Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941

Personal attacks/battleground-like pattern by user Giorgi Balakhadze

Giorgi Balakhadze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Virtually every time there's a discussion about Georgia-related articles with said user, mostly pertaining to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, he loses his temper, and resorts to using personal attacks and WP:BATTLEGROUND-loaded commentary. I initially decided not to report this matter when it happened for the first time, but to my amazement I noticed that once again, as of a few minutes ago, he couldn't refrain from doing so.

This is some of the material I'm talking about;

• "(...) maybe before your shameless intrigues you first talk to me a?"[1]
• "(...) so please have more dignity"[2]
• "(...) he tries to show me from the negative side and he lies ".[3]
• "Be sure Aragon if you continue behaving like this (POV based intrigues) and "throwing" to me dirty I will ask admins to review this case, to make special efforts and to call down your appetite in attempts to block me."[4]

Some earlier examples where he has used such commentary towards me;

• "You are lying".[5]
• "THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT GEORGIA IN ITS INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS AND EVERYONE MUST ADMIT THIS."[6]
• "Sorry but you need more knowledge to understand what means imagined lines".[7]
• "You won't afraid no one with this cheap pathos about sanctions and my "POV".[8]

I'm always open for discussion about whatever content-related matter, but this stuff should simply not be tolerated. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but it is you who started blaming me on something that do not exist, you have problem with me not me with you. And if I wrote something it has reason you try to show me from negative side and imaging such issues that do not exist. Posting them to other user's page and do not tagging me because you wanted to make everything hidden from my eyes. You claim that you are neutral but you have clear POV and special interest towards conflict regions of Georgia since you said "they do not belong to Georgia anymore" and etc. From the very begging of our clash I see your will to find something that will block me here, and then you will have all playground with no opposition. When someone says that 2+2 is 10, this is a lie or lack of knowledge or one specially says that for other reason (similar to intrigues). I see that you make intrigues with the hidden reason to block me and that is much more personal attack if so. --g. balaxaZe★ 08:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I am sharing your all (to me hidden) discussion to let people know all aspects of the case ► User talk:Chipmunkdavis#Same_issue--g. balaxaZe★ 10:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support six-month TBAN on all articles related to Georgia, Russia, or any nation that borders Georgia or Russia - It seems like LouisAragon has a point. Editing in this area would be terrible if being subject to this type of constant shellacking. Giorgi has already been blocked once for edit warring on these articles. LavaBaron (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry but those bans are to prevent people repeating same mistake, are we talking here abour edit-wars? No (there were no edit-wars again) we are talking about one user's POV-intrigues on another user's talk page against third one (against me) even not noticing me about discussion. Where is neutrality he blamed something that I do not do is this ok? Where is good faith? So he can blame me and I can't answer to that it was a lie? --g. balaxaZe★ 16:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Also that one day block was not because of POV or something else, but about reverting sockpuppet's contribution in the rule WP:EVADE (we also had discussion with admins) it was said that it is not necessary to revert those edits if material is worthwhile and our clash was due to this. LavaBaron claim "edit warring on these articles" is unsourced.--g. balaxaZe★ 21:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Adressing a few points;

• "Sorry but those bans are to prevent people repeating same mistake" -- Yeah, and one of the "mistakes" you're making over and over is losing your temper when talking to others, especially whenever its about Abkhazia/S. Ossetia.
• "No (there were no edit-wars again)" -- That's incorrect. We can clearly see that even after your 24hrs block due to edit-warring on the Georgia page dating to some months ago,[9] you were edit-warring again over the same content on 19 November 2016.[10]-[11]-[12].
• "he blamed something that I do not do" -- yeah, obviously we're all grasping at straws here, and all evidence is just actually fake (/end sarcasm).
• "Also that one day block was not because of POV or something else" -- wrong, again; it was exactly due to your "POV" (namely that the long-term sock abusers' content was "useful", and therfore had to be warred in) that resulted in the block. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You are mixing everything just for one goal to place me to negative side. Edit-war does not mean that you can't revert, when CMD reverted my images about landscape and not about conflict regions or etc his summary was not enough and well explained for me, same issue was with another revert when he just said that it was "pointy" after that I asked on his talk page for more explanations and somehow we've settled everything without rules violation. I am not a such person that if someone explain really neutrally that something is going wrong to do not understand that. What makes me angry is that instead of such talks you just make intrigues, behave like WP:WIKIHOUND and etc (because you are not interested in normal editing but just in blocking of me). Now about POV you like to show diffs so could you provide that material how was looking article before "sockpuppet's" edits and after your reverts? It was not about POV or something else it was about information. Then if you remember I started restoring history section (with some changes) and you reverted even that. And about "yeah, obviously we're all grasping at straws here" yes you are grasping at straws here. Can you answer to me why you hided that discussion on CMD talk page? Why you talked to CMD and not to admins? Why you started these intrigues? --g. balaxaZe★ 01:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Regarding conflict regions issue and Aragon's POV on them (that they are not part of Georgia anymore) I would like to suggest to read this new research [13] (I've found it today and share to interested parts)--g. balaxaZe★ 12:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• And again willful interpretation and distortion of the facts in his new list:

