Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FossilMad (talk | contribs) at 00:16, 17 December 2014 (→Community ban needed for Joshua Bonehill). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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



    Problems with User:Huon with reference to Ambassadors of Ghana to Russia

    Dear Administrators,

    I am having problems with user 'Houn': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Huon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huon I am exasperated with this persons continual disruptive interference of my page on "Ambassador John Banks Elliott". He has on numerous times removed the contents of the article, disrupting the flow between myself and the editor I prefer to work with on this Article. His persistent personal attacks and defamatory innuendos bordering on harassment of the subject has forced me to put in this complaint.

    I am having to delete his messages from my email inbox received from (watch list). I have also had to change my password on Wikipedia as I think he has hacked my account. I will kindly request that you prevent him from editing my page, my user page, my talk page and the talk page of Ambassador Elliott. In one of his messages 'Houn' accuses Ambassador Elliott of whitewashing his story and being the worst Ambassador ever. I do not know where 'Houn' is going with this, I definitely do not have the directions for him. He has also left several messages for me on the talk page of Joe Decker.

    The copies of photographs, files that I posted are from Ambassador Elliott's personal collection from the sixties. He handed them to me to make copies for his Wikipedia page. I have been using these photographs and posting them to and fro on the web. The later photos taken on his Birthdays were taken by myself with my BlackBerry.

    This article is written with honesty as recounted by Ambassador Elliott himself. It is an assemblage of his Ambassadorial-ship in Moscow. It is not everything he told me that I entered in the article as this may cause embarrassment to certain parties.

    I would like to quote what Ambassador Elliott said at the end of my talk with him for this article, he said, "I am resolute and hold no grudges towards any persons or institutions that are inequitable towards me or my achievements". Yes he knows he might have enemies scattered here and there, what they do, what they say, what they write about is their prerogative. What he says is his choice.

    I have a feeling 'Houn' thinks that Ambassador Elliott is dead. What he is doing is fighting with himself. I have asked him to kindly replace all of the editions, files and references he removed because I have not yet finished with the edit and will need to adjust some lines in the article, my request was to no avail. Instead he warned me about trying to replace the article.

    I would appreciate it if I could hear from you the soonest. Kind regards, DorothyDorothyelliott (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs of what you feel he did wrong. Also, I suggest you read WP:COI, going by your username. I notified Huon of this discussion, as required. Origamiteⓣⓒ 16:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, we'd appreciate evidence of the "hack". Another good thing to read is WP:OWN. Finally, if what you're saying is true, you can't use what Ambassador Elliot gives you, as any information must be verifiable by any reader to reliable sources. Origamiteⓣⓒ 16:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read what Huon said [1] here? He's quoting someone else on the "worst ambassador" remark. Origamiteⓣⓒ 16:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dorothyelliott and Huon: is an experienced editor and administrator on English Wikipedia as @Origamite: suggested that you should read the policy Conflict of interest and Ownership of articles. Another thing, you should support your edits with reliable sources such as articles published in the newspaper, books etc. and also maintain Neutral point of view. Just don't be panic Cheers and Continue Contributing. — CutestPenguinHangout 16:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, the accusation that I hacked anybody's account is baseless, and I don't even have a clue of how to do so beyond guessing that the password is "love", "sex", "secret" or "god".
    Secondly, the emails Dorothyelliott had to delete probably come from me commenting on her talk page, once notifying her of the explanation I left for reverting her and once commenting on her uploads' copytight status, giving her advice on how to avoid the free images' deletion, advice she has not yet followed.
    Thirdly, I have never edited Dorothyelliott's user page, and there's nothing wrong with my edits to either the article on John Banks Elliott or its talk page. If Dortothyelliott wants me to stay off her user talk page, I'll do so (except for required notifications), but I don't think that will help.
    Fourthly, as Origamite points out, the unflattering comments on Elliott's work in Moscow are from one of the sources Dorothyelliott cited in her expansion of the article - in fact I'd say the best of the sources she cited, though she didn't cite it for what it actually says. Huon (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see posts from ‘Houn’ which I am sure is accessible to all
    Posted on Joe Decker's talk page: Huon (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    My Response: Dorothyelliott (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    Posted on Joe Decker's talk page: Huon (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    My Response: Dorothyelliott (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    Posted on Ambassador Elliott’s talk page: Huon (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    Posted on Dorothyelliott’s talk page: Huon (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

