a prolific contributor or declare some sort of "victory". Jacona (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • If Jacona does not like the specific remedy being proposed I recommend they suggest a specific alternative. NE Ent 02:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • In the context of wikipedia, indefinite means simply that there is no set deadline. An indefinite sanction can be extended, theoretically, into infinity, or it can be removed altogether upon demonstration of good behavior. In some cases, that can last three months or less. It is all, basically, left up to the individual involved. John Carter (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose As someone very familiar with New Jersey who has come across many articles edited and maintained by Alansohn I commend him for his tireless work. I have never witnessed anything but well-reasoned behavior. The Marlboro dispute is absurd, and Alansohn was on the right side of it. Other than the Marlboro dispute, there are no diffs or links above to support any sort of sanction, let alone an indefinite one. (The one mistake I do see by him is defending himself too vigorously: "the behavior of Alansohn in this thread itself"; it's meat before lions.) There should be no discussion of any sentencing until the evidence is presented, this isn't Stalin's talk page where we accuse people of vague crimes and convict them because they defend themselves vigorously. Let's see the damning evidence. μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • What, someone on one side of the issue references Hitler and gets taken to task for it, so you, on the other side of the issue, feel you have to reference Stalin? Nice choice, that, really good judgment on your part.

    There have been no accusations of "vague crimes", there's been specific evidence presented of particular behavioral problems, to which Alansohn has actually offered no defense, while continuing to attack others, which is what he's been doing "vigorously". In other words, your entire comment is flawed and inaccurate. BMK (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Diffs? Twice in this sanctions section John Carter has referred to the problem of Alansohn's daring to defend himself here in words John apparently doesn't like. But defending yourself from accusations is not proof of guilt. As for Hitler, he didn't go in much for show trials. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"Diffs"? What would you like, diffs of there being "no accusations of vague crimes", or diffs of Alansohn "offering no defense"? As for Alansohn vigorously attacking, I suppose I could give you diffs of that, but it seems a little silly, considering that it's this very discussion we're talking about, and you could just, you know, read it. Besides, if I work up some diffs for you, I have the feeling that next you'll be asking for diffs of me posting the diffs. BMK (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"Hitler/show trials" - You're not serious, right? You've forgotten the trials presided over by the fanatical Nazi judge Roland Freisler, who screamed at the defendants in the "People's Court", practically foaming at the mouth? In particular the trials connected to the 20 July plot?

In any case, you've missed the point entirely. A mention of Hitler by someone else doesn't require a mention of Stalin by you, as both references poison the well, and your point could have been made in a much less prejudicial manner. Wikipedia is not a nation, it's not a democracy, and this is not a show trial; indeed it's not a trial at all, it's a discussion among peers about a problem that's been brought to the community's attention. Try to use some better judgement in the future. BMK (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning Stalin is a non-issue; describing me personally, by name, as a Nazi is a very serious violation of basic decency. Calling an editor Adolf Hitler is probably the most disgusting, repugnant and uncivil personal attack I have ever seen; Nothing I have ever said or done justifies it. "Zigheil, mein Fuhrer Sohn."?!?! Describing that as a "Hitler reference" or a mere "mention of Hitler" only further trivializes a rather shameless personal attack. The need for better judgement flows in all directions here. Alansohn (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop evading the issue and address the problems with your behavior, which you have consistently refused to do. BMK (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Second that, BMK. The whole Hitler thing is a red herring argument, as I did not start this thread, Magnolia677 did and he did it a full 12 days after the "Hitler incident" occurred. Strange that it wasn't a problem until Alansohn got called on his behavior, ya? John from Idegon (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I was seething from the moment I saw User:John from Idegon callme Hitler. I was seething as a Jew. I was seething as someone who knows too many survivors. I was seething for the 6 million Jews that Hitler brutally murdered. Magnolia677 and John from idegon have had a chip on their shoulders because I had the nerve to challenege Wikipedia content. I am far angrier, far angrier than that. When I first sawe it, I would have driven straight to wherever Idegon is and taken care of him. I didn't. I bit my tongue hard and pretended. I will not tolerate this bullshit anymore and it's not just the assholes who think that calling me a Fuhrer is ok. Stop evading the issue. Do whatever the fuck you want here but there's no block long enough to deal with someone like this. Go find a Holocaust survivor and learn what they went through. Explain to them why this is acceptable behavior. Then fuck off. Alansohn (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my comments above, nevermind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by medeis (talk • contribs)

It is worth noting that the above comment, which I am grateful to see, makes it rather clear that Alansohn took the reference to Hitler in an extremely personal way, which most people would not. I'm a German, not a Jew, who has here and elsewhere been compared to Hitler, among others, and I can understand how ethnic and cultural differences make it reasonable for some people to take what are, in most cases, perceived as generic insults as being worse than they were. Having said that, such overreaction is not in and of itself sufficient cause to excuse misconduct thereafer. I regret that Alansohn took the comment as much worse than it probably was intended to be. I regret even more that in his comment above he seems to me at least to be indicating that the prejudices he has regarding others for that comment seems to be ongoing and unlikely to disappear. It is rather clear that at least right now he is in nothing like a rational and cooperative spirit, and there is no particular reason to believe that will change in the future, given the depth of emotion expressed. Perhaps some sort of direct interaction ban might be called for. John Carter (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Alansohn has long had an unfortunate propensity to escalate conflict. It's been several years since I had interactions with him of that character (all at CFD, not the present editing area), and I've seen him around in other contexts since then without issue and had hoped he had made some growth. This current quagmire came on my radar after I happened to post a tentative agreement with him on a content issue here, only to have my head bit off by Magnolia677 in what seemed to me like an overreaction based on the comments I had seen in that thread.

But what I'm seeing in this thread from Alansohn is the same pattern of him digging in his heels in a content dispute and then making it personal, him responding to criticism of his own conduct not with acknowledgement or even substantive defense but instead with increasingly shrill outrage over everyone else's conduct (even if he had not previously made an issue of it), and him trying to smear or goad anyone new who is joining in the criticism (often with the frivolous claim that there is some kind of collusion or COI explaining editors' agreement contrary to his position, as John Carter has seen here). While others in this can share some criticism for their own reactions (see WP:GOAD), Alansohn has been the prime cause and center of many such a storm but is always loath to take responsibility for his own contribution to it. I'm very disappointed to see that continue or resume after so many years. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Carrite's suggested sanctions - I don't need to see anymore. Alansohn's been given multiple chances to address the probelms that a number of editors see in his behavior -- and has, in fact, exhibited exactly that behavior here -- but steadfastly refuses to deal with it, or even to engage in meaningful dialogue. Therefore I have no choice but to support the sanctions suggested by Carrite above, which were:

  (1) Alansohn be indefinitely prohibited from conversion of geographical articles to redirects, be they in New Jersey or elsewhere. If he has a problem with the notability of any such piece, his correct course of action is hauling the piece in question to AfD for decision by others. (2) Anticipating a possible problem, Alansohn be indefinitely prohibited from making multiple notability challenges to lists of what he feels to be problematic articles — one article per AfD. (3) Everybody who needs a trout for edit warring, consider yourselves slapped.

  With that, I'm outta here. BMK (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is everybody so freakin' quick to argue for sanctions? Where's the disruption here? I've seen far more editors argue with such brazen attitude and be applauded for it in their own defense, yet when somebody somebody doesn't like does it, they're 'denying the issues' and 'failing to take their own conduct into account'. I'm probably blind, but other than edit warring, where's the freakin' disruption? All I see here is long paragraphs without saying much of substance--and no diffs either. Tutelary (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree we need diffs, but after having argued in defence of Alansohn only to have him come back with yet another obscenity makes me think of the proverb, "fool me once..." μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tutelary, (and in answer to NE Ent) that sanctions against anyone are premature. Both these editors have made valuable contributions, and both are always sure they are right, even on those rare occasions in which their might be another valid point of view.Jacona (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

HE'S NOT GETTING IT! I spent two hours TODAY researching and then creating Carpentersville, New Jersey. Then along comes Alansohn, and instead of leaving a friendly thank you on my talk page, he edits the article and adds this nasty edit summary: "add details re parent township needlessly omitted from the article; use the source http://www.state.nj.us/infobank/localnames.txt when creating further such articles and cross reference in the parent municipality article". Needlessly omitted? I created a whole darned article! Friends, if you go way back up to the start of this thread, you will see that I wrote "nearly every edit I have made to an article about New Jersey has within minutes been reverted or tinkered with by User:Alansohn", and "The real problem is that this sort of ownership and intimidation scares editors away from articles about New Jersey". I added a new place to Wikipedia. It's a real town, with an interesting history. Isn't this what we want on Wikipedia? Yet this editor, Alansohn, habitually insults every edit I make. I ask you again--after all this discussion--to please stop this intimidation and bullying of editors who dare touch New Jersey. He doesn't own it, and HE'S NOT GETTING THE SUBTLE HINTS SO MANY HAVE PROVIDED HERE! Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

May I add...I also originally said: "sometimes his corrections were so sloppy they seemed almost made in haste, and I needed to go back and fix them". Again...check out Carpentersville, New Jersey. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That having been screamed, I think it's obvious Magnolia doesn't play well with others either. An IBAN preventing them from reverting each other and commenting about each other and their edits, in edit summaries and elsewhere might help. It's curious whether Magnolia677 and Alansohn would agree to that, since in itself it doesn't restrict their editting, just their starting fights or feeling they have to respond to provocation. μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I would support an interaction ban of the kind described above as well, or if necessary any sort of direct interaction ban. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with a mutual IBAN between Magnolia677 and Alansohn in addition to Carrite's suggested sanctions against Alanbsohn. BMK (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I am still awaiting said diffs of disruption other than defending one's self and edit warring. Now if there was a history of edit warring, that would be cause for topic ban, but one single time--I believe every single person on Wikipedia has done such at one point in their career. Tutelary (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sufficient evidence has been presented here by a number of editors. That you refuse to look at it unless is shown in one specific format is your problem, and does not invalidate the evidence. BMK (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've come to ANI three times in the past month to report the same bully, and finally, in this thread, I felt something was going to be done. Now an editor writes: "I think it's obvious Magnolia doesn't play well with others either". I was hoping someone here would put their foot down and say that bullies won't be tolerated on Wikipedia, but all I seem to have done is upset you folks. I don't want to receive my first-ever censure on Wikipedia for "starting fights", so I'll be ending my edits to New Jersey, at least for now. When Alansohn wrote me "you are operating in very dangerous territory here", he wasn't joking! I don't think I started this or deserve to be treated the way I did. I just think people should stand up for themselves in the face of bullies, and was hoping some of you felt the same way. Now I'm being placed alongside him. How creepy. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, actually, no, BMK; the evidence is not clearly (if at all) demonstrated. I have had to bring issues to ANI multiple times, and each time I have provided the edit summaries or offending texts in a bulleted list and linked to a diff. I have also linked to previous threads where other actual evidence had been presented in the same way. The only such list we have here even coming close is some edits of Alansohn in 2009 (!!!) alluded to but not linked to by M677. In even the rather condescending ("you folks") passive-aggressive ("treated th[is] way"; "creepy") paragraph immediately above M677 asserts that Alansohn is a bully, but that is the question at hand, he needs to support that accusation, not beg the question by assuming it is already proven. I again voice my support for an IBAN, which should stop the insults flying and the content disputes being brought to ANI. I am not opposed to Carrite's suggestion in principle, but I'd need the evidence be made explicit in the way I have explained to support it. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Passive-aggressive"? What are you, a psychiatrist? Friends, I just want to add a few more articles about New Jersey without being hounded by you-know-who. In the past month I've added Carrs Tavern, Pecks Corner, Crossley, Quarryville, Aserdaten, Harmony, Friendship, Foul Rift, Fair Play, Carpentersville, Paulina, and Bear Tavern. If you think my accusations against the Jersey King are all in my head, please take a look at the edit histories of those articles. Instead of insisting on "diffs" as the smoking gun of his bully behavior, may I suggest instead you add "Alansohn" and "Magnolia677" into the Editor Interaction Analyzer and look for a pattern. I'm unfamiliar with a "mutual IBAN", but if it means articles I create about New Jersey will be left alone by Alansohn, sign me up! Please don't misinterpret my frustration, bold caps, use of the term "folks", or editing with a cat in my lap as ill-will; no editor on Wikipedia had added more Love, Love, Love, Love, Love than me. Thank you again for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not anybody else's burden to go looking for the evidence when you are the one bringing the complaint--if you have this tool then you can use it--you being the one who has made the accusations.

That being said, see WP:IBAN--basically you would not be able to mention each other directly or indirectly or revert each others edits, but would still be able to edit the same articles. Only if one or both of you violated that would there be some sort of block. (Carrite's suggestion above is a separate issue.) The huge benefit is that no one will feel the need to escalate a dispute since no one will be able to start one. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Would this edit be included in an IBAN? After I create articles he tinkers with them. Sometimes the edits are unnecessary, but not in violation of policy. Other times, such as here, he adds sloppy errors which need to be deleted. If both these types of edits are protected, this will be a big help, as it will allow me to continue creating new articles about New Jersey. It doesn't help other editors, but that's where Carrite's excellent suggestion may bring relief. Thank you in advance for your response. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The exact details of an IBAN would be the determination of the closing admin. You'd need to have a WP:RfC (normally) requesting an IBAN and the uninvolved closing admin would determine its exact terms. Both of you would have to deal with the fact that neither of you owns a topic or article (I am saying that as a general principle) and constructive edits to the same article wouldn't be problematic. One person simply reverting another's work--a 1RR edit war-- would be forbidden.

But at some point an IBAN is by itself not going to prevent one editor from making edits another editor doesn't like. If you start an IBAN then you might specifically request that, say, Carrite's proposal also be instituted on both of you. The problem with the content disputes is that either of you coming back to ANI repeatedly will just annoy the admins, and then WP:BOOMERANG.

To answer you specifically on the Foul Rift diff question, no, an IBAN itself would not prevent that sort of edit. (And it's not the sort of thing I would expect any admin to respond to unless you could show bad faith with diffs and verifiable information contradicting what was added.) All the IBAN does is prevent immediate edit warring, nasty summaries, and talk page comments that invite retaliation. It is constructive prima facie and no admin is going to want to create a template or to have to look at every article history to see who created it to prevent such edits. If it were factually wrong you'd have to go to the talk page and maybe end up at dispute resolution or arbcom. Arbcom's liable to leave you both topic banned for a year, and neither of you wants that. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, when I created Carpentersville, New Jersey a few nights ago--after all this discussion on ANI--and Alansohn quickly left a nasty edit summary on the new article...there's really nothing I can do to stop that. I get it. Magnolia677 (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not my purpose to challenge you, but neither the edit summary nor the edit itself at Foul Rift seems personally hostile to you. (I am not going to go looking for diffs you should be providing when you mention edits, so I have nothing to say about the Carpentersville article.) He has added information and the edit summary at Foul Rift is entirely neutral. The mere fact that he is "on top of" New Jersey related articles is not a problem. Unless there's some actual bad faith editting, like misrepresentation of sources, your example makes me think that only an IBAN would be appropriate, not sanctions against Alansohn. Basically, is this diff from Foul Rift what you consider your worst evidence against him? It would also be helpful to hear from Alansohn to know what he thinks of a simple IBAN per the above comments. μηδείς (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I articulated my concern when I first started this thread, and it's larger that just edit summaries. And Alansohn has already commented plenty in this thread, including "I will not tolerate this bullshit anymore and it's not just the assholes who think that calling me a Fuhrer is ok", and "fuck off". Magnolia677 (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Quoting Alansohn's obscenities here does no more than your screaming above did to make a case. You have seen other editors comment on the lack of diffs to back up accusations. "unnecessarily omitted" in an edit summary isn't going to get you anywhere. This thread will likely soon be archived, so if you have the diffs to make a case you should provide them. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Aside turned aside

• AfD vs. Redirects. Question ... one issue, more discussed at the top of this long thread than recently, is the suggestion by some that Alan has done something bad by choosing to redirect pages rather than bring them to AfD. My question arises because I was formerly of the habit of bringing certain articles to AfD rather than redirect them, but was advised by some editors (such as user:DGG) that they thought that in certain circumstances where the redirect is presumed by the redirector to be non-controversial (which I gather applies to some of Alan's redirects) those editors such as DGG felt it was better to redirect such articles, rather than bring them to AfD. Here I see some editors suggesting the opposite. Do we have a firm view on this at the Project? Or is the matter one that is uncertain? Certainly, I've seen differing views. Epeefleche (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Please open another thread on AN about this, or the Village Pump. This thread is supposed to be focusing on the behavior of Alansohn, although his allies have so far managed to muddy the waters and waylay the discussion. BMK (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • My advice was to be bold and do the redirect when the redirect is clearly noncontroversial. An objection to it shows that it is controversial, and anything controversial needs a community decision, and that can be done either on article talk pages or at XfD--I'm not aware we have any firm rule about which is better. Personally, I have always used XfD when challenged, & let the general community see & decide the issue. I have several times proposed that disputed merges/redirect/deletions be considered together at one board, named Articles for Discussion. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 22 December 2014 (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:LearnedElder citing antisemitic conspiracy theorist on Jesus

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.

---

• LearnedElder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Jesus#Jesus_as_a_Judean_rather_than_a_Jew

User:LearnedElder has repeatedly cited a book by antisemitic conspiracy theorist (Benjamin H. Freedman) to assert that Jesus was not Jewish, and to try to distance the relationship between Christianity and Judaism.

When it was explained on the talk page that Freedman (who is not a historian) was not an acceptable source, he accused the editor pointing this out of antisemitism, claimed that Freedman was "Jewish" (quotes LearnedElder's), and so on. Even LearnedElder has to put "Jewish" in quotes when referring to Freedman, because Freedman not only left the religion but writing and campaigning against Jews and Judaism under the (thin) guise of anticommunism (which he regarded as synonymous). It is possibly less dishonest to claim that Richard Dawkins is (not was, is) a Christian, if only because Dawkins doesn't claim that Christians are deliberately involved in some malevolent conspiracy to overthrow the world's governments in the name of an unrelated economic system.

Overall, he's made it clear that he's WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but right the great wrong that Judaism and Christianity are depicted as related in our articles, and has every intention of "debating" for his claims and argue for WP:FRINGE views. He believes he has the "facts", or WP:THETRUTH. His edits are representative of his quote "personal beliefs".

Among his other edits include:

• adding "/Khazar" to Jewish ethnicity (in line with a bit of revisionist history favored used by antisemites),
• replacing "American" with "Jewish/Khazar" ("Jewish-American" wouldn't've necessarily been suspicious, but in line with other things, this edit is clearly meant to imply that one cannot be both Jewish and American),
• replacing the religion "Judaism" with "Talmudism/Phariseeism" (a dysphemism for Judaism).

