Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866

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

Noticeboard archives


User:ChrisGualtieri's behavior at Shooting of Michael Brown[edit]

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

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

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

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

I strongly believe that ChrisGualtieri's heart is in the right place. I believe that he is one of many experienced editors who feel that doing what's right for an article is more important than any silly rules about consensus, unable to see that what's right for the article can never be an absolute in a collaborative environment. Essentially such editors carry ignore all rules around like a bible, and use it, consciously or not, to justify whatever it takes to achieve their righteous goals (while avoiding bright lines such as 3RR). I personally feel that IAR does more harm than good, for that reason. I don't know that it's fair to single out one example of the problem for attention on this board, but if the problem is going to be addressed I guess it has to be addressed one person at a time. ‑‑Mandruss  03:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looks to me as if this more a request for punitive action than prevention of anything. Since we aren't supposed to be looking for punitive but prevention (and there doesn't seem to be anything emergent to prevent), perhaps this report is more suited for Dispute Resolution? -- WV 03:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure, if you want us opening a new issue at DRN multiple times a day. I don't think this is about any particular content issue(s). ‑‑Mandruss  03:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • That is a talk page full of talk. It could do with the POV of more editors. At the heart of the matter is whether Vox Media and (to some extent) HuffPo are acceptable as sources. Chris is arguing on the talk page that a HuffPo piece cited in the article is wrong in many ways; let a couple of experienced BLP editors look at it and make the call. Skimming the points I find Chris's argument to be persuasive--but I've only skimmed it. As for Vox Media--I would not put that much faith in it, and the collection of edits gathered in the single diff linked by RAN, frankly they strike me as unproblematic (and removing a number of sources in such an overreferenced article isn't really a problem). So what's the real problem? Editors refusing to agree with each other? That's par for the course on Wikipedia. But as long as there is, for instance, no evidence presented for edit warring of a blockable degree, what is being asked for here? A block on Chris for hardheadedness? But that should apply to his opponents as well. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we're asking for a recognition of the primacy of consensus. Chris has multiple times agreed to that, and then violated his own agreement by editing either without consensus or against it. But that should apply to his opponents as well. No, other editors are not doing that at this article, at least none that have been around since Chris arrived. It's not about hardheadedness in a discussion, it's about respect for the process. ‑‑Mandruss  03:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I removed the unused references which were commented out one time. I dealt with many WP:BLP matters that filled the talk page and pissed off editors because I was reviewing each source and found issues with many. See Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Concerns. Also, I took the Huffington Post and Vox matter to RSN with @MastCell: and @DGG: making arguments founded on the same concerns I had with WP:RSOPINION and WP:IRS as a whole. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Bob, that's a bit weak since many experienced editors sat by and watched Cwobeel edit and did nothing. Cwobeel may be POV to the max, but he merely exercised the B in BRD, per routine process. The rest failed to exercise the R. Who's more at fault? ‑‑Mandruss  06:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you realize WP:BLP does not follow WP:BRD, yet I have tried to explain every case in excruciating detail before I remove it now? Some of the stuff in that article and on McCullough's page is ridiculous. The fact it is sourced doesn't change that comments like this are on the page:

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

Some editors seem to think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that being in the article because it is sourced. WP:RSOPINION and WP:QUESTIONABLE are still relevant with WP:NPOV when you got a whole slew of these type of "reliably sourced criticisms" in a huge section. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd normally be against commenting on this so soon after writing what was admittedly a pretty heavy ANI post, but to clarify: (1) I am not for the article the way it's currently set up. It's a mass of non-impartial quotes with potential BLP implications and something needs to be done for that, BUT (2) TL;DR of what I was trying to say is, --> WP:CONSENSUS <-- --RAN1 (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Chris, now we are debating content in the wrong place, and I wouldn't participate in that here even if I were competent to do so. My suggestion is to choose the most important specific content issue and take it to DRN. In the meantime, please recommit to the process, and to patience. ‑‑Mandruss  07:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

There is at least one BLP problem that I know of, for example the baseless hypothetical speculation by Lisa Bloom that you put into the article that you got from the transcript of a one-sided opinion type of TV show that is negative towards Wilson and is inconsistent with the facts. Because of our previous discussions with your incessant fallacious reasoning, I'd sooner not get into discussions with you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm. I just went over to the article to delete it and I couldn't find it. Maybe ChrisGualtieri deleted it. If so, good going ChrisGualtieri. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the core of the dispute:

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

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

  • Comment - I agree with BobK's take on this, Chris has tackled some of the obvious POV pushing in that article, and as a result, his "behavior" in identifying and correcting those issues is now being criticized. Part of the problem is that editor's don't really look to see if his edits are an improvement to the article. Instead, most of the time, they simply revert with arguments of "there is no consensus for that edit" or "there was a prior consensus for that edit", without even bothering to see if the edit in question was an improvement for the article. IMO, his edit's are improvements and have all been in line with bringing back a balance of NPOV to the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
If an edit without consensus is "an improvement to the article", why is it without consensus? Sorry but that's nonsensical. There is nothing wrong with getting consensus first, then editing, unless you prefer edit warring. I'm of course speaking only of disputed edits here, not saying that no edit should be made without prior consensus. BRD works fine. ‑‑Mandruss  19:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - This looks much more like Chris is pushing back against the phony consensus that can be "developed" by small tag teams of highly motivated editors running roughshod over a drip-drop of single editors trying to make improvements. These editors have constructed a POV they like and then gang up on the single editors who raise issues with that POV and claim "consensus", between themselves. It's clear that a particular POV had cemented itself into the article in question and editors are circling the wagons on needed changes. Chris' edits seem policy complaint and constructive. This article needs outside help to break up the laager. GraniteSand (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
In most cases, your argument would apply. But not here, when we have a very diverse group of editors collaborating for months, with long discussions and quite a bit of contention. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW this looks like an editor trying to act as a 1 man repair crew on an article that has a serious NPOV problem. Unfortunately I see this kind of POV pushing under the guise of "consensus" way too often on the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That's wonderful. So anyone can take a quick look at a situation and declare this alternate universe where the ones following the rules are the bad guys. Perfect, and just what Wikipedia needs. Thank you for that insight. ‑‑Mandruss  20:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks to me, as someone who has said before I'm a local who has been subject to media overload regarding this topic and don't consider myself objective, that Chris is trying to remove or replace content which seems to him to violate policy. I tend to agree with Drmies above on most of his comment. So far as I can tell, there haven't been that many calls for outside input from editors who haven't to date been involved or have like me disqualified themselves for existing bias. What the article needs is a good, uninvolved, editor to look it over and try to make it more compliant with what an outsider considers policy, rather than the possibly flawed consensus of a number of people who have been in regular contact with each other, and the saturation media coverage of this topic, for some time now.
  • I've noted before that the article is under discretionary sanctions, and that AE is certainly available for enforcement, and am somewhat curious why this has been posted to ANI instead. I think that the saturation coverage of the topic, and the probably honest attempts of all those who have been involved with the topic for some time to reflect as well as possible the media reportage, may well have, to some degree, overwhelmed the editors involved, like it has me, and made their judgment suspect.
  • If there is an apparently flawed consensus, as some others above say, that is a flawed consensus and not a true consensus. I'm honestly not sure how to go here, but I have a feeling, horrible as this sounds, that maybe the best thing to happen now might be for those who have developed the article to basically leave it alone for a time, and allow newer editors who may not have had to be involved in the disagreements and agreements which led to the current state of the article to review it and make any changes they think required based on their possibly more neutral views regarding policy. Saying nothing against the editors who have worked to develop the article to this point, it is all but impossible to imagine that they are not to some degree prejudiced by their following the contemporary, often sensationalist, media coverage as it happened, and their prior involvement in the discussions which led to the current consensus at least in part based on that sometimes sensationalist coverage. It might not be unreasonable to take this to AE, as is permitted, rather than here. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
My point, to clarify, was that ChrisGualtieri made no attempts to find an actual consensus prior to making disputed changes to the article. I wasn't trying to say that there was any consensus on the article, and in fact that's the main reason I pushed this to ANI. The complete lack of consensus should have been a clear indication that he should have stepped back and tried to look for compromises that everyone could agree on, or at least tried to look for other opinions at BLPN. I wasn't sure if AE was the appropriate venue, but I'm now considering passing it along there since it's becoming clear that this needs cooling down most of all. --RAN1 (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I think AE might rule in Chris's favor. The following quote from the BLP notice at the top of the talk page, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately" could very reasonably apply to at least one of the pieces being considered, as the material is perhaps both "poorly sourced" (depending on the specific definition of "poorly") and clearly contentious, if it is, in fact, apparently wrong. It is far from unknown for modern media in sensationalistic topics which get a lot of attention to get some of their facts wrong. The fact that they get their facts wrong does not however does not necessarily mean that it should be included because it might be properly sourced. I think, by policy, and the specific quotation I provided above, there does not exist any reason by policy to wait for consensus for something which that template says should be removed immediately. That is one of the reasons why I suggested that those who have developed the article take a bit of a break and allow others who haven't had to be involved in the required and generally productive fights over content to review it. Their status as uninvolved in the previous discussions might give them some neutrality and lack of POV that those involved in the previous discussions would likely lack. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh well, in any case, Cwobeel's already been informed, and I just alerted ChrisGualtieri. I'll go ahead and post to the BLPN, this has more to do with content on second thought. --RAN1 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I want to say that the response to ChrisGualtieri's edits from Cwobeel and others is almost exactly the same response I received when I tried to edit this article. The article is still very biased in many places, and several editors, not only Cwobeel, feel that removal of content is never justified without consensus. On the contrary, I think much of the content is clearly biased, and it's impossible to improve the article if it requires a consensus, particularly because "consensus" essentially means "Cwobeel's permission" in many cases.
This is the second time an editor has been told things like "you act as if you're the only one who knows policy" and that changing material without consensus is destructive. It may mean something that the same group of editors is responding in the same way to at least two editors who have tried to improve the article. Roches (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
An addition, and a question. One thing that would help this article is a clear decision on this question: "Is a list of points of view an acceptable form of neutral point of view?" Much of [the] supposedly anti-consensus [editing] is about removing specific points of view.Roches (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:YESPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, inclusion should be based on the merits and whether or not they receive appropriate coverage. We have an actual case which criticizes the prosecution because the defense could not have a rigorous cross-examination of the evidence in the grand jury proceedings. The grand jury process, by law, does not allow this, but a preliminary hearing does. So how is that proper and relevant criticism? For persist and major concerns raised in multiple sources, they do need to be given space and coverage by NPOV - even if they are wrong. Also, we cannot pass judgement or declare them to be wrong, we must instead provide a clear and unbiased counterpoint to the argument. Nothing is ever simple is it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(e-c) To answer the question, no, it is not necessarily in all cases acceptable. As you haven't given specific examples, I will make up a few particular cases and why it would not necessarily work there.
First, it implies an equality to the opinions chosen, which is itself problematic to determine, and seems to also implicitly indicate that there are no facts involved. If there are clear facts, or clear statements which have been recognized as fact or at least accurate, they are to be given priority over viewpoints. This can be particularly relevant in cases where for instance, the public, in its emotion and perhaps lack of consideration of all evidence presented to a grand jury, comes to conclusions about the actions and motivations of those involved which are not necessarily themselves reliably sourced elsewhere.
Also, in some cases, opinions of academics or experts as to why an individual, perhaps a lawyer or government official, may or may not have acted in a particular way are also problematic, as they can give undue weight as per BLP relative to the stated reasons given by the individual themselves. In cases where the individual stated no specific reasons for specific actions, it can also be problematic.
There may or may not be sufficient grounds for a "reaction to" events section or sections, and such sections can include public response. But, in short, again, no, NPOV need not be achievable by attesting multiple POV. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sources do exist and document the topic of criticism and the options that existed. [20][21][22][23][24] Some criticism is that the defense didn't get to cross-examine the witnesses at the grand jury - which don't get to do that. Examination of the sources and their arguments are needed to restore a NPOV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
This kind of content-related dispute has no place on ANI, request that all posts above including and after Roches' 18:19, 16 December 2014 post be refactored into Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown. --RAN1 (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Famous Music[edit]

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

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

Community ban needed for Joshua Bonehill[edit]