    Let me be blunt here: You have no idea whether what you say about the copyright for the Moscow photos is true or not. To my knowledge the Russian authorities have released some official images under free licenses (that's where we got this image of Kim Jong-il from), but I don't know whether they automatically do so for all images, or whether the Soviets already did so, and obviously neither do you. For the images you took yourself, you should add a note on the corresponding file pages (such as File:Ambassador John Banks Elliott 9 February 2011.jpg) that you created those yourself and explicitly release them under a free license that allows everybody to re-use and modify them for any purpose, including commercial purposes, for example by adding {{Self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to the page. Huon (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


    I do not want to be rude to Houn, but the haphazard manner in which he jumped in on the expansion to the stub put me of guard. I worked for months on the article going back and forth to England to talk to Ambassador Elliott, and then having it deleted, really exasperated me. If he had used a different approach, like suggesting he would like to help me, then perhaps I would have accepted.

    I would like to make it clear before I continue that, Africa is a second largest continent in the world and not a country. When referring to specific topic vis-à-vis a country, that country should be specified. References and files that I did not include in the article only make interesting reading for those who have secondary opinions of Africans.

    The sources cited are things Ambassador Elliott talked about and was involved with, this is not something plucked out of air. The article is strictly about his Ambassadorial ship as President Nkrumah’s Envoy to Moscow and of some of the contributions, he made. It is rather unfortunate that Houn should think so little of envoys as to say, “he was ambassador and did ambassadorial stuff". Julie Hessler's article, which Houn uses as his source for deletion, should be read in its entirety and understood. Ms. Hessler ends her article with “Whether the virulent racism that they describe had indeed become characteristic of Soviet universities by the second half of the 1960s, and whether, as at least two serious students of related subjects have suggested, it subsequently declined, must remain subjects for future research”. http://www.cairn.info/zen.php?ID_ARTICLE=CMR_471_0033

    Yes, bad things were happening to African students all over the world, yet, those wishing to take advantage of the education offered achieved goals that they otherwise would not have had access to. I sent Ms. Hessler an email asking her to respond on Ambassador Elliott’s page or directly by email to me. In addition, Houn used a referenced statement from her article as a reason for deletion. (“Thompson, Ghana’s Foreign Policy..., 166, 274-275; and see also his remark about Elliot as “[Nkrumah’s] worst ambassadorial appointment in this period”) I will suggest Houn purchase the book and read it fully. Not all websites are as kind as Wikipedia to allow free access to their documents. Most Archived material of historical importance can be accessed by registering and paying a minimum fee, most readers are aware of that.

    With reference to Rt. Rev. John Orfeur Anglionby, Bishop of Accra. The article is not about him so I need not elaborate on him specifically in this article. However, I will say, he was mentor to Ambassador Elliott at a time during his educational development. The photograph is for those who do not know who Bishop Anglionby is. You will notice in the photograph, the Bishop is wearing the ABUABU Cross, moulded in 1928. This cross is in possession of Ambassador Elliott given to him by the Bishop’s sister after the death of her brother. I am working on the story of the ABUABU Cross and its source for another group and will add a ref. to the Ambassadors references when complete.