Clearly, we're dealing with an antisemite. Maybe he just hasn't learned that he's filled his head with hateful bollocks, or maybe not. Either way, I really should not have to explain any further why LearnedElder deserves at least a topic ban from all topics relating to Jews and Judaism, including pre-Nicene Christianity (if not later Christianity). Although I have not suggested more severe measures, I would welcome them. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have already drawn attention to the username[119], which seems designed to refer to the notorious antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I too doubt that this user, who has requested a debate on Judaism and the merits of the Talmud[120], is here to build an encyclopaedia. RolandR (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in light of what you've pointed out, I think a site ban is in order instead. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

They are also clearly not here to work with others: see this diff. A site-ban seems like a good idea. -- The Anome (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That diff makes it quite clear that their main purpose here is to attack Jews. This person should certainly not be editing here. RolandR (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And to quote Tolkien, "if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people." Well, I guess I must still be a servant of the Zionist Occupation Government in his eyes, what with my belief in clearly antichristian ideas such as universal tolerance (except for intolerance) and socialism. Hell, I even worship a Jew. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Funny, I was just coming here to file my own report. I'll add, the user has only editted on two days, so see his user contribs for the following edits:

15:03, 21 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+7)‎ . . Daryl Katz ‎ (Giving Credit to Nation Definition in Dictionary)

15:01, 21 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . Lloyd Blankfein ‎ (Giving Blankfein Credit)

14:58, 21 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . Michael Dell ‎ (Taking care of Wikipedia Readers)

14:55, 21 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . Milton Friedman ‎ (Effective Reading Skills)

14:54, 21 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . Janet Yellen ‎ (Using Dictionary Effectively)

14:53, 21 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . Alan Greenspan ‎ (Using Dictionary more effectively)

14:51, 21 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . Ben Bernanke ‎ (Effective Reading Technique)

In each of these edits his sole contribution has been to add Jewish- to the businessman's or economist's article. Yet not a single edit summary accurately reports the actual change: they are all misleading. Given the editor's (unsigned) actions on the Jesus talkpage, advocating that Jesus not be called a Jew, but a Judean, which is historically false, an antisemitic POV becomes obvious. Businessmen and bankers are Jews, Jesus is not. I suggest this is not just a mistake or ignorance. New editors don't consistently lie in edit summaries to hide their actions. It's bad faith disruption, probably by a blocked user, and should be dealt with severely and summarily. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Block indefinitely. Clearly not here for any legitimate encyclopaedic purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Indefblocked. As far as I can see, all trace of their edits has now been removed from the bodies of articles; if other editors want to double-check that that has been 100% successful, I'd be grateful. -- The Anome (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Glancing through the histories of the articles he tainted, that appears to be the case, thanks mostly to an IPv6 editor. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

All the edits I listed had already been reverted. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Nice work. Kudos to all in the above discussion. Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• My deep and sincere thanks to every editor who acted promptly on this matter. Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• BTW, it's probably unrelated, but this edit at 17:58 on the 21st by 99.226.98.10 added Jewish to the Ayn Rand article. Her connection to Greenspan is well known. (It's amazing the blocked user seems to have had a prepared list.) μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal abuse and anti-Australian slurs by User:E-960

E-960 (talk · contribs) is posting increasingly strong abuse of myself and other editors in a discussion over the infobox of the Allies of World War II. This has included personal abuse (including accusations that the editors who disagree with their position are some sort of cabal intent on seriously damaging the article), sarcasm and anti-Australian abuse. Requests that they provide sources to support their position and moderate their language have gone unmet, and E-960's abuse is steadily getting worse. Could an uninvolved admin please look in and take whatever action they consider appropriate? The discussions are Talk:Allies of World War II#"Allies" in other languages and Talk:Allies of World War II#Removing native names of the Alliance and diffs include [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126] and [127]. Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is under attack, the same group of editors that deconstructed the WWII infobox has migrated to the Allies of World War II, to remove detail form that Infobox as well. Using the same coercive tactics. First, they suggest that there is a exception to the rule as to how the subject matter is presented, then argue that this is "too complicated" an issue to properly illustrate on the page and then suggest that all detail should be striped form the section. All you have to do is look at the WWII Talk page and see that very same group of editors push their POV. They were nowhere to be found when the Allies of World War II was in sore need of clean-up, but now they show up and start to remove stuff based on their POV. Now, they are trying to use every minor infraction to block opposition. --E-960 (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

What constitutes "anti-Australian slurs"? In the diffs above, I see nothing that can be construed as such. Any better diffs? Doc talk 11:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The most obvious "anti-Australian" comment would probably be "The material add depth, something that the average Australian sorely lacks" from [128] which doesn't seem to be helpful.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) E-960 said here that adding the foreign-language names of the Allies would "add depth, something that the average Australian sorely lacks". To me this is a clear personal attack on an editor disagreeing with him, Nick-D, on racial/national grounds. When I advised E-960 to reconsider his tone and desist from apparently racist comments, he said "I'm confused a bit by your statement, what Australian race are you referring to?" —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a very slippery slope. I do expect that it will be handled accordingly. Doc talk 12:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, please notice how the same group of editors keeps trying to instigate a crisis. Then once they block me, they will take apart the article. Recently there was even a RfC to remove the infobox all together, now that it failed, they want to start to remove individual detail from it! --E-960 (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute. But you may be blocked for "anti-Aussie" leanings anyway. Doc talk 12:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to say that one joke in bad taste does not suggest "anti-Aussie" leanings. In any case, That group of editors who voted in favor of removing stuff from WWII page also, took shots at me sarcastically asking if english was my second language. Where was the outrage then, no one stood up for me, now they all close in rank and try to get me blocked. --E-960 (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not part of any "group of editors" as you seem to think and I'm not closing ranks with anybody. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any content dispute. I took issue with your comment because of what you said—racist, nationalist, whatever you want to call it, it's just not on—not because of differences in opinion or because it was made by you specifically. Your assertion that I reacted in the way I did for vindictive reasons is, frankly, an affront to my character. I have never said anything about trying to get you blocked—I advised you before, and I still advise you now, to acknowledge this remark was out of line and apologise for it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@E-960: I think this issue can be more effectively resolved if you acknowledge that your comment was out of line, apologise accordingly for it and refrain from making similar comments in the future. Or you can take the hard way out and risk getting blocked for it. —Dark 00:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@E-960: - can only echo the sentiments of DarkFalls here. As an aside, there are a few "classic" signs that for a particular someone, English is their second language. Confusion with regard to pluralisation is one such "classic" English-as-a-second-language struggle (having worked closely with foreign students). Whether it is for you or it isn't, you've made pluralisation errors twice in this discussion. Some proof-reading before hitting "save" might avoid such suggestions. I don't their suggestions along that line were "sarcastic". St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you User talk:Stalwart111 the comment. Such statements can be considered as a red herring. They are irrelevant to the actual debate. Also, i like to point out that in the middle of heated debates I've see users (who's first language was English) who also skipped words, missed plurals, and just formed lousy sentences. So, in respect to the talk page, such comments are petty and cynical. More importantly, you just made and example out of yourself: since I almost overlooked the statement form User talk:DarkFalls, because of the "proof reading" comment. And, this is my point… if there is a serious debate such statements can be used to distract, or divert the flow of the actual debate. --E-960 (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As I stated before the joke was in poor taste in regards to Australians in general as it was irrelevant to the debate. But, I do have reservations about making a direct statement to User:Nick-D regarding this issue. For the following reasons… I simply do not know who is standing behind this profile. And judging by the actions (edits) on the WWII article, I have serious reservations as to the motives of this user. When a few months back (Talk:World War II/Archive 49) there was a debate to use word "genocide" in a section title it was User:Nick-D who in the last minute jumped in to oppose this change suggesting that it would be more appropriate to use the term "mass killings" instead. When looking over this users edits this action blew me away, since how could anyone argue that Genocide was not a significant part of the war (down-play it); a planned and stated goal of some of the totalitarian regimes. This needed to be openly and clearly stated in the WWII article. So, by reviewing this users actions it became very apparent that there was a persistent effort on his part to sanitize the article (you can call it content dispute, but the above example is very hard to argue against, as simply an issue of different interpretations). And, after hearing about Wikipedia edits being done by special interest groups or individuals, paid editors, or even intelligence agencies. I simply do not know who or what is standing behind this profile. And thus, I will acknowledge my error in labeling the average Australian as lacking depth, but, I have reservations about make a direct amends. --E-960 (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take your mention of "the totalitarian regimes" in reference to Nick as fulfilment of Godwin's law. Please allow me to remind you again of the site policy on personal attacks. Incidentally, I personally find it hard to accept the argument that one "simply does not know who is standing behind this profile" when the person saying this is himself using a handle made up mostly of numbers. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's not hard to come up on Godwin's law, when there is a discussion regarding WWII. Also, regarding the comment about my user name and what may stand behind it as well… you can rest assured that I come from the ranks of the simple folk given my lack of proof reading skills and poor grammar. --E-960 (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

TheSawTooth behaviour

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.

---

More than one editors agree that the behaviour of User:TheSawTooth fits that of a paid editor. It is one of the massive paid sockfarm at WP:COIN (plus some disruption on other articles under DS). Undisclosed against the TOU. There's ongoing disrupting at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electronic_Recycling_Association summary refusal to stop WP:IDHT(following previous disruption at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Minter, edit warring ERA as per previous report at ANI). Relisting due to ongoing disruption / unrepentant POV pushing at AfD. Widefox; talk 12:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

His disruptive behavior and edits are not limited with only ERA. Check Operation Dwarka, where he is edit warring over the new edits and reverts after saying "you have no consensus for remove", he don't even know what kind of sources he is using. I had described him about IPA(Arbcom sanctions on India/Pakistan/Afghanistan articles) and he went to misrepresent my message.[129] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Do not tag my name I have told you I am not paid. I have cooperated with other users Jytdog and Adventurousme. It is my first topic I did much effort I do not want it to be deleted but if it is deleted I will support delete decision I am not POV or COI. Sanction topics are not related to ERA much users disagree with Occult consensus is deciding. I am not misrepresenter he really drop me sanction message I also said after sanction message that I will be careful still he is coming here. If topic is deleted I will not mind anymore I move that I be given right to get my sources reviewed by AFD admin not by widefox and I move that he do not tag my name with COI without proof. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• To make everyone happy I stopped editing ERA page and asked users to approve edits case by case. Current revision was tagged for AFD after month long effort. What do I say?? I debated AFD. Is it wrong? See talkpage of ERA. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The case isn't just about the ERA page. Unfortunately from your behaviour at several Indo-Pak related articles, you seem to be engaging in repeated edit wars. On Operation Dwarka, you kept undoing an edit saying you have no consensus. Did you perhaps think about the fact that you may not have consensus for your revision? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision was stable then Occult change it I revised to first revision. No body has consensus on Indo-Pak there are much users disagreed I have put my remark on RFC too. Widefox real concern is with ERA. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No it wasn't until you had disrupted the page on 11 November. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• See this [130] I am not selling anything! I am not paid. I did 2 complete rewrite. It takes effort give me credit for it. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Widefox: Ideally, paid behaviour should be discussed on WP:COIN. SawTooth, just because this discussion was started about one thing, it does not mean other editing activities will not be looked at. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree, the overwhelming behavioural evidence is WP:COIN#Bert Martinez (2) and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 79#Bert_Martinez. (previously Electronic Recycling Association was locked for this editors edit warring). Widefox; talk 14:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

(re ERA) The bogus refs and relentless POV pushing and refusal to agree with consensus / even basics like dead/fake/PR ref at the AfD (and the puffery at the prev one) is a problem, yes. Widefox; talk 15:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Widefox, those COIN sections are rather lengthy and have a large number of diffs. Would you be so kind as to list the specific diffs that you believe show a conflict of interest? Likewise for the "More than one editors agree" claim; could we pleased have diffs so we can verify this, along with nearby diffs, if any, showing editors who disagree? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome the scrutiny Guy:

• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Behavioural evidence (where Electronic Recycling Association is linked) details 2 static IPs of ERA which edited the article (with diffs for legal threats made). Doesn't that warrant the COI and connected tags? I see you've removed them.
  • User:Nikthestunned describes legal threats (and COI of TheSawTooth) [131] [132]
• For TheSawTooth, there's info there, but I'll summarise at COIN and link from here. Widefox; talk 22:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Expressed opinions on TheSawTooth having a COI:
  • Disagree:
    • TheSawTooth
  • Agree:
    • Me
    • User:Nikthestunned [133] "Also, unless a massive coincidence is going on, you do have a conflict of interest which you're lying about repeatedly"
    • (sentiment, not explicitly) User:AdventurousMe "I've only ever come across this kind of behaviour in paid editors of one shape or form, disclosed or otherwise" Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Bert_Martinez
  • Filed a 2nd COIN independently, so Agree, then Disagree, then Withdraw (that was just looking at ERA, and deferred to my open COIN looking at multiple articles/editors):
    • User:Ctg4Rahat Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_79

(archive diffs not possible) Widefox; talk 23:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It was true withdraw of COIN he said I am genuine [134] Do not lie rahat deferred to talkpage debate not to your COIN. I have new advice from old editor I will not respond to old data because you are without evidence. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on the stylistic quality of his posts here, if people have been paying TST to edit for them I recommend they get their money back. EEng (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any actual evidence that TST is a paid editor. (Note to Widefox: actual evidence means diffs of edits made by TheSawTooth along with explanations as to why they are relevant.) Recommend closing this as being a content dispute and recommended that the participants start at the content dispute section of WP:DRR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs)

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.

Is this worth concern?

WP:EMERGENCY followed, revdelled, nothing more to do here. --Mdann52talk to me! 21:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I routinely patrol the Special:PendingChanges and just ran across this rather random edit [135]. Is this something to be concerned about? It just seemed rather specific. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC) @Scalhotrod: WMF now aware, revdelling is probably best. I'll see who I can find. --Mdann52talk to me! 21:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Long-term pattern of edit warring

I listed this concern here originally, but another editor recommended I list it here instead. I'm concerned about the pattern that User:Jimjilin has established. I'm requesting advice specifically about that. There is a lengthy record (going back about 2 1/2 years) of reports of edit warring and blocks from the same on Jimjilin's user page, and Jimjilin appears to be edit warring now at Jesus (although I'm not raising that directly as an issue here). If Jimjilin doesn't understand the policies regarding edit warring and 3RR at this point, no one does. Yet Jimjilin continues to engage in edit warring. Is there a longer-term solution for this? Perhaps a longer block with a request to review Wikipedia's policies and a stronger warning to cease future edit warring? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I pointed out that no consensus exists on a certain page and Airborne84 keeps threatening me. His actions seem inappropriate.Jimjilin (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - An administrator should take a look at Jimjilin's talk section. I second Airborne84's concern. The user has a pattern of inserting (often very pointy and agenda driven) sentences, then engages in a edit war with users until the user is reported. From what I have seen on some of the talk sections that jimjilin had argued with, there is a strong sense of WP:Ididnthearthat and deliberate disagreement believing that "equality" and "balance" means his POV pushing sentence should have some space in the article, no matter how irrelevant, wrong, or Weighty it may be. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal threats from Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

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.

---

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz (using IP 76.218.124.85) appears to be making legal threats.[136]

I consider the accusation that I wrote this entry, that it is an autobiography, or that it is self-promotion, to be libelous under California law, as it impugns my professional credibility. I consider the same about the claim that the entry is "a fan-page and, as is evident in Schwartz's active contributions to the article... a largely self-made fan-page."

My understanding is that he objects to:

• The {{autobiography|date=September 2014}} tag on the article page.
• The post by User:Bapehu at Talk:Stephen Suleyman Schwartz#Self-promotional autobiography lacking 3rd party sources to establish WP:NO or justify its lengthy

The tag on the article page was placed there because Mr Schwartz has a history of deleting content that he does not like and says is libelous. (Consensus over the last 8 years has supported Mr Schwartz deleting such material.)

He also believes that his comments should be in their own section, and should not follow standard indentation and formatting conventions.[137]-- Toddy1 (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not know whether some of the post at that Mr Schwartz objects to should be redacted, and do not have the authority to do so in any case.-- Toddy1 (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. —Dark 01:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Should I add the legal threats to the article about him? Jsharpminor (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC) (just kidding, of course.)

I have edited my section on the talk page. It was really just an error on my part to label the page's sources as self-published rather than auto-biographical. Of course, no reasonable person would ever believe my suggestion that they were self-published - even among the myriad of people who must have viewed that talk page. I apologize for any upset I may have caused. Bapehu (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

According to Talk:Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, one of the IP's principal concerns is the suggestion that the article subject would impliedly breach journalistic ethics by editing his own biography. We could argue the rights or wrongs of this view, but for the sake of moving along I've replaced the "possible autobiography" tag with a more generic "NPOV." Some additional points need addressing - some article content is unreferenced and some is referenced to primary or unreliable sources. There is also a potential issue with undue weight in the coverage of reviews of some of Schwartz's work. Will look at these later today if time permits.

On the ANI issue, the IP has now denied making an explicit legal threat, though it might still be reasonably perceived. Will leave it up to DarkFalls to decide whether the denial is sufficient to lift the block. Subject to any differing views, suggest this thread might be able to be closed with discusison continuing on the artcle talk page. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:DarkFalls has accepted the IP's assurance that no legal threat was intended and he has lifted the block on 76.218.124.85. In my opinion this ANI report can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2014 (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.

Persistent vandalism by User:TMDrew

When I came across the B-theory of time, it was in extremely poor condition, and urgent need for re-writing, which I have done. The original article mostly contained information regarding A-series of time (despite there being a page on A-series and B-series), additionally there was a single paragraph on the physics support B-theory, and the physics potentially behind B-theory. The remaining (50%) writing on the page was several paragraphs on William Craig a somewhat Christian fundamentalist, theologian philosopher. The article described his opinions on the theory, and there are a number of problems with that.

The first problem is that most of the paragraphs did not even state that those beliefs were Craig or even that they were beliefs, for example, "B theory suffers a incoherence as all other theories, that time is illusionary. The Buddhist can consistently deny the reality of the physical world, since the illusion of physicality does not entail physicality, but this is not the case with temporal becoming", This was not quoted, or stated as an opinion of Craig's rather User:TMDrew placed it in the description of B-thoery section. Craig being of Christian philosophy and faith, you should note the dig at buddhist philosophy. Firstly that kind of aggressive bias material shouldn't be on a page about metaphysics and theoretical physics, secondly supposably this was supposed to be opposition to B-theory, why are we talking about Buddhism. The general persuasion of the article and the following edits by TMDrew have been of similar suit. The writings of Craig's despite being stead outright as fact rather than opinions were also, not necasrrily philosophies, but aggressive ranting. Some of the 'opinions' (stated as fact), actually contradicted themselves, others made no sense, some parts were opinions (stated as facts) from books on his critique of scientific support for B-thoery, a book which was highly criticised by the scientific community, showing Craig has no understanding of relativity and labelled as pseudoscientific. (Outside note: Craig has been criticised by all community for seemly pushing A-thoery and therefore opposing B-theory simply because otherwise it would conflict with his religious beliefs, and this was evident in the 'opinions' given of Craig's). Generally speaking, most of the information belonged on his biographical page not a page on metaphysics and theoretical physics.

