Misplaced Pages

Wikihounding

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

My first encounter with User:DHeyward was at Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers. I'm not aware of any previous run-ins with him. I brought DHeyward's behavior up at the GamerGate enforcement request page but my request was closed with no action. Since then, DHeyward has followed me to two articles and specifically targeted my edits: and . Today he even followed me to an SPI case that I opened, writing a diatribe against me and another experienced editor who also objected to DHeyward's edits. I've been an editor since 2010 but this kind of aggressive wikihounding is new for me. Try an interaction ban? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sonicyouth86. The sorts of links you've given above aren't very helpful, which means people are less likely to review your complaint. You should use diffs. See the Simple diff and link guide. Bishonen | talk 00:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. I thought that the usersearch tool provided a better picture but here are the diffs as requested: His first edit on the first page that he followed me to; his first edit on the second page he followed me to; his edits on the SPI that I opened today. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Its not uncommon to have your editing examined by seasoned editors if your editing history needs scrutiny.--MONGO 01:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

And your possible BLP violation and editing warring here led me to ask for page protection.--MONGO 01:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, let uninvolved editors scrutinize my editing, I welcome it. You are not an uninvolved editor and you know it. I can understand your wish to help DHeyward, especially considering that he has returned the favor here for example, but please let uninvolved editors examine this. As for your accusation "BLP violation", you know that it's not what happened. I also don't see any BLP violations in the edit that was reverted by DHeyward. But you tried, that's something. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest User:NE_Ent/Unilateral_interaction_ban NE Ent 03:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I can and do ignore his allegations in discussions (like on the SPI case that he's followed me to) but I don't see how that can work in articles where he shows up to revert my policy-compliant edits. The "just ignore him" type of advice isn't helpful in this case. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The edits you agree can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone (emphasis mine) every time you press "Save page"? NE Ent 03:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The policy-compliant edits that an editor hounds with the single purpose of reverting them? Sure. Let's try it for a week. You contribute article content sourced to academic sources or remove unsourced nonsense about living persons or open and SPI, all the things that I did and that DHeyward found offensive. And I stop by and revert your changes, leaving incoherent edit summaries and accusing you of every wiki-sin. And then you tell me how you liked it. You expressed your opinion on the enforcement page, why are you here again? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, NE Ent. Wikihounding is a user behavior issue, not a release-of-copyright issue. We don't excuse unwarranted blanking or vandalism on the grounds that all users agree to release their writing, either. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't wikihounding. It's all related to Sonicyouth86's desire to include questionable BLP material to Christina Hoff Sommers. When he failed, he moved to her book Who Stole Feminism? which is a 20 year old book. When he added fringe material to the book on the "rule of thumb" I pointed out to him that we had an article on Rule of thumb that also called it fringe. So he attempted to add it there as well. In the meantime, he warned both ImprovingWiki and me about GamerGate sanctions related to Sommers. For me, he tried and failed to get sanctions. For Improving Wiki he filed a SPI. Using these processes as a weapon (as he is doing here) should not be rewarded. My only interest is that he not create BLP violations and mischaracterizations (some of which were highlighted by Ms. Sommers through twitter and were well publicized - Jimbo weighed in, sonicyouth86 disagreed with him). For the record, ImprovingWiki and I don't agree on a lot of content but we haven't turned it into a drama fest and neither of us has added BLP violating material. Sonicyouth86 seems to believe consensus involves punishment and threatening those who dissent. --DHeyward (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Here are the two "questionable" edits on two separate pages that caused DHeyward to follow me to the pages and revert my edits: first article and second article. And of course the "questionable" SPI that DHeyward simply couldn't resist because I opened it. I trust that editors will see through DHeyward's diversions and allegations. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