  "No (there were no edit-wars again)" -- That's incorrect. We can clearly see that even after your 24hrs block due to edit-warring on the Georgia page dating to some months ago,[14] you were edit-warring again over the same content on 19 November 2016.[15]-[16]-[17].

• When he wants something he can clearly find it or say, but now he makes mistakes or lies? This [18] is not same content it was all my contribution, this [19] was re-adding of worthwhile material according to the discussion with admins where they clearly said ("As well as allowing an editor to revert the edits of a blocked editor, we also allow other editors to restore the material that had been reverted, if they feel the material is worthwhile, and they are prepared to take responsibility for it") and I wrote about this in summary. There was nothing wrong in doing this (especially edit-war) as you want to show to people. I will remind people that you reverted that sock's edits just because they were his edits not because of POV, violation of other rules or etc, he made a lot of good sourced contribution but you simply reverted and now the article is in worse condition with many and lack of information.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Bot (?) mass-adding categories

• Edikedikedikedik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User going around rapidly adding Category:Biology to pages with an edit summary indicating they're a bot. All edits marked minor but not marked bot edits. Unapproved bot in action? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Bot or not, they should stop as this is a greatgrandparent category, not a basuic category where everything should be added ("Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable."). The pages I checked were alreday in multiple subcategories, so the edits are unwanted. Fram (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't seem to have an easy "rollback all" option, although in this case that would be perfect. Fram (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Rollback in progress. Pichpich (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: you don't? I always thought admins had a mass-rollback tool. I've been asking admins for mass rollback for years. If you have to do these one-by-one then I could have just done it myself. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I have it, but I certainly couldn't find it. I don't know whether User:Pichpich did it manually or had a tool for it (but thank you anyway!). Fram (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Rollback done (manually). Also left a note on the editor's talk page explaining the mass undo. Pichpich (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: One of the "mass rollback" calls in my personal .js files. Unfortunately, it's the one that doesn't have options; it reverts all visible "last" edits on the contributions page. I've it run for over 300 reverts with one click. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: Appears to be

            importScript( 'User:John254/mass_rollback.js' );

from my common.js. I believe it only requires rollback, rather than admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Admin attention needed at Sciences Po / Sciences Po talk

Hi there. After a violent controversy on the Sciences Po talk page and an edit war, the Sciences Po article has been fully protected. Several editors (including myself) have tried to step-in to restore a positive work dynamics, but it now becomes clear that user Launebee has a personal agenda. After 2 months (!) and a lot of energy spent trying to build consensus, we arrive at a stage in which we really need admin attention. Anybody to help? Thanks! SalimJah (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I have asked two admins to look into this after seeing that the user in question can be reasonably assumed to be the same user who was blocked on French wikipedia for similar agenda pushing. It is quite clearly impossible to make even the simplest of improvements on that page (like adding a reflist:30em to the references section, which was not done despite a protected edit request). Perhaps Launebee is writing a thesis on media studies and is actively experimenting? I don't know exactly what the motivation is, but the result is clearly disruption. (I have been marginally "involved" in the last few days because of 2 edits: 1) responding to an RfC and 2) testing the waters with a protected edit request.) SashiRolls (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sanctions needed over personal attacks

It seems the personal attacks against me are continuing.

