Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Disruptive tagging by Redban

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 [1][2][3][4]. 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 [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) 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 [10], your answer was a complete joke, if not offensive trolling [11]. 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."[12] Categories like "Orgasmic Oralist" [13] 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 [14] [15] [16][17], 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)

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". Interistingly 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 changelling 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)

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 [18]. 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 [19]. 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 [20].

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 [21]. 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 [22]. 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 [23]. 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 [24]. Huff source 4 was undiscussed for some time. Only Huff source 3 had a consensus for removing it [25].

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 [26]. 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 [27], 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,[28] 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. [29]

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 [30]
• Chris gets his wrist slapped for doing that by Nei [31]. 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[32] (this is Chris fifth time over few days: [33], [34], [35], [36]) 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. [37][38][39][40][41] 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)

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[[42]] 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 [43], [44] and [45]. 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 [46]. 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)

Man Haron Monis

* 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)

Hey pony fans

Some of us are real pony fans

Got a question for you all--do we really need redirects for every single My Little Pony character? Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects is consistently backlogged, and it's a veritable corral right now. I know redirects are cheap, but it all adds up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• I thought your edit summary was "Hey ponyo fans". So disappointed! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry. Brohoof! Drmies (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Paw!...shameless plug in worth it! Lor^Chat 00:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Damn Bronies Lor^Chat 23:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap. Surely someone's written a script for one-click redirect creation of AFC entries? --NE2 00:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've created some redirects at:

• Bubbles (My Little Pony)
• Ember (My Little Pony)
• Fiesta Flair (My Little Pony)
• Fizzy Pop (My Little Pony)
• Flitter Flutter (My Little Pony)
• Filthy Rich (My Little Pony)

Hope this clears out some of the backlog Lor^Chat 00:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Im wondering if the list can be trimmed down, I do not think the addition of ponies that have been in one episode for example are all that notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

not going to ask why Knowledgekid87 knows anything about what happens in an episode Lor^Chat 03:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Im an anime and manga fan NOT a brony lol Idk, I have seen fan made lists on Wikipedia before, we don't need to include every single pony here unless it is notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

eh, I'm a furry and I don't really care more or less if your a Brony or not Point taken. Lor^Chat 03:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Head count, how many people on this site watch My Little Pony? But maybe this is overkill. Do we need these many redirects? Epicgenius (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there's plenty of us around. Redirects shouldn't be much of a problem. As long as they're not creating articles for every minor character. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, so there is no harm in having such to be hits on search terms. I'm not sure if we need the character pages at that much detail - that's a job that the wikias are better at. --MASEM (t) 03:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that these are particularly useful redirects, because of the parenthetical disambiguations and that they aren't linked from anywhere, really. But, since they've been created already, oh well. ansh666 05:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone would type "name (My Little Pony)" into the search box. Can we send them all to RfD or would that be disruptive? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The parenthetical stuff shows up in the list of suggestions that pops up when you're entering text in the search field. It's helpful for navigation that way, not because anyone would ever type out the entire string exactly. Try it with "Fizzy pop". __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not really my point though - if these redirects did not exist, what are the odds of somebody typing "fizzy pop" into the search box and thinking "dang and blast it, I want the MLP character not the drink!" Quite small, I'd imagine. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'll weigh in here as a MLP:FIM fan. (I guess that makes me a pegasister.) I've actually used some of these redirects (specifically Filthy Rich (My Little Pony)) and I've looked at some of the characters on the page. I do think that some of the detail is a bit overkill, but if the characters are on the page then a redirect isn't a terrible idea. However at the same time, I don't know that we need every character that has been in any of the various TV shows or films to be in the list. That's a totally different discussion and one that will likely end with a bit of a battle, to be honest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Your a My little pony Fan? Ohhhhhhh!..burn...Are my jokes good yet? Lor^Chat 06:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Bullying, intimidation, and ownership of articles

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)

Bullying again...

Hi, I'm sysop from Spanish Wikipedia. Few weeks ago I notified about a racist incident from ELreydeEspana. He was blocked today in Spanish Wikipedia because bad behavior and anti-Latin American insults (also sexual threats against non-Spanish users). Few minutes ago he threated me in Spanish language in the Discussion page of English Wikipedia.