sigh? This is just the edits you made to my talk page telling me about all the mean things the admins will be doing to me for opposing your violations. and the coup de gras, the edit war template . I think you've taken me forum shopped me to 3 or 4 noticeboards in a week. Now, I don't know ImprovingWiki from Adam, but I recognize bullying and intimidation. I have not tried to keep you from editing in any way, only to keep poor edits out of the encyclopedia. Please stop the boarding of editors and find another topic area outside of BLPs, especially of people you seem to disagree strongly with. --DHeyward (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward says "this isn't wikihounding" but then he describes how he followed Sonicyouth86 to the Sommers book and then to the rule of thumb article, both of which were first edited by Sonicyouth86. He then showed up at the SPI Sonicyouth86 filed, which had nothing to do with DHeyward. So DHeyward is certainly following Sonicyouth86's edit history. I would like to see him explain how it was relevant for him to comment at the SPI, especially since I was dragged into it in his comments. The comment there was hounding, pure and simple, trying to derail the valid concerns raised there. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I call bullshit....someone leaves a notification of possible sanctions notice on my talkpage and other unfriendly reminders and obnoxious bits of advice and I sure as hell am going to follow them around as well to see what other stupidities they might be up to. Considering all the bait Sonicyouth86 has tossed about and the forum shopping to boot, he should expect to see his editing scrutinized. If nothing serious turns up then it's to everyones benefit.--MONGO 05:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous bullshit! Sonicyouth86 has dragged DHeyward to the NOR noticeboard and tried to get him sanctioned on the Gamergate arbcom case, both unsuccessfully and now is here claiming he is being wikistalked by DHeyward? He should expect to be followed after all this garbage. We routinely block and then ban editors with a vendetta...Sonicyouth86 better chill out fast.--MONGO 05:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The HOUNDING guideline does not say that if someone bugs you then you should follow them around and bug them back. DHeyward had no reason to comment at the valid SPI filed by Sonicyouth86. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering all the other harassment that Sonicyouth86 has been engaged in against DHeyward is anyone shocked that DHeyward would also look at this SPI. Perhaps DHeyward assumed erroneously (but for valid reasons) that the SPI may be another effort to seek sanction against an editor that disagreed with Sonic youth86...there is precedent for that as one can clearly see.--MONGO 06:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, your earlier analysis of "who edited first" is misleading. For example, he went to edit rule of thumb after I pointed out we had a well sourced article. His edit to "Who stole Feminism?" was a fringe view. So he edited rule of thumb to make the fringe appear not to be fringe. He went there after this. . He is correct that Kelly is authoritative. What he misses is that whoever gave him the out of context sentence that is fringe, didn't give him the entire paragraph or paper - the 20 page paper is a treatise on how rule of thumb has nothing to do with a legal interpretation of wife-beating, including Blackstone. I can't pre-cog bad edits but when he adds a bad edit to one article, gets shown how another very well sourced article that is more specific disagrees with him and he proceeds over to that article - that's not following. I already read and vetted the article, mainstream views and sources and even retrieved the JSTOR document and tediously transcluded the text so he would understand. If you tell an editor adding flat-earth theory to the Ferdinand Magellan article that we had the Apollo moon landing and took pictures and the editor proceeds go to Apollo to add the flat-earth stuff they attempted to add to Magellan, that's not wikihounding to protect the Apollo article, too. --DHeyward (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You are inflating the problem by calling his position "fringe". It is a common misconception that 'rule of thumb' came from the size of stick used for wife beating; this is not a fringe position held by an unimportant few. I can show you a dozen scholarly papers that assume the misconception, and these papers are not written by fringe people. I can show you a hundred books written by otherwise reliable authors who assume the misconception. Sonicyouth86 was not a dangerous juggernaut intent on wrecking the wiki, instead Sonicyouth86 was following the sources, of which there are quite a lot to draw from, all of which contradict the Kelly paper. The authority of the Kelly paper is not apparent to someone seeing 100:1 ratios in the literature. Kelly's authority comes from a deeper investigation. So I disagree with the way that you paint Sonicyouth86 as pushing some kind of fringe POV. Binksternet (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, and here is why your revert to his edit on that page was not well thought out when you blindly restored his misconception as "properly sourced." He was not arguing that there were opponents to Kelly, rather he was inserting, in Kelly's voice that Kelly supported the view that the rule of thumb was being used in courts. The origin may have many misconceptions that are not supported by scholarly literature. We don't publish misconceptions as fact. There are many people with misconceptions about global warming or evolution. It is not wikihounding to prevent them from spreading those misconceptions to articles that are uncontaminated especially when they were given those articles as links to broaden their viewpoint. Widely held but unverifiable views can be called anything you like except encyclopedic. --DHeyward (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mongo: You appear to be saying that he has been following me out of revenge for my "harassment" (NOP noticeboard which led to the removal of his OR and GG noticeboard) and that he's justified in doing it. That described his "vendetta" (and yours) pretty nicely. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

My vendetta? That's a cute little stretch playing the victim card when the facts are I watched you bait and badger and make every effort to seek sanction against an editor who is in oppostion to your BLP violations and POV pushing....which is once again what your posting here is all about.--MONGO 12:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If by "bait and badger" you mean open a discussion at the NOR noticeboard which led to the removal of DHeyward's original research and the request at the GG enforcement page, yes. But your definition of "bait and badger" is surreal. Again, you're saying that he wikihounds me as revenge for my alleged baiting and badgering. You haven't been able to show a single BLP violation or instance of "POV pushing" on my part, just shrill accusations. My two article edits that were wikihounded and reverted (1 + 2) by DHeward and the SPI that I opened didn't contain anything of what you allege. In fact, I removed an unsourced statement about a BLP subject with the first edit, and attributed POV to a jurist in 1675 (primary source) with the second edit. My edits were perfectly policy-compliant, DHeyward's reverts were not. But, again, please stop derailing this discussion about wikihounding with shrill and obviously false accusations of misconduct on my part. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Without evaluating the editors in any way, which is a dull, time-consuming and unenviable task, I tracked down the primary source being discussed at . I think primary sources are of great importance to BLPs because they anchor discussions to their roots that otherwise might be prone to drift away in rhetoric. Blackstone says "and the husband was prohibited from using any violence toward his wife, aliter quad ad virum, ex causa regiminus et castigationis uxoris suae, licite et rationabiliter pertinet." I think the context also makes clear that "this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds." So we're dealing with semantic differences in the modern reaction to an old distinction that pretty much no longer exists, between moderate "correction" and real "violence". Wnt (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's be clear. It is a fact that the origin of the phrase "rule of thumb" has nothing whatever to do with wife-beating. So to argue over whether or not wife beating or "moderate correction" was or was not acceptable is irrelevant to the article on the phrase 'rule of thumb' or to the basic fact that Sommers was correct to say it's a myth. The only relevant content for that article is the debate about the use and origin of the expression. Going into whether or not hitting women was or was not acceptable is beside the point for that article. What Blackstone says is also fairly clear. Wnt has excerpted a sentence from a detailed discussion in which Blackstone makes it clear that the Latin phrase refers to an "old law" that has now been superceded, so that "a wife may now have security against her husband". Of course the question of what "moderate correction" and "restraint" means may be debated. Any form of constraint obviously requires some kind of 'violence', so in that sense it is all about 'semantic differences'. Frankly, the detail of the exact interpretation of Blackstone seems so pedantic that I fail to see its relevance to either article other than a desire to nit-pick by finding 'error'. Paul B (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's be clear. After our first and very unpleasant run-in, DHeyward followed me to one SPI and two articles where he reverted edits that had nothing to do with Blackstone. I removed unsourced information about a BLP subject, DHeyward showed up on the page for the first time and reverted my change, leaving a strange edit summary "That information isn't in his page. WP:NOTPAPER." Um, what? That information isn't in his page? Yes, I know. That's why I removed the unsourced information about a BLP subject. Then he followed me to another page where I attributed the POV to a 17th century jurist, added a quote from an academic paper and the specific court cases. DHeyward appeared (again, for the first time on the page) to revert my changes, writing something about "Judge Thumb" (?) in the the summary. What does that even mean, seriously? As you can see, DHeyward reverted edits that had nothing to do with Blackstone. They were perfectly reasonable edits, not the big bad misdeeds that he accuses me of. Hence, I've no idea why we're discussing Blackstone here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Template:Uninvolvededitor DHeyward admits that he's following Sonicyouth around, so it seems like all we're determining here is whether Sonicyouth's behavior has been disruptive enough to justify it. I don't think that's the case at all, either in the edits about Sommers that started this or in subsequent edits or warnings. It's been established time and again that WP's containing of criticism of living people is not a BLP issue, and DHeyward should know better than to justify wikihounding according to his personal interpretation of BLP in this manner. DHeyward needs to stop following Sonicyouth and face sanctions if he does not stop. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese - All the edits refer to the same issue. Different pages on the same issue. That's not hounding. It's pursuing an argument about a specific issue with an editor who is raising the same issue in different pages. It's different from following round an editor and just undoing or criticising whatever they do. That's what hounding is. And it's no different from following an editor who is trying to add the same fringe material to several articles - in order to remove it from those articles. Of course whether Sonic's view is or is not fringe is another question - but the principle is the same. Even the Sockpuppet investigation was about the same issue - opinions of Sommers. Paul B (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