“Violent controversy" perhaps, but not from my part. I do not have a "personal agenda" or test "media disruption", I was just helping the SP page among others but they were against obvious changes which needed to be done (Jytdog looked into my intervention in the last ANI :

Copy/pasted quoting

I looked at this article as it stands now and as it stood before Launebee started working on it back in July (see this version. Like too many of our articles about universities, the former article was a cesspool of promotion - not a WP article at all, but a brochure for Sciences Po; as it stands now the article is still full of unsourced promotional content that belongs on the Sciences Po website (i.e. the unsourced content about the campuses and the entirely unsourced section about notable people). Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The previous ANI request is here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Agressive_comments_over_Sciences_Po_page

As you can see, the Talk:Sciences_Po and Talk:Panthéon-Assas_University talk pages have become a place a place for not discussing content anymore but only me, with special section about me! They are discussing there my link with a French Wikipedia account, but my personal knowledge of the French user is totally irrelevant. Even if it is true that I know the French user, and? How is it relevant for us to know is SP is a university or not?

They is also, on both article, a special subsection comparing the fact that MSGJ and I put templates in front of the SP page, and they think they should therefore be entitled to put the same templates in the Panthéon-Assas page, without any explanation in talk of for example how there would be close paraphrasing because somehow all of this would be a fight between the two, and then if there is a template in one, there is to be one on the second!? Because XIIIfromTOKYO made a disruptive editing on Panthéon-Assas, I made this request for protection accepted for one week :

Copy/pasted quoting

There is a disruptive editing on the Panthéon-Assas page. One user is not happy with the reputation of this university of "top law school of France" that all the sources state (he’s deleting in the lead, but there are more sources in the "reputation" section, so he’s deleting things with sources, and is doing only personal attacks on me in talk page (like I would be clearly protecting paid contribution!?) Note that it’s part of a broader POV pushing on the Sorbonne in general. There is currently a push on Pantheon-Sorbonne_University and there has been vandalism through false edit summaries also on Sorbonne University (alliance) and Sorbonne Law School pages, or with no edit summary of Paris-Sorbonne University page. But for example my work on University of Lorraine or the good ranking that I add in Aix-Marseille University page is not vandalized because there is no link with the name Sorbonne. There was also Science Po but it has already been fully protected. I took care of the latter Sorbonne University and Sorbonne Law School, others are taking care of Pantheon-Sorbonne and Paris-Sorbonne, but the user is insisting on Panthéon-Assas (Sorbonne Law School) and is now attacking me personally on talk page. --Launebee (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

But now I am subject to even more personal attacks, for example:

• According to MePhisto, I have "claimed that Pantheon-Sorbonne "has no campus" and deleted vast amounts of information on degrees and admissions at HEC Paris (These are just a few examples)", for Pantheon-Sorbonne with no campus, it was a mistake I clearly acknowledged right away long time ago [20], and for HEC, see for yourself what I did
• I just wanted to let people know that one of the users was at least formerly part of a SP project using Wikipedia, and they started to take on me.
• I was kindly informing XIIIfromTOKYO that he was misreading the French edit summary, he answered "You are clearly trying to cover paid contributions." ?!
• SashiRolls was saying that "university" should be used for SP as an "approximation", so I asked in the TeaHouse what was the Wikipedia policy on approximations and I got a useful answer from ColinFine. But XIIIfromTOKYO says I am "trying to attack contributors on their "Approximations"".
• On SP talk page, there was a section on Panthéon-Assas, so off-topic, so I said I moved it the the right talk page, and answered. XIIIfromTOKYO answered back in PA page, so he was aware of the move, but then he acted as if I simply deleted the message and attacked me by writing in a summary edit by writing "how dare you ? Erasing my message, and not even telling me so... and wrote in SP talk page "to make it clear Launebee has just tryed to remove my message. And of course, he/she didn't even bother to tell me about it. The same method has been used on the French Wikipedia.", even though he just answered the message in PA talk page ?!

Now the two talk page are pages to do "comparative study" on me etc. It’s becoming harassment. Can someone do someone do something to stop this?

The problem is now even more serious because XIIIfromTOKYO, to somehow compensate the SP page, is defaming PA. He links to articles dealing with far-right groups in the 1970s with students from PA, and some students that have been trying to have a group with the same name in PA, but with no success (they just existed a few years with only a few students), and he’s transforming it to completely defamatory statements I won’t even copy or link (with the title in the link) here, because it would mean that the history of this page would have to be worked on too. But you can easily find it in PA talk page.