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

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

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

  • Oppose, for the time being. He's holding himself out as the subject of the article, and to that end, it's not a bad thing if he's allowed to participate in discussion of the article. I said as much in a message at his talk page, where I both invited him to participate in discussion at the talk page and cautioned him that he could likely get blocked for anything but civil discussion on the talk page. If he's willing to go through discussions and work toward consensus, I'm okay with him participating. If he isn't, then it's probably time for formal sanctions. —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, per C.Fred. I can't see why trying to get "internet troll" removed from the lede of his article on the strength of a single source should be ban-worthy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This guy makes a living by creating racist hoaxes that have attracted death threats toward his victims. We can handle the lead of an article about him without his "help". I'm not comfortable with someone with his level of habitual lying and racism participating here.--v/r - TP 22:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems like he badly needs a block for edit warring. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Seems like he badly needs a block for being a racist jerk. --Golbez (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose community ban from all pages, because his BLP article is not unreasonably a possible target of vandalism by people with, perhaps, no tighter grasp on reality than that of the subject. I would have no objections to a ban from all pages in the encyclopedia but the talk pages of any articles which directly relate to his own biography, and, potentially, related wikipedia-space discussions. I believe ArbCom at least once considered (and rejected) such a proposal elsewhere, and I could see that as being reasonable and appropriate here. Mind you, I also would have no objections to the British government making the article's status as a BLP outdated, but I probably shouldn't say that. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose ban, support restriction Bonehill will not go away – he will either post, or he will sock. His vast online history of multiple identities supports this. We could best manage this by allowing one identity, with further sanctions available if he socks outside that.
Per COI, he is able to discuss issues at talk:. Given his past editing history he should be sanctioned from any editing of the article directly.
As to the content, then there are two group of content in this article. One group, "moronic troll and hoaxer" (with variations) is thoroughly sourced and if Bonehill doesn't like it then he should lay off the drunken burglaries and the Twitter harassment. Another group, "political leader", is tenuous at best. His beliefs and racism are unchallenged, but whether he has any support or engagement with others is doubtful. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Bonehead since his block has started uploading libelous entries on Wikipedia users at the Daily Bale. I won't link to them here, but he has "Notorious Marxist WIkipedia article Perverter, Andy Dingley exposed". I tried to tell people Bonehead is a nasty troll, yet "troll" was removed from his page intro. FossilMad (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I'm notorious, how sweet! I hope he cleared copyright on the newspaper photo he "borrowed". Some of what he writes is even vaguely accurate, although he did get most of the details wrong (I don't know how, it's not hard to find). I was just about to send him a Christmas card too. I was even thinking about sending him a bottle of whisky, but you know how much trouble he gets into when he drinks. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Community Ban - I see more than enough to support this. If he creates socks, block them and keep blocking them. At some point his interference here may merit further action by the WMF, but they need to see that the community has had enough of this disruptive editor, for once and for all. Jusdafax 09:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Extend page protection though. This expires soon and it would be useful to have it past his sentencing date at least. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm not entirely convinced we should have an article about his non-WP:NPOL-passing troll with a couple of misdemeanours and a hateful (childish) blog. The majority of coverage is from his local paper. I'm inclined to think that a similar individual from the US or Australia (trust me, we have plenty) wouldn't get a look-in. Yet we're wasting valuable time trying to work out if this fellow should be allowed to edit his own article to remove what was said about him. If we have to suffer an article about him, he shouldn't be editing it. Stlwart111 23:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Multiple voting in AfD[edit]

Consensus is multiple votes will not significantly affect outcome because closing admin assesses the entire discussion and will recognize multiple statements from the same editor. Editors may assist that process by striking out duplicate bolded statements; the particular editor in the case has been brought up to speed. NE Ent 09:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

It is customary to strike the "Keeps" out (leaving one) and ask them to stop. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Any competent closing administrator will discount multiple !votes. Feel free to strike out multiple Keeps, leaving a polite remark explaining that a bolded AfD recommendation should be left only once. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. – JBarta (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Competent admins--meaning those who can actually count. Hint: I can't even count up to 62. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I got a feeling this isn't the end of it, I might be back naming names. – JBarta (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Even Drmies will notice 62 "keeps" from the same editor (and socks). Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Multiple votes are more than just a nuisance for admins to count (or discount), they create a bandwagon effect which can skew a discussion. I also believe that doing this is a deliberate attempt to "game the system". I was, quite honestly, surprised not to find the practice specifically addressed. – JBarta (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


The AfD discussion is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of John Crawford III. Please note this was not a "blatant abuse", per editor Jbarta's ad hominem accusation, nor was it an attempt at votestacking. I initially wrote my comments all in one place, but then (after hitting an edit-collision), as explained in the discussion I thought it clearer to label the points and place them in the relevant sections of the discussion. I had thought the greater concern was editing in good faith and reaching a consensus through structured dialogue, not voting (i.e. WP:CONSENSUS, not WP:VOTE). But I have no problem removing the labels and boldings if this is the norm.
If we are tallying votes and clarifying through the use of bold font, then would it be appropriate for someone to add a bold Keep for the comment by user Roger Asai/, who in his Edit Summary (but not in the discussion) wrote: "My vote to keep articles like this. Sorry I don't have the skills to make the bullet - hopefully someone can fix that part." A bullet was added for him, but not the word 'keep'. I have commented on this in the discussion.
Please also note that editor Jbarta has been warned for violating WP:CIVIL, e.g. "the absurdity of [your] original comment," "you are welcome to blow your admonition in some other direction". His/her 'playing the refs' here, and his/her continued personalization of the editing process (rather than assuming WP:GOODFAITH) -- e.g. "I also believe that doing this is a deliberate attempt to 'game the system'." -- are not in the spirit of WP:CIVILITY.
Finally, an editor who uploads to WikiMedia three versions of the 1860 cartoon titled "The Nigger in the Woodpile" may not be the best choice for editing articles which involve sensitive racial issues. Thank you. Benefac (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh my goodness.... that's funny.... uploaded three versions of Nigger_in_the_Woodpile. You can't make this stuff up people ;-) – JBarta (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
As a participant in a couple of thousand AfD debates, I can't recall a single one that was influenced by multiple !votes. Leaving aside newbies, socks and meat, everyone sees this instantly, and pulls their antennae to the full upright position. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Cullen: you seem on good terms with Jbarta, but are you suggesting that I was trying to stack the vote, or do you accept the explanation that I offered here and on the AfD page? I.e., I wrote: WP:CONSENSUS, not WP:VOTE. "Consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)." "Most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion." It was more clear to label my points and insert them in the appropriate places as replies, where they furthered the conversation, rather than to not label them or combine them into one comment. See also WP:Votestacking. I'm sorry if I didn't know the norms on AfD pages, I don't recall ever having participated in one (though it's possible). I had assumed every comment that expressed a clear opinion in a discussion thread would or could be labeled as such (Keep, or Delete, or Comment, or Redirect, or Merge, or whatever). I had no idea that such labeling is considered a 'vote'. How would anyone know this, the first time? It is not mentioned in the article's AfD Notice, nor on the AfD Discussion page. On the WP:AfD page, it says: "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote." And "When participating, please consider the following: The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." That's pretty clear, and that's what I intended to do. Now that I look further and 'read the fine print' on that page, I see it also says: "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." Fair enough, now I know. But to assume I was trying to stack the decks or that this is 'blatant abuse' or 'gaming the system' is not WP:GOODFAITH. Fair enough? Benefac (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Cullen328: How could you know with such certainty that multiple votes didn't have an effect on some editors? Is it possible that some skewing happened and you just didn't realize it? – JBarta (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Edit warring IP[edit]