No, different issues. He even shows up to revert my removal of the description "gay rights activist", a label that was unsourced and doesn't appear in the person's article. And the SPI was unrelated to the opinions of Sommers. It has to do with an editor who uses socks and IPs to edit four topic areas, one of which is pages related to "dissident feminists". I didn't say anything about Sommers' opinions in the SPI. So what was the reason for following me and derailing the SPI? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a false account of the diffs in your original post, which are all about Sommers' book Who Stole Feminism? and Rule of Thumb, an article you edited specifically because of claims in Who Stole Feminism?. The SPI is about an editor who supported DHeyward on, guess what?, the 'Who Stole Feminism issue. And yet you you present this as he "even followed me" to an SPI, as if it were utterly unrelated. Paul B (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't write anything about Sommers or "Who Stole Feminism?" on the rule of thumb article. The two edits that DHeyward reverted on the two pages didn't even have anything to do with Sommers or Blackstone. The edit on the first page concerned Lauritsen's "gay rights activist" label and the edit on the second page was the attribution of POV, addition of a quote from a journal and adding the court cases. The dispute over Kelly and Blackstone started after he followed me to the two pages. But his initial reverts removed or restored content that wasn't about Sommers. Um, the SPI is about an editor who abused socks. And he did not support DHeyward, at least not in most things. GamerGators even accuse the editor of being mean to Sommers and DHeyward. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• May I make a suggestion? If someone is going to file a wikihounding accusation at ANI, they need to compile a large number of convincing and case-making diffs, which the filer has not done, even after being requested to do so. And if someone is, in defense, going to accuse the filer of prior bad behavior, they should also compile a convincing number of diffs, which no one has adequately done in my opinion. So what we have here is involved parties firing shots at each other. The burden of proof one way or another should not be on the uninvolved admins or civilians reading this ANI. Uninvolved parties should not be forced to search all over Misplaced Pages mainspace, user talk pages, random contributions, SPIs, and so forth, and read minds on top of that, to reach even the most rudimentary understanding of the situation. So can we please ask both parties to leave each other alone and AGF, and then close this malformed (in my opinion) ANI? At least until the concerned parties feel it merits enough importance to actually do the legwork and present all of the relevant diffs for their case? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack in AfD discussion

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

Here I was called a WP:POINTy troll (although I have no idea what I was suppose to be being pointy about). I attempted to neutralize the personal attack which has no reasonable purpose for being in a deletion discussion about an article. That attempt was reverted by GraniteSand with an edit summary that verifies it was intended as a personal attack ... If you don't like my honest characterization then file a report. I warned the user on his talk page in an attempt to stop the attack there. which They acknowledged the warning as I was restoring the discussion page to a point where there were no personally attacking comments against an editor so the discussion could focus on the article with an edit summary of Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Feel free to file a report for my WP:RPA WP:TPO#Removing_harmful_posts fixes to your comment if you don't like it. Moments later, they again reverted to the version with the attack claiming It's my honest assessment of what is a speedy keep AfD and the justification for my position, not a personal attack. Don't modify it.

Now, I admit, I probably hung on to thinking I could convince this user that a comment that calls me a pointy troll is not appropriate to leave in a deletion discussion, and I should have probably come here a little sooner for feedback on an appropriate course of action forward, but I really wanted to try and exhaust all other methods of resolving this without coming here. It is now obvious to even me, that I am not going to sway this user to keeping the attack off the page, so here I am to discuss this and try and achieve a little consensus from a community which is mostly senior editors on if I should just let it go and deal with being called a pointy troll which was very much an WP:ABF comment on the other editors part or if I am justified in believing that such attacks are not acceptable on Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. — {{U|Technical 13}} 03:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