I since have significantly changed the page, I have improved the quality of the article, removed irrelevant information (see above), quoted statements when necarry, finally creating a Neutral POV, and despite this User:TMDrew continuously vandalises the page with a personal bias and agenda (supporting Craig and A-thoery). For example, I quoted prominent research papers that stated, factually, thatA-thoery supporters were by far in the minority, and B-theorsits (the sister theory) has majority support from the metaphysics and theoretical physics community. User:TMDrew removed this information, and any other information regarding B-theory's favourbility amongst all, then inserted the above Craig quote (on buddhist philopshy) with a load of other Craig 'babble' stating his opinions as fact, such as 'B-thoery has many philosophical inconstancies', not Craig argues 'B-the.... You get the picture. Additionally he has continuously degraded the rest of the article, jumbling things around (so they are in wrong sections), removing the scientific evidence behind B-theory, (which also happens to oppose A-theory). The editing is pretty consistent in this sense, that User:TMDrew is serving a personal agenda regarding A-theory and William Craig.

I have added reasons for edits, left multiple messages on his talk page page, and the page talk page (which I will get too in a moment) and left him multiple vandalisation warning (which he has now surpassed his final warning - hence here I am). BTW: I originally posted this on 'Admin intervention against vandalism', though they believed it would be best suited here.

You merely need to read the version that user:TMDrew put in on Craig, to understand how awful it really is (be sure to notice the deliberate degrading of the rest of the article aswell in his most recent edit, though slightly less vandalous than previous vandalisations).

Other random points that may add to your decision:

• He frequently wipes his talk page, looking back you can seek numerous vandalism accusations and warnings by various users. User:Mojowiha, not only also had an issue with vandalisation from User:TMDrew but on the B-theory of time page specifically. (it seems he gave up)
• In the B-thoery of time argument, I believe he logged out and posed as his IP address, then did the exact same thing, wrote an extremely similar wording as explanation. This revert and minor discussion on whether the Craig info should be included, amusingly was this IP's only edit, and after I called him out, no further edits have been made with this IP. (I could of course be wrong, but see it for yourself)

Either way, I'm getting sick and tired of this user, and I believe the feeling is mutual with number of other editors. There have been numerous examples from numerous different editors with disruptive editing and violating Neutral POV and serving a personal agenda. e.g.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Process_theology#Neutrality_dispute
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TMDrew&diff=624866980&oldid=624866887
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TMDrew&diff=609261906&oldid=609229609
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:B-theory_of_time#Support_by_physics

Thanks. DocHeuh (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please. This guy recklessly edits the B-theory of time page, gets warned[[138]], continues to persist in edit warring, and now edits against consensus. After being sent to the 3RR boards again, this user retaliates. I hope that this investigation does a WP:BOOMERANG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMDrew (talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because my precise reasons on what and where you vandalised just reeks of recklessness, while you reverting days of contributions to a page, decreasing the article quality significanting doesn't? Firstly, as I have said before, I was warned for entering an edit war, instead of reporting you (which I should of done & I am now), not for the edits themselves. "After being sent to the 3RR boards again, this user retaliates." Actually you recently WRONGLY filed a report for 3RR and edit warring when then was/is no warring going on. I do not need to argue with someone who simply wants trouble. The edit history over the last few days, the attitude and way in which you edit, and the sheer number of people who have problems with you (to the extent you have to wipe your talk page on a daily basis) speaks for itself, let along the number of rules you are breaking when you edit; disruptively, while serving a personal agenda, not providing a neutral point of view, etc. DocHeuh (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sydney Hostage Crisis Photo

I have doubts about whether the following photo can be used. Please clarify.

Sardaka (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I reformatted the image as a link, hope that's ok. Is the concern that the image is non-free? If so this might more usefully be discussed on the article talkpage than here, or potentially at WP:NFR. If not, please expand on your concern. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I notified RazorEyeEdits (the uploader) of this discussion, which you should have done with {{ANI-notice}}. Since each article in which it's used has a detailed fair use rationale, do you have any other concerns? All the best, Miniapolis 00:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about the OP, but I'm mildly concerned that one of the hostages is recognizable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that an article should not permanently show the face of a victim. Is there a precedent for someone to take that copyrighted photo and blur the face? Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that on the Upload page, under Licensing, it says "Fair use Not allowed, image will be deleted." So what is the situation with fair use?

Sardaka (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Abuse by user FelixRosch

• Metropolitan (1990 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• FelixRosch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.31.249.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user FelixRosch has recently been responsible for some minor vandalism to the page Metropolitan (1990 film). When I initially edited the plot synopsis, it was vague and incomplete. User FelixRosch replaced it with a poorly written, incomplete synopsis which contains many grammatical and syntactical errors that make it sound as though it were written by someone with only a moderate grasp of the English language. Attempts to correct FelixRosch's summary resulted only in FelixRosch reverting the page to his own edits and demanding a discussion on the article's talk page. A request for protection resulted in FelixRosch's poorly written summary being protected, and user FelixRosch is now stalling discussion on the talk page unless other users validate him. A look at FelixRosch's talk page will demonstrate a pattern of abusive editing and combative behavior towards other editors and admins, and his edits to the Metropolitan article have themselves demonstrated a disregard for the article's quality versus his own desire for validation.76.31.249.221 (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute. The only conduct issue is the IP's personal attack, the claim of vandalism, in what is not vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User FelixRosch is refusing to engage in dialogue about the edits until other users "acknowledge" him. How is that not abuse? And how is it not abuse to revert an article to broken, grammatically improper language?76.31.249.221 (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

<>::Please refer to this exchange, taken from the talk page:

This page has been dormant for some time before I edited it. Not every single edit on Wiki requires a discussion beforehand, especially to delete poorly written information on a low-importance article. You have offered nothing in the way of criticism on the improved information other than you don't like the fact that it was changed without your approval. Your user page shows a history of disciplinary issues with other Wiki articles and a difficulty getting along with other editors. Unless you can provide a cogent reason for why the actual content of the rewrites done to the article over the past week shouldn't be posted, you have no basis for maintaining the old, poorly written, summary.76.31.249.221 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Please acknowledge that I am the one who initiated Talk discussion. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.249.221 (talk) <>

This appears to be a single purpose account IP-editor filing multiple reports. I requested Page Protection from User:CambridgeBayWeather for Metropolitan (1990 film) which was granted on the same day. User:EdJohnson also closed out one of the other disputes filed by this single purpose IP-editor with dynamically changing IP-addresses. I am supporting both of these administrators on their actions concerning this article. If there is further information needed, I can be reached on my Talk page for anything further needed here. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is now fully protected one week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. The anonymous editor seems to have used three different IPs in the edit war since 11 December (one IPv4 and two IPv6s). This article was also submitted in a 3RR complaint on 18 December. Continuing to file the same issue at multiple venues is called forum shopping. Each time gets the same advice: use the talk page to get agreement. Use WP:DR if you are stuck. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been following this conflict ....and have a few things to say. First we need to understand that in all likely hood (or assuming good faith) the IP editor probably has no clue about our procedures that all keep blabbing about. To be chastising him for things he/she has no clue about does not help move anything forward. In the future all just needs to be a bit more informative over being assertive. Being proactive of the bat with links to polices and not using Wikijargin shortcuts that mean nothing to someone new (assuming the IP is new as indicated by the edit history). Not one part of this post makes any sense. Then we have these nice responses all in an aggressive tone. The problem here is the interaction the IP has had thus far....again not one person even remotely discussing the content problem they have been talking about....even telling them to shutup when they are seeking help. This is the reason we are having editor retention problems. All I have to say is... everyone really drop the ball here. So anyone have any comment on the content??? -- Moxy (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding aggressive tone (in the wikilink above): that wasn't my intent at all. I was trying to make the point that arguments alleging vandalism or incompetence against an experienced WP editor are not likely to be result in a good outcome. (I also said "whatever you do, don't let anyone chase you away from contributing to Wikipedia.")

Regarding content: See my comments in the article talk page at [139]. After having actually done some homework, I believe the new plot summary, posted by User:76.31.249.221 better describes the plot of the film, provides a better foundation for commentary, is better English prose, better fulfills the guidelines at WP:PLOTSUM, and serves to improve the article. There are talk page comments by two other editors (including 76.31.249.221) which also support the new plot summary. So far, no one (not even FelixRosch) has made an argument in favor of the old plot summary. And I suspect that no one will, given the pragmatic need to locate and watch a 24 year old movie in order to make such an argument credible. So, for now, the consensus is with the new plot summary.

My take on this episode is that the involved parties should read WP:HUMAN, and remember that "unregistered users have the same rights as registered users to participate in the writing of Wikipedia." Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Offensive and prejudicial comments

The following users are suspected sock puppets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/61.245.173.116 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/61.245.163.93 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/61.245.163.93

I raised an issue on fair use policy with respect to his image on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Black_July_1983_Colombo.jpg and left a notice on the uploading user's talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HudsonBreeze&diff=prev&oldid=639212832

Within minutes of doing so user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/61.245.173.189 left a number of messages on another users account and a WP admins account. This particular admin had previously used profanity on me, blocked me while being involved in a dispute see this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eng.M.Bandara#Sri_Lankan_presidential_election.2C_2015 and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_19_December_2014.

Contribution of all 3 users seem to linked.

The user has offended by accusing me of being complicit with extra judicial killings and having 'sri lankan mentality' https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Black_July_1983_Colombo.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=639302547

The user has been attempting to disrupt me among admins https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Black_July_1983_Colombo.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=639303056 with groundless and highly prejudicial allegation with respect issues and I raised in a proper manner. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You yourself is a shock and created your account only on 16 December 2014 but cleverly turned the Red link into a Blue one. First explain here if you don't have hysteria mindset or agenda, why within a week of account creation, you nominated for deletion an image and an article which have been visited by hundreds of editors and dozens of administrators over the time.61.245.173.116 (talk) 08:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Requesting interaction ban with User:Beyond My Ken

An editor who goes by the name Beyond My Ken has been following me about for a couple days. It is the equivalent of harassment. Personal attacks continue. I have done nothing to him. Instead, he disagreed with one of my own actions, which is fine. However, that does not justify stalking and continual assault. I'd like to request that an interaction ban be placed on me and him, so that this does not continue. It is disruptive, and inappropriate.

• Origin of the stalking at an AN thread about my own behaviour. Perhaps it was poor, but that does not justify his stalking and attacks. He made false accusations about "restoring discussion to a state more to my liking", amongst other things, including attacking me for a proposal I put forth at the Village Pump.
• Comments at a deletion request unrelated to him, where he explicitly acknowledged following me.
• Comments at an arbitration case request unrelated to him. He is targeting me personally, rather than bothering to deal with the dispute, which I am not involved in.
• Final personal attack.

I'm tired of this. There is no reason I should be subjected to stalking by a vindictive editor. I will not engage in a long-drawn out AN/I slugfest, so I hope he doesn't try doing that in the same way that he is trying to derail and ArbCom case that has nothing to do with him. Regardless of your opinion about my actions at the Cultural Marxism article, that does not justify badgering or harassment from an editor such as BMK. RGloucester — ☎ 00:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the "hypocritical liars" edit remark is beyond blatant. I myself warned BMK about personal attacks only a few days ago. He simply blew me off. I don't know if he just doesn't understand what the guidelines ask or is just refusing to comply. But given the defiant tone, I suspect it's the latter. User:Msnicki 00:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

If it is the case that Gloucester denied editing the article, when he actually did edit the article, what's a better way to say it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No "lying" involved. My only edits were copyedits at the moment it was created. I have not edited it since the start of August, and again, my only edits were copyedits, and two reverts. None of that has anything to do with the present dispute. Regardless, nothing I did justifies being stalked. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's possible to disagree with someone's claims and even to criticize their behavior without making it an attack on the person. Fundamentally, if you'd like to express an opinion, you need to find a way to express it within the guidelines – which prohibit personal attacks – or not at all. Msnicki (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm less concerned with personal attacks, and more concerned with the fact that he has been following me around to matters that he otherwise would not have been involved in. The only reason he has done this is because he wants to "look into my edits", which hardly seems appropriate. He is editing to make a point, and to harass me. RGloucester — ☎ 01:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Understood. WP:Wikihounding is prohibited but it's not nearly so cut-and-dried because all of our edit histories are public and anyone can look at them. It's not such a bright line we can say he's crossed as there is when he utters the magic word, "liar". Msnicki (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Both are prohibited, there are rules that describe the elements of each, and the history that supports a finding of either is discoverable by looking at edit histories and diffs. Of course, editor analysis is required to make a determination of an infraction, in either case. Some cases of hounding are actually clearer than some cases of personal attacks. I gather that Msnicki feels that there is a clear case of a personal attack, while RG is most concerned with putting an end to what he feels is ongoing hounding (and no doubt if he were not followed, that would serve to decrease the possibility of personal attacks in the future). Epeefleche (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: A block for the personal attack seems justified by the bright line violation, especially given that he's been recently warned, and might end both problem behaviors. Msnicki (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• RGloucester has the habit of claiming to be unbiased and non-partisan in various disputes, when his actions show quite clearly that this is not the case. He also regularly misinterprets Wikirules and policies, as in his attempt to close an RfC on Talk:Cultural Marxism despite being an involved editor, and then to overturn an uninvolved editor's subsequent close. [140] This behavior did indeed lead me to take a look at his contributions, to see if there were other instances of his misapplication of Wikipedia principles, which lead me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Carnation murders. As I remarked there, I took a look at the article and the sources, read the comments from other editors, and then posted a comment based on that evidence, a comment which differed from RGloucestor's view, which caused him to accuse me of vindictivemess, with the threat to "take action" against me.

  My going to the ArbCom request concerning Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 had nothing whatsoever to do with RGloucester, as I regularly monitor that page, and comment on requests with moderate frequency. However, I did find there that RGloucester was once again claiming to an uninvolved editor with no stake in the article, so I questioned him about it, politely.

  As for Msnicki, she is an editor who is virulently adamant about Dangerous Panda being desysoppped in his ArbCom case, a view I have opposed, and her comment can be ignored for that reason.

  So, this claim of me "following him around" hangs on an AfD that I admit I went to because I saw it on RGloucester's contrib list, and a Arbitration request that I saw because I watch the page regularly. I also watch AN and AN/I, where there have been other interactions with this editor, none of which I got involved with because I was "following him around". I suggest that if RGloucester doesn't want his editing to be examined that he correctly follow Wikipedia policy, and not misrepresent his position in regard to disputes he is involved with.

  I'd also like to point out that it is not only my observation that he claims to be uninvolved while, in fact, acting in a partisan manner. The admin Dark Falls also expressed that view in re-closing the Cultural Marxism dispute, when he responded to RGloucester's claim that he was "merely doing what is required by Wikipedia policies". Dark Falls wrote:

  Oh I was not aware that policy mandates you to open an AfD straight after a merge discussion ended with no consensus, when you are fully aware that it will achieve nothing besides make a point. You are hoping that by complaining about the matter loud enough, you will be able to change the result to your liking, yet try to shroud this under a cloak of neutrality and a pretence of not caring about the result. [141]

  BMK (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Now, if someone wants to say "RGloucester, you don't have to be non-partisan and uninvolved in order for your comments in a dispute to have legitimacy, so just stop misrepresenting your position as being uninvolved and disinterested and go about your business," and "Beyond My Ken, you can't change a person by annoying them about their perceived faults, so please give RGloucester the space to edit without your pointing out his deficits", I could live with that. BMK (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not under any "cloak". Feel free to examine my edits. I do follow Wikipedia policy, and I do state my position as it is. If you don't believe me, that isn't my fault. That's no excuse for following me around to matters you are not involved in and targeting me. I am not involved in the Malaysia Airlines dispute. I have never been. You can examine it all you like. It is clear that I'm not involved. I'm not going to play that game again. As far as "Cultural Marxism", I did not say I was "uninvolved". I said that whether I was "involved" or not was irrelevant. I also said that I did not care about the result. These are true statements. I don't care about the result. What will happen, will happen, and that's that. None of that justifies you following me and making a mess. RGloucester — ☎ 01:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry, your scare quotes around the word "cloak" seems to imply that I wrote that word somewhere in my comment, but I don't believe I did. BMK (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Try Ctrl-F. You quoted it in bold in this edit. I presume you did that because you agreed with that quote and thought RG should answer it. Msnicki (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, I see. I did not write it myself, but quoted it, which is why it felt unfamiliar to me. Thanks for the correction. BMK (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

BMK -- how about if someone were to say "BMK, inasmuch as you've indicated you've followed RG's edits, which matches what the editor interaction diffs indicate, perhaps it is best for you to not do so to confront RG, but agree of your own accord to rather let other editors and normal editing processes address it?" You point out above that an admin shared a view you had ... perhaps you can rely on that sort of normal process, and eschew following RG? Voluntarily? Without any community or admin action? Epeefleche (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I indicated that I "followed RG's edits" to one AfD, period. The rest of our interactions occured in the normal course of my editing. That's not stalking, or harassment by any definition, and it's barely even "following".

But to answer your question, yes, I could allow the normal Wikipedia community process -- which is sometimes like trying to turn a fully-loaded container ship -- to catch up to RGoucester's foibles in its own time. BMK (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My "foibles"? What are your foibles, BMK? I have no foibles. As I indicated before, it seems you've taken a disliking to me, and I've taken the brunt of it. Please stop this emotive and irrational rage against me. RGloucester — ☎ 02:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My dear sir, all God's children have foibles. BMK (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That we do, BMK. However, I have none that you've seen me exercise here. I've seen yours. RGloucester — ☎ 02:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've made it abundantly clear that I thought RGloucester's conduct in regards to Cultural Marxism was dishonest. BMK, I am sure you have done the same. However continually mentioning it will not elicit a positive response, as you can see. It is up to RGloucester to see faults within his conduct. I suggest that you avoid mentioning it in the future. —Dark 01:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Dark Falls: Yes, I stand corrected and will alter my behavior accordingly. BMK (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• I suggest RGloucester (Richard III's) sole purpose of late has been disruption and personal attacks with insults and condescension wherever I have encountered him. I'll list half a dozen diffs tues afternoon NYC time. μηδείς (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

More hounding, eh? Not surprising. My purpose is never "disruption". You may not agree with opinion, personality, or methods, but that doesn't mean that I'm trying to "disrupt" anything. RGloucester — ☎ 17:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Joyunity does not want to discuss his changes

This user keeps changing infobox image of articles without discussing the matter on talk page first. When I asked him to start a discussion first he completely ignored my request saying that I'm vandalizing his edits. I really don't know how to keep this editor in line. He doesn't even explain his edits using edit summary. I notified him multiple times to use edit summary but he blanked his talk page. I have a feeling that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Diffs 1 2 3 4 5--Chamith (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to respond to ChamithN's comment by saying that I really do care about helping Wikipedia reach high standards. I also believe that users should work together to help Wikipedia but ChamithN hasn't ever asked me politely to stop fixing the page to its correct format. and he is now trying to block me from editing, some tantrum. I know he left a comment wanting to band me, but this is me saying I care about Wikipedia and I want it to be as great as possible. I'm not asking you to band ChamithN, but please block me because of listening to his foolish comments about my style of editing. Thank You, JoyUnity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyunity (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that someone else changed the image - see the history of File:Meghan_Trainor_iHeart_1.jpg. They replaced the large high-res image with a very tiny crop. A crop might make some sense but such a reduction in size does not, so I've reverted it. Squinge (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

At first I was being polite and I even posted a message on your talk page explaining how to use edit summary, but you completely ignored and kept changing Wikipedia's content as you please. You didn't even provide a single edit summary. And yes you are right users should work together to improve Wikipedia that's why posted tons of messages on your talk page requesting to use edit summary.--Chamith (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think this can be solved on the talk page. As an apparently new user, Joyunity probably will make mistakes. We should try to calmly and politely steer Joyunity toward the right direction. Accusing new users of not being here to build an encyclopedia after a minor content dispute isn't really going to help. From what I can tell, nobody has ever posted to the talk page. @Joyunity: you've received a bit of feedback on your talk page about discussing edits, using an edit summary, and signing your posts. It would be helpful if you did those things. It's fine to be bold, but discussing changes on the talk page and using edit summaries are important parts of collaboration. I suggest you read our simplified sets of rules. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you NinjaRobotPirate. I think Joyunity made those mistakes because he is new to Wikipedia. As you've provided a good explanation to him I hope he wouldn't continue making the same mistakes repeatedly. So Joyunity, make sure to provide an edit summary from now on and please discuss on the talk page of the specific article before changing something like infobox image.-Chamith (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked User with multiple accounts editing pro-terrorist

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Syed_Aamer_Shah_(Scientist) = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Syed_Aamer_Shah_wiki and other blocked accts (see pink box). The June/July transition is [here] and here where they claim to have been a wikipedia editor for 4 years in July 2014.