Also, in Spanish Wikipedia the sysops discovered that ElReydeEspana is a sockpuppet from others users Halias 23, Luli 240 and Maria 123456 (all expelled from Spanish Wikipedia per vandalism and confirmed via checkuser). It's very difficult for me resisting all these racist insults because the Spanish Wikipedia sysops we blocked him because he violated blatantly the rules in that project. --Taichi (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll just say something: Halias 23 was my original account but I lost my password and I had to make another account, but linked to Halias 23, Other accounts are not mine, they are probably some other users sharing the the IP of them with mine, Thank you for your attention (ELreydeEspana) 20:05 15/12 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a basic breach of WP:CIVIL. We cannot do much about the breach of block, since it is only enacted in the Spanish Wikipedia. But they should be warned. Lor^Chat 02:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

ELreydeEspana, we generally don't tolerate incivility, especially when it's a continuation of a dispute somewhere else. This is the warning Lor suggests: keep it up, and one of us admins will levy a block here too, including potentially one that goes as long as your current block at es:wp. Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen had levied a warning previously for their previous post on their user page. It was removed and a warning left by Bishonen and Drmies. Blackmane (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ELreydeEspana (talk • contribs) 04:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

User:László Vazulvonal of Stockholm

László Vazulvonal of Stockholm continues to add unsourced information about ethnic groups into WP:BLP articles, such as this one, for example. I have raised this several times on their talkpage, but they continue to add the unsourced info. Appreciate some help with this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see (I follow only fencers' biographies) the information LVS adds is pretty redundant. Reka Zsofia Lazăr-Szabo for instance was already categorised in Category:Romanian people of Hungarian descent; there's also a mention of her Hungarian ethnicity in the text, although unsourced. LVS' edits are in good faith: his information is accurate, and I'll attempt to source his edits. The people whose articles we're talking about bear obvious Hungarian names, so I can only suppose he's baffled by Lugnuts' requests for sources. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

IP editor repeatedly inserting POV material into Somnophilia page (part of sexology). Please protect.

Hi, folks.

An IP editor has twice edited the Somnophilia page to add a POV that is not contained in the sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somnophilia&diff=638225106&oldid=637664695

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somnophilia&diff=638361069&oldid=638245653

I have reverted the changes, explaining the problem in the diff comments:

I very much appreciate that the people are generally appropriately called victims, but the RS did not include that POV, and WP:NPOV requires that we not add our own.

Undid revision 638361069 by 68.108.11.220 (talk) Same issue as previously.

I think page-protection would be appropriate. — James Cantor (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If the source did not say "victim", maybe it's not a valid source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I need to prevent someone from hijacking our Wikipedia page to post inappropriate material, how can I do this?

Hello,

I'm new to Wikipedia, in fact I inherited this job two days ago. My question is how can I block someone from hijacking our Wikipedia page in order to post inappropriate content? Our page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Report. Any help would be important to us.

Thank you

Nigel Covington Editor-in-Chief National Report — Preceding unsigned comment added by NigelCovington85 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Posting relevant COI information on users' talk page. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You cannot block anyone from posting, only administrators or higher can do that. Moreover, the information posted is sourced. There's nothing "inappropriate" about it that I can see. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:OWN. It's not "your" Wikipedia page even though it's about your organization. postdlf (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Query: Does WP:UAA apply to impersonating a fake person? Bobby Tables (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not. We have a User:Harry Potter, a User:Lord Voldemort, and many others with fictional names. Your username is okay. --Jakob (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I was responding to the previous section. OP there might be a case of WP:UAA. I know my username is fine, I've been using it here for a long time :) Bobby Tables (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Salmazanaty