One point to remember is that rude personal attacks never make the target look bad. They only make the person who said them look unreasonable, and quickly discredit any possibility of anyone listening to them. When you refactor a personal attack against yourself, what you're doing is excusing the person who made it, and covering up their real selves, making them look better. When I see people using personal attacks to win an argument, it is a signal that I can safely ignore them forever. --Jayron32 03:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Well said. NE Ent 11:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have too much to add; my terribly misconstrued edit summaries pretty much sum up my position. I'm generally a civil guy but in any request for input (such as AfD) where I have to extrapolate on my position I always try to be clear and unambiguous. My position is not a personal attack and the refactoring of my comments was inappropriate. I'm offline soon but I'll check back i tomorrow. GraniteSand (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• I participated in that discussion (now closed as snow keep) and perhaps read that comment differently. I saw an editor trying to theorise as to why another editor would nominate that article for deletion; his conclusions narrowed down to three options including something pointy, trolling or a misunderstanding. It didn't seem (to me) like an attempt to call the nominator a "pointy troll" which takes the first and second disparate options and combines them without regard for the third. In reality, the "right" option of the three would seem to be the third. The nominator refactored the comment to remove the first two options and leave the third, effectively accepting that the third was the case and saying not much more before the discussion was closed. It was a strange nomination for which there was absolutely no support. It struck GraniteSand as strange and he said as much. Best bet? Move on. St★lwart 10:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yeah when I saw the comment I read it pretty much exactly as Stalwart111 read it; GraniteSand was simply wondering out loud what the reasons could be for nominating an article which stood no chance of deletion (let's not forget, the article nominated for deletion was Cocaine; even thinking charitably you have to say it was a flawed nomination). I see no personal attack. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This does not require admin attention. Stating that someone's nomination of an article could be considered pointy or trolling is hardly a personal attack, especially in this case. Perhaps Granite could have phrased his words better. —Dark 03:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Jenakarthik's copyvios

User:Jenakarthik is inactive since 2011 (3 edits in 2013). However, some of his articles created in 2009 still suffer from copyvio and/or close paraphrasing. Examples I tagged: Ilayankudi maranar, Iyarpagaiar, Meiporul Nayanar, Viralminda Nayanar, Amaraneedi Nayanar, Sadaiya Nayanar, Isaignaniyaar, Pugazh Thunai Nayanar, Nesa Nayanar. The copyvio and close paraphrasing remains as these articles have had only minor edits since creation. I wanted to check if his/her other creations but "Pages Created" from Tool Labs is dead so could not check. Can some admin please provide a link for a tool that does this job OR at least give me a list of pages created (by using your admin tools, Don't if this is possible). Thanks. --Redtigerxyz 13:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, all you have to do is to go to Special:contributions/Jenakarthik and click "Only show edits that are page creations". You can also only look at article namespace creations if you want. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This tool lists all major edits. MER-C 13:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Redtigerxyz 13:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

IP hatemonger on IPNA talkpage - Special:Contributions/71.127.135.196

Re Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America#Native_Warrior_Society_flag_theft-pic_re_the_Vancouver_Olympics_article @Montanabw: and I have enjoyed a visitation from an IP editor who.....other than having nothing constructive or in fact even relevant to the subject at hand to say, has engaged in some very nasty political/racist POV and attacking us both. Those who know my username know that I'm not fond of ANIs and dislike procedure but in this case "something must be done". Because of a consistent pattern, of sorts, by IP users of a certain "bent" like this, and the known fact that partisan internet-penetration campaigns are underway on various fronts by corporate and political-partisan organizations and contractors, that such IPs should be checked as to their origin. This isn't possible with the many WP:SPAs of this kind, but it is possible with IP users. Wikiscanner is no longer in operation, and interpretations of corporate-origin and government-origin contributions vary...but this is not a contribution, it's a volley of poisoned apples...if from a "tainted source", then consideration should be given to blocking the whole domain, not just that one IP. In viewing the pink section instructions above some of what is said could be construed as more-than-implied libel/defamation of either or the both of us; but it's just hate-spew and as noted has no place in Misplaced Pages. But very typical cant of a certain kind on native and environmental-related matters identifiable in its agenda and on behalf of whom such dissembling is being acted out; he claims to be native American, but anyone can say that....what else he says after that is:

• ... yet it has already been widely observed that it is always white homosexual activists in Canada who dominate all discussions of our welfare, and try to squelch out any of us speaking for themselves, automatically screaming "racism" because I used "toothless" as a synonym for their generally comical impotence and sword rattling. As if, being a homosexual. you are some kind of deity and tell everyone else what they may say or discuss.

• Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are we Montanabw?

• I can assure you the media deal to hype a toothless group of 37 people out of ten thousand is sealed *behind closed doors*, but they remain a toothless group of 37 people though dont they?
  • made indirectly about native people in reference to my example of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) being given headline/feature coverage as if they represented participants in a demonstration or a movement or whatever when they do not. Equating native people as "toothless" is commented upon by montanabw before the later edits above. Some elders are indeed toothless, but they're not comically impotent or sword rattling; anything but. As for being a white homosexual activist, that I've never published that if it makes him good to spew homophobic slanders to make himself feel more macho and righteous, that's his problem not mine; that he would castigate and emasculate white supporters of natives doesn't speak well to his own self-proclaimed native identity (which I find dubious, and falls in the "some of my best friends are black" category of disclaimer, like political trolls as at Talk:Adrian Dix who claimed to not be of a political party/faction but obviously were, in tone and also in the goals they had for that page; WP:DUCK etc. In this, perhaps it's a bit of the old "methinks he protests too much" but the sexual identity challenges he's facing are his own, not mine to comment further on.

• This is my reply to the IP user's most recent attacks/hate comments; I agree with montanabw that its best to ignore such tripe but given that's the WP:IPNA talkpage, his comments are all the more offensive. I'm tart in my responses, perhaps because he's such an easy mark to have his words turned back against him. And to "call bullshit" what it is.