And they just added a whole string of pro-terrorist edits in a section called "Further Reading (Debunked lies against the state)" that had to be deleted.

Thanks Legacypac (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac: The editor has been summarily blocked on the basis of obvious sock puppetry and block evasion. Also, it's generally a good idea to report these to SPI, if only to have a complete record of prior socking. I'll take care of adding in this case. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Oops, you actually did add it in here! Thanks. :) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Never done an SPI before - but I think i just put one together correctly. If you can close it great! Thanks Legacypac (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2014 (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.

GentiBehramaj

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

---

User:GentiBehramaj made few hundred edits in the last two days. All of those edits are very problematic. Most of them are page moves and category moves made without any discussion and without posting any edit summary. Most of those moves deal with the names of the towns in Kosovo which is very controversial topic. Just to remind that this falls under the WP:ARBKOS decision. GentiBehramaj moved dozens of categories (subcategories of Category:People by district in Kosovo). Just one example: he moved "Category:People from Zvečan" to "Category:People from Zveçan" although the title of the corresponding article is "Zvečan" (not "Zveçan"). He did not try to discuss this, nor he wrote any edit summary to explain the move. "Zveçan" is the Albanian spelling of "Zvečan". This is just an example. He moved all the categories "People from ..." to Albanian names without any discussion and with no edit summary ([142][143] etc.). He also moved some articles about Kosovo cities to Albanian titles, again with no discussion and with no edit summary. He moved "Lipljan" to "Lipjan" [144] although the consensus was reached on the talk page of the article for the title "Lipljan" (I moved it back). He also moved "Mališevo" to "Malisheva", again without any explanation (I moved it back too). Since all those moves are illegitimate, I propose them all be reverted. I don't want to revert, as I don't want to get involved in the edit war. I ask administrators to revert those edits and to warn GentiBehramaj not to move pages and categories without discussion. This is very disruptive behavior and has to be stopped. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I also arived here to ask admins to restore original English commonnames for all of those. This was very bad nationalistic move, to rename everything to Albanian without any talk page discussion. Some admin must revert edit by edit back to established versions of articles. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Original English commonames ? It seems that you abuse with that generic expression . As per wp:burden you have to provide sources proving that those are the English commonames , yet you two seem to conflict each others arguments because one is claiming that those are Serbian commonames and the second user is claiming that they are English. What needs to be noted is that you accuse that user of reverting without giving an explanation yet i saw none of you trying to establish a consensus on the talk page ... Personally i more than agree with GentiBehramaj's reverts . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User GentiBehramaj is not alone, there have been other edits along these lines recently. I have been trying to mediate a content dispute at the Battle of Kosovo article regarding how to describe the historic battle's modern day location. If its not coincidence, then I have to wonder if this is a "group effort"? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there,
I am aware that i made a mess and I apologize for breaking the rules! I am a new Wikipedian so I don't really have much experience on this and I didn't know there exists a deal about the names of places in Kosovo. I reverted all changes I made before, except the moves of the categories that I couldn't move back (please somebody who knows how it works, do it!). That's all i could do to fix it! I want to make it clear that those changes I made earlier weren't with a nationalistic background. Almost every name of Kosovo cities is in Serbian so the consensus (whoever made it) is very unilateral. Please somebody explain to me how Kosovo Polje is in English and not in Serbian? Also Zvečan, if there a "ç" is not acceptable, why a "č" is? As far as I know the "č" letter isn't used in English! If you want to be neutral then don't use "č" neither "ç" but maybe a "c", like in the case of the name of Pristina where is used a "s" instead of "sh" or "š"!
I also want to make clear that I am neither part of a "group effort" nor I have any contact with other editors from Kosovo, so please don't start with conspiracy theories! I just want to contribute as much as I can in enriching the articles about Kosovo, by giving correct information and respecting the rules. Once again, I apologize for the mess I made yesterday, hoping we will find a new solution for the names of cities of Kosovo! --GentiBehramaj (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

GentiBehramaj, this is not a place to discuss the names of articles. We are here to discuss your behavior, and I'm very glad to see you reverted your edits. You have arguments, and that's OK, but you can't move those sensitive pages without discussing it with other editors. For example, there is an open discussion at Talk:Kosovo Polje about moving the page to "Fushë Kosova", so you can participate. Wikipedia is all about discussion and reaching wp:consensus. There is also a discussion at Talk:Peć. Take part in the discussion, state your arguments and see what other editors have to say. That is the only was to deal with this issue. Again, thank you for understanding. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This user understood the problem. In his later edits he showed that he is not willing to make controversial edits without discussion any more. He even apologized for his actions, so I believe there is nothing more to do here. I'm closing this discussion. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2014 (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.

Renault dispute with 83.157.24.224

This is my first involvement with ANI so apologies if I'm getting anything wrong.

There are some issues surrounding the editing of the article Renault with the user 83.157.24.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (heretofore referred to as Mr. IP).

There has been a content dispute regarding Mr. IP's addition of awards information for Renault car models [145] to the main article and lead.

A talk page discussion was started in an attempt to resolve the issue here and subsequently an RFC was opened.

During these debates Mr. IP has engaged in the following:

• Incivility: accusations against vrac, Urbanoc, Warren Whyte, Mr.choppers of vandalism [146], sock puppetry, dishonesty, bias, "malevolence", bad faith (see RFC for details). Calling three of us "gangsters" and saying we should be banned from Wikipedia here [147]
• Threatening to disparage Wikipedia in the press (Mr. IP claims to be a journalist) here [148]
• Threatening to engage in sockpuppetry here [149], although I suspect Mr. IP already has this sock engaged in the debate: 193.252.173.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (another IP from France who displays strikingly similar linguistic quirks to Mr. IP).
• Canvassing for the RFC here [150] and here [151]

Attempts to engage and educate have not been successful. Lately the dispute has degenerated into edit warring. The content dispute we can deal with, however I feel that the incivility has passed the threshold and needs to be addressed by an administrator. Vrac (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Addendum: This is interesting, Mr. IP appears to be engaged in a cross-wiki crusade against Volkswagen, see this entry [152] on the Renault article talkpage on fr.wikipedia in September. Note the last line where Mr. IP says there is a "Volkswagate sur[on] Wikipedia", just like they said there was a "Volkswagate scandal on Wikipedia" here [153] on the en Renault talk page.Vrac (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I write on Wikipedia for several years on Wikipedia and I've never created any dispute. But since October, I am harrassed by Urbanoc, Vrac, Warren Whyte etc. Yet, all my contributions are fair and with some sources.

On the contrary of a dispute, before Vrac created a dispute here to kick me and my fair contributions away, I wrote here Portal_talk:Cars#Non-equal_treatment_of_articles_-_Vandalization : for me there is no dispute, I talk about CONSISTENCY : same rules and same structure of sections for ALL the automotive brands. That is why I cite the Volkswagen article as an example. I have no preference for any brands, I just ask that the same rules and content can be added in ALL the brands articles, with the same section order etc. I even removed a spam link from the VW article and my action has been validated [[154]]. So I do protect Volkswagen. Notice that Mr.Choppers (a friend of Vrac and Urbanoc, that I contacted to make a mediation and hopefully make stop their harassment against me, but they continued) admitted himself As for VW, there are simply a LOT of VW fans in the US as it is the only European brand with youth appeal to have been here for a long time. So a lot of VW fanboys write in English as a result, meaning lots of text added to the VW articles. And... many photos too, and for VW, height more current models photos are allowed than for Renault... Notice that saying that VW has a lot of fanboys in the US is a VW fanboy statement itself. The truth is that VW sells a little in the US (-11% in 2014, in a +8% growing market) and is not popular among young people. That is what statistics reveal.

When Vrac writes about me "linguistic quirks", it is incivility and a personal attack. I heard some racists saying the same words about an Indian man someday. Vrac also accuses another person of being a sock-puppet or something like that, so he can do what he accuses me to do, but that I did not. As to me, I just mentioned that pseudonyms are more anonymous than a precise IP addr.. It is a real possibility that one person uses several pseudonyms, not an incivility.

About : CONSISTENCY : same rules and same structure of sections for ALL the automotive brands and harassment of Renault and a few other brands :

• Urbanoc does not apply the same "rules" between Renault and VW for example. Here Urbanoc removed a photo of the Megane current model in the Renault article, stating that the photos are too numerous [155] whereas there were only 4 photos of the current models in the Renault article, but there are 3 DOZENS of photos of the current models in the VW article and in the case of VW, and Urbanoc and his friends do not remove even one photo. 8 times more photos in the VW article is not too much, but 8 times less photos in the Renault article is too much : it is inconsistent and unequal. Urbanoc even explained here [[156]] that there is a rule (?) "two images of relevant current products would be enough". Where is written this "rule" ? And why Urbanoc does not ask that his "rule" to be respected in the VW article where there are 3 dozens of photos of the current models not only four ? Such unequal treatments are not acceptable. Yet, I obeyed Urbanoc and I did not add a photo of the Megane current model. So, no I don't create any dispute.
• Here Urbanoc removes the photo of Renault Captur that is the most sold in Europe, but keeps the second SUV [157]]... Not logical... Yet there is enough space to put 2 photos.
• Here Urbanoc removes AGAIN a Renault model (that's why the word harassment is justified and proved) from a list, because he says that it is too long, but why 20 models can be cited and not Renault ? [[158]]. Why does he have the power to "decide" arbitrarily and alone when a list is "too long", and why removing Renault and not one of the others ? Notice that someone put Ford and Opel first in the list, but after these 2 brands the list is in alphabetical order... But Urbanoc did not correct that, he only removed Renault.
• Here Urbanoc wrote the typical anti-Renault rhetoric : "proved unsuccessful" or "uncompetitive" and Renault is bad, because "100 years ago it built some tanks", exactly what he added here : [[159]]. Notice that his source is unverifiable (a book that nobody could find) and on the contrary there are some historical facts that the Renault plane engine won some races and beat some speed records, so how could it be "proved unsuccessful" ?
• Here Vrac [160] removed from the Renault "is known for its role in motor sport, and its success over the years in rallying and Formula 1." Why ? It is a true information. Removing that without any discussion is to vandalize the article, isn't it ? Else what is the definition here of vandalize ? Renault introduced the turbo for the first time in F1, and won 12 engine manufacturer title and 11 drivers titles. It is fair to mention : Renault "is known for its role in motor sport, and its success over the years in rallying and Formula 1." and Vrac should have not erasing that. Notice that this sentence was in the article for a long time and that I did not add it.

I will write more proofs about the unequal treatment of the brands on Wikipedia later. I am fair, my contributions are true and sourced. I am not uncivil. And there is a real problem of unequal treatment of brands on Wikipedia. The positive informations are regularly removed from the Renault article by Urbanoc, Vrac etc. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Have a nice evening.

Frankly, the kind of edits I made in Renault and Renault-related articles is clearly visible through my edit history, so anyone can judge if I'm editing "against" Renault. The IP editor actitude has always been beligerant and he has made a lot of wild accusations he has still to prove. Urbanoc (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor has refused to engage with a number of editors, and makes some ridiculous claims. He confused difference of opinion with vandalism. I find the tone and unfounded allegations distasteful, and would go as far as to suggest a temporary block may be useful so s/he has an opportunity to read the WP conventions and policies. As with Urbanoc above, my edit history will demonstrate significant content I have added and edited over the years to various French car articles. Warren (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Undisclosed writing of articles for pay

We have a bunch of accounts that are writing articles for pay. This is just the first of many. One of the most recent articles is here Jerome Katz which I have nominated for deletion.

What are peoples thoughts on this? Do we allow someone to pay to have their CV or business put on Wikipedia and if we do not what measures do we put in place when we discover it is happening? What should be our response when sock puppets are involved? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Out of interest you say there are "a bunch of accounts" and that "this is the first of many", but you link to an AN/I about one paid editor. Who are the others?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:COI covers this pretty well. That said, unpaid advocacy by ordinary editors is a much bigger problem in my opinion. Far too many editors wouldn't know a neutral point of view if it fell on them and are perfectly happy to push Wikipedia and its articles in whatever direction they personally think is proper. The only difference is that a very small few have managed to get paid in cash for it while the vast majority simply get paid by thinking that they're doing the noble deed of "fixing" or "improving" or "protecting" Wikipedia. Through that lens, the few who are getting paid for it are a minor problem. And while there are certainly smarter and more sophisticated efforts to shape Wikipedia articles via paid agents, the best are probably never found out. As long as Wikipedia is influential there will be efforts to "make it work for us", and making a big show of busting a couple small fry here and there probably won't make much difference in the big picture. – JBarta (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The article Doc has nominated was already nominated for deletion once tonight, and passed as clearly notable because the subject holds a named chair at SLU. I'll note that I haven't received any money for it but have already declared it on my user page, so as far as this particular article is concerned I don't see any real transgressions.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROD is alike but different than WP:AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree when you call them "small fry" if more editors are encouraged to edit and get paid for it then it will become an issue. To be paid editing undermines what Wikipedia is about it being a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That being said there is also the possibility of the paid editor doing real harm to things such as BLP articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone ask for edits to a BLP page, although it might be worth looking at Freelancer.com; it's pretty low end and there are some very dubious jobs on it. Here are today's requests for Wikipedia edits from Elance.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is a pretty interesting read, considering you are a more or less a publicist if you accept money to put someone's CV or company on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:For publicists publicizing a client's work. Even a 2-second glance at Elance reveals enough to churn your stomach. There's someone asking for two pages to be written, and they say they want it to be just like Zeus Mortgage, which they probably paid someone else to work on in the past. That one leads to Blueskymorning (talk · contribs) and further down the rabbit hole. --Laser brain (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. When they say they want it to be "just like" some other page it usually means they've trawled for examples and picked one they like. It happens with web page content too; they'll say "I've seen this awesome site, can you do me one just like it?" The obvious answer is "Copy it and change a few words, you lazy sod," but meh. I have bills to pay.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes exactly. So we have lots of concerns. The next question is how should we respond? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that depends on what you mean. I don't like you very much, Doc, as you know, but I'm here for now. If you mean how to respond to me I'll leave you to it. If you mean how to respond to freelancers in general, well, you have one right here who has nothing to gain or lose, and if any of you have any questions fire away. Frustrating as you all are I do generally like Wikipedia, so why not?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No this section is not about you specifically, it is about paid editing generally. Your friends have sent me lots of your tweets so I am clear on your feels. Happy to hear what suggesting you have wrt "frelancers in general" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I'm almost touched. No, I'm not really. I still don't like you at all. However. I don't personally see anything wrong with paid editing if the result is a notable, neutral article. If good content is added, what does it matter? What you need to stop is advocacy and malicious attacks on company websites; people request that. They're against Wiki TOCs, so that means posting them is against Elance TOCs and if you ask them they'll take the jobs down. As for paid jobs that comply with COI, add a note to the create article screen mentioning the disclosure rules. I really didn't know about that because it's not exactly prominent.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Because you never know, but if you ask nicely I might just have something that can help you :-)--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A better question might be... how or why is WP:COI and current remedies insufficient? – JBarta (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

In theory they're adequate, as long as editors abide by the rules. Here's a problem; I genuinely didn't know I had to disclose the paid articles. Obviously that doesn't excuse the fact that I tried to hide one, but that doesn't matter. Some freelancers are going to make genuine mistakes like that and end up in the crap. Some, and they will be the ones who advocate or vandalise (probably company) pages will not.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't like Elance you're going to hate this.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And of course I'll mention again all the advocacy work going on by folks who don't get paid in cash and are arguably an issue a thousand times as large. That Zeus Mortgage was written or edited by someone who was paid a few bucks is an infinitesimally small issue that has zero impact on the integrity of Wikipedia in any pratical sense. You could add a thousand more articles like it and the impact would be the same... zero. I think WAY too much emphasis is placed on "paid in cash" editing. As if somone getting paid is going to have any more potential to be a POV editor than any Tom, Dick or Harry on a mission to "fix" or "protect" Wikipedia. Or that a paid editor is less likely to follow policy and guidelines. Just look at most any talk page to see all the editors not getting paid a thing and variously disregarding the rules. This just smells like a savior with a solution desperately looking for a problem. – JBarta (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Shrug. I wrote a few that got deleted because I didn't understand WP:N well enough to know I should turn down the jobs. I really wish I hadn't taken on the one I tried to hide, because it was advocacy. But if someone writes a notable, NPOV article that actually adds worthwhile information I don't personally see an issue. But I think you're underestimating the scale it's happening on. Elance and Freelancer are the tip of the iceberg. There's oDesk, Fiverr and a bunch of other scummy sites like that. Elance has fairly strict TOCs. Freelancer does in theory but never enforces them, especially not on cheating clients. The rest are a free for all.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes exactly there are a ton of sites out there offering these services. It is fairly easy to pick up the cases in which it has occurs. And many of these people are using sock or throw away accounts because they wish to stay undetected. Only a very small minority is above board. I guess there are two question:

1. Should we care about paid editing
2. Even if we do care is there anything we can do about it Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