    I will look through the references provided to see if some were relevant, and act accordingly. I will also suggest Houn take time to look at some of the references, newsreels in which Ambassador Elliott appears, read the books mentioned some of which could be purchased digitally and of course not forgetting the newspaper columns. DorothyDorothyelliott (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Dorothyelliott (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can I note that while everything said to Dorothyelliott, both here and on her talk page, is perfectly correct in terms of Wikipolicy, I found the tone of some of the comments a little bitey at times. By all appearances, this is someone who is trying to improve the encyclopedia by expanding an article about a person she considers to be significant, so perhaps a gentler approach might have been more effective? (Unless I'm missing some indication of intransigence and unwillingness to follow policy on her part.) BMK (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine and all but comments like "my article" and "the people I want to work with" are not appropriate regardless of how long the editor has been here (and six months is sufficient time to me). This kind of expansion with very little sourcing leaves a lot of work to other people. Houn has done nothing wrong in asking that someone doesn't just dump pages of text and a scattering of sources in the middle. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    At 134 edits over 6 1/2 months, 23 of them to the article in question (her only article edits), this editor is clearly a tyro and should have been treated as such. After all, none of us were born with Wikiculture genetically-encoded, we all needed to learn it. There's no question that everything she was told was correct, it was only the tone of it that was problematic. BMK (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for bringing the Wikipedia: Public domain to my attention.

    I have read it thoroughly and have visited the applicable links. I would like to bring your attention to the guidelines on Wikipedia: Public domain. Where it states that Wikipedia is primarily subject to U.S. Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain I will also suggest you see Wikipedia: Copyright situations by country. To all of you who deleted files with reference to Ambassador John Banks Elliott “Your apologies are accepted” now, please replace them so that I can edit them accordingly.Dorothyelliott (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    copying comment from Huon's talk page I'm sorry, I still don't believe you understand. We can't use the files because they might have been subject to US copyright, so they had to be deleted. If they were kept and some Russians who had the copyright sued, they could shut down Wikipedia. The files are not yet in the public domain, as even if the people who took the photos died that day not enough time has passed. Origamiteⓣⓒ 22:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) @Dorothyelliott: I'm afraid you still don't understand. Under US copyright law, everything that falls under the purview of copyright law is automatically copyrighted when it is created. It does not have to be published, and it doe snot need to carry a copyright notice. There are exceptions for things that were created under older versions of the copyright law, so establishingwhen something was created and who created it is vital to determine whether or not something is not copyrighted and therefor is in the public domain. To post an image on Wikipedia, one must have positive proof that something is not copyrighted, or that it has been licensed in a way that's compatible with our own license. Without that positive proof, no image will be accepted. One cannot assume that an image is in the public domain, one cannot take the vague memories of the people involved as evidence, one must know that the image is PD or properly licensed.

    Unfortunately, there's not much scope for getting around those rules, and when there is it's about people who are dead for whom free images cannot be found, or material that has been widely released for publicity purposes (and those are still contentious with some editors who take a hard line on our copyright policy, which you'll find at WP:NCC). The bottom lime is, if you don't have some kind of documentation which you can use to show an image's PD or licensed status, you're not going to be able to use it here, no matter how often you discuss it. BMK (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Masusimaru

    User:Masusimaru has spent his whole time on WIkipedia for the last half year repeatedly edit warring on the Alexander Suvorov article. He continues to remove information about Suvorov's Armenian ancestry despite academic sources supporting it. And just recently, he has impersonated a bot and accused me of vandalism. Not only is wrongly accusing someone of vandalism a WP:PA, but Masusimaru has also now just violated WP:SIGFORGE. I have no problem with him and don't want to see him blocked, but I would like to request that Masusimaru no longer be allowed to edit this article. --Steverci (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that bot has been active for years... since 2006?!?!? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am kind of curious myself on where he get it from. Even so, the point is he pretended to have blocking abilities by signature forging which is forbidden. --Steverci (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, I don't think it's a signature forgery so much as a copy-paste from some other userpage. See the date in the sig. I looked back at the bot's contribs and found that the only place it could have come from is User:Adam1213/autowarn3 (only edit with that timestamp that was signed). The claim of blocking rights is due to previous phrasing of {{test3}} (which itself seems to be deprecated in favor of {{uw-test3}}). Anyway, Masusimaru's conduct at the article appears to be edit warring. So a stern warning is probably appropriate. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm kinda new to Wikipedia and might have used a wrong tool to warn user of inappropriate behaviour ) that tool seemed to help me with warning syntax but somehow spoiled the signature. I warned administrators here, I apologize if I did it incorrectly. But I'd like to stop speculations and fake sources being to articles in apparently biased manner. Masusimaru (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Aliyah