Rare for me to ever say this, but having made this post I will leave this to the "wisdom of the adminship" to be dealt with; and again, I recommend the origin of this series of attack-posts be determined and a domain-block or something of the kind be considered if there are issues with that origin's nature/funding.

I wasn't sure which ANI board to take this to; NPOV or NPA; I'm unconcerned with his libels....and can't afford a lawyer anyway, nor am I inclined to engage further in his negative energy. As montanabw advises elsewhere "Just keep on editing".... yeah, true, but this guy needs shutting down. With a sledgehammer.Skookum1 (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Skookum1 is correct that we have a racist anon IP troll over there. Needs someone with the mop. BTW, did someone alert Mr. Anon IP that this has been filed? Montanabw 22:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • My bad, I doofed when looking where to put that template by going to the username and seeing only the contributions, forgot the IP users do have talkpages; just put {{subst:ANI-notice}} there now; I would have done it last night (it's 7:40 am here now) but we had a blackout at about 10 pm and I went to bed (3rd world country power supply...).Skookum1 (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The IP is hopping around, so I've semi-protected the talk page to prevent further disruption there. Let me know if it continues elsewhere, and I'll look into a range block. Dreadstar ☥ 22:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dreadstar. We'll keep you posted! Montanabw 03:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

I don't think that bot has been active for years... since 2006?!?!? _Fortuna 15:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

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//_Δ's/ 16:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm kinda new to Misplaced Pages 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)

‎64.183.48.206 has returned as 2602:306:BDC5:6DC0:159D:A9F7:9682:6057

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

My favorite sociopath has decided to get around his six-month band by working from a different computer and posting his same abusive edits. Please block this one too. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't know if this is relevant, but see these usernames too- re they connected? Surely so!:

2601:9:A80:7CE:221:E9FF:FEE0:8C3C
2600:1010:B01F:BD99:543C:B037:142E:4FA6
2001:1388:106:FB3A:CCD7:275D:2FE1:CDDF
2A00:D880:3:2:0:0:F60B:1FB7
‎2602:306:cce7:5510:2c59:a3b0:5c7e:a6be
2600:1011:b049:465c:9491:e9ec:b6d0:98a9
‎2605:6000:9d83:d800:404:a84a:11de:2070
‎2003:48:2d2d:a01:a5a6:64c7:7fc4:5ea
‎2404:e801:7458:c972:5417:d542:bbd0:8461
2A01:E35:8A2D:AF10:DD5E:934A:3B5C:40FA
2601:E:1980:532:5C26:7E74:892D:5BFA
2a01:e35:8a2d:af10:2d2e:3cf4:16d:20b0
2001:8003:6023:1a01:a08a:512d:9829:65e7
2600:1005:B00C:E7DC:0:23:DD5E:B801
2605:e000:efc0:1c:68ee:f5e:5e64:670c
2001:464c:c401:0:1907:5a11:c2d3:56b5
2601:2:5780:b0c:c3:d3d8:7d7:91b1
2601:9:1980:907:B89F:3B1B:8318:20E9
2600:1006:b11d:5531:b945:d20a:9451:85d
2602:306:BDC5:6DC0:159D:A9F7:9682:6057

_Fortuna 15:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

those are WP:IPV6 addresses Avono (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Aaaahh! Nothing to do with Satanism then?! Damn! _Fortuna 15:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked up a half dozen of these. None of them look like my guy. Different interests. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked the new IP. Bob Caldwell CSL, I get that you're frustrated, but please refrain from using "sociopath" when describing other editors, even the disruptive ones.--Jezebel's Ponyo 17:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think my description is accurate, but you're right and I won't use it again. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Everyone (1, 2, 3, 4), you may be entertained by looking at the "Mistaken IPv6 block needs to be undone" section of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756. Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

ALPCA 5632

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

A user called ALPCA 5632 has been causing trouble on the Vehicle registration plates of Pennsylvania article.

On October 28, Meldar667 updated the article "to keep up with changes and/or updates of various styles", as he pointed out in the edit summary. This was a perfectly reasonable edit - apportioned truck plates in Pennsylvania have indeed reached the AG series, and the format of dealer plates is indeed now K12-345K.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=631479245&oldid=631477285

On November 23, I edited the article twice - first to give a separate row to every serial format used on passenger plates in Pennsylvania since 1958, and then to point out the most recent passenger serial issued in the state. I made both these edits with the intention of bringing the article into line with other articles on vehicle registration plates of US states and Canadian provinces and territories.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=635165101&oldid=631479245
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=635165516&oldid=635165101

For whatever reason - he did not give one in the edit summary - ALPCA 5632 took exception to all three of these edits, and undid them on November 27. He also marked this as a minor edit, again for a reason I cannot fathom.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=635673331&oldid=635165516

As it was clearly not a minor edit, and no explanation was given for it, it looked to me like vandalism. So I reverted it.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=635674107&oldid=635673331

On November 30, ALPCA 5632 reverted it back. Again, he did not give a reason.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=635968430&oldid=635674107

I reverted it back again - this time telling him to give a good reason for his actions, if there even was one.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=635977106&oldid=635968430

He did not take the hint, and on December 7 he performed his actions without reason for a third time.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=636980912&oldid=635977106

Having undone them once again, I felt compelled to give him a warning for them - and so I did.

Still he did not take the hint, and on December 10, not only did he perform his actions without reason for a fourth time - but he also removed my warning, claiming it was a "threat".