See above. But if the article meets N and NPOV, no, why should you care? I disagree that only a minority of paid editors are above board; most mean well. The problem is the clients have no idea about notability and neither do most editors. I've had people ask for an article, I say no, not notable, and they're like "What if I put out a press release?" I said yes a couple of times, which is how I learned about WP:N.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Which leads on to: It is fairly easy to pick up the cases in which it occurs. It's not, really. I was doing paid edits for nearly 2 years before anyone noticed, and that's only because VMS had my Twitter handle on her site. And I haven't exactly been a low-profile editor.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

But then, if you don't notice a paid editor is there actually a problem that needs solved? A lot of the time, probably not.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

But that stuff is small potatoes. Of more concern is the unpaid advocacy of more important topics, like major political, major events, divisive issues, etc etc... even down to medium importance stuff. A dozen highly motivated unpaid editors can do a whole lot more damage to the integrity of Wikipedia than a hundred people getting paid to whip up largely minor articles that are lucky to get 10 pageviews per week. And Wikipedia has a LOT of these highly motivated editors... all "legitimate" in the context of this discussion. Think of it as rigging a mosquito net while ignoring the tiger standing next to you. And keep in mind, that paid editor is on the clock while the unpaid one has all the time in the world. – JBarta (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I don't think paid editing is a problem as long as the content is N and NPOV. There are paid advocates though. The case I tried to hide, I got accused of running socks. I've never done that because I truly loathe sockpuppets, but I'm bloody sure the alleged socks were being paid by the same person as me. A group of motivated amateurs can do a lot of damage, but eventually they'll get weeded out by AN/I. A malicious client with enough cash can send in an endless string, and an SPI won't pick them up.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is that, as much as possible, you pick them off at the job sites before anyone is hired. Traditional freelancers won't touch wiki jobs. So a daily patrol of Freelancer and Elance would let you flag the egregious ones and get them delisted before anyone was hired. The sites have mechanisms to prevent clients talking to potential freelancers before hiring, so they don't take the job (and commission) off site.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree with User:FergusM1970 the best way to deal with this is at the sites in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you propose doing that? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

In case you missed it, my suggestion was scanning the main sites a couple of times a day and flagging any jobs that violate WP TOCs. Elance, and probably Freelancer, will delist them.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean tagging an article with something like "The editing of this article has been listed at whateverlance so good editors be on the lookout and have your pikes at the ready"? – JBarta (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Do we have a template for that yet? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Whipping up yet another template is the easy part. But without some automated system, some poor sop is gonna have to manually scope out these sites and place the tags, then someone else is gonna have to remove them, blah blah blah. More problems than it's worth in my opinion. However, if someone wants to come up with some sort of automated tool that regularly scans certain websites looking for this sort of thing and place tags automatically and remove them automatically when "the danger has passed", that would certainly be fine by me. But keep in mind, the minute someone invents a lock, someone else figures out how to pick it. The end result of all this will be just as many paid editors... but they'll be harder to detect. Maybe a more practical approach would be to welcome paid editors and allow them to operate in the open. Editors have all sorts of motivations to edit here.... money is simply one of them... and not necessarily an evil one in my opinion. And if it's any consolation, the percentage of paid editors probably always has been and always will be very very very small. – JBarta (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course, if the specific article target isn't determinable from those other sites, then the my above post is useless. It's very possible my inexperience with these freelancer sites is showing through... I should probably talk less and read more. – JBarta (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No, you're right, nine times out of ten it's impossible to identify the specific article from what's publicly displayed. The only way to tell would be from the post-hiring discussions and you're never going to be able to see that. The client name also won't likely give you any clues. However if you flag the article using the Report Violation link it will most likely be delisted.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this a bad time to suggest you hire me to do it for you? $25 an hour. Cheap at twice the price. No, really, it will take a small amount of manpower but you could potentially get quite a few. It won't work with the crappy little sites, but the problematic clients with more cash will be on Elance or Freelancer anyway. Nobody's going to trust a lot of money to Fiverr's payment system.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

So I guess FergusM1970 is blocked now. I assume he's blocked from talk as well. Fine timing. Oh well. Sayonara dude, and best of luck... – JBarta (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

FergusM1970 is unblocked at the moment. What I've seen is that the talk page include Template:Paid article for clarification. This isn't policy though so that may be something to consider. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's another suggestion: An article may have a mix of paid and unpaid edits, and usually unpaid ones are going to dominate. If a stigma is going to attach to paid edits - and personally I don't think it always should - marking the article seems harsh. Better to do it at the level of edits. Currently you have a check box for "Minor edit". Add another one for "Paid edit". Obviously it depends on compliance, but with the exception of doing what I suggested and screening the main freelancing sites, what doesn't? That way someone can patrol the work of good-faith paid editors.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe they could get paid to patrol them, right? Might be a nice little earner. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Naturally if that happens I'll be the first to apply, but plenty editors spend time patrolling edits anyway. This would just involve them giving a bit more priority to those marked as paid. Then they could give the editors (who after all are good-faith ones, seeing as they're doing it openly) some help on complying with N, NPOV or whatever.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Aww, shucks. I nearly fell for that! Darn it. Martinevans123 (talk)

Fair one. If you mean what I think you do it would be more accurate to say there's a reasonable chance they're good faith; obviously bad-faith ones could use that as a fig leaf. In that case it would be down to the editor to decide on the merits of the edit itself. If a paid editor had fixed bad grammar, obviously no problem. But if they'd just deleted all reference to a controversy it would need investigating.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Or was I seeing a level of meaning you didn't actually intend?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even intend this level of meaning. D'oh! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Any paradox written by a mathematician tends to baffle the shit out of me.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I read that three times and still have no idea what it means. Luckily, "baffled" is a condition I've become comfortable with over the years. – JBarta (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I think "baffled" is my ground state of existence, especially where maths is concerned.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is not something that is going to be decided in this venue. Admins. don't have the power to dictate such policy, and despite numerous RfC pages, Jimbo's talk archives, and various other discussions - nothing can be or will be done here. If everyone is done venting, perhaps seeking a new well structured RfC (or series of them) would be a better expenditure of time. I'd suggest closing this thread since it's not an admin incident that can be resolved on this page. — Ched :  ?  03:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes a RfC is needed. Would be useful to have some better guidance around when paid editing is blockable. Should really have posted at WP:AN rather than WP:ANI. I will look at putting something together in the new year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandal

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi&diff=prev&oldid=639442726 Funny, but not helpful. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverted by Cluebot. If vandalism continues, ideal palce to report it is WP:AIV. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Kapoork

@Kapoork: has been edit warring at Kanika Kapoor to insert unsourced biographical details, and has responded with a personal attack when being reverted. Explanations and friendly warnings have been given, and on their own I don't think those edits are cause for action yet. But I think editing under a user name that implies this is Ms Kapoor herself is problematic, especially editing in this way, as it could bring disrepute on Ms Kapoor. (Brought here as there are several different policy issues involved). Squinge (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion at AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That's no reason for taking it to AfD. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks almost certain to be kept now after having been expanded with multiple sources, but I think the behaviour (and user name) of @Kapoork: still needs to be addressed as I originally asked - they are still adding their own unsourced claims (while removing sourced material). Are they allowed a to use a username that suggests they are the subject of the article without verifying who they are, and should they be stopped from adding unsourced material? Squinge (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

And I'm getting further attacks for reverting their unsourced changes. Squinge (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

and please see my latest warning/request at User_talk:Kapoork#Kanika_Kapoor Squinge (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

And their latest at my Talk suggests they're not actually Kanika Kapoor herself, so I don't think that username should be allowed for someone editing that article. Squinge (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominating for AfD in this situation was ham-fisted. We need to avoid this sort of thing and educate rather than alienate new editors. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Range block genius wanted for dealing with Tamaulipas vandal

Hi admins, a Mexico-based IP keeps vandalizing articles and hopping IPs. This has been going on for the better part of 2014 (I first noticed them circa April/May 2014.) I believe they are the same operators who were disrupting Ilion Animation Studios and United Plankton Pictures, which resulted in both articles being protected. Most of the IPs geolocate to the Mexican state Tamaulipas, and I think most of them are from the ISP Uninet S.A. de C.V. There has been a recent flurry of activity at Peep and the Big Wide World.

List of problematic IPs

Some of the older IPs used are: 189.235.128.48 - Possibly the earliest IP used? 189.250.245.222 189.250.231.38 189.250.210.201 189.250.224.222 189.235.143.210 189.235.178.206 189.250.213.120 Some of the more recent ones are: 189.235.143.101 (added Dec 2014) 189.235.223.202 (added Dec 2014) 189.235.25.178 (added Dec 2014) 189.250.242.110 (added Dec 2014) 189.235.24.23 (added 12.21.14) 189.250.213.172 189.235.213.238 189.250.229.19 189.235.24.23 189.250.242.110 189.235.25.178 189.235.223.202

Anyhow, it's clearly disruptive, so if anybody can come up with a plan for dealing with this user, it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The subranges are 189.235.0.0/16, 189.250.192.0/18. I looked as a CU, and both of them have significant logged-in editing, as well as a small amount of productive logged out editing. There is also some account creation. If we were to block them, it would probably be best to start with a short term and see efficacy, and then extend length if necessary. Also, account creation should probably be left enabled, at least at first, to minimize collateral. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Any other thoughts are welcome, if nobody else has an opinion I'll action it in a couple hours. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @NativeForeigner:, thanks for looking into this! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble loading some WMF tools today, so can't view the range contributions to see if other pages are also being targeted. The article Peep and the Big Wide World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had just come off a 3-week semi-protection that expired just over 24 hours ago. Due to the considerable IP disruption today, I have extended the semi-protection for an additional 3-months. If this article is the primary focus of the disruptive user behind the IP, then range-blocks may not be necessary if there's risk of collateral impact. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the extent of the editing--I mentioned Ilion and United Plankton above, also Peep. Dragon Tales is another. I don't get the sense that they are interested in too many articles, but they are persistent, and as soon as a protection expires, they come back fairly quickly to damage the article, as you already mentioned with Peep. Another example, here they returned within 3 days of the protection being lifted. I hadn't linked specific logged in users to this IP vandal, so depending on what those accounts are editing, a different story could unfold. Grazie. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As a result of this I'll do some fairly extensive semi=protection, and we'll see how that holds, or if he gains new interests. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Scratch the above, I'll look into it in some more detail. Not all of it is pure vandalism. The following articles have been edited by the IP ranges, and are in the same subject area: Dragon Tales, Cubeez, Fetch the Vet, Peep and the Big Wide World, Engie Benjy, Oggy and the Cockroaches, Henry's World, ¡Mucha_Lucha!, Franklin (TV series), Zoboomafoo, and maybe a couple others, this is just the last three months. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Native, I took a look at some of the articles you linked to. This edit from the IP range at Oggy and the Cockroaches is vandalism. We would never have that many companies listed in the network parameter for instance, and the content is a resubmission of this At Cubeez are eight consecutive edits that have zero net result followed by another two pointless edits at Fetch the Vet for a total of 10 "test" edits. Most of the IP range's edits at Henry's World were reverted, like this unsupported cat and these obviously disruptive category changes. At Mucha Lucha we find an unsourced network addition, unsourced company, a bizarre addition after the bcdb template at the bottom, but if that's not convincing as vandalism, this edit a few hours later at Dragon Tales again floods the company parameter. There was this useless edit at Zoboomafoo. I have yet to see anything of value come out of this range. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

User:The Rapper Nyn T

The Rapper Nyn T (talk · contribs) has repeatedly shown that he does not have the minimum competence to be editing at Wikipedia. He has repeatedly created articles about himself, and then recreated the article content in Talk: space, and in his own User talk page. This edit shows him completely disregarding attempts to contact him, once again to create article content (about himself) in his user talk page. This edit shows him trying to create material about himself in the Wikipedia talk: space. I have asked him to stop, read the guidelines, and seek mentorship, but he apparently wants no part of that. I believe a temporary block will serve to stop his incorrect behavior and force him to learn the ropes. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked for 31 hours. I was tempted to indef this time, and I definitely will if the behavior resumes. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It resumed. See User:Nyn T ( Rapper ). I've blocked both accounts indefinitely now. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It has been my position for some time that an account in the name of a brand-name, such as a performer's stage name, is a species of advertisement for the "personal brand" they are attempting to build. Every such account I've ever seen has been used to publicize their career, either on the userpage or by creating a promotional "article" or both. I routinely block such accounts as spamusernames, and leave the usual message urging them to open new accounts without the spammy name, and to respect our rules on COI, promotion and autobiography. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

being pestered by admitted sock of banned user:whereismylunch

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

---

The user in the title is blocked for being a sock of an account the name of which is so offensive I won't quote it, but user talk:whereismylunch. Now user:Successor account to whereismylunch is pestering me on my talk page diff. I don't want to have anything to do with this, will someone please take action? Thanks, and Merry Christmas. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm not a sockpuppet of the account mentioned on my previous userpage. That was an honest mistake on the part of the administrator. I was just asking why he hatted my question on the reference desk. If he could just discuss it with me, that would be great.Successor account to whereismylunch (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Now, if he doesn't want to discuss it, that's fine. Also,what i meant is that my previous account, whereismylunch, is not a sockpuppet account.Successor account to whereismylunch (talk) 03:02, 25 December 2014 (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.

Priscilla Chan Zuckerberg

Can an administrator please look at the histories of Priscilla Chan Zuckerberg, Dr. Priscilla Chan, and Priscilla Chan (Zuckerberg) and figure out the page histories. I think there has been some cut-and-paste moves that will require an administrator to merge histories and/or rename. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that everything should be fixed now. With the exception of the fact that the article almost certainly does not meet our notability criteria and it seems a tad sexist to use someone's husband's last name as their disambiguator when they have not themselves chosen to adopt it. NW (Talk) 18:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. It seems like that page was created only to represent her as Mark Zuckerberg's wife. In my opinion that article is totally redundant.--Chamith (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems that she is not yet personally notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, but my personal opinion is that she may well be soon, as a philanthropist perhaps, and it is plausible that people will increasingly search for information about her, given her family's massive wealth and influence. She is a talented, appealing young woman with the resources to make a difference. The skills of an administrator talented with disambiguation, merging several deleted articles, and evaluating emerging celebrity notability would be very useful here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

India Against Corruption (Assam) image

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.

---

Hello Network Admins

Please immediately remove FAKE Image of Shri Arvind Kejriwal. This FAKE image is upload by BJP person to grossly desparage Shri Arbind who will be next CM of Delhi State. India Against Corruption ie. LIBEL, DEFAMATION, INVASION of the PRIVACY of Arvind ji AAP Dec 2014 (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

From an account that has just been created and this is its sole edit??!!?? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Shri Ashish ji (Media incharge) the Aam Aadmi Party is funnily block few hour now when he complian about Arvindji foto on India Against Corruption page, so my new account is open by myself. I am of AAP - Delhi State PAC. AAP Dec 2014 (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know it again, Arvind ji is very much fully in Delhi between 3 and 7 July 2011. for Ganga action program at Gandhi Foundation. So foto is FAKE one.

From here you see Arvindji is in Delhi till 7 July 2011 and no where near the Assaam. https://gharbachao.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/resolutions-and-future-programmes-as-adopted-on-july-3-4-wardha-maharashtra/ AAP Dec 2014 (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Just another IAC sock, as with the one that was blocked by a checkuser earlier today. See WP:LTA/IAC. Block and ignore. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This is Aam Admi Party for Shri Arvind Kejriwal but foto is no doubt on IAC page. you see http://osdir.com/ml/health-discussion-help/2011-07/msg01325.html Arvind ji is in Delhi not in Assaam AAP Dec 2014 (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Gollymemolly (talk · contribs) was the account that was checkuser blocked earlier today and you claim to be representing them, which would be at least a case of WP:MEAT and role-accounting. This is exactly what the India Against Corruption farm has been doing for two years or so, complete with nutty charges of falsified documents etc. I note that the person who challenged on the image uploader's talk page at Commons was also blocked as an IAC sock. Give up. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Account now blocked. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2014 (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.

86.2.216.5

This individual has accused me of copyright violations, but after I have asked him where. He has simply ignored my questions. [161] He basically called me a liar [162] and has had a very rude tone with me in general. [163]

Ater I repeatedly asked him where my alleged copyvio's were he stated my userspace. [164]. I am sure that he knows that userspace isn't for copyright as he has fixed references on my userspace. He puts forth the claim that I am upset that articles I wrote had delete votes. [165] I have authored over 40 articles, and if someone votes to delete it, I don't take it to heart. What I find bothersome as per WP:HOUND is that this user has been going through wikipedia, editing a good number of articles that I am at, my userspace articles, and AFD's. [166] .

This is not his first issue of disruptive editing. [167] and warning to those who report him. [168] I asked that he stop following me on pages, insulting me, and editing my userpages. [169] CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I just looked through those links, what exactly is the behavior in question? It simply appears to be someone taking a contrary point of view and expressing concerns. If I am missing something please point it out. Chillum 07:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I am being falsely accused of copyviolations, called me a liar, etc. Also about 50% of his edits this month have been on articles I created or participated in or on my userfied articles. 30% of his edits from mid october are on my userspace, articles I created or userspace. I am not sure who (s)he is, but his recent behavior has caused me to become annoyed as per wiki hound. I ask that you have him stay away from me. I am only trying to create good articles. His name calling and otherwise rude behavior isn't helping my desire at doing this. CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "userspace isn't for copyright"? (A copyright violation is a copyright violation, wherever it is). Squinge (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Squinge, I have not copied any text from any website. I summarize information and place a reference on my userspace. CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I responded to your question re the copyvio and posted the relevant link at least twice. Two of the pertinent parts: "I linked the relevant details re the copyright issue when stated above, WP:CWW contributions to wikipedia are subject to a license which requires attribution, copying and pasting a whole article loses that attribution so is in breach of the license. " and "You cut and paste the whole article, the original article in your userspace has more editors than just you. Those users as per the link given licensed the text requiring attribution, that's where the problem arises.". If you followed the link WP:CWW it's about copying within wikipedia, cutting and pasting an article around wikipedia loses attribution. That is the case here (and another you recently have done into user space). That's a copyright issue. It's not the biggest issue in the world and in this case would be easy to fix, but it's an issue.

As for the rest of your claims I'd like you to back them up, I have presented a situation with the evidence, you are inferring from that various things and then attributing those things you've inferred to me. As for hounding you, that's laughable. I've engaged with you on two discussions both in the last few days, other than those (and this now) there is no turning up everywhere and making your life difficult. I noticed one article on DRV a while back and put some effort into fixing the citation into proper citation templates, something which was highlighted by others in the DRV and something others have spoken to you about. You know I did that because I half suspected if you stripped away the junk there might be an article there. If helping out constitutes hounding then I am at a loss.