Salmazanaty appears to be here to spread hoax content and commit subtle vandalism. Deleted articles Black Wolf Records discography and List of Black Wolf Records artists & songs were entirely made up of fabricated content, listing some artists who have been dead for years. (Sandy Denny, who died in 1978) for instance. User has since moved on to create List of boy bands, which contains a mix of good-hand content, along with bad-hand content like the addition of Alvin & the Chipmunks (a fictional cartoon chipmunk boy band), All-4-One, which does not feature Ne-Yo, Brian McKnight, Keith Sweat and Velamero Castellero. Here they change JC Chasez's birth year from 1976 (correct) to 1982 (incorrect). This edit is also questionable, where the user adds Sia Furler to a list of members of female band Bond, though there is no mention of her in the Bond article, there's no mention of Bond in the Sia article, and a quick Google search doesn't turn up any relationship. I'm not convinced the user is here to build an encyclopedia--seems more that they are here to commit subtle vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked some random diffs and the first two additions I googled for returned no relevant hits: List of music festivals addition, List of all-female bands addition. Stopped digging at that point to concur with Cyphoidbomb about WP:NOTHERE. May be worth mentioning that I've previously I encountered him/her disruptively adding One Direction-related content to various lists, e.g. adding One Direction Posse to list of hip hop groups, adding its members to List of R&B musicians: 1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I should add one other piece of information. The user added "Velamero Castellero" as a member of All-4-One, but if you Google that name, the only hit is the List of Boy Bands article. Hoax. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:53, 16 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)

Disruption by a single-purpose user and an IP

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

---

Fmelikov (talk · contribs), a user who hasn't edited a single article since January 2013 suddenly came back in late November to disrupt the Lavash article. He repeatedly adds unsourced, POV worded sentences to the article intro and continues to edit war. In addition, he (its almost surely the same person) uses an IP (85.132.14.85 (talk · contribs)) to edit war. He makes nonconstructive edits such as removing Armenia as the place of origin from the infobox, when UNESCO has recently named Lavash an Armenian representative of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. One of his edit summaries reads: "Lavash's place of origin is Azerbaijan. However to avoid needless disputes, I put down Middle East as Middle East" [47] Armenia is usually not considered, politically, part of the Middle East, nor is Azerbaijan (which he claims—without providing any sources—to be the place of origin of lavash). He was warned by me earlier today [48] and by another user [49], who also filed an SPI (which probably is unnecessary).

I came to ANI only because my request of temporary protection was declined and I was told to try this board.[50] --Երևանցի ^talk 22:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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

• Fmelikov appears to be continuing the edit war as an IP. Squinge (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked 62.217.151.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for block evasion. Bishonen | talk 12:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC).

Vandalism

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

---

Users Yerevantsi and EtienneDolet are vandalizing the web page mentioned above by continuous deleting the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmelikov (talk • contribs) 23:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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

• See my comment on section above. Squinge (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets of AfricaTanz

Hi. I'd like to report this IP address 75.34.101.43. I suspect it belongs to the blocked User:AfricaTanz. I had initiated two SPIs against it on September and a week ago. It appears this user has some sort of vendetta against me. He has been wikihounding my edits; most recently at 1, 2 and 3. Further evidences of this past behaviour are included in the SPI links above. The user also most recently commented on a discussion that I was involved in; thus being a further evidence of hounding of my edits. Out all the available discussions out there to participate; it chose one that i was involved in.

The IP has now resorted to labeling at least two IP addresses as my suspected sockpuppets: 1st IP and 2nd IP. This is a false accusation. You may ask a checkuser to verify my assertion (if need be). The past two investigations resulted in just page protection and no further action was taken. Can I please request you at least to de-link myself from these absurd accusation. It seems AfricaTanz is here to cause disruption against myself. I would suggest a range block, if possible. The user has been informed about this ANI at the reported IP address. Thank you for your time. Ali Fazal (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong's Vendetta: Page Fredrick_Brennan

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

Multiple voting in AfD

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

Promotion of a pvt company on Aurangabad article

I believe this user User:Zeeshanshoeb is promoting a company with which he is associated in te article Aurangabad, Maharashtra. The user has time and again reverted my edits without explaining why. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia policies, namely Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelroy (talk • contribs) 05:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked the editor for 72 hours due to promotion and because he's been edit warring without trying to discuss anything on the talk page. I also left some information about the basic policies (notability, sourcing, COI, etc) and warned him that continuing to add the information without trying to discuss anything or follow policy could lead to a permanent block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