    The discussion about serial vandalism at Aliyah was closed, without any reply to my question. My concern is that the repeated alteration of statistics, over 1000+ edits for more than a year, renders the entire article completely compromised. Since there seems to be no possibility of just rolling back the bad edits, from scores of IPs, I propose to revert to what appears to be the last good edit before this misbehaviour commenced, by Emmette Hernandez Coleman on 3 October 2013. This may also revert a few good edits, but almost every edit since then has been unsourced, and seemingly vandalistic, alteration of statistics. Would this be acceptable? And if not, how else can we restore the integrity of this article? RolandR (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    What you could do is compare that version with the current version and see if there's any well-sourced additions that you think should be retained. Please remember to check for copy vio. Here is your diff: Diff of Aliyah. Another alternative would be to leave the prose alone, and copy the table from the old revision, as that's the section of the article that they were tampering with. I think I would go with the second solution. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that suggestion. Just going out; when I get back to the screen, I will look at the possibility of doing that. RolandR (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just-auto-confirmed user Ashurbanippal (talk · contribs) reverted to the dubious version. I agree with Roland that many of the numbers in the table are highly dubious. There is actually no reason to use anything but the official numbers compiled by the Israeli Bureau of Statistics. Zerotalk 09:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Report Binksternet for harassment

    OP BLOCKED
    Identified as sock NE Ent 18:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Binksternet has accused me of sock puppetry and has taken it into his hands to vandalise a page that I have created can some one block him as he is acting unprofessional and quiet childlike to be honest R&B and Hip hop Music (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    R&B and Hip hop Music, it would be good if you stopped committing copyright violations. --NeilN talk to me 16:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This morning's coffee-and-Wikipedia experience for me has been chock full of socks. The report here is by the new editor "R&B and Hip hop Music" whose first-ever edit was a continuation of focus by blocked sockpuppets Rihanna-RiRi-fan and Mstique, not to mention the IPs 5.81.225.188 and 5.81.225.225, all of which are socks of MariaJaydHicky. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus I had the doubtful pleasure of tangling with long-term disruptor HarveyCarter, unrelated to the above, in his new sock account PaddyDaly. And to top it off I was faced with new edits by blocked sockpuppeteer Chowkatsun9 who continually finds new Hong Kong IPs to use at the Yoshiki (musician) biography (and many others). So whatever constructive additions I might have planned for today have been set aside for the purpose of stopping these various socks. Time for another pot of coffee... Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    suggest close with no action. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You took it out on my article which I found as a right liberty R&B and Hip hop Music (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If only to save time, I wouldn't object to a WP:BOOMERANG block. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This sock has been blocked and tagged; all that's left is checkuser for sleepers. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Do-ocracy

    Could someone with access to deleted revisions check the previous versions of Do-ocracy to see whether the new version is a recreation of the article which has been deleted twice already, or a new article? The whole thing appears to be a cut-and-paste of this page in any case, but it would be handy to know more background before deciding how this ought to be handled - I don't like to tag an article just created by a brand new user for deletion if I can help it. (The phrase itself seems to be a neologism created by the American right-wing fringe, and presumably any deletion debate would attract a swarm of cranks, so quite aside from the WP:BITE angle I don't relish an AFD.) Mogism (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • It hasn't been through a deletion discussion (the two deletions were via PROD and CSD) so it will, unfortunately, have to go down that route this time. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since it's not doing any real harm, I'll give it a couple of weeks to see if anyone improves it. It's technically a copyvio, but only due to lack of attribution as the site it's pasted from is CC-by-SA. Mogism (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to ask if the license is actually permissible. I notice that it is a BY-SA 1.0 license, and 1.0 licenses with the ShareAlike condition do not include compatibility with later versions. That is, anything that uses a work under BY-SA 1.0 must be available under BY-SA 1.0, not 2.0 or 3.0. It is also availabe under GFDL 1.3, but if I'm not mistaken the CC license is the one that is required. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm going to delete it as soon as I hit "save". Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-11-17/GFDL 1.3 clearly reminds us that GFDL 1.3 material had to have been added to a participating wiki before 2 August 2009 in order to be relicensed as cc-by-sa-3.0, and Wikipedia:Copyrights states that GFDL-only content may no longer be added. Since you note that cc-by-sa-1.0 is incompatible with 3.0, there's no way to keep it, regardless of whether we want to or not. Viral licensing: got to love how wonderful it is, how it so greatly contributes to our goal of building an encyclopedia, how it can force us to delete content just because the proponents updated the license a little. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [2][3][4][5]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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/enwiki/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)[reply]