All of this is becoming really wrong. I was just discussing the fact SP is not a university, and now look what the pages look like.

I would like, once again, these personal attacks to stop.

--Launebee (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, from the point of view of someone outside of this squabble / différend, could you answer the following question clearly: Are you saying 1) that you know the French user Droas82 (talk page) but 2) are not that user? The similarity in tone and style is striking.

For information here is a birds-eye picture of that user in action (being reverted by 3 different users: XIII from Tokyo, Jules78120, Olivier Tanguy) [21]. I've read Droas82's first warning (at the equivalent of ANI) at French Wikipedia (23 juin) and decided to stop there (since research indicates that there were problems every week: [22])

Regarding the claims of promo: yes, of course, there is promo everywhere. That does not strike me as a reason to prevent collaborative efforts to minimize such promotion and work towards NPOV. The page history is quite clear. You are not making progress on improving that page, since nothing can currently be done on that page. My two cents worth on the subject as a passerby who decided to look into the quarrel on the page, first because the RfC seemed absurd and second because I wanted to understand why Launebee was being accused of deleting talk page comments. SashiRolls (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Droas82 and Launebee were created on fr-wiki and en-wiki within 15m of each other and immediately started editing exactly the same topic. I doubt it's a coincidence ... -78.151.144.185 (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: I am not claiming anything, I am saying it is off‑topic and you have to stop attacking me.

@NeilN:You told me long time ago to tell you if the attacks continue, and now it is gone to the point that XIIIfromTOKYO is accusing me of antisemitism in PA talk page, with a obvious misquoting of me! What is the next stage? He has to be strongly sanctionned for this absoulutely outrageous personal attack. He is now defaming me!

@Mr rnddude:I also ask for these defaming statements against me to be deleted in the current version and in the history.

Please do something.

--Launebee (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

To make such a claim, you would need to provide a diff of @XIIIfromTOKYO: accusing you of anti-semitism. I read that page, s/he did nothing of the sort. S/He reminded you to be careful of what you write, calling you out for what you, yourself wrote in the heat of the moment, and nothing more. (While that "calling out" was not really necessary, it certainly wasn't defamation.) p.s. the verb is "defame", not "defamate", I've read this word (too) often in your prose. SashiRolls (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Stopping by here quickly to make a relatively small comment. XIIIfromTokyo's comments were unnecessary and probably skirting the line of civility. There is a difference between calling you an antisemite and suggesting that you've said something antisemitic. However, I don't think you've said anything antisemitic either, so even implying/hinting at it can understandably cause offense. That said, I cannot delete or revdel the comments as I am not an administrator. I also left a comment at Talk:Panthéon-Assas University about some of the disputed content. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

He did not call me antisemitic but said I said the Jews are foreigners, and is linking me to fascist regimes from the WW2. That is clearly libelous because I clearly did not say such a thing, which would be a crime (hate speech). This attack is absolutely outrageous! --Launebee (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I would like all the current sections with only personal attacks on me to be erased. But the most important is the libelous statements of XIIIfromTokyo: I did not call Jews foreigners, not at all! --Launebee (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You are accusing me of "libelous statements" (among other things).

You have accused 75.156.54.227 of sexism.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but you have also listed MePhisto and SashiRolls as contributors guilty of personnal attacks [23].

You have also tryed to discredit Salim Jah and MePhisto, and you have described them as "single-purpose account".

That's a lot of accusions, don't you think ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Launebee That is clearly libelous But the most important is the libelous statements of XIIIfromTokyo Friendly advice... Those words that you have used could be constituted as a Legal threat. Per WP:No Legal Threats Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. Users who do so are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding. I strongly suggest that you either retract those statements or indicate that you are not seeking to bring legal proceedings against an editor. Hasteur (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

On that page, it is written: "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." --Launebee (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware of, I have always given reliable sources (large newspapers), so nothing can be qualified as false accusations. More often than not, I have given citations, and translations.