I noticed an ip removed content without explination, I reverted it. He removed it again, I told him to use edit summaries, left a message and once again added it back. He reverted again. This is the third time I am adding it back, and I do not want to edit war. Thank you Weegeerunner (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Edit warring and disruptive tag removing[edit]

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

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

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

Ryulong's Vendetta: Page Fredrick_Brennan[edit]

This IP has made zero contributions to the encyclopedia while single-mindedly seeking to enact some sort of vendetta against Rylulong. I have blocked the IP for not being here to contribute to the project and I am closing this complaint as being without basis. If anyone wants to discuss this with me my talk page is open as always. Chillum 04:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Just to let everyone know, Kotaku In Action is once again brigading this page with their off-Wiki canvassing efforts. That's where the above comment comes from. SilverserenC 22:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
There's the new Wiki In Action board, too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't even know about that one. So they now have an official board for COI canvassing of Wikipedia? SilverserenC 22:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not from KiA or whatever that other wiki place is is. Keep making up bogeymen and deflecting, but the problem here is Ryulong, not the page. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral, informative encyclopedia (regardless of this weeks definitions), and a biased editor with a vendetta is taking control of the page. It's patently obvious that neither KiA, or 8chan have any real influence over articles around here whatsoever. I also haven't made edits as they would be pointless in the face of an editor with an agenda like Ryulong. He could be elsewhere improving other articles, but he's here, re-painting an article he has an interest in to his own liking. The honest editors left around here know that this is wrong, but are probably took busy pulling holes in the rest of the ship to be interested. I'm simply leaving these statements here for the record. I won't pretend to appeal to the consciences of the persons involved. (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) May I do the barrage bit? You know, since I'm not on Ryulong's "side" at the moment? :-) Comment on content, not on the contributor. Ryulong is right now making an argument. Whether that's because he has a grudge or not, doesn't really matter. What he is writing matters. If you disagree - and lots of us, I believe most of us, disagree - make a good argument on the other side. That's what we're trying to do. Convince people what should be done with the article, and it will happen. Saying bad things about other editors doesn't help. Saying things about how to write the best possible encyclopedia article, often does. Not always, but often enough to be worth trying. --GRuban (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong is the problem. His contributions can be assumed biased by default based on his previous actions. In Ryulong's case, the contributor is the content. He's biased. Pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest and contributing to the problem, not only on this article, but across the site as a whole. Wikipedia has allowed standards to slip, and editors like Ryulong and ultimately bias, uninformative, and outright deleted pages are the end result. (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Yes, I have been deleting your screeds as we are here to write an encyclopedia and not cast aspersions against other editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The editor is the problem. He has a bias against the article. An encyclopedia should not be written under such conditions. Ryulong is the problem. (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
If you continue to make unsubstantiated rants against other editors, you WILL be blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

I'm here to point out that you are pushing an agenda on the page. You have a conflict of interest and should not be editing that page. It's that simple. You have a duty to recuse yourself. (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Predictions about Wikipedia "dying" have been issued like leaves falling from autumn trees ever since this website became popular about 13 years ago. We are alive and thrive. Carry on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I have warned the IP editor. One more edit in which they play the man, not the ball, and they should be blocked. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The editor is the ball. Ryulong's incidences with 8chan, and Frederick Brennan are infamous at this point. The conflict of interest editing is the issue on the article, plain as day. Blaming me for pointing out the obvious is killing the messenger, who's telling you the scribe is spilling ink. Blocking me is not going to deal with the issue of a biased editor working on an article, and instead of dealing with the issue the only response thus far has been to accuse me of "personal attacks". Pointing out CoI is not a personal attack, and abusing blocking privileges is not going make CoI go away. (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
(Arguably all this comes under the Gamergate sanctions (8chan is directly tied to GG) if not clear already. No comment either way otherwise) --MASEM (t) 16:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The Ryulong-Brennan stuff has been mentioned by Loganmac at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence, so I'm not sure there's any value in discussing it here. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Could someone unblock User:FredrickBrennan, please?[edit]

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

Unblocked. There's really no official stamp of identity, other than a userbox that says basically "this user has confirmed his identity through OTRS". Lacking OTRS access, I can't place that, so I just included a link to wiki.txt in the block log. Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
If it has been confirmed through OTRS, drop me a note and I'll do the relevant papertemplate work. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Living Persons and Author[edit]