In this overall case I have pointed out and instance where you have ignored the consensus in a DRV and gone ahead and recreated the article, I've fixed citations on a user space draft or two, I've fixed citations on a mainspace page and tagged it for questionable notability. Rather than accept that the recreation wasn't too wise and appreciate the effort spent tidying the articles you'd rather attempt to ban me from pointing out any future problems like the first one. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

One more thing with regards the mudslinging suggesting I've been warned before please see this. My user talk page was tagged with a warning by an obvious vandal since I'd tagged one of his hoax articles for deletion. Another user obviously not familar with user page policy decide I wasn't permitted to remove such warnings from own talk page. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I ask that you stay off of articles that I am editing in my userspace. The point of me using it is to create an article and move it to userspace. I neither invited you nor did I want your edits. You have followed me onto many articles for I am not sure what reason. you openly mocked me and have put me down on even this AN/I . How are over 50% of your edits this month on articles I have either created or interact on? You have been following me on articles since the middle of October. I created this article Latoya Hanson and you edit on it within two days? That is WP:HOUND . I am not sure who you are or what you want with me. If I have interacted with you on a username or an article before, please tell me so that I won't edit on that article. I am unsure why you are following me around. CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#User_pages the edits are valid edits fixing the citation style. I have not followed you onto many articles, I have edited that one in your userspace having seen it at DRV to fix citations, more recently I fixed a duplicate citation in another article you listed on DRV (I hang around DRV generally) and finally I fixed some citations on Latoya Hanson which I saw when reviewing your edits. That is 3 articles where I have fixed citation style, not many articles. I am not hounding you (You should read WP:HOUND "...and joining discussions on multiple pages..." as noted above I've engaged in two related discussions with your over the last few days and that's it, hardly following you around), as previously stated I could easily have gone to the AFDs which are running at the moment and just blindly voted delete if I wanted to annoy you. Your sole annoyance seems to come from the fact that I was willing to point out that you had recreated an article in direct contravention of the DRV consensus. If it helps I will voluntarily agree not to bother trying to fix the articles in your userspace. I will not be restricted from fixing issues on articles on mainspace regardless of who wrote the or commenting at DRV/AfD. If you want to avoid scrutiny I suggest you start reading and understanding the policies before acting, perhaps a mentor? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You can vote as you please. That isn't what bothered me. Following me around making inflammatory comments toward me is annoying. You stating that I am disingenuous and knowingly violating wiki policy is bothering me. I have not done this.

There are hundreds if not thousands of articles that you can go on. A large percentage of your edits are on my articles since October 14!

1. Latoya Hanson
2. User:CrazyAces489/Ron Duncan
3. User:CrazyAces489/Jorge Gracie
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiyoshi Shiina (2nd nomination)
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Duncan (martial arts) (2nd nomination) ‎

"Wikihounding WP:HOUND 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." I am telling you now that I am annoyed with you following me around. Please stop! Please!CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I highlighted the significant part for you and I'll do it again. joining discussions, which I haven't done, but you seem to think "you can vote as you please" is fine. You have this policy 100% the wrong way around. Of those you list one is a discussion I joined in (and one doesn't make following around), and one is a discussion where I made a minor tweak to not include fair use images outside article space where our WP:NFCC requires them to be. These are both in the last few days. Again your complaint of this on going hounding is nonsense. I've been fixing citations that is not some dark way to irritate people, it's a way of improving the encyclopedia. I've been doing this without any other interaction with your for a while, since the DRV where one editor pointed out " Needs work on the format of the references.", and another "the references are very poorly formatted.", I'll contrast that with your response to the DRV where people bemoaned the poor formatting, using unreliable sources etc. Your response - ignore the formatting and just pile in a load more trivial and/or unreliable references. I'm really wondering if there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue here. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment since we are here having this discussion and I don't want to now go to one of the AFDs and comment, can someone independent take a look at this and this which appear to be notes to two editors who previously opined keep and seems to be a WP:CANVAS problem. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the two of you only seem to be talking to each other you can do this on one of your talk pages. If you wish a response from an administrator then just wait for one. Chillum 23:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I will wait for an admin. I simply ask that he stops following me around. CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Since no other admin has commented I will give my opinion. I think that CrazyAces has taken offense at what is legitimate criticism. I think that Mr. 86.2.216.5 may be in the right but despite that should be the bigger person and avoid CA as much as is reasonable to do. If neither of you object I would like to close this discussion. If not then I will take that to be an indication that administrative action is desired. Chillum 10:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly I object to CrazyAces489 characterization of following him around, let alone on many pages. He managed to come up with 5 pages we had in common, two of which were drafts listed at DRV which I frequent and have done so for a long time, if he wants to avoid DRV then that's fine, but I'm certainly not going to feel bound to ignore stuff listed there due to the authorship, nor making tweaks to obvious minor problems with the articles like citation style. The other two are not articles, but deletion discussions related to the DRV, so same there. I'll also note his main gripe of me editing his userspace is somewhat peculiar, since as I noted I've been gradually chipping away at the cites for two months without a word or problem. It's only now that I point something out he's all in a flap about it, I'll contrast that to other similar things from DRV like Honour (film) which in part is back in main space due to the effort I put in, the original author of that is flapping around shouting the odds. That all said, as I said many paragraphs ago and this could easily have stopped then, but has just continued to be poked at "If it helps I will voluntarily agree not to bother trying to fix the articles in your userspace." And with that it's Christmas and I'll be away for a few days, so have fun --86.2.216.5 (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

His "help" has come with relatively rude comments to me on "AFD's." I am again asking an admin to speak to him about these comments to me. I wold prefer he NOT follow me around Wikipedia. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

At this point it is not likely this is going to get an admin response. I see nothing wrong with the IPs actions, CA needs to take criticism better. This IP has been working in the AfD areas for several weeks now and if you edit there you are likely to see this IP. Since no admin actionable behavior is happening here I suggest you two work it out of your talk pages, learn to work together or just ignore each other. Chillum 16:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest account repeatedly inserting promotional material

Note: I am not involved in this dispute, but have observed it in passing.

A new editor has recently appeared CarlThompson (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) whose sole editing contribution is to repeatedly add material promoting his company's product at PCSO-524.

[170] Original insertion.

[171] Removed as advertising.

[172] Restored by CarlThompson. Note the edit summary clearly betrays the conflict of interest as he admits that the 'facts' are approved by his company's scientific panel.

[173] Removed again as 'snake oil ad'.

[174] CarlThompson asks on remover's talk page why he keeps removing his promotional material.

[175] CarlThompson is directed to the Wikipedia policy on Conflict of interest.

[176] CarlThompson ignores the policy and restores the promotional material.

[177] CarlThompson is directed once again to the policy on Conflict of interest, this time on his own talk page.

[178] CarlThompson once again restores the material ignoring Conflict of interest policy.

[179] A new editor removes the material though does not specify why in the edit summary.

[180] Restored by CarlThompson again.

[181] Removed by a third contributor as promotional.

[182] This third editor leaves yet another note on CarlThompson's talk page.

This account is very clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but exists solely to add promotional material for his company's product in contravention of Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy (single purpose account). It is also clear that if he works for the company who makes the product and the material being added is 'approved' by that company than he is most likely being paid to add the disputed material. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I note that the account has not been active since I (the "third editor" mentioned above) reverted him and left a detailed warning on his talk page. I suggest waiting to see how CarlThompson responds before taking administrative action. He has a choice to comply with my suggestions (to use talk pages, stop edit warring, and publicly disclose his COI), or not. No action is required if he makes the right choices. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not make my intentions clear (probably due to Christmas guests turning up). I was not expecting any sanctions against this account. What I was going to suggest was an appropriately worded authoritative warning on this account's talk page from an administrator which would underline the policy on the point. This is because this user has ignored two warnings on the conflict of interest, and one warning on paid editing. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

For information only: A further warning has been left at yet another discussion started by CarlThompson here. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Was my request closed by an admin or deleted by an editor?

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

---

I am not sure exactly what happened to the request I posted a few days ago. This diff shows it was removed, but it is not clear to me who deleted it. Did an admin close it? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It was actually removed with this diff, when a bot automatically archived it to here. Hopefully someone else can explain the bot's archiving rules because I'm not totally sure how it decides what to archive, but it seems to be some period of inactivity. Sam Walton (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the thread was archived because editors/admins didn't see much of value in the report. I agree, for this case. Now, the user has been blocked for edit warring before but that was a while ago. In this case a report at WP:ANEW would have been the better place, though a patrolling admin there might have noted that you reverted their initial edit twice, and that you might be the edit warrior there. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies, that could be. Please advise if I didn't handle it correctly so I don't repeat in the future. The user had deleted a quote had had been part of the article for a long time—since at least May (I didn't look further back). I reverted the deletion, pointing to WP:BRD and inviting discussion on the talk page. The user instead deleted again, insisting the quote did not have consensus. I reverted, stated that he/she was edit warring, and asked them to take it to the talk page to build a consensus for change. Was the second revert on my part not appropriate? To be sure, if the user re-deleted the material again, I would not have reverted again; I would have then taken it to an admin. However, if a second revert to a version of an article that has had consensus for quite some time is not generally acceptable, please let me know. Perhaps taking it to an admin immediately after someone violates WP:BRD is more appropriate? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Airborne84, there's nothing simple about this, and the whole thing can be very frustrating. First of all, though, BRD isn't a policy so you can't really hang a case on it. Personally, I think BRD all too often gives the upper hand to the status quo editor; I think it is well-intended but also off-putting, and at any rate not adhering to it is not really disruption. Second, "taking it to an admin"--well, in this case an admin can't do much since no policies have been broken (yet--at least not 3R, for instance). Third your second revert isn't "wrong", necessarily (or against policy, or blockable, etc.), but if you're going to report someone for edit warring such a revert looks really bad.

  In a perfect world, after their reinstatement of their own edit you call up the troops on the talk page, find consensus, etc.--but that's not always easy. However, that is the best way to go about it, even if it doesn't always work, and even if it will go a lot slower than you think. Consensus on the talk page is typically iron-clad and the moment you have it, your opponent can be charged with disruptive editing ("editing against clear consensus") if they persist, and that's blockable.

  BTW, I looked at some of the discussion about that quote, and I'm not quite following. Someone said "FRINGE"--well, you're talking about Russell, so "idiosyncrasy" is appropriate, "fringe" is not. Personally I think the entire section needs to be looked at again since his view is very interesting, but the section needs to be trimmed, it needs to be much more a summary of the main article, and I don't know that editors in that discussion treated it as such. But that's by the by. Good luck, merry Christmas, and stay airborne, Drmies (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

At the very, very top of this page --in the edit buffer, not what you see rendered -- it says:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 700K
|counter = 866
|algo = old(36h)
|key = 95f2c40e2e81e8b5dbf1fc65d4152915
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
}} 

which would make one think something called "MiszaBot" archives the page. No, this is Wikipedia, User:lowercase sigmabot III archives the page -- it replaced MiszaBot when it died, and no one wanted to go update all the configurations. So, nominally any thread that over 36 hours old will get archived the next time the bot runs, but sometimes certain constructs in a post might hold it up. When that happens, eventually some one gets tired of the old thread hanging forever and either archives it totally manually, or using a utility like User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver. NE Ent 20:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies and @Equazcion, many thanks for your advice and input. I appreciate it!

I have no objection to this being closed now. Or for a bot to autoarchive it.... Airborne84 (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2014 (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.

"HowNutsAreTheDutch". Confirmed socks.

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

---

See blokmessage on nl.wp for details. It seems the puppeteer (singular) is active here resulting in Hans Ormel and HowNutsAreTheDutch (see comments on tp). The account also adds references to the work of Ormel and his coworkers crosswiki.^{[183], [184], [185], [186](coauthor),[187], [188]} This seems to be a clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE to me. Can someone take appropriate action?

• 384400km (talk · contribs)
• JadeAnise (talk · contribs)
• Eudaimonic2100 (talk · contribs)
• Psychopomp2000 (talk · contribs)
• LotjeCat (talk · contribs)

Kleuske (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC) P.S. These may not be the only socks active. Kleuske (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kleuske: If you open a case at WP:SPI, a checkuser can confirm if these are socks, and can also find other related accounts if these are related. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Kleuske (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2014 (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.

Missouri footnote on Template:Samesex marriage in USA map

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.

---

"Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis, Missouri" has been the wording for the Missouri footnote for almost a month now. That wording was changed and then I reverted that bold edit noting "We don't need to include rogue counties! Unlike Kansas, Missourian counties aren't 'within their right' to issue." Dralwik reverted me and said "I like this vaguer wording more." Since there was no consensus for the "vaguer" wording, I reverted the footnote back to its original wording per WP:STATUSQUO. Dralwik reverted the statusquo and said "Let's see if you violate 3RR". I definitely don't want to violate the 3RR rule, but I feel like per WP:STATUSQUO the original wording should be re-added until there is consensus for the other wording. WP:STATUSQUO says "If there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus, not to have one's own way" and I feel like they went against this by reverting me because they "like" the other wording. They claim that there is consensus for the footnote due to the Color change proposal for Missouri. However, please note that their rough draft proposal for the wording was "Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis, Missouri" which is what the footnote has said for almost a month; but then they reverted against that wording twice! I'd like to see the template go back to the statusquo until there is a consensus for the other wording. Prcc27 (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Just discuss it at the talk page. Why should the statusquo overrule the consensus forming at the talk page? And besides you also reverted User:Shereth's version so again, go to the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Ricky81682: That's the point, there is no consensus for changing the wording so the template should reflect the statusquo. WP:STATUSQUO says "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." Consensus may be "forming" but it isn't established. While the edit is being disputed the map should go back to the status quo. Once again, their rough draft proposal for the footnote had the status quo wording "Same-sex marriage legal in St. Louis, Missouri" but it wasn't until after everyone indicated they supported the coloring proposal for Missouri that Dralwik expressed they supported Shereth's wording and reverted me when I reverted the bold edit and then again when I reverted back to the status quo. Prcc27 (talk) 06:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Shereth's edit was a bold edit since the status quo version was up there for about a month and they changed it. So per WP:BRD the reverted bold edit should have stayed reverted while we're discussing and while we're working on consensus! Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Question: is this in the right noticeboard or does it belong in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

DRN is probably more appropriate. Remember that BRD and STATUSQUO are essays not policies. They have never been elevated as such and so that's why there isn't likely to be much of an concern about what the current version should be. At this stage, move towards finding a consensus which hopefully is a middle ground that all parties can agree upon. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oh okay thanks, I will probably take my concerns to the DRN and I will keep working towards a consensus on the footnote wording. Prcc27 (talk) 11:07, 25 December 2014 (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.

I'm being harassed cross-wiki

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'm not sure the appropriate place to go, but I'm being harassed by an IP cross-wiki. 14.136.219.161 seems to be stalking me on every site they can find, and it's starting to get quite annoying. They've hit here a couple of times, but I'm counting ten different messages alluding to "Get the fuck out of here" and even "I'm going to kill you". Any thoughts? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You could write to emergency(at)wikimedia.org if you feel this is a serious issue and one could ban the IP across our project. The IP has been blocked here. If you perceive the threat as just a random statement from a vandal IP, it would be better to ignore it. Wifione ^Message 17:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering it's been ongoing for several days, I think it's past the random act of vandalism. I'll email them. Thanks @Wifione: - Merry Christmas! Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:34, 25 December 2014 (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.

Gowtham avg

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.

---

Could someone block the IPs listed at Chutti TV (SPI's here) as well as protect the article, (I know this doesn't belong here but since it's Xmas & half the place's deserted action will hopefully happen alot quicker here), Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 14:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• I semi-protected; there's little point in blocking IPs now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2014 (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.

Off site recruitment by temporarily blocked tendentious editor

DonaldKronos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Donald Kronos's Google plus page

DonaldKronos was blocked for edit warring at Evolution (report here), and has begun recruiting on his Google plus page. Kronos initially responded to reversion by calling it vandalism (continuing even after being asked to stop), and has since gone on accuse others of "CENSORSHIP", "HIDING THE TRUTH" (with a rant about religion that probably goes against AGF), and "HIDING WHAT EVOLUTION IS" (even though his edit made things less focused). He thinks that undoing his work is "an attack against humanity". With posts like this, it's clear that he has little-to-no capacity to assume good faith.

He claims he was blocked "FOR TRYING TO WORK WITH PEOPLE" and that he was never given the chance to explain his edits, which is a patent lie. He was told repeatedly to use the talk page, and warned about edit warring. He has regularly asked for explanations that have been repeatedly explained at both Talk:Evolution and on his talk page.

I think we're looking at a case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW. He clearly sees Wikipedia as a platform for his writing, not for collaboration. He believes that he's "trying to defend humanity" (source) with his tantrums.

And if anyone wants to try to make this a content dispute, his edits were reverted by multiple editors for being off-topic and not being a summary of the rest of the article. Heck, even his own fans are arguing against his edits.

I welcome the possibility of improvement from any inexperienced editor, but it's not our hopes that determine whether that happens. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment User:98.247.126.245 here in good faith wants to refer to Talk:Evolution#Inappropriate_discussion as well. I don't think the discussion needs to be copied. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned about WP:OUTING but what is required right now? We can't stop him from his off-wiki conduct. He's current blocked here. If you believe User:TheProfessor is a WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT puppet, report it at WP:SPI if you'd like but that editor has been here since 2011 so otherwise you need to assume good faith . I'll review his user talk page and see if removing talk page access is required. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe TheProfessor is a sock or meatpuppet (which is why I never mentioned him), but DonaldKronos's Google plus post does call for help on Wikipedia, his block is only going to last about another day and a half, and the off-site recruiting is part of a larger problem with DonaldKronos. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the other editor did at the talk page so I wanted to clarify that. It wasn't directed at you, my apologies for any confusion. I asked User:EdJohnston to review it rather than me just increase it at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ricky81682 and Ian.thomson, I'd like to address this. Where would be appropriate? TheProfessor (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether he gets it or not, at the very least, I think the discussion on his talk page has calmed down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Having read most of what DonaldKronos has written on his talk page, this is a clear case of WP:CIR. Any expectation the behavior will change and he'll become a useful contributor is just wishful thinking. My view is cut him loose and who cares what he writes on his Google+ page. Next. – JBarta (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean block him completely now? His block is only for three days. I'm pretty certain a WP:NOTHERE block will follow instantly after that if his behavior hasn't changed by then but I'm still in line with waiting it out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I mean just indefinitely block him now. – JBarta (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. I think we should at least give him a second chance. Also, a mentor would probably help a great deal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree to give a second chance. And block him instantly if he continues to be tendentious, disruptive, and uncivil. TheProfessor (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

User: Kikichugirl

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.

---

@Kikichugirl:She nominated a number of article created by me to be deleted, without being thoroughly investigating the source I provided and the secondary references.

These articles can be further enhanced in future by additing additional details.