So far, you haven't given even the slightest clue to prove "That is clearly libelous". So I don't really see how you can call that "a discussion". XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Launebee is successfully driving our attention away from content, dragging this thread into an endless 'personal attack' argument. He also tried this strategy with me while I was trying to restore a positive work atmosphere on the Sciences Po talk page. He's flooding us with 'arguments', forcing us to address them until we forget what the subject matter actually is, or simply give up. Assuming good faith all along, I've done my part in the past couple months on the Sciences Po talk page. (See, e.g., this ridiculous debate). As we discuss personal matters, Wikipedia is losing. I urge everybody to stick to the *facts*. Compare Launebee's edit history on the Panthéon-Assas University and the Sciences Po pages, consider his behavior on the respective talk pages, evaluate the evidence provided by XIIIfromTOKYO. Agenda pushing is clear, disruptive behavior is evident. SalimJah (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Who is driving the attention away from content? The SP talk page has become a study on me, and not on issues anymore. Why? Because I only asked for comments about SP not being a university, and I bring sources to that (it is easy it is ridiculous). You created a thread on me because you are not happy on content. --Launebee (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Could anyone have a look at this contribution by Launebee on the Sciences Po article. 6,473 bytes added, mainly to list any single scandal related to this college. As of today, it represents 28 references, for a total of 33 references. It looks like a WP:UNDUE. It's very weird, because Launebee's contributions on the Panthéon-Assas University article are very different. These colleges are considered as rivals in France.

An other point that I would like to be checked is this contribution by Launebee. S/he turned the wording linked to various aspects of his lifestyle into linked to his controversial gay livestyle (I added the emphasize). Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not stated by the reference. He is described as a "controversial figure in French academia" (because of his strategic choices), but nowhere in this article his alleged homosexuality is linked to any "controversial livestyle". That's an other very poor choice of words.

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Instead of discussing me in SP talk page, and the SP page here, I suggest you focus on content in the SP talk page, to simply kindly proposing another choice of word (and not making a statement on me personnally), and I would have kindly answered to you. About scandals, it even the title of a series of articles of a newspaper: About controversial gay lifestyle, it is not from me, I copied it from the Richard Descoings article, it is possible to discuss it.

But it is off-topic here. The topic is you and others transforming SP and PA talk pages on places for personal attacks on me (and now even libel), away from content discussions. It is

--Launebee (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You made the choice to put homophobic slurs in the article.

You didn't even check the references.

You didn't even mention in the article that you copied/pasted it from an other article. CC-BY-SA is not optional.

And you did all of that to write a text that clearly fall under the scope of WP:UNDUE. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You insisted I said antisemitic things, now you are saying I am writing homophobic things! There is nothink homophobic about saying his gay lifestyle is controvesial, on the contrary. See for example this newspaper article saying that his gay lifestyle was taboo and is denouncing the fact it had to be.

Can someone stop these insults toward me?

--Launebee (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, you have no idea of what is written in the article. How could it be controversial, if it was hidden, and that no one has ever heard of it before his death ? You wrote in the article that his gay lifestyle was conroversial, and that it hurted the school's reputation.

Anone can see that what you wrote in the article wasn't backed by any reference. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sincerely, how to discuss with you when all is about attacking me personnaly? We could have had this discussion, in SP talk page, in a civil manner, but no, you choose to say outrageous things about me (using Jews), and you take everything I copied on Wikipedia to attack me and say I am evil intended. This "discussion" is pointless. You have to stop acting like that. --Launebee (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

You are not answering the questions. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Break