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=637483934&oldid=637024868
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:ALPCA_5632&diff=637483657&oldid=637030594

So, for a fourth time, I undid his actions - telling him that it was getting ridiculous by this stage, and asking him why he couldn't accept the three edits he had been repeatedly undoing, and why he couldn't provide any sort of a reason for not accepting them.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=637505703&oldid=637483934

I also restored my warning, saying that a warning on Misplaced Pages is not the same as a threat. (I don't believe it is, anyway - to me, threats on Misplaced Pages are immature remarks like "I'm going to kill you" or "I'm going to get you banned from editing".)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:ALPCA_5632&diff=637507088&oldid=637483657

But still he did not take any hints - and, on December 12, he performed his actions without reason for a fifth time, and removed my warning for a second time (again calling it a threat).

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Pennsylvania&diff=637701414&oldid=637505703
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:ALPCA_5632&diff=637701383&oldid=637507088

It has reached the stage now where I think administrator action is required.

I'd like to point out, however, that despite everything, I'm not actually intending to drive ALPCA 5632 away from the Vehicle registration plates of Pennsylvania article, or from Misplaced Pages altogether. It never has been, and never will be, my intention to drive other Misplaced Pages users away, no matter how troublesome they are.

But I do feel that there are some lessons that ALPCA 5632 needs to learn. And it would probably be better if he learned these lessons from someone other than me. Bluebird207 (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - FWIW, given the article in question and the User name involved, "ALPCA" likely stands for "Automobile License Plate Collectors Association" so this person likely considers themselves an "expert" on this subject material. Also, any links to the Talk page discussion regarding this matter? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • That talk page seems awfully lonely. I can see the improvement from Bluebird207 and Meldar667's edits but it's clear that ALPCA 5632 doesn't like something about them. Discussion hopefully will solve this (or at least give one side the high road in this...). 129.9.75.250 (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit that, for the time being, I don't really see much point in discussing the matter on the talk page for the article.

IMO, such a discussion would surely require at least one contribution from ALPCA 5632. But since he has had five opportunities to explain his reversions of my edits and Meldar667's in the edit summary, and has taken none of them, it does not seem very likely that he will contribute to such a discussion. Bluebird207 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD is the generally accepted methodology with a key emphasis on the D for Discuss. It doesn't matter who starts it as long as it happens. Right now both sides are "guilty" of not communicating well, so ANI is premature. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Without meaning to look for trouble here, may I ask how I am not communicating well in this situation?

And I still feel that a discussion would require at least one contribution from ALPCA 5632. What happens if he does not contribute at all?

Once again, let me say that I do not intend to drive him away from the article, or from Misplaced Pages - but I do feel that there are lessons he needs to learn, and that it might be better if he learned these lessons from someone other than me. Bluebird207 (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Quite frankly, Edit Summaries are not the place for a conversation especially when one party or another is being unreasonable. Give them the chance to defend their edits, or, to not participate and fairly clearly indicate that they are being disruptive or WP:NOTHERE. THEN its time to bring this to ANI or another appropriate Board, this is just a content dispute at this point. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Scalhotrod here. When there's a complaint on ANI about another party not responding to discussion, I will often check the talk page. If there's nothing there, that's rarely a good sign. Even if some attempts have been made at communicating via edit summaries, you should still attempt discussion on the talk page, this makes for a far better ANI complaint. (In Remember also it ultimately doesn't matter who should have started the discussion, it's far better that someone does start the discussion. Ideally you should also try contacting them via their talk page, particularly if they are new but I wouldn't necessarily dismiss a complaint just because you didn't. Of course you will have to notify them when bringing and ANI complain, and if this notification brings them to the party there'd probably be no followup (whether because they realise it's serious or because they were confused about discussion before), so it is in your interest to try and convince them rather than waste your time at ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Q: "Without meaning to look for trouble here, may I ask how I am not communicating well in this situation?"

A: You have bitten a newcomer with only 12 edits. You have not welcomed them. You have not invited them to discuss changes on the article's talk page. You have not engaged them in any alternate dispute resolution before coming to WP:AN/I, the last stage for editor behavior before a WP:RFC/U or an WP:ARBCOM case.

Bluebird207, I strongly suggest you take some time to reflect on your own editing behavior.

Can we close this "per what Scalhotrod wrote", please?

Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

All right, all right. No need to be like that. I'm not entirely familiar with the quirks of reporting users and settling edit disputes, after all.

I'll start the discussion right away.

But I'll say it one last time - I feel that ALPCA 5632 has to make at least one contribution to this discussion. And if he doesn't - whether by accident or design - then I think it's fair to say that the matter will have to be taken further. Bluebird207 (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the discussion's up: Talk:Vehicle registration plates of Pennsylvania#Recent edits.

I will now remove ANI from my watchlist. Bluebird207 (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Intervention/suggestion required on handling former admin Vejvančický

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

Dear all, I need some intervention/suggestion on how to handle former admin Vejvančický. Post my editor review, where I had requested him to stop discussing me on Wikipediocracy if he wished me to answer his queries further, he seems to have been personally attacking me repeatedly. I've been ignoring him till now (and can continue to do so, if that's the suggestion here), but need your views on three particular instances:

• On 23rd August this year, Vejvančický wrote on the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard, "Please remove the admin user right from my account. I don't want to be in the same elevated rank with dishonest manipulators, such as User:Wifione". My name was soon enough redacted from his statement by another editor. I felt Vejvančický's statement was an unnecessary personal attack, but ignored it. Others on the BN noticed this too.
• Later on, in a recent RfA, Vejvančický asked the candidate a question that ended as follows: "Would you trust administrator User:Wifione as your "confidant" after reading the review?" Again, this was an unnecessarily constructed question, apparently intended to be a personal attack as I had asked a question to the nominee just some time before Vejvančický had. I ignored this too. Seeing that the candidate had my support, Vejvančický then proceeded to oppose the candidate giving the additional reasoning, "Also the presence of User:Wifione in the role of a polite and discreet behind-the-scene mediator is unacceptable to me. Find a better company next time.".
• On 9th December, after I had congratulated Jimmy Wales for a recent award, Vejvančický immediately posted the following comment: "What a cordiality and friendly speech from someone who has been told "not to come back" (by Jimbo Wales himself), not long time ago! I admire your ability to forgive, User:Wifione. Btw, you don't work for Mr. Chaudhuri anymore? I mean, you don't manipulate those articles since it was exposed in your editor review and in other places ..."
• For once, I did not ignore this and I immediately requested Vejvančický to remove the personal attack and allusion that I was working for some person. Today, Vejvančický refused to remove the personal attack, and wrote this as his reply to me on his talk page: "I've seen a lot of your "work" (many examples of your manipulation and subsequent super civil prevarication/obstruction) to be sure that I'm not mistaken, so I won't redact anything. The rest is at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Wifione"

I don't know how else to request him to stop his personal attacks. I would have expected him to get blocked for such repeated comments, if he had been any other editor. Vejvančický does good work around the project and somehow, if someone knows him well and could convince him to stop making such statements, it'll be helpful. If not, I'll appreciate some sort of a ban on him either interacting with me, or discussing me like this. Any suggestions will be helpful. Thanks. Wifione 14:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comments
• Wifione, you haven't had much response here. One reason might be that there is rather a lot of material to wade through (I have, for the first time, read all the way through that editor review). This matter (and the various associated allegations) have at times over the past few years come to the attention of ArbCom. If you or Vejvančický are not satisfied with any resolution of the matter that is proposed here, and/or the community are unable to deal with this to your satisfaction, it may be time to raise it formally as an arbitration request to get an in-depth review of this and finally put things to rest one way or the other. I'm saying this as one of the outgoing arbitrators. For the avoidance of doubt, I would recuse from any case request that was made on this matter before 31 December 2014, and I do hope that you get sufficient responses here that it can be dealt with at a lower level of dispute resolution. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm waiting to see if Vejvančický will be replying. NE Ent 00:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Carcharoth. Irrespective of whether Vejvančický or I go to ArbCom, I believe he should uphold some basic civil behaviour while editing around the project. That's the prime reason I'm here. If Vejvančický really wants to take this up at ArbCom, he can. But that shouldn't be justification for continuing to leave comments like he has started doing. I'm actually foxed by his behaviour, because in general, I find him really positive for the project and handling various issues whenever he can in a very practical manner. NE Ent, I too hope he does reply. He's been off the project since I've left a note on his talk page. Wifione 05:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Wifione, I'm going to ask Vejvančický not to mention your name again in any way except if he wants to file a request for arbitration, or if he wants to reconcile with you somehow. This is essentially a one way IBAN, except that it's informal. I'd rather not ask the community for an IBAN because that's hard to remove and not too many people on this board have the patience to wade through all the evidence. What Vejvančický has been saying are personal attacks, even if it's all true, because he's not providing clear evidence to back it up. (Pointing to a giant pile of hay, and saying the needle-like evidence is in there somewhere, does not make the cut.) Of course, you should feel free to request arbitration if you don't like this result. Jehochman 05:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• The option you offer is perfectly acceptable to me. I would myself prefer this (as I had suggested in my original post above) than a formal IBAN. Thanks. Wifione 05:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Two users edit warring

Popo51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Istrik ini dinamaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been reverting each other across at least two articles past 3RR and accusing each other of being sockpuppet accounts. Could something be done? Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This should reported at another location. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. Zero 09:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ankisur2's edits on Sharabha

On 13-Dec, IPs 117.201.103.102 and 117.201.103.18 were removing referenced material from the article Sharabha with the edit summary "this portion is a partisan shaivate view against vaishnavism and fan disharmony between the communities.also,this version of the incidents are controversial and not widely accepted." Both used the same edit summary verbatim. Later, 117.201.103.18 switched to "this article contains large portions describing desecration and mutilation of a revered form of Hindu God,which hurts religious sentiments and needs to be removed." After User:HJ Mitchell semi-protected the article, suddenly Ankisur2 reverting to the versions of the IPs with a similar edit summary "Some parts of this article contain description of desecration of a popular hindu deity.Removing the portion of the article that is vivid,in addition to being contentious". Despite trying to engage with the editor on Talk:Sharabha#Removal_of_referenced_content and two warnings , the editor reverted again. The IPs could be sockpuppets of Ankisur2. Admins, please look into this. --Redtigerxyz 19:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Ankisur2 for 24 hours for edit warring. If you believe that it's sockpuppets (WP:DUCK evidence is clearly there) then make a request at WP:SPI about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ricky81682. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ankisur2 initiated. Redtigerxyz 05:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Report Binksternet for harassment

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)

R&B and Hip hop Music, it would be good if you stopped committing copyright violations. --NeilN 16:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This morning's coffee-and-Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

suggest close with no action. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

If only to save time, I wouldn't object to a WP:BOOMERANG block. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This sock has been blocked and tagged; all that's left is checkuser for sleepers. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • I have added the required attribution. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • I'm going to delete it as soon as I hit "save". Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 . This type of tagging appears to be this accounts only type of edits, so I smell a WP:DUCK here as well. Further insight into this, however, will probably be beneficial. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lanny_Barby https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sky_Lopez_(2nd_nomination) https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Memphis_Monroe https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shyla_Stylez https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nikki_Nova https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Jaymes https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tory_Lane_(2nd_nomination) https://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, often I forget to log in, so these are also my work here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/108.41.160.197&offset=&limit=500&target=108.41.160.197 Redban (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm really wondering why Redban hasn't been blocked already. This has been going on for almost a week. If a user did this to articles on mainstream actors, they would have been blocked already. It's funny how Redban went from believing that Audrey Bitoni (a porn star who fails WP:PORNBIO & WP:GNG) was notable enough for a Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. He stated "Either this page remains or you remove 99% of the pornstar biographies on Misplaced Pages" 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people) opposes his views on the Hall of Fame criteria, but he continues to insist that we remove it anyways. Redban should be blocked immediately. Just look at all the warnings on his talk page; we've given him many chances to rectify his behavior but he refuses to stop. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo),