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

That section on the veracity of her claims appears to consist largely of unpublished synthesis, and there's a definite POV issue there (use of weasel words, as you point out, as well as scare quotes). —/Mendaliv//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.
The fourth is the article creator and OP here
Based on comments made by each of these editors it seems clear there is some off wiki collaborating. In addition strong not here behavior from at least the three SPA editors, especially Coco353. I suspect sock puppet or meat puppet as well though I do not have proof. My suggestions is Boomerang on OP. VVikingTalkEdits 13:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
One last item, with this edit[[26]] Coco uses legal language, such as defamation and liability concerns. Followed by this statement that seems to be an attempt at intimidation 'As well, KHBibby has evidence that SolarisVeritas is a not an objective user.' Thanks, VVikingTalkEdits 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)
After reading SolaryVeritas complaints, which he has caused on Krusi's page (not the other way around) you will compare the initial page I started, and what he has done to it over the last two months (the negative insertions are his), notice his stalking of the page with his edits, are all undermine Krusi/book/documentary. So, having created the page, I read your A+B+C and think, do you get this? Author/painter/foundation, etc. - why do other biographers write a book on themselves and SolaryVeritas doesn't go thru it with a fine tooth comb and pull out any dirt he can find, make sure its verifiable, and then insert it into their wiki page? Why not? Because it is obvious from me and nine other users that SolaryVeritas has a bone to pick with Krusi and cannot stand to see her page balanced (both positive and negative). On top of that, SolaryVeritas inserts are over one-quarter of the entire page and finds anything negative he can pull out of article that contain MANY comments from Krusi - verifiable facts from the same articles that SolaryVeritas ignores in order to find his (subjective)inserts. HOWEVER this is Christina Krusi's WIKI PAGE - a living person and open for all users to help develop not destroy. Between SolaryVeritas Satan Ritual obsession (numerous talk notes to me on that subject - please read his/her edits on this subject), Krusi's mental states, etc. (it goes on)it appears SolaryVeritas intent is to turn the page into a three page tabloid of sensationalism. I also have a copies of all the 'side' talks SolarisVeritas and summary of the outright liable insertions in order to get his/her user account blocked but told by other users SolaryVeritas will just open up in another user name. I also contacted Krusi only on the request of SolaryVeritas because of his/her curiousity about years. Her website is on her wiki page and contact info there for anyone. SolaryVeritas is intent and obsessed with Krusi's page. I am willing to meet halfway, as I have shown, for example, if you compare the pages from early last week - all his/her changes were put in. Then suddenly add in a 'Disclaimer' paragraph with new header to highlight his/her findings. I also made sure i started lines with 'Krusi claims' or 'alleges,' and ensured fairness to Krusi, SIL and Wycliffe. As well, provided links to Wycliffe's website where it talks about Krusi, apologies, and other details. I also put in the SIL quote from the Child Safety Officer, the parents not supportive, examples of conflicts between verifiable facts (e.g. child murder, time constraints, diary - yes she wrote it, yes, I put it as not published and SolaryVeritas has to add 'a secret language' - why?). SolarisVeritas also goes on to talk about therapists, parents lack of support, etc. in great details which are all in the books, interviews, documentary - so why pick 10 things out of 1000 things Krusi has talked about without balancing it with stories of the horrors of abuse, etc.? Pretty obvious. Try A=Krusi writes a book (her story and it is published), B=a major station (SRF1) investigates it and does a documentary on her abuse, and C=goes onto open a foundation for abused children and becomes a notable author and painter. It is ok to be an author is it not, to write a biography and expect a two paragraph 'balanced' summary (SolaryVeritas wanted the page shortened 'much cleaner' he/she wrote on my talk page). Please don't forget the living person part. I would appreciate more feedback from other users, the page doesn't need any more complaints from SolarisVeritas.KHBibby (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
After reading Synth I wonder if I understand it correctly. Synthesis involves joining two propositions and making third conclusion. I do not intend to do this, but maybe poorly done. Both sources (Lanning and Fitch) state that SRA accounts are not believable. (A = B) Krusi's claim is SRA - not debatable. (A) The conclusion, yes, is implied. (Krusi's claim = not believable) But this is not "A + B = C". It is only "A = B". Question: Is this synthesis? Thank you. SolaryVeritas (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is synthesis, and your A = B analogy is incorrect. You say "Krusi's claim is similar to SRA" and "SRA accounts are not believable", with the implied conclusion that Krusi's claim is not believable. A is similar to B, and B is C, therefore A is C. That is synthesis, and it is not allowed on Wikipedia. Find a reliable source that says Krusi's claim is not believable and it won't be synthesis (but it may be subject to other policies that would still demand its exclusion). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Helpful. Thx Mendaliv for the clarification. SolaryVeritas (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
For the record, this first edit on WIKIPEDIA for me. Learning fast. Question about "synthesis": Can such information be footnoted? I try to refrain from derogatory comments to subject, but unfortunately, providing balance raises questions about claims made by Krusi. Not sure of solution.SolaryVeritas (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Synthesis of sources is forbidden. This link may be of assistance. Blackmane (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Wtshymanski hammering his personal knowledge into articles again[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

These two problems demonstrate a continued refusal to take notice of the RfC (here that was raised as long ago as 2012 concerning his continued tendentious editing. (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. (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It is right that you lumped these two reports together because they are actually closely related. They are both the product of Wtshymanski resurecting an old edit war. If you look back further in the edit history you will discover what he was claiming to be synthesised. This occurs because he inadvertently put the {Synthesis} tag next to the sentence that he was claiming was synthesised [30]. However, when the tag was added there was no reference for the sentence to have been synthesised from so the tag was incorrectly applied.
What Wtshymanski was doing (as the edit summary suggested) was, once again, attempting to enforce his personal belief that ladder logic was not used in the days of relay logic. This had been touched on on the talk page but only as two throw away comments at the bottom of an unrelated discussion so can hardly have been held to have been discussed as claimed. The material is now referenced courtesy of our IP addressed friend. Wtshymanski's problem is that because the references do not square with his personal opinion, that thay have to be wrong (though, as ever, he does not provide any over-riding references to support his fringe theories that are not supported by anyone else).
You were slightly incorrect in that Wtshymanski didn't just target your second reference, he targetted both. The {unreliable source} tag is following the first reference despite the fact that '' is frequently used throughout Wikipedia without any problems. As you note: the hidden comment that he added in the second is not stated in the reference.
Personally, I am not convinced that the name 'ladder logic' per se was used in the relay logic days, but unlike Wtshymanski, I know that my personal opinion carries no weight - and anyway, I cannot find any references that specifically say so. Logically though, since the diagrams look like ladders, I find it hard to believe that engineers did not give it a ladder related name of some sort (such as 'ladder diagram' - Oh! and a quick Google turns up lots of hits, many relating to relay logic!). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
On the face of it, this looks like another content dispute and thus not an ANI issue, but there is an underlying behavioral issue. Wtshymanski consistently starts with his personal engineering experience, puts it into articles, and if challenged rejects any citations that don't agree with him and searches diligently for citations that do. When he is right about how the technology in question works -- which is most of the time -- the result turns out to be pretty much the same as if he had started by finding out what the best sources say and making the article match the sources. The problem is that in some areas of engineering Wtshymanski is a true believer is what can only be characterized as the engineering equivalent of pseudoscience, and in those cases he rejects what is in reliable sources and tries to retain his incorrect information through the use of poor sources combined with a very aggressive and sarcastic interaction style. This is known as "finding an arrow stuck in the wall and painting a target around it".
There are some related issues that are not Wtshymanski's fault, but which make it difficult for admins to deal with this behavior. First, these are engineering issues, and many admins don't have the engineering background to fully understand the content disputes. Secondly, Wtshymanski's opponents are usually newbie Wikipedia editors. They may understand engineering (or not -- we get our share of fringe claims) but they certainly don't understand Wikipedia policy, and often react as if they were in the comments section of a blog somewhere. In my opinion, many of these newbie editors could grow into very productive editors if they don't leave in disgust after tangling with Wtshymanski. And finally there is the unofficial "he does a lot of good work so we are willing to look the other way when he misbehaves" effect that we see in so many cases.
PS: This is not, in my opinion, a pure content dispute, but nonetheless Wtshymanski is wrong on the content. As this PLC history explains, when PLCs first went into commercial production, they were made easy to understand and program for the technicians and maintenance electricians of the day who very used to relay schematics and wiring -- what we now call ladder Logic. In fact, you can implement a ladder logic diagram using relays instead of PLCs. (For some odd reason some Japanese companies offer this as an option and some of their customers pay a premium for it despite PLCs being clearly superior). Also see this page (PDF) (look at the section titled "Comparison to Relay Logic") --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is a patent filed in 1958 that clearly shows a ladder diagram. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Guy, that observation should really have been on the article talk page, as it is a content matter. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Point well taken. I wasn't thinking. I have stricken the comment; please disregard. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after posting to ANI...) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
───────────────────────── ANI is the worst place to discuss article content. Sure there are diagrams of relay logic. But was it called "ladder logic" at the time? That's what I'm objecting to. It wasn't called "ladder logic" till after PLCs came along. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
We are not discussing the article content here. We are discussing your unacceptable editing style. However, you have underlined the essential point being made here because in spite of your assertion, "It wasn't called "ladder logic" till (sic) after PLCs came along", you have not provided any reference that is more authoritative than the one in the article that says that it was and just rubbish the one that is there - and that seems to be one of the main planks of this complaint. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Collapse discussion about content and not ANI issue.
::: I haven't edited the article in dispute here, but Wtshymanski's point (that it was initially called something else) can simply be made by adding one sentence to the article, instead of tagging it. There are lot of math articles in particular where 5 different sources will denote the same notion using 5 slightly different terms. We'd never have an article on those if we got stuck on such trivia... As long as you can agree that's the same notion (usually easy in math) it's overly strict an bureaucratic interpretation of WP:SYNT to tag an article for having two different names for the same thing even if no source explicitly says they are the same. This isn't even the case here; if I search for "ladder logic" and "relay logic" in Google Books I can find 20 different books telling me what the historical and practical relation is between these two, e.g. this is the first hit. Also see WP:COMMONAME (for using the latter/common name) and WP:NOTDICT for not splitting an article into two based on name-before-PLCs-came-along and name-after-PLCs-came-along. Hope this helps... (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, but I think you may have missed the point. If it was called something else then a reference is required supporting that notion, in which case I would agree with you. The problem here is that there is a reference claiming that it wasn't called something else, so the addition would not be supported by the existing references.
Please note that as this post is about the content and not the behaviour issue, it should have been on the article's talk page. I note that you are a fairly new editor, so this slip up is understandable. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, we do have two different but overlapping articles on relay logic and ladder logic, even though that's an silly choice according to most sources I've seen; see Talk:relay logic. (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Federal Way Public Academy Criticisms[edit]