    • "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 [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]) 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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 [11], your answer was a complete joke, if not offensive trolling [12]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I already posted the links in the 3RRN discussion.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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.[13] Categories like "Orgasmic Oralist" [14] 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    User:75.38.235.202 - block required

    Obvious sock is obvious, same pattern of edits to City-Data. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of User_talk:Don't_Touch_Me_Again

    I have just deleted User talk:Don't Touch Me Again (only one edit on the page) - I'm unsure if RevDelete or Oversight is applicable since the person mentioned is not living. Second opinion welcomed! -- Chuq (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with deleting this, but reverting and rev-deleting would also have worked. The website they linked to is a blog. I have done some other clean-up and put a note on the user talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [15]. 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 [16]. 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 [17].

    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 [18]. 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 [19]. 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 [20]. 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 [21]. Huff source 4 was undiscussed for some time. Only Huff source 3 had a consensus for removing it [22].

    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 [23]. 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 [24], 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)[reply]

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

    After a long and contentious few days, ChrisGualtieri has agreed to abide by WP:BRD,[25] 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)[reply]

    (edit conflict)For reference, here's the activity of editors on the article. [26]

    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)[reply]

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

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

    (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) [reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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 [27]
    • Chris gets his wrist slapped for doing that by Nei [28]. 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[29] (this is Chris fifth time over few days: [30], [31], [32], [33]) 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)[reply]

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


    (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)[reply]

    Constant disruptive edits/falsifying sources/spreading Pakistani nationalism

    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.[[34]][[35]][[36]], [[37]][[38]][[39]], falsifying sources,[[40]][[41]], and spreading Pakistani nationalism,[[42]][[43]][[44]][[45]][[46]], with a clear agenda mostly on West Asian (Turkish/Iranian), Afghan, and Indian-related topics while promoting a pro-Pakistan stance on everything. He has been notified of this before,[[47]], but he obviously 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) 05:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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.
    The fourth is the article creator and OP here
    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. VVikingTalkEdits 13:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    One last item, with this edit[[48]] 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, VVikingTalkEdits 13:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Helpful. Thx Mendaliv for the clarification. SolaryVeritas (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Synthesis of sources is forbidden. This link may be of assistance. Blackmane (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dandaman620

    Indef blocked by Callanecc. Thanks Lugnuts. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Dandaman620 continues to vandalise the article Tobias Lister, despite warnings. I've logged it here, but would like a speedy resolution, due to the BLP issues this person is creating. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Now resolved. Thanks! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    108.81.128.153 and genre warring

    Callanecc is on a tear. Please solve ebola and world hunger also. And Gamergate! Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I noticed 108.81.128.153 (talk · contribs) changed musical style genres in an infobox here despite a comment saying "discuss first". I thought I'd drop them a note advising them this, but I then discovered their talk page is full of warnings and previous blocks. Should we go for a stronger sanction this time per WP:HEAR? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 6 months this time. When it comes to IPs (especially in this case where they are very likely to be used by multiple people) blocks of increasing duration are the best we can do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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 [49], [50] and [51]. 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)[reply]