Coffee spoon (unit)

Coffee measure

Wine glassful

Water glassful

Dash (unit)

Breakfast cup

Teacupful

She is discouraging the expansion of Wikipedia Shevonsilva (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• There is an entire section dedicated to you and these articles, above. We're not going to make this about someone who nominated a couple of them for deletion. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Much to my surprise, I was not notified about this ANI report. Shevonsilva, please stop. You are approaching the level of personal attacks against me here. I'm inclined to WP:Assume good faith, but it doesn't seem like you're doing it for me. Your untrue accusations that I did not "thoroughly investigate the source I provided" Is untrue - I actually looked for more sources on these articles before heading to AfD, as you can see in my AfD nom. I understand that you may be upset that your hard work is being deleted, but please know that I am not trying to hurt you, insult you, or attack you - in fact, I am not criticizing you as a person, just these articles that happen to be the ones you created. I hope you can understand this, and resolve this peaceably. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 05:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be saying you're attacking him; he just doesn't understand that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that just because it's valuable information doesn't mean it should be included. Please read those links, Shevonsilva--they're important and stuff. ekips39 05:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Dont worry, the only thing he will accomplish here is to attract more delete votes to the articles.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I've done a little bit of cleanup on a couple of his articles, merging their content (where there was some), and then redirecting. I am certain the editor has good intentions, although, as these edits indicate, there is a WP:CIR issue - more copyediting is required. JoeSperrazza (talk)

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

Legal Threat

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.

---

There's a blatant legal threat at [189] by User:LEGIA2014. Squinge (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2014 (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.

Very obvious legal threat. But is there any merit to the complaint? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the number of reasons given for a complaint is inversely proportional to its validity, even more so when several of them are contradictory. Dating back to November on Commons: "photoshopped forgery" (of the IAC logo worn by several people in the image). Then here two days ago: "This cannot be Arvind *KEJRIWAL*" (in said image). Well, actually it clearly is Arvind Kejriwal, so... "This forged image has been photo-shopped to defame CM candidate Arvind Kejriwal by showing him consorting with Maoist terrorists", and then when all else fails and despite previously claiming twice that it was a photoshopped forgery "this image is copied from a photo set published in India by IAC on 28 May 2012 and its copyright vests in IAC". Online evidence suggests even this latter claim is dubious in several respects. In any case, this is a matter for Commons which hosts the file and its description (and has already blocked multiple IAC socks)—not English Wikipedia. Bugs, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm for background. Voceditenore (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Very good. It's possible they have a valid concern, but if it's about the alleged trademark status of their organization's name, etc., it would seem their quarrel should be addressed in the Indian court system, not in Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Vejvančický refuses to change tack

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 request some assistance again with respect to Vejvančický. On 13th December I had written here requesting suggestions on how to handle user Vejvančický who was repeatedly attacking me and refusing to back off despite my request. Jehochman suggested to Vejvančický to not refer to me again on Wikipedia, except to request arbitration, or to make peace. Vejvančický confirmed on his talk page that he would follow Jehochman's suggestion. Unfortunately, the very next edit that Vejvančický made after that, which was today on the talk page of an article in reply to some IP,[190], Vejvančický again has made a personal attack mentioning my name and various references of mine to again (and again) allege his allusion that the article was created (ostensibly by me) to show the subject in bad light. To the IP, Vejvančický chats up about starting an arbitration request (!!) and that these links alluding to me should be pasted on the talk page of the article for editors not familiar with the situation. I request help for some kind of a closure on this. If Vejvančický wants to file an arbitration request, he's welcome to do that. But he should, in my opinion, at least follow some decorum in the meanwhile. Any guidance to handle this will be welcome... Wifione ^Message 11:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Retire. That would be the honourable thing to do. Your activity was seen for what it was a long time ago. Andreas JN466 18:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend time now reading the very long backstory here. The advice I gave was for that editor to ignore you, or to go provide his claims at Arbitration. If he ignored my advice, my intention was to file arbitration myself to get the issue resolved one way or the other. Since I'm too busy to do that today, I suggest you go file Arbitration and get these issues cleared up once and for all. Jehochman ^Talk 00:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Wifione, your comment above, "Vejvančický confirmed on his talk page that he would follow Jehochman's suggestion" is misleading. Vejvančický actually said, "Hello Jehochman. I'll follow your suggestion ad (1)"

The "(1)" he agreed to was Jehochman's first suggestion: "(1) if you want to file a request for arbitration to desysop or ban him". He agreed to none of Jehochman's other suggestions in that conversation.

You are an obviously biased editor. Your biased editing of articles about that business and its owner and their competitors is sufficient to have you desysopped and banned from Wikipedia.

You appear to be an employee or contractor of the company: you (most likely, given the circumstances and nature of the edit, or someone else) editing from that company's network made a maintenance edit to your user page.[191] But proving a financial connection beyond doubt will be difficult. Fortunately, that won't be necessary. The blatant tendentiousness of your editing alone disqualifies you from participating here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Jayen, Anthony, thanks for commenting. I've read your viewpoints and disagree with your views completely. I do realise the genesis of your opinions lies on another website where you've been judiciously prompted to provide this analysis. Given this connection both of you have outside our project, I don't think any reply of mine might suffice for you, although I would be more than eager to provide them to you in case you might wish. At the same time, I should thank you for taking the time out to comment (honestly, I suspect I would have died in embarrassment if no one from your group had commented). Wifione ^Message 18:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, thanks for your reply. Would take up the matter procedurally from hereon in case Vej continues his personal attacks. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 18:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

(Wifione closed this discussion with the comment, "Closing discussion and following this up procedurally." Well, I've re-opened it procedurally, in order to respond to this shill.)

I don't do anyone's bidding here. You do. For that, you'll be banned. I saw this mentioned on Wikipediocracy and was stunned that you weren't banned the last time this arose. Resign, or drag your client through a humiliating spectacle. I don't care which you choose. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Andrew. It's not about anyone's bidding, but your off-Wiki coordination leading unto these comments and personal attacks from you, Jayen and the others belonging to your group that are quite obvious from your off-Wiki discussions with others. Like I said above, although it might be useless for me to reiterate it given your antecedents, let me again put forward that your attacks and outing attempts are extremely misdirected. Having said that, I'll again close this discussion with the slim hope that you and your off-Wiki group would see some sense in not running down a very ludicrous path. Again, although it might seem out of character, in return to your comments above let me wish you and your off-Wiki group a merry Christmas. It's not meant to prove anything or to slight you all... just plain old wishes the plain old way. Take care and wishes for the season. Wifione ^Message 15:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be becoming if you would addresss the substance of the allegations instead of trying to shift the burden through the fallacious argument of guilt by association. The fact that criticism may come from wikipediocracy does not mean that the critique is not valid. The question is if you are an advocate looking after specific corporate interests. Following the links posted here I have seen quite a bit of evidence that would strongly imply that you are. That is the impression you would want to provide counter arguments to, making ad hominem arguments about the messenger doesnt really help your case.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy is not a club, Wifione. Anyone who wants to critique Wikipedia/Wikimedia may post there, provided they're not terribly boring and stay roughly on-topic. Even you. My only two comments about you there are in this thread yesterday where, rather than conspiring with other pure evil psychos to unfairly undermine the hard work of a neutral volunteer, all I do is express my sincere astonishment at your continued residency here and continued possession of advanced privileges. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I've undone Wifione's second hatting of this section. Per WP:INVOLVED, I really don't think it's a good look for an admin to make repeated attempts to close a discussion about their own behaviour because it isn't going the way they'd like it to. It doesn't matter who started the discussion, an involved editor has no place closing it. When you bring an issue to WP:ANI, the behaviour of all parties will be examined. I'm sure that's written down somewhere, and I'm sure an admin such as Wifi should know that. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 15:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggest topic ban for Wifione from all Chaudhuri related articles, broadly construed. Would solve most of the problems fairly quickly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not enough. We're here to provide free knowledge. He is WP:NOT HERE for that, but to deliberately bias a specific topic in favour of one party, to the extreme detriment of people who buy that party's product. He should simply be permanently banned. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a good idea, and the minimum we should do really, but it doesn't address the amount of sheer deflection this guy has done, whilst an admin, to continue the POV pushing, the disappearance for months while good faith editors waited for a response at his editor review, or the arrogant disregard towards concerns. Hell, even Jimbo said he hoped the guy would just slink off quietly. That didn't happen. We have to deal with it. It should be easy.

This is an editor with admin priveleges giving Wikipedia an enormously bad name, who has tried every trick to avoid accountability.

I voted for the guy at RFA. He fooled me. I'm embarassed now because this is so transparent. Begoon ^talk

Begoon, I noticed that you too have landed here after being prompted by Wikipediocracy colleagues. And you too have unhatted this discussion. I won't rearchive this discussion, for your benefit. But would suggest that it'll be better if there be less personal attacks whilst you wish to discuss any issue that I might have deflected. I have complete regard for any issues this project's community members have, but no regard for Wikipediocracy canvassing and attempts to out me. The editor review you mention was opened up by me, and not by anyone else. I don't think I've left any question of any of this community's members unanswered. If I've treated Wikipediocracy members who commented on my Editor Review with less regard for their queries, that purely is because of the legacy they come with. I do hope you're able to see the issue for what it is. I'll keep a watch on this discussion for any comments that may be required of me from this community's members. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 17:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Drop the WP:BADSITES related bollocks. Everyone who has called for you to go here at ANI is a long-term Wikipedia user in good standing. Hell, Begoon voted for you at your RfA. Newyorkbrad and Worm That Turned are retiring arbitrators who are active on WO - if they came here and banned you, would you whine about them? WO editors are not "sheep", there is no house POV, no one was canvassed. The issue is very straightforward; you're a corrupt shill who is trying to censor all criticism of yourself. If you had one shred of integrity, you'd have quit for good after your editor review. There are no personal attacks here at all, merely statements of fact. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing will happen here as the issue is too complex. Someone needs to start a user subpage for collecting evidence of on-wiki edits that show a problem, and perhaps post here to invite contributions. I have no idea whether there is any basis to all the claims. One reason to be skeptical is that many misguided editors trying to puff up organizations, particularly those in India, and it is quite possible that people who do not like Indian Institute of Planning and Management have posted junk there over the years, junk that Wifione has removed. The WP:LTA/IAC case shows that hysteria does not mean the accused is guilty. Accordingly, some solid work needs to occur to compile evidence. Per WP:POLEMIC, an evidence page would have to be actively worked on with an aim to presenting a case, probably at Arbcom. Many of us would be glad to assist, but those who believe there is a problem need to document what is known beyond vague claims. Johnuniq (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• That already exists - Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione. Also, do you seriously think that Wifione would let such a userpage exist? No, it would be deleted and obfuscated wherever they could do it. Why should we have to document things again, just because some people can't be bothered to look at existing pages like this one? Half the evidence is inaccessible to non-admins anyway, because Wifione has already hidden it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The only reason there could be to believe that Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione doesn't contain all the necessary evidence would be that the reader has been successfully blinded and exhausted by wifione's walls of deflection. Just try reading it without those comments. Nevertheless, if necessary, I'll spend a few minutes a day over a short period distilling it to something less daunting. Can't start that for a few days though, so if someone else gets to it first, excellent. I reiterate, though, that it is all already on that page, and it's a shame if obvious TLDR obfuscation tactics succeed in obscuring that. Begoon ^talk 01:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not complex, Johnuniq. Take a good look at Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione. It is obvious what he's up to - obvious enough to warrant a permanent ban, if we're serious about what we're doing here. To drag this through a further evidence-gathering stage and then to arbcom would, in my opinion, just (1) delay the inevitable and (2) needlessly waste the time and energy of good-faith editors just to extend the semblance of due process to someone who holds us and our shared enterprise in contempt, with no material benefit. (That said, in case it comes down to that, I'll start on an executive summary with diffs in my user space and move it here in a day or so if this isn't resolved by then.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

If anyone wants to examine edits, the following may be useful.

Edits by Wifione (talk · contribs) to four articles, with consecutive edits in a single diff.

• Amity University (92 edits): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
• Arindam Chaudhuri (40 edits): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
• Ashok Chauhan (23 edits): start, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
• Indian Institute of Planning and Management (196 edits): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69

Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Lukeno94, with you as the latest addition sent from the Wikipediocracy thread who has been prompted to come here to post your message, let me re-clarify the issue about your group. The BADSITES issue is about the editors commenting on the two Wikipediocracy threads who've been collaboratively directing personal attacks and attempting to out me, which includes you, Begoon, Vejvančický, Anthonycole and others. Your group members' remarks and presuppositions on those threads and here are plain and simple personal attacks and outing attempts. Claiming that NewYorkBrad or Worm are Wikipediocracy members (and therefore perhaps that gives you the justification required to post such comments) is missing the point completely. NewYorkBrad and Worm (and even other Wikipediocracy members who are primarily Wikipedia members) are not the least like some of your group members whom I've mentioned here. NYB, Worm and some others have the ultimate trust of the community, (including mine) unlike your group, which may not measure up on that factor easily. Your statement that I've tried to censor all criticism, is unfounded and lacks any basis. With respect to your other statements (corrupt shill, lacks integrity), these are again just direct personal attacks. And your statement, that there are no personal attacks here, is paradoxical. Wifione ^Message 04:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• Begoon Luke, your statement "Half the evidence is inaccessible to non-admins anyway, because Wifione has already hidden it" is again completely unfounded, and I suspect, an off the hat comment taken from your Wikipediocracy thread. With respect to my Editor Review, thanks for pointing out that I've not yet deleted it. Given Vejvančický's attacks and outing attempts on my Editor Review, you are right, it's a wonder I've kept the page so long. Although I may have deleted the review whenever I wanted, I had kept it this long simply for ensuring trusted community members have access to the same. Perhaps that didn't quite work with you. Why don't you or Andrew Anthony make a copy before I delete it? For your benefit, I'll keep it as-is for a couple of days more. As mentioned, I'm watching this page for any clarifications trusted community members might require of me. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 04:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Er, I didn't post any of the remarks you attribute to me there, although I must say I do largely agree with them. Do not imply again that I am not a "trusted community member" because I hold an opinion which I have also discussed elsewhere, or that my position is anything but my own. Also be very careful who you attribute remarks to. Who is Andrew? Begoon ^talk 05:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Wifione, if you're going to try and slander people... at least bother to make sure you're attacking the right person, will you? I said "Half the evidence is inaccessible to non-admins anyway, because Wifione has already hidden it", not Begoon. I do hope other people are noting the veiled threats of obfuscating the editor review here. Also, I'd like to see how I'm not a "trusted community member" - I've been here for nearly four years, have around 19k edits, and have never once been blocked (and the only sanction I've ever had was an IBAN with someone who turned out to be a sock anyway). I would indeed lodge the statement that we probably have about ten times more trust than you do. I think it's fairly obvious that I'm not a sheep, and very few people on WO are. There IS no attempted outing, because very few of us give a flying fuck about who you are - all we care about is that you are dragging Wikipedia down with your corrupt shilling. Oh, and thanks Jehochman for doing the decent thing and filing a request for arbitration. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Following my own suggestions, I have filed a request for arbitration. I think this thread can be closed, and further discussion can proceed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Wifione and, if a case is accepted, the evidence and workshop pages. Jehochman ^Talk 04:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• Begoon, mistakenly wrote your name instead of Luke's. Have corrected that and the other name (Andrew > Anthony). Other than that, I'll continue the issue at Arbcom. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 14:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• Wifione, I was just reading through the above and noticed you mentioned deleting Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione in the future. There is no valid reason to delete that page and you shouldn't be the one to push the button if there is a reason. If you think it should be deleted you should nominate it for deletion at WP:MFD and let the community decide if it should be deleted. -- GB fan 14:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, you are right. My statement was just a push off to Begoon and Luke, nothing more. I had created the Review for specific reasons, and that is to ensure that the editors out here do get a complete synopsis of my review. I intend maintaining that. Wifione ^Message 15:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't understand that. Just to be sure it's really clear: You don't have the right to, at your whim, delete pages to which others have contributed, as you did here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, now that really isn't a good look is it? A "push off" you say, Wifione? Could be one of the most prophetic phrases you've used here... Begoon ^talk 17:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• So, in other words, it was meaningless bluster intended as a distraction Wifione? Gotcha. You're going to have to try harder than that to save your skin. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:51, 26 December 2014 (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.

AdamDeanHall

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.

---

He gave a personal Personal attack on IP's talk page ([192]). 85.218.158.85 (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope. "Don't EVER talk to me like that again! EVER!!" Is an instruction, not a personal attack. And given the fact that it was a response to an IP who referred to his edit as "crap" and "retarded", [193] quite possibly justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2014 (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.

Topic ban for Cwobeel for BLP violations

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.

---

Cwobeel is an editor with a self-recognized bias who has been aggressively pushing for the insertion of accusations, insults and spinning very negative information to attack a living person, Robert P. McCulloch on his biography and Shooting of Michael Brown. The most recent and unsourced editorializing of this editor resulted in the addition of this to the lead of the article in this edit.

He is of racist persuation and wanted to have the police officer not prosecuted at all, so he deliberately presented a false witness to the Grand Jury (witness #40) whom he knew in advance was not there and was lying. This carries a mandatory disbarment as per the Missouri bar. McCullough is proud of his lies and openly incriminated himself by admitting this.

The user has repeatedly inserted walls of negative material and reinserted blatantly false criminal accusations about a living person on their biography, twice. He also has no objections to re-inserting false material because it is "sourced". Some issues range from inserting Tabloid-style BLP violations to sensationalist and false (in this case contradictory) claims. There are dozens of bad insertions to go through, some which take significant explaining. [194][195][196][197][198][199][200][201][202]

Another serious example is the reinsertion of criminal allegations removed under BLP concerns - specifically the "Kinkogate" reinsertion (first part of the diff linked) and a second reinsertion are indicative of the problem. The "Kinkogate" issue is blatantly false because "grand jury had no role in any investigation" making it impossible for McCulloch to have abused the grand jury and commit the alleged crime.

I ask that this editor be topic banned from articles related to the Shooting of Michael Brown because this user argues to defend the inclusion of such unsupported and heinous accusations. Clearly, explaining this does not work and RFCs over basic issues is a waste of time. At this point, the disruption and BLP violations are numerous and unceasing with the user actively engaged in getting as much negativity as possible into the article. Even the user's inserted sources show and emphasize this highly partisan and defamatory angle. After weeks of explanation I decided to come to ANI given the serious nature of the edits. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The edit highlighted above was a mistake. It was not my edit, but was re-added on a revert and later deleted. As for the other allegations, ChrisGualtieri has received considerable feedback about his attempts to remove material that is sourced to legal analysts in reliable sources, from me and from others as it was the case here [203]] and more recently here: [204]. The material that this editor is pushing for removal asserting that they are BLP violations, include [205]:

• The legal analysts of CNN and The New Yorker
• the director of Harvard Law School's Criminal Justice Institute
• a law professor at Fordham University
• the president-elect of the National District Attorneys Association
• a University of Missouri law professor
• the chief legal affairs anchor for ABC News
• the director of graduate programs in criminology at Merrimack College and a 27-year veteran and former lieutenant of the Boston Police Department
• a former policeman and lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice
• an experienced defense attorney
• a professor at the St. Thomas University School of Law in Miami

Sources include The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, SCOTUSblog, The New York Times, USA Today. The New Yorker and others.

The Kinkogate issue is sourced to the St. Louis Post Dispatch and The New York Times, but ChrisGualtieri thinks they got it wrong, so he believes that his opinion is enough for suppressing that source on the basis of a BLP violation. I am very active as a BLP/N patroller and very aware of our content policies in BLP.