User ELreydeEspana not being Civil and making threats

G'day Admins (And non-admins that patrol here). Recently i have gotten a message on my Talk page about ELreydeEspana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making at threat at Taichi. I suggest you translate it with Google translate but from me translating it it is clearly a threat of some sort. Lor^Chat 06:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: ELreydeEspana has now removed evidence from my talk page. It has been reverted, but i find this as more evidence. Lor^Chat 06:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Not that it's worth anything--since I expect this has already been figured out--but his threats are that "you're going to pay" and something about putting "you" on "his blacklist". (I can sort of read Spanish.) ekips39 14:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please run a search for "ELreydeEspana" on this page. You'll see an earlier thread on this page in which he came close to getting blocked. Not having learned his lesson, he's consequently been blocked 48 hours and been told that recidivism will likely result in an indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A widespread long massive problem with another user

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

Threatening to Sue and Kill Wikipedia editors

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

---

With this edit [51] Abhishek1747 has threatend to kill wikipedia editors. VViking_TalkEdits 13:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've advised the editor that he needs to withdraw the threats.[52] I'm waiting to see how he responds to that. —C.Fred (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Without depreciating the value of C.Fred's response, I consider the combination of a legal threat and a death threat towards a specific individual to be sufficient grounds for an immediate and indefinite block, and have therefore applied one. I'm also passing the link on to the emergency team. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Good quick block. Exactly as it should be. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Request IP Block user:68.151.44.151

user:68.151.44.151 has been repeatedly vandalizing Danielle Smith since last night. There is a rapidly developing story, the subject of the article is rumoured to be changing party allegiances. The IP user appears likely to be a disgruntled supporter of the Wildrose Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleking (talk • contribs) 16:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits, while unsourced about a living person, are not vandalism. This looks like a content dispute with BLP overtones. This should likely go to WP:ANEW, but since the IP only got a 3RR warning just before this report, it won't get any traction yet. That said, the article is on my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This is vandalism, pure and simple. The content this user is adding is so absurd that it has become the subject of social media (‏@jamiedirom Oh, Wikipedia. #wrp #ableg #pcaa pic.twitter.com/zjR5e0q3sZ). A block is in order. Sunray (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• BTW, what makes it vandalism is not the speculation that Danielle Smith is rumoured to be joining the Progressive Conservative Party, that is a fact Danielle Smith among Wildrose MLAs crossing to Alberta PC party. It is rather that she is "deputy premier," and has engaged in a "traitorous defection." Sunray (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Might be worthwhile adding Wildrose Party, Danielle Smith, Rob Anderson (politician), Gary Bikman, Jason Hale (politician), Blake Pedersen, and Jeff Wilson (politician) to a watchlist, as they will all be likely vandalism targets over the next week or so. Paleking (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The IP's edits look unhelpful, premature, and contain BLP violations (with that unsourced "treasonous" bit). That said, semi-protecting the page would probably be the fastest way eliminate the disruption from this IP. It's obviously a breaking story that might attract similar editors, not an "absurdity" from a single mind. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Sunray (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I would have concurred as well. My request to semi-prot was declined, with advice to request an IP Block. Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Danielle_Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleking (talk • contribs) 18:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Agree with what was said at RFPP: semiprotection isn't appropriate when just one person's causing problems. If the guy starts hopping, protection will be reasonable, of course. Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 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)

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)

Nangparbat

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)

Priyeshndixit

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)

Edit warring and disruptive tag removing

Two of the users on Battle of Chawinda disruptively removed the issue tags[53] 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)

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)

Edit warring on Electronic Cigarette by Doc James

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 [54] calling them obsolete

Here Fergus removed another 2014 review article from the journal Circulation [55][56] calling it obsolete

Here again they remove a 2014 review calling it obsolete [57]

In this edit [58] 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)

[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. AlbinoFerret 14:45, 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)

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 ([59], [60] 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)

User:Lightbreather

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 [[61]] 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: [62].

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 [63] 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.[64]
• OrangesRyellow I request you to take a fresh look / reconsider the block decline and not to overlook the possibility of a joe job.[65]
• 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.[66]
• Scalhotrod: I can genuinely understand her outing concerns and even the "it wasn't me" claims with the sockpuppeting.[67]

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 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)

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.[[68]][[69]][[70]], [[71]][[72]][[73]], falsifying sources,[[74]][[75]],[[76]] and spreading Pakistani nationalism,[[77]][[78]][[79]][[80]][[81]], 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.[[82]]

He has been notified of this before,[[83]], 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)

TheSawTooth behaviour

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.[84] 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 [85] 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)