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

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

    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)[reply]

    Man Haron Monis

    Nota bene* 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) [reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    Yes, I sent this to oversight some three hours ago. So far no reaction. Fram (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I jumped up and down on IRC and it's now been oversighted. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    OR

    Already up at a more appropriate venue. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Mztourist is keep retaining details that contain possible OR. He refused to give any source to prove it when I asked him to do so.Dino nam (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    036386536a (copyvios and machine-translated articles)

    A while back I noticed 036386536a (talk · contribs) (and 74.61.193.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who seems to be the same person editing while logged out) has been posting poorly formatted, machine-translated articles, usually from the Italian Wikipedia (see [53]). This is problematic both for copyright reasons (since he fails to give the attribution mandated by the CC-BY-SA licence) and because, well, machine translated text is generally crap, and routinely posting huge chunks of it here creates more problems than it solves. The user has also been contributing a lot of unsourced or copyright-infringing images (most of which have already been deleted on copyright grounds).

    I reached out to the user several times on his talk page (as have, I observed, many other users, both there and elsewhere—see for example User talk:WikiDan61#The House of Landi and most of the following 13 sections on that page). However, he's continued the problematic uploads and unattributed machine translation dumps. I'm not even sure if he understands or has read my messages; I've only gotten one or two direct responses, though he tends to post messages in the oddest places (such as at the very top of his user talk page, or in edit summaries) which makes it impossible to tell whom or what he's responding to. He doesn't seem to have understood or complied with User:WikiDan61's instructions on contributing copyrighted material. I'm thinking that neither English nor Italian is his native language.

    I'm not sure at this point if further discussion is going to help, or if a competence/copyvio block is required. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't tolerate this many copyvios in general; I don't see why we should tolerate them in this case, just because they're unattributed modifications of cc-by-sa content. I've indef-blocked him on these grounds alone. It might have been a good idea to be a little more lenient if machine-translation dumping had been the only problem (maybe a short block and a message of "do it again, and it will be indefinite"), but repeated copyright infringements are intolerable. Together with the machine translation, I doubt his competency, too. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention, when he broke a template. WP:CIR applies, I think. Origamiteⓣⓒ 23:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor has restored link to an attack page

    User:BezosibnyjUA has restored a link to an attack page.[54] He/she is aware that such attack pages are not permitted on Wikipedia. Please can the link be removed and action be taken to stop him/her restoring it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The linked page is (1) in Ukrainian, and (2) currently blank as far as I can tell. You're going to have to give us a bit more information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    From the history, it was very recently removed by another user Ravensfire (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    According to this page, User:BezosibnyjUA is a sock of User:Rkononenko. --Taivo (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This [55] is the content in question on the Ukrainian wiki. It is in English and clearly directed at influencing the English, not the Ukrainian Wikipedia, and it shows a battleground mentality and an overt attempt at organizing a POV campaign that, if posted on en-wp, would certainly lead to immediate sanctions here. The identity between BezosibnyjUA and Rkononenko is clear and self-declared [56]. Rkononenko is not currently blocked, but was blocked for 3 months in mid-2012, when BzosibnyjUA started editing here to evade that block [57]. Moreover, Rkononenko was warned at the time that he was lucky the block wasn't already indef, and that he would soon be indef-blocked if he continued his behaviour [58]. As he has clearly done just that through his new account. I'm going ahead and indef-blocking both accounts now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Paw!...shameless plug in worth it! LorChat 00:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn Bronies LorChat 23:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects are cheap. Surely someone's written a script for one-click redirect creation of AFC entries? --NE2 00:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've created some redirects at:
    Hope this clears out some of the backlog LorChat 00:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    not going to ask why Knowledgekid87 knows anything about what happens in an episode LorChat 03:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]
    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)[reply]
    eh, I'm a furry and I don't really care more or less if your a Brony or not Point taken. LorChat 03:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Please recognize this "smokescreen" and look into my ongoing concern with this abusive editor. Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Please don't be disingenuous, converting an article to a redirect is tantamount to deleting it. BMK (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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. LorChat 02:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Talk page block