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

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

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

I think that semi-protecting the article might be the best option here - the source being cited clearly isn't acceptable, and it seems that the contributor responsible has no intention of stopping, so blocks alone may not work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Obviously not appropriate sources, and the IP probably has a personal axe to grind. However, speaking of SPA's, the complainant here only started last Friday, and the article in question seems to have been built largely by a series of SPA's. "Promotional" SPA's are no more appropriate than "critical" SPA's. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Blocked for clear hoaxing: adding information from a dead link, proposing that Kurdistan is partly in Pakistan, etc. Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Hope it's not THE Billy Bowden... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


Meanbuggin indef'd by Guerillero. Blackmane (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

A widespread long massive problem with another user[edit]

David, Beyonder, have been warned to keep off each other's past and start afresh out here. They have been strongly suggested to interact only on talk pages of articles and not on any other forum (except, in the case of future disruption, on administrative noticeboards). The only interaction on talk pages of articles should be based on editing diffs and not on the characters of each other. If they do attack each other again, they may face immediate administrative action. Wifione Message 02:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of his trolling and harrassment on the Powerlisting wiki alone, back in mid-September, with lots more to follow in the 3 months since:

Here he admits to doing lots of trolling vandalism to "get rid of competition":

His usual trolling homophobic slur insults, and comments about me being a "butthurt" systematic victim of his trolling:

Here he ignores the global Wikia ban with several of his school network's auto-generated ip addresses to systematically troll and harrass me again:

However, he has not yet performed his most objectionable behaviour here, beyond the edit-warring, [!_characters being] unreasonable, creating nonsense articles or writing minor threats.

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

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

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

David A did not notify BeyonderGod of this thread. I have now done so. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything to be done here just yet. We're not going to import any sanction from Wikia. Furthermore, this seems to be related to a dispute that was handled at AN3 just yesterday (link). I don't believe there's been any issues since that warning/page protection came down. As such, this ANI report would seem to be very premature. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I also note where you refer to OmniverseGod as a sockpuppet of BeyonderGod. I see you had also filed a SPI on BeyonderGod in relation to the OmniverseGod account, where no action was taken because there was no indication of a violation of the sockpuppetry policy (and only fairly poor evidence even linking the accounts, just that OmniverseGod's only two edits were to the article on Beyonder). I think it's inappropriate for you to be calling OmniverseGod a sockpuppet of BeyonderGod at this point. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, he has already started edit-warring here again after we were reprimanded for this yesterday, including removing another user's talk post, and I think that all of the above serve as a precedent for what we can expect from him. He has matter of fact relentlessly systematically trolled and harrassed others for months, and is only here on Wikipedia to simultaneously market his favourite character the Beyonder, create nonsense articles, and to slam the Tenchi Muyo franchise, since he knows that I care about it. I just don't want to constantly have to deal with him everywhere. I am tired after all of these months and several hundreds or a few thousand edits and posts. I just don't have the energy anymore, but at the same time, I do have a "right is right" obsessive-compulsive disorder, so it is very hard for me to just ignore when he makes extremely unreasonable modifications and claims.
As for OmniverseGod, BeyonderGod calls his latest wiki "Fictional Battle Omniverse", and both handles made the same edits, so I get suspicious. But you are correct. I will remove this.David A (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

I wrote that story between late 2006 to mid 2008. That is a long time ago. And it was a social satire with only part of a single chapter being sexually explicit. It may have been in bad taste to include it at all in retrospect, but nevertheless, it was only a few % of the story.
Also, as you admitted yourself in one of the above links, you actually have done all of the above, including harrassing me to extremes. Threatening me doesn't change that. David A (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Section break[edit]