You've got a damn cheek, I'll grant you that. :) Back to the facts -- again and again! You started an edit war based on those rather violent exchanges. The talk page has grown exponentially since then, which makes for a *lot* of arguments. And while you managed to put banners everywhere, deleted a lot of content, added a scandal section, and then got the article fully protected until March 2017 (!), the consensus on the Sciences Po talk page runs unambiguously *against* your positions. We can see from the talk page that people were willing to debate and compromise. But even when questions can be resolved clearly based on simple factual evidence, you reject it all and prevent any progress being made on the subject matter. Some get upset and leave (the IP that you edit warred), some simply give-up (you win by K.O.), and some (the craziest of all) waste their time and energy on the issue (that's me :) ). The question of whether Sciences Po can be described as a university is a clear-cut example. Based on your argument, Sciences Po cannot be described as a university. You maintain: it is legally a Grande Ecole, period. But then MIT and ETH Zurich shouldn't be described as universities either, right? The precise location of the campus is another clear-cut example. People can't say that Sciences Po "encircles Boulevard Saint Germain". Why? "Once again a tentative to artificially associate Sciences Po with 'great' things!" So you refuse, even in the face of contributors who dig out the campus map, for God's sake! In the meantime, you're quite happy with the formulation that "the majority of the nineteen campuses of Panthéon-Assas are located in the Latin Quarter" in the Panthéon-Assas article. Well... And it goes on and on. (Sorry, I did not intend to write-up a serialized novel here...) Bottom line is: at the very least, you simply refuse to compromise when consensus runs against you. This is toxic for our project and community, and it needs to stop. So what do we do now? SalimJah (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Could an admin intervene? These people are not happy with mere facts so they are attacking personally. I’ve tried to explain them again and again but it is obviously not working. Doesn’t anyone has a problem that I was wrongfully accused of antisemitism? --Launebee (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

+1! BTW, you still haven't responded to SashiRolls's above request that you clarify your relationship to the French user who recently got blocked for similar disruptive behavior on the same pages. I quote:

"Just out of curiosity, from the point of view of someone outside of this squabble / différend, could you answer the following question clearly: Are you saying 1) that you know the French user Droas82 (talk page) but 2) are not that user? The similarity in tone and style is striking." SalimJah (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I answered that it is off‑topic, and in case I know him, it does not change anything at all, it is absolutely pointless. There is absolutely no link with the question of SP being a university or not. --Launebee (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Him ?

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment at the "Once again a tentative to artificially associate Sciences Po with 'great' things!"[24]. That's clearly Launebee's strategy on the Panthéon-Assas University article. In the lead s/he introduced ""Heir of the faculty of law and economics of the University of Paris (La Sorbonne), it was established as its successor when the world's second oldest academic institution was divided into autonomous universities in 1970. It is a member of the alliance Sorbonne University."". The Sorbonne is only a building, and has never been used by the faculty of law. And the university of Paris was by no way a medieval university. It was founded in 1896. The medieval university was dibanded more than a centrury before that, in 1793.

Once again, Sciences Po and Assas are often considered as rivals in France. As anyone can see, Launebee's contributions are more than questionable. They are always excessively favorable when related to Assas, and unfavorable when related to Sciences Po. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats

I have provided yesterday about 10 news articles, published by well known French newspapers (national one, from different political leanings).

Today, @Launebee: used the title "Reminder of what is libelous" to answer[25]. It was not the first time that s/he used this legal reference.

@Hasteur: told him less than a week ago that "Danger, we've entered NLT territory". Hasteur asked Launebee to remove his/er comment, or to amend it. Launebee refused to remove that first comment, and said what s/he was simply started a "discussion as to whether material is libelous (is not a legal threat)". That discussion never actually started.

Today again, Launebee don't even try to start a discussion about that, that is say using Arguments to proove his/her statement.

That's clearly an intimidation attempt. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Everyone can see that I take each time the time to explain calmly to you things, but you keep answering agressively. I gave examples in my first message here. And Mr rnddude explained in PA talk page it is not legal threat from my part. --Launebee (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You are calmly threatening contributors away.

You are calmly describing victims of antisemitism and racism as "foreigners".

You are calmly putting homophic slurs in {{Sciences Po]]' article.

Did I miss something ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Can someone do something about this user continuing to do outrageous statements about me ? @NeilN:You told me long time ago to tell you if the attacks continue, this urer is telling at least for the third time that I called Jews foreigners, even if I clearly did not, I told him I did not, and Mr rnddude intervened because I clearly did not. (And he is doing the same thing about homosexuals now). Can’t anyone temporarily block this user for repetitively having made such despicable statements about me? (More all the other personal attacks etc.) --Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Homophobic slurs in the Sciences Po article? XIIIfromTOKYO, Launebee hasn't touched the Sciences Po article since September of this year. You're either referring to the talk page (in which case point me to the discussion/comment) or a very old edit to the article (in which case I'll need a diff please). The only other alternative is that you mean Pantheon-Assas' article or talk (in which case diff again please). Otherwise, the claim of homophobia is a brightline violation of NPA policy and I'm going to ask that you strike it. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude:You can see above he is refering to me copying, a long time ago, the Richard Descoings article mentioning his "controversial gay lifestyle". You can see I explained to him there is absolutely nothing homophobic saying this, on the contrary, and I gave him anti-homophobia article link about the fact that his homosexuality is taboo (a lot of articles deal with the fact his gay lifestyle was controversial and the possible link with his death has been underlined, eg [26][27][28][29][30]), but he continues to say anyway that I put homophobic content and that I wrote Jews are foreigners, even though both are obviously absolutely false:( (he is in general saying a lot of other things about me, as I stated above, but these are the most shocking). --Launebee (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't help noticing that one of your links is "How did another top Frenchman come to grief in New York?". TOO MUCH INFORMATION! EEng 23:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