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

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

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

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

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

• Also, Redban is new user (from end of October 2014) and half of number of his edits are edits in Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion). Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 14:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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

• I have to admit something about the user just doesn't add up!, And I have to agree that IMHO it seems the user's pissed off about this article getting deleted so thus he's sticking to his word and nominating every other article just to be a pain in the arse (had there been real concerns in regards to the state of the articles I wouldn't have a problem whatsoever but they all seem fine and it does just come across as retaliation for his favourite article getting deleted), Personally I'd like to see him blocked for a week but that's just my opinion. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Any normal Misplaced Pages action will generally be considered to be disruptive if done en masse unless there is a clear and widespread prior agreement that the mass actions 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)

User:75.38.235.202 - block required

• 75.38.235.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• DeDe4Truth (talk · contribs)

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

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)

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)

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 . 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 . 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 .

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 . 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages paragraph based on it is false, and that he would remove it since Cwobeel introduced the source into the article . 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 . Huff source 4 was undiscussed for some time. Only Huff source 3 had a consensus for removing it .

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 . Citing BLP, ChrisGualtieri said that Huff Post "was once on a 'shit-list' If the material is false or not of high quality, you 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 , and I brought up the point that Huffington Post referred to detectives in the county spokesperson quote, so it wasn't contradictory with the NYT source. Cwobeel agreed with this point. ChrisGualtieri and Bob K31416 continued discussion, disregarding my point entirely. ChrisGualtieri then removed Huff source 1 and the relevant information without reattributing to NYT or looking for further opinion. Cwobeel then reverted. I reiterated my opinion but have received no response. Since then, there have been minor bouts of edit(-warr)ing and discussion about other topics, but no real consensus on the Huffington sources. The result of ChrisGualtieri's behavior is a breakdown in consensus-making and unwillingness to actually do anything with those sources because of a mass-source-review with dubious scope. This needs some sort of resolution. --RAN1 (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the core of the dispute:

• Chris strongly believes the article violates BLP (despite the fact that a substantial number of editors with diametrically opposed POVs, have been actively involved for months)
• Chris does not accept consensus that there are no significant BLP violations (all editors agree that may be a few issues and that article can alwways be improved), and acts unilaterally
• Chris starts extensive discussions in article talk, but does not wait for the discussions to find compromises, and acts unilaterally again
• Chris accuses others of defamation, with templates in user talk
• Chris gets his wrist slapped for doing that by Nei . 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 (this is Chris fifth time over few days: , , , ) in which he removes the material still in discussion), based on an extraordinarily narrow interpretation of BLP, against consensus and against advice from others.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages busy with making a huge amount of disruptive unsourced edits.]]], ]]], falsifying sources,]], and spreading Pakistani nationalism,]]]]], 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,], 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 Misplaced Pages "users" who make an account to do the same. 94.210.203.230 (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Living Persons and Author

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

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

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

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

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

The fourth is the article creator and OP here

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Dandaman620

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 09:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Now resolved. Thanks! Lugnuts 09:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

108.81.128.153 and genre warring

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 10:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

It is right that you lumped these two reports together because they are actually closely related. They are both the product of Wtshymanski resurecting an old edit war. If you look back further in the edit history you will discover what he was claiming to be synthesised. This occurs because he inadvertently put the {Synthesis} tag next to the sentence that he was claiming was synthesised . 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 Misplaced Pages without any problems. As you note: the hidden comment that he added in the second is not stated in the reference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I haven't edited the article in dispute here, but Wtshymanski's point (that it was initially called something else) can simply be made by adding one sentence to the article, instead of tagging it. There are lot of math articles in particular where 5 different sources will denote the same notion using 5 slightly different terms. We'd never have an article on those if we got stuck on such trivia... As long as you can agree that's the same notion (usually easy in math) it's overly strict an bureaucratic interpretation of WP:SYNT to tag an article for having two different names for the same thing even if no source explicitly says they are the same. This isn't even the case here; if I search for "ladder logic" and "relay logic" in Google Books I can find 20 different books telling me what the historical and practical relation is between these two, e.g. this is the first hit. Also see WP:COMMONAME (for using the latter/common name) and WP:NOTDICT for not splitting an article into two based on name-before-PLCs-came-along and name-after-PLCs-came-along. Hope this helps... 86.121.137.150 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but I think you may have missed the point. If it was called something else then a reference is required supporting that notion, in which case I would agree with you. The problem here is that there is a reference claiming that it wasn't called something else, so the addition would not be supported by the existing references.

Please note that as this post is about the content and not the behavioural issue, it should have been on the article's talk page. I note that you are a fairly new editor, so this slip up is understandable. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, we do have two different but overlapping articles on relay logic and ladder logic, even though that's an silly choice according to most sources I've seen; see Talk:relay logic. 86.121.137.150 (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Man Haron Monis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR

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)

• I agree that it looks like OR and requires a source, but you've already put this up at Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard, so I'm closing this. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages (see ). 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 it 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)

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)

Not to mention, when he broke a template. WP:CIR applies, I think. Origamite 23:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor has restored link to an attack page

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

Hey pony fans

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

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

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

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

Bullying, intimidation, and ownership of articles

I have made thousands of edits to city articles, and have added 159 new articles to Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)