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

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

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

Yes, provided you're able to give definitive evidence of Beyonder's involvement (not conjectures, clear evidence). And I'll prefer if such a complaint is posted on the ANI for more eyes to see, and not just on my talk page. In case of threats of violence, you could report directly to emergency(at) But please don't use the email channel for random complaints. Thanks. Wifione Message 06:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay. The reason why I did not link to his several other considerably more severe homophobic slur texts (far more extreme than the insult you deleted towards me from "IAmTheBeyonder") or to his guide in trolling above is that Wikia staff deleted them (after the first he received a temporary global block, and after the second a permanent). But if you wish, you can ask SemanticDrifter at wikia support for confirmation that what I am telling is true. David A (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Read my post above David. Start afresh and drop old grudges. I'll await for BeyonderGod's confirmation too that he understands the points I've noted above. Thanks. Wifione Message 10:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the issue is that David A feels that BeyonderGod has not changed his deleterious behavior that he encountered on Wikia and this may cause problems down the line on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm starting to get really WP:NOTHERE vibes from BeyonderGod. All the same, I believe this thread is premature. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@David A: Wikipedia is a strange place where people do not care what happens elsewhere, with very rare exceptions. A brief mention of the Wikia business may be in order to show the basis of your concern, but there will be no action against an editor unless they edit inappropriately at Wikipedia. I have not looked, but according to Wifione you have been sucked into some edit warring and personal attacks. The correct procedure is to grit your teeth and pretend you do not know anything about the background of editors you encounter here. If they make an edit that you think is unhelpful, take a suitable action (revert or edit or talk-page comment), but do not comment about another editor. If the situation is as you suggest, the nature of the problem will become clear soon enough, and a new posting at ANI with evidence of current problems on Wikipedia should get some kind of action. Johnuniq (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I will do my best. David A (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Okay. I admit that I probably eventually overreacted to N Agizar's many (banned) ips constantly appearing to troll me and others at the wiki over hundreds of posts back and forth, especially as several administrators from the Russian wiki had told me that he was deliberately systematically attempting to push people's buttons. I usually try to be as polite as I can, but I have an upper limit. I probably owe him an apology, and will attempt to keep my temper in check when dealing with him in the future. It should also be mentioned, that I actually consider myself pretty stupid nowadays. David A (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I should probably mention that I asked BeyonderGod to refactor the above comment, and he indicated that he might not have time to do so just yet. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I have now apologised to N Agizar. David A (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

You know yourself that you have harrassed, insulted, been completely unreasonable, taunted, and provoked me to extremes for over 5 months, to the point that I recurrently have turned thoroughly mentally exhausted, have had to continue replying to you for over 12 hours straight several days in a row, and cannot sleep properly, and so onwards to the point that it was completely destroying my quality of life, so I have genuinely found you the most difficult person to deal with that I have ever encountered in my 16 years online. I don't remember going that far in my responses towards you, but if I have at some point, although it was likely tinged with hair-rending frustration from my constant neverending dealing with your antics, combined with what I read about troll psychology, I agree that if true, it was over the line, and apologise for any such instances.
However, I would like to request in exchange that you will please permanently stop harrassing me, leave me alone in peace at the places I visit in the future, stop uploading long disgusting homophobic slurs about me on various places on the Internet, stop threatening me, much less carry out the threats, and preferably that you also stop constantly relentlessly attacking the franchises that I deeply care about, especially Tenchi Muyo. In exchange, I will do my utmost to not mention you anymore, despite other users constantly bringing up the subject to me, and avoid you even more than previously. However, it should be noted that I haven't followed you into any of the forums that you currently post on to respond to your constant provocation threads. You repeatedly went after me on the VsBattles wiki in clear violation to your global ban. Just please leave me and Tenchi Muyo (and preferably all the fans of other properties that you constantly provoke) alone, that is all that I ask. An apology for constantly turning my life horrible over at least several hundred instances wouldn't hurt either, but is not necessary. David A (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
So, do I understand it correctly, that the locus of dispute is the omnipotency of a certain fictional comics character, and from diffs like [47], [48], [49] I gather that you two are in agreement that the fictional character in question is somewhat omnipotent, but disagree on the exact level, sophistication and capabilities of said omnipotence? Do you guys realize, that this has potential to become WP:LAME material? May I kindly suggest, for both of you, to:
  1. Take a short editing break from Wikipedia
  2. Stop reading Marvel comics for a while, they are bad for your health and not suitable for all audiences anyway.
  3. Realize that the Q continuum is the only real source of omnipotency in the universe, a fact every trekkie knows.
All the best, jni (delete)...just not interested 20:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, my autism makes me emotionally retarded and gives me very severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. I think that BeyonderGod just cares very deeply about and self-identifies with his namesake, in combination with wanting to constantly severely provoke lots of different people. Or at least that is my best guess. David A (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, not quite true. Whereas I always show respect for the Beyonder character. BeyonderGod has almost constantly mercilessly slammed and trivialised my and other people's favourite franchises utterly and completely. This may stem from that he has kept mixing up the definitions of "higher-dimensional space" and "pocket dimension". Constantly slamming and trivialising the former concept as the latter. Which has turned frustrating after I have explained the difference several dozen times.
You are however correct in that Marvel Comics have been very bad for my mental health. They are too chaotic, hopeless, insane, incoherent, and dystopian for me to handle well. I have only continued to read them out of compulsive habit. David A (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Beyonder, I'm closing this discussion here. Don't beat a dead horse by repetitively mentioning you want an apology. Read the pointers I noted in my reply to David above. And read my closing statement. Stick with it. No mention of each other on any Wikipedia forum (except administrative noticeboards) from this point onwards. You should interact only on talk pages of respective articles; and your interactions should only be on actual editing diffs and not on each other's character or past. I can't repeat this more - this is a final warning to two editors who I should have blocked two days ago for disrupting this project. Don't let me regret that decision. Thanks. Wifione Message 02:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Man Haron Monis[edit]

The specific AN incident seems resolved - protection level has been reduced and the aim of "additional eyes" on the page is likely achieved. Further discussion might usefully be relocated to the article talk page. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