ChrisGualtieri has accused me of defamation and BLP violations, when all I have done is to provide commentary from legal experts that have been published in reliable sources.

There are two RFCs now ongoing at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown on these very issues that have yet to be closed, but ChrisGualtieri is ignoring WP:DR and choosing to act unilateral and without waiting to for the DR process to unfold.

I have been a very active editor in this article, and received accolades from other editors from my work there, and I am very proud of my work on the article. Despite very long discussions with this editor, he has taken the position that legal analysts "got it wrong" and that he can make that determination on his own, and that attempts to report their significant viewpoints are BLP violations and defamation. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Maybe I'm wrong, but don't the following diffs indicate active canvassing by Cwobeel? [206], [207], [208]. From viewing past and current talk page interactions between Cwobeel and ChrisGualtieri at the articles the latter mentions above, the three editors Cwobeel contacted about this AN/I report have been consistently in agreement with Cwobeel and consistently in disagreement with ChrisGualtieri. Just saying. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Not canvassing, just informing other active editors in the article that have been involved in the discussions with ChrisGualtieri and myself as well as in the RFCs on this subject, including Mandruss, Gaijin42, RAN1, Jbarta ‎, Dyrnych, and Titanium Dragon - Cwobeel (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• More diffs to possible canvassing activity: Three more editors to add to what seems to be canvassing on the part of Cwobeel: [209], [210], [211]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have already ping them here, as they are all involved in this dispute. That is no canvassing, but good manners. - Cwobeel (talk)

Actually this is undeniably canvassing, the question is whether it's appropriate or not. For reference, Bob K31416, Joseph A. Spadaro, Isaidnoway and Darouet should have been notified as well since they've been involved the past 3 days. --RAN1 (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and seems to be backed up with sources--High quality ones as well. It's not a BLP violation to assert stuff according to reliable sources. What I see here however is the possibility of a boomerang for attempting to witchhunt a user for diffs taken out of context, and asserting BLP violations where there are not. OP, I would opt for a close before other people decide this as well. Tutelary (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary these sources are not reliable for the statements they make and many have consensus to not be used in the fashion that Cwobeel inserted them for. The RFC on Tom Nolan showed that the attack piece was unacceptable and represented a BLP issue. It is not okay to slap quotes on an attack piece and include it "because it is sourced". Cwobeel is now claiming he did not make that edit. Editors are responsible for their edits and the reinsertion of proven false information, defamatory statements and such that were removed per WP:BLP is the issue. Editors are to judge sources and determine if they are reliable and appropriate, but allegations of racism, and criminal acts are not to be taken and pushed into a biography in such a fashion. There is absolutely no reason for a wall of quotes to surpass all the entire article's length and be entirely negative. It creates an attack page that no less than 6 different editors have made comments on in regards to it being a BLP and NPOV matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Just negate my statement. I can't deal with this stuff. Tutelary (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: You seem to be attributing that RFC to Cwobeel, and are claiming that it was useless. Cwobeel and I argued for Nolan's inclusion, you disagreed. That was followed by a couple of reverts between you and Cwobeel, and I decided to revert Cwobeel and start the RFC, averting an actual edit war. I started the RFC on Tom Nolan because my discussion with you was going nowhere, and we needed to find consensus. You're not providing an accurate picture of what happened, and are using a poorly-retold fringe instance to justify your argument. --RAN1 (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Reinserting material removed by good-faith BLP claims during a discussion prior to the RFC is a novel way to accuse of framing it. As stated before - many of the inclusions required substantial discussion. Was it not me who added and wanted the full version of Toobin's argument? See. Opinions are opinions and should remain unless they advance misstatements of fact as fact, then they should be removed for misstatements of fact. To say that there was a problem with the sources and not their use is nothing more than a red herring. A person well-versed in BLP and NPOV would not have created or reinserted such unbalanced negativity or thrown WP:BALASPS out the window. Now I will defer to the community since I think there is no need for further muddling by myself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Let the RFCs work the way, be patient, and look for ways to compromise with me and others. That is the process we ought to be following, rather than use AN/I for masking a content dispute with spurious accusations of defamation. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrisGaultieri by his own admission in a previous dispute just hours ago: [212] I stand corrected and I apologize for being an ass. This after a long discussion in which he threatened me with You can be indefinitely blocked or topic banned for continuing to insert or defend hoaxes. Do not continue to deliberately mislead readers or editors because this type of material has no place on Wikipedia. ... only to finally accept that he was completely wrong on his assessment of the sources and wrong on his characterization of my contributions. So, here you have it, ChrisGaultieri is exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND including this report. I accepted his apology, and then he files this report following on his previous threat? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

And if you recall the section contained an error in which the source said the Ferguson incident report was released August 21 and source in discussion was saying the Ferguson incident report did not exist. The first source (I used Time) was in error so I was wrong, but the Ferguson report exists, I just screwed up and was an ass because I asserted the wrong damn thing. The problem remains, but I made a fuck-up by pointing to the wrong source and scolding you for it. As mentioned, it is still false and yes that source is still wrong. Here is the Ferguson Police's Incident Report ACLU received it on Thursday August 21, but it was announced August 22. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Someone close this - I retract it. I am being an ass... and overreacted to what Cwobeel inserted as a BLP violation after just warning him repeatedly for it. It was actually a re-insertion and a familiar one, but not originally by Cwobeel. I still do not know why or how that information got back into the article in Cwobeel's edit, but I cannot claim moral high ground when I am being an ass about it. Just like I cannot claim moral high ground when I come all blustery about WP:HOAX and fuck up by linking the wrong source instead of the correct one already in the article. I was right about the material, but wrong in the presentation and attitude. And that does not make me feel good. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2014 (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:Pagesclo

I had the temerity to revert[213] an edit by Pagesclo (talk · contribs) which introduced ungrammatical English into the article on Aztec empire. The user then tracked all my recent contributions reverting them wholesale (including removing several sources requested by another user that I had spent most of the morning tracking down[214]). It doesnt appear that I can talk them to reason. There is a good chance that the user is a simple troll who was luring someone to revert them. Here they are making similarly nonsensical edits at other pages: [215][216] User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Foolish complaints. Pagesclo (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what to call this here. It seems kind of WP:pointy. [217] <Here Pageclo is reverted for "doesnt work in English". [218] <Here Pagesclo reverts Maunus for "doesnt work in English". There are no apparent reason for Pagesclo's Revert. [219] <This diff makes me question their competence in English. I'd like to review to see if there are more issues like this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, that was a straightforward WP:POINT revert. I've had a look through Pagesclo's edits and have had to revert a page move to a name that appears not to exist, and some spelling and grammar. I've dropped a warning onto their talk page. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The words exist; always that this is "something Mexican", putting "maximum extension", that looks ugly. Pagesclo (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• • • • Back trolling the same pages. Clearly WP:NOTHERE.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• I've given them a warning about Schenectady that mentions blocking, and a note about edit warring. I've also come up with different wording at Aztec Empire, both wordings sounded weird. Not sure if that will be the end of it or not; we'll see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Since last updated, User:Pagesclo has gone back and wiped content again[220] and continued the same silly little edit war[221] on the same pages despite warnings. There have been no 3RR violations (at 3 at each of the two articles currently) but I thought this should be mentioned if the discussion is about ongoing disruption.(Non-administrator comment)♪ Tstorm(talk) 05:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Parkwells and User:maunus

User:Parkwells has been adding information without citations to multiple articles along with changing links to disambiguation pages, which if you look at his/her talk page he/she keeps getting warnings from a bot over the multiple disambiguation links he/she (good lord can I just call the user it?) has added to multiple pages over and over and over again. The changes to articles include- information the user believes should be common knowledge (Europeans having huge intermarriage children with Native Americans who went on to run Native communities is a common view it has added to multiple pages), which isn't backed by any sources about the specific communities it is adding this information to claiming it is specific to those communities which I cant find that it is. Other problems is poor wording and grammar, including capitalization of Town in every instance, when we don't generally do so, even in "town of ______", let alone like it is doing where in a sentence of "in 1980 the Town decided to build a park" which IMHO capitalizing town is more than an honest mistake it is unencyclopedic and something not to be encouraged. There are MULTIPLE articles, the one I'm having the most problem cleaning up is Schenectady, New York, where User:Maunus is blocking my ability to remove wholesale the huge one edit Parkwells did, and I would like to go back and put in piecemeal individual good ideas Parkwells has. However Manaus believes he should edit war to keep Parkwells info in and I should cite individually every little thing and take my time disputing on the talk page every problem. If one adds a massive edit of unsourced material, per our policy I don't have to do jack but remove it, I don't have to cite it. I'm frustrated and would ask for admin opinions on the procedure when one sees an editor add the same POV unsourced material to multiple articles and claim it is specific for all the geographic area because it is common knowledge (per their response on their talk page).Camelbinky (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Please show which policy it is that shows that someone challenging material is encouraged to remove it without subsequently engaging in consensus building on the talkpage and minimally explaining the reason they are challenging the material and pointing out which claims they would like to see sources for. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The top of WP:V: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. NE Ent 23:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It says "may", not "must". And the section on "responsibility for providing citations" says "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable" So clearly it is not best practice or even condoned by policy to remove swathes of edits and then refuse to explain what one considers to be problematic about them.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No, "may" means "may" and WP:BURDEN means burden. So it's not "clearly" best practice. If it's unsourced and there's any doubt in an editor's mind, that's all that's required for them to remove it. NE Ent 03:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesnt appear we are in the same conversation here.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

unless I'm missing something, Maunus added sources for the disputed material in the Schenectady, New York article - at which point Camelbinky removed it all again. [222] The claim that this dispute concerns 'unsourced material' thus seems to be on shaky grounds. AS for 'POV', there is nothing on Talk:Schenectady, New York that I can see which amounts to an explanation as to what specific 'POV' is being objected to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

(e-c)Sorry, the POV apparently is a write history in a manner that portrays Native Americans better and Europeans as aggressive takers of the land. While I applaud historians who write TRUTH in history to show the barbarianism of white conquerors this is not a job for Wikipedians who wish the world know that whitey is wrong. I myself don't give a shit about how white people are portrayed, I'm Jewish/Middle Eastern and I know very well the barbarianism of Western Europe to minorities. Wikipedia is about sourced material. Plain and simple this is about several massive edits to multiple articles that created problems others have to clean up (look at the user's talk page the multiple bot notifications of references templates being broken and links becoming disambiguation links). This adds up to simply "unqualified" when it comes to massive edits at once. Simply I'd like a warning for the editor to start doing piece meal edits that can be looked at individually and assessed (and possibly reverted) individually if there is a problem. Look at the person's full talk page please and you might get an inkling of what set me off.Camelbinky (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Your pov is also a Pov. The question is which pov is supported by sources. Nowhere did you state that your objections was to the portrayal of how the colonization was handled by the Dutch. That is a matter of looking at the sources. I looked at the sources yesterday, and found nothing there that contradicted Parkwells edits. Have you looked at the sources? Have you read Burke's Mohawk frontier? Nothing suggests you even know the sources here so what basis you are arguing on is a mystery to me. Could it be that you simply believe that your own POV is supported by the sources without actually having looked at them. That seems to me to be the case.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What POV? I don't give a shit about whitey (including Dutch colonists) are portrayed. I want an editor who adds material, especially in a big single edit to back up THEIR OWN EDIT with sources. Not to leave it to others to put in sources, clean up their changes to perfectly good links that become disambiguations because of that editor's quirks, and their sloppy edits create broken references. Look at the long list of bot notifications on their talk page. This isn't some thing new that the editor just didn't know they were doing. They have a habit of shoot first, some one else will patch up the victim. Yes, I threw out the baby with the bathwater but my intention was to always go back and introduce piecemeal the info that was good without affecting the information already there.Camelbinky (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• User:Camelbinky has a very odd perspective on the issue. Parkwells added information about certain topics related to minority history in two localities in New York, without providing sources, and introduced some orthographic oddities. Calembinky reverted it wholesale, calling it dubious and POV (due to the minority focus probably) and made various borderline personal attacks on Parkwells. I reinstated the edit as I could see no obvious problems with the content, nothing counter factual, no extreme POV statements etc. Camelbinky flew off the handle and continued to be confrontational while simultaneously refusing to specify which of the unsourced statements they were challenging, making it difficult to fix. We editwarred a bit back and forth - admittedly I did this just as he did, he citing his version of BRD (which apparently doesnt include the D) and I arguing that his complaints were unactionable as long as he refused to justify his reversion with anything more than invective and personal attacks. I then spent my morning yesterday finding the sources for Parkwells original content which I introduced, adding citations, copyedits and some minor corrections. Then in the afternoon another used made a POINT reversal of all my edits to the article after I had reverted them on an unrelated article. blackkite reverted back to my sourced version this morning. Which Calebinky then reverted - clearly without having looked at it since they still described it as "Unsourced". All the way Camelbinky has been abrasive and very un-collegial and uncollaborative, and even though I have now clearly told him three times that I have added sources and citations to Parkwells additions they continue to claim that I am defending the inclusion of unsourced material.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Maunus I do apologize for flying off the handle. I also applaud you for finding sources. And I believe it is great for a collegial environment for people to work together... But.. If I hadn't reverted and you stepped in, would you not agree that the additions and "orthographic oddities" you described still be there? Would the articles not be for the worse WITH the additions than they were before the additions? Is an editor who means well but does massive additions that bots have continually been informing the editor about, not deserve to be told- hey, maybe you need to step back and do smaller edits, find sources first, and look at your work and fix your own problems? Why should you have to come forward and protect this user and fix THEIR mistakes? Yes, I should have done some thing different to help the user than be an ass. I apologize to User:Parkwells sincerely. But I hope some one can back me and say "this user needs some help in editing". Meaning well isn't always an excuse.Camelbinky (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I do accept that apology, and offer my own if I have similarly come across as abrasive or uncollegial. And yes, probably the capitalization of Town and broken redirects would still be in the article if you hadnt removed it. But it would have eventually been fixed. And the article would have had additional information that it didnt have before teaching our reader more about the history of Schenectady. The reason we all have to fix the mistakes of others here is first that we are undertaking a collaborative endeavor here and secondly that we all make mistakes that needs to be fixed by others every now and then.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I accept your apology as well. I actually don't think those errors would have been fixed (by someone other than me) any time soon. Coxsackie, New York is one example I randomly pulled up with the same Town capitalization anomaly, and that probably wont get fixed... ever? And that's just a random rural upstate town I picked (first try), I'm sure I could find more. That's one example. The reference and disambiguation link problem is some thing I do believe is serious and some thing that needs to be addressed with this editor however. A bot notifying the editor constantly and yet ignored shows a lack of willingness to work with Wikipedia policy, and may be a symptom of simply wanting to get their POV out there and only wanting to do that. All editors deserve some coaching and help on getting to be better editors, including you and I who have both been here quite a long time and worked together in different discussions and yet still have disagreement (unfortunately and I take responsibility for that). I'd rather see this editor talked to and informed of their responsibility to not create more work for others than to set the example that the editor can continue in this manner and it is ok because some one will defend them and fix their mess for them, they will get the idea that their message of truth is more important to get out than the technical aspects of Wikipedia markup.Camelbinky (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Parkwells is a competent and longstanding editor with considerable expertise in American minority history as I tried to tell you at one point. But they are a content writer, not a stickler for formatting or MOS issues. I am like that myself and I would probably neither have noticed or fixed the capitalization issues (which Parkwells introduced with what is actually a reasonable argument that I just dont think works in practice (namely using the capitalization to point out the difference between the colloquial use of "town" and its use in official classification)). I also make lots of work for wikignomes and bot when I work, fixing bare refs and redirects and typoes en masse. Some editors never add content or sources, only make thousands of edits correcting other editors formatting mistakes. For me this is part of the division of labor here, not something that is grounds for dismissing other editors work. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

[unindent] The question is not "which pov is supported by sources". Our core policy is "Neutral point of view", not "Majority point of view". Camelbinky, you need to provide evidence for your assertions. You've provided only two pages, one of which (Schenectady) doesn't appear to have bits portraying Europeans as aggressive takers of the land, and the other of which (Coxsackie) hasn't been edited by Parkwells, as far as I can see. Please note that WP:WIAPA says that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is considered a form of personal attack. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken Nyttend. There is no such thing as "neutral point of view", there is no "view from nowhere". And that is why we rely on sources to determine what is the closest thing to neutral in a given context. Our NPOV policy describes how to achieve balance of multiple POVs in porder to approach neutrality, not that there is a neutral POV that should be taken to the exclusion of "non-neutral" POVs. Your reading of the policy is simplistic and unpracticable.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Attempts to enforce a specific point of view must not be tolerated. Let me quote from the earliest available version of WP:NPOV. The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points. Present both (or all, if applicable) perspectives; if you write for the majority, you are still producing something that is not neutral. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

If by "enforce" you mean introduce to the exclusion of other pov's then we are in essential agreement, but that would be irrelevant for this case since that is clearly not what the edits in question are doing. What Parks does, and what they do very well, is to include recent historical accounts written by historians that focus on the experiences of minority groups who have traditionally not been part of mainstream US history (prior to the 1990s more or less). That kind of POV history is what mainstream professional historians have done for a couple of decades now - trying to correct for a long tradition of "majority POV" historiography. Parkwells does not advance any fringe views, or rewrite history to give exclusively minoritarian accounts about "evil whitey" as Camelbinky suggested. They merely insert their existence in to historical articles (in this case their edits added the Mohawk, the Dutch and the African-Americans to an article on Schenectady history which did not adequately represent these aspects). And their edits were easily sourced to recent works on the topic. Now your idea that we need to represent "both or all" POVs is a clear misreading of the policy because it fails to take into account the question of Weight. Fringe POVs cannot and should not have equal weight to mainstream viewpoints, and sometimes they should have none at all. But in this case it is irrelevant because the POV inserted by PArkwells was a clear mainstream POV within contemporary historiography, a POV that simply asserts that "minorities existed in the past and they should have a place in history as well".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Isn't the very simple solution here for Camelbinky to tag the edits he finds problematic CN and correct the orthographic errors while letting Maunus provide the citations as Camelbinky has said he is doing? If the tags are not addressed the edits can be removed after a grace period. (Note there seem to be no diffs here, just the bald assertion that Parkwells is incompetent in general, and hence all his edits deserve reverting. That's not fair play at all.) When I read things like "don't give a shit about whitey" I begin to suspect there's something else beside the supposed issue at hand really going on. μηδείς (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes that would have been the simple solution. But even without CN tags I already managed to find sources for the information added by Parkwells, and we Camelbinky and I both apologized and accepted the other's apology, making the entire discussion basically moot at this point.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Answering the question in the original post; no you may not call another editor "it," personally I recommend they NE Ent 23:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Re:"They" - But only outside of articles. Grammarians do not yet recognize the use of "they" for a singular person -- although they will be forced to sooner or later, as the change seems quite inevitable -- so it shouldn't be used as part of the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Not even if you suspect the editor is an AI? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)