    Hey there - 149.151.85.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is currently blocked for ~2 weeks for vandalism/inserting false information into articles. Since the block, the editor has continued to remove the shared IP banner on their talk page. Could we get a talk page block implemented? Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    ToQ100gou off-site contact

    Last month, ToQ100gou (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked for disruption while constantly logging out of his account to do so. He has just contacted me on an off-site forum where he decided to register in order to contact me (and also because it's our shared general interest). What is the protocol with dealing with this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Why would Wikipedia have a protocol for what you do off-Wikipedia? Ignore him. Or not. Your choice... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean how to treat his message because it's a request to be unblocked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he still has talk page access from what I can see. He should be requesting it via the unblock template, no? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ryulong, I've emailed you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Gorenstein page

    Hello: I am in the midst of edit wars on the page of Mark Gorenstein with two anonymous IP addresses based in the Ukraine, IP addresses 93.183.216.73 and 176.8.54.46. The anonymous editors have continually reverted edits in order to paste directly the biographical text from Mark Gorenstein's webpage here. This is witnessed from such edits as the following:
    (a) 11:26, 21 October 2014 (93.183.216.73)
    (b) 10:14, 27 October 2014‎ (176.8.54.46)
    (c) 07:35, 3 November 2014‎ (93.183.216.73)
    I left a comment on the talk page for the Mark Gorenstein article that such pasting of the biography of a subject on a subject's wikipedia page is improper practice and a conflict of interest. Neither party has responded or commented on the talk page, but simply re-edited the page with the repetitive pasting of Gorenstein's website biography. Given the past behaviour from both IP addresses, it is clear that they will continue their practices. I fully expect that a re-edit to paste, again, the biographical text from Gorenstein's page will come from one of those two addresses within days of this note. I am afraid that the only route is to block those two IP addresses from editing this article. Thanks for reading, DJRafe (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The way to handle that is to post a short description at WP:RFPP to request that Mark Gorenstein be semiprotected because some IPs are repeatedly posting a copyright violation (and post the link to the original). Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There doesn't appear to have been any IP activity on this page since 3 November, which indicates page protection is not necessary at this point. Please report at WP:RFPP if the problem reoccurs.  Philg88 ♦talk 09:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Previously blocked sockpuppet 113.190.46.130 editing again

    113.190.46.130 was blocked on 14 Sep 14 for 3 months as a sockpuppet of MiG29VN, a user which has persistently used a range of IPs to edit whilst banned (8 separate sockpuppet investigations since March 2014, the last of which concluded only several days ago and resulted in 9 different IPs being exposed as socks and most temporarily blocked - pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MiG29VN/Archive). The block on this particular IP account (113.190.46.130) now appears to have expired and the sockpuppet has of course started editing again [59] in exactly the same fashion as MiG29VN and their various IPs. Request IP re blocked as it is clearly still being used as a sockpuppet. Pls let me know if more evidence is required and I will provide it, just hoping to get this sorted without having to write War and Peace. Thanks in advance for any assistance or advice. Anotherclown (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Obviously the same person, and I've blocked this address for 3 months (the same length as their other addresses are being blocked for) Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Somnophilia&diff=638225106&oldid=637664695
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Posting relevant COI information on users' talk page. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    See WP:OWN. It's not "your" Wikipedia page even though it's about your organization. postdlf (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Query

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Community ban needed for Joshua Bonehill

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Comment Seems like he badly needs a block for edit warring. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Disruption by a single-purpose user and an IP

    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" [60] 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 [61] and by another user [62], 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.[63] --Երևանցի talk 22:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    Vandalism

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Ryulong's Vendetta: Page Fredrick_Brennan

    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)[reply]

    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. SilverserenC 22:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There's the new Wiki In Action board, too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I didn't even know about that one. So they now have an official board for COI canvassing of Wikipedia? SilverserenC 22:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]


    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=638427052"