Agreed. The article is locked but with a [cite needed] tag that needs to be sourced or removed. And queries are being added to the Talk page. This is also WP:BLP issue. AnonNep (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please remove the full protection from the page. I don't think full protection was justified. Among the recent edits, it looks like the only vandalism edits were from IPs, and anything that could have been considered a BLP violation was initially added by IPs. Semi-protection would have sufficed. Also, since many reliable sources are now reporting that the subject is dead, BLP no longer is a concern. The full protection seems to be keeping the article from being updated in a timely manner, which is problematic for an article that will likely be widely viewed. Calathan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Calathan: From WP:BLP, subsection WP:BDP: "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." This, to me, is a particularly gruesome crime. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I think that is a valid point, but the article still never should have been fully protected in the first place since the problematic edits were only from IPs. Also, I was in the middle of writing something on your talk page when I saw this . . . I'll finish writing it there. Calathan (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It looks like the protection level has been changed to semi-protected. Thanks, User:HJ Mitchell, for changing it. Calathan (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Why does that article even exist? WP:BLP1E is very clear; should be merged or redirected into the article on the incident. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The article was created in 2010. Apparently, he was previously known for sending letters harassing the families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan. The article says the resulting court case reached the High Court of Australia, and apparently received coverage as a case testing the limits of freedom of speech. If he was only known for the hostage situation, then I would agree he should be covered in the article on that event. However, given the previous coverage of him, I think having a separate article is appropriate. Calathan (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Calathan - he was previously moderately well-known for the letter writing campaign and high court challenge, long before this event. When there's time ( and fewer edit conflicts) I can add additional sources on these to the article, if required. - Euryalus (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Black Kite, I was thinking the same thing and then checked the history: they may have been marginal beforehand, but at least there was something there, and even if this is a BLP1E, that was not the reason for creating it. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Yes, I sent this to oversight some three hours ago. So far no reaction. Fram (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The shooter's dead, so if he's editing Wikipedia that would be quite a news story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I jumped up and down on IRC and it's now been oversighted. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately wiping out diffs for hours of conversations...but oh well, such is life. Good job, even if a bit late. ansh666 03:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Can't the diffs be more selectively deleted without deleting the hours of unrelated discussions??? Please attend to Talk:Man Haron Monis#Did he edit this article_?.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
No, keeping a diff means keeping the whole page as it was at that time, i.e. with the outing included. perhaps some method could be created that removed the page, but kept the diff only, but that is currently not available. It would also make rev-deling and oversighting a lot heavier, as one would have to check with every diff whether the text-to-remove wasn't visible in it, instead of just taking first-last and removing everything inbetween. Fram (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was hoping there was a 'clever' script available to admins that could just strip out the offending material from the intervening diffs. Oh well. :/ --Jeffro77 (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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


Implied threat withdrawn here, and more ambiguously, here. Per Bishonen and Vigyani, it wasn't much of a threat anyway. But please re-report if it happens again per this section of WP:NLT. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Actually that would be a legal threat. Priyeshndixit first challenged Vigyani to "go to the police" if what Priyeshndixit was saying was false, and then suggested that he himself would go to the police "and complaint [sic] against you for showing biased [sic], defaming [sic] and hateful article". Classical NLT-style language that's used to suppress other editors. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Another admin may feel differently, but to me blocking this guy for legal threats would be to use a sledgehammer to swat a fly, just so as to teach it not to talk back. Theoretically, I suppose it's sort of a legal threat, but do you really care, Vigyani? Do you feel chilled by it? Bishonen | talk 23:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC).
I agree. I can't speak for Vigyani, who appears to be a conational of Priyeshndixit; but I would rather have Priyeshndixit report me to the police than be struck with a feather. However I would like someone to persuade Priyeshndixit to specify what he wants changed in the semi-protected article, with accessible sources, rather than making threats. Vigyani and I have already tried. Maproom (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Maproom. Issuing legal threat by brand new users is very common in India related articles. And in this case things are spiced up by the devotional sentiments of Priyeshndixit toward the subject Ashutosh. Normally in such cases, I ask them politely two to three times to withdraw their threats. They themselves are not taking these threats seriously, neither they don't understand how WP works. There are other easier remedies then block. In this case, I have refused to entertain their edit request until they remove the threat, lets see how it goes. As far as their edit request goes, most of it is already said in the article. They cited one court order for a change they wanted, but that link was not accessible to me.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 00:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Obviously WP:NOTHERE[edit]

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

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

This is someone who is unapologetically homophobic and seems intent on demonstrating that he can be as offensive as humanly possible without repercussions. Please prove him wrong. Stlwart111 23:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it makes sense that this person be NOTHERE any longer. John Carter (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Seems like an issue is going on. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Gamaliel (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Opinion:– Since I was pinged on this, let me start with the fact that Darreg has clearly proved to the community that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. The editor has shown that they no longer have the interest of the project (Wikipedia) in their heart, hence the need to act fast before a bad situation become worst. However, it is disheartening that an editor with the Autopatrolled flag could intentionally violate the WP:CSD#G4, recreating an article that was previously deleted per consensus at AfD (a disccusion he participated) ignoring the deletion review process (meaning that wikipedia's policies no longer matters to them). This destructive behavior clearly suggested that their privilege to autopatrol their own article should be speedily withdrawn as the right was designed for editors who clearly understand and respect the core wikipedia policies, which Darreg has clearly demonstrated to lack irrespective of the numbers of articles they had created. To be honest, I no longer have confidence in all the article they had created since they had been granted this flag ( a proper check may be necessary). For example Jide Kosoko, an article they recently created is just only one sentence with about 4 or 5 films listed in the filmography section. I can't consider a single sentence an article even if the subject obviously meet WP:N. This is unexpected of a member of the Autopatrol User group.
Let me continue with the fact that they have no respect for the blocking policy and any admin action for quickly suggesting that they will only be blocked for 24 hours before they intentionally carried out their destructive behavior. We can prove them wrong on this, perhaps indef block per Stalwart suggestion above. Let me conclude with the fact that since they are not here to build an encyclopedia, Wikipedia will have nothing to lose if they are kicked out of here. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 02:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Gamaliel, I certainly appreciate the prompt response but I'm not sure that will resolve any of the longer-term issues. The conduct in question came either side of a half-month-long break for personal reasons. Either side of that break, his conduct includes disruption of an AFD, personal attacks, the pointy recreation of a deleted article, more (and more severe) personal attacks and commitments to continue editing in the same manner. I'm more than happy to return here in 24 hours but the disruption here is much longer term than anything a 24-hour-block could resolve. Stlwart111 04:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You may contact me directly if he acts up again. I also have no objection if another administrator wishes to impose a stronger sanction, I just don't feel I've done the necessary research that I feel is required before I will impose an indefinite block. Gamaliel (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that, thank you. You've removed it (so you obviously saw it) but I'll add this atrocious personal attack and commitment to harass another editor to this report for the sake of those less familiar with the editor in question. Stlwart111 04:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


This conflict is many steps removed from any article. Please just disengage and let any SPI run its course. Jehochman Talk 05:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The prior SPI was declined as stale. How is another SPI report going to accomplish anything? Otherwise, I see this ongoing discussion regarding an IBAN between Hell in a Bucket and Lightbrreather. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
That was my thought as well, it's complicated by the fact that the process was a damn near a proxy violation the last time, part of which resulted in revdel for outing family members of the person they were accused of being a sock for. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have asked Hell in a Bucket repeatedly to stop