^^ Am I right to say that since I started this thread two weeks ago, we failed to attract the attention of a single admin? SalimJah (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock request for 208.114.164.2*

Since September ([31]) the range 208.114.164.232 - 208.114.164.242 has been quite disruptive and accumulated a number of warnings on various IP talk pages. The disruption is targeted to TV related articles. They've made 462 total edits as of this filing. Is it possible to do a small range block like that? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

208.114.164.232/29 looks to be the smallest range which contains most of the above IP addresses

Sorted 8 IPv4 addresses:

208.114.164.232 – 208.114.164.239

Total affected	Affected addresses	Given addresses	Range	Contribs
8	8	8	208.114.164.232/29	contribs

-- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

A range block is definitely possible on 208.114.164.232/29 and the other two IPs (.240 and .242) that have been active. Could you provide a few diffs to justify the block so I can just reference this discussion in the log, EvergreenFir? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Long term disruption on South Beach Diet

I am seeking community action with respect to User:Anmccaff's long term disruptive editing at South Beach Diet.

Their disruption goes back over a year, per their contribs to the article and their their contribs to the Talk page.

Their longest term focus has been seeking removal of the well-sourced attribution fad diet, which they started doing back in spring 2015 here (also introducing WP:OR) and as recently as this September.

Their contribs to the Talk page include gems like:

• their first one here from March 2015 which expresses their personal opinion clearly
• this with a lovely reference to "tar baby" and comments directed to contributors not content
• here making an WP:OR argument that it is "no longer considered" a fad diet

See also this baseless EWN filing from May 2015 and this one from June 2015

They have done this same kind of disruption at another diet article, per this EWN report.

What prompts this filing is their repeated removeal of new, neutral content based on a new MEDRS source, for no valid reason.

The content was added here and was reverted by Anmccaff here (with an inaccurate edit note), and here (again with an inaccurate edit note) and here. And see their disdainful comment here at Talk.

There is no basis in policy or guideline for removing this content. It is pure disruption and not acceptable behavior. I don't see any end to this in sight. Jytdog (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Note - an EWN filing was made at the same time I did this, see here. I am seeking stronger action than an EW block. This is disruption that has gone over a year and a half now. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC) (redact per comments below Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC))

Jytdog has a long history of tag-team ed-warring on this and related subjects, as an interaction check will show. Stronger action is certainly required, as it was on the GMO business. Anmccaff (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog's history might be relevant, but his claim of removal of reliable sourcing which meets MEDRS is probably more so. Not having checked the source in question itself, it would be extremely useful to know whether the source itself says that the claim has not been supported by evidence or not, or whether the phrasing in question might be less than accurate and/or maybe a mild form of SYNTH. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

While this is only tangential to your disagreement, you should read about what Tar baby means. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems to be basically synonymous with "quagmire," not really any sort of personal statement. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, struck it. The long disruption has been just a pain in the butt, and with the stuff yesterday I have had it. They are not even pretending to edit in good faith on this topic anymore. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Whoa, hold on there. I don't think anyone here necessarily indicated that your initial comments were wrong or that they disagreed with them. I know that wasn't what I was thinking. But I do think that we didn't have all the information we might have wanted. I know I at least would still be very open to considering some sort of action if I had a clearer idea of whether the source in question directly supported the text it referenced. That seemed to be what Anmccaff was indicating in the edit summary, and if he or she was wrong in that, then there might very well be grounds for some sort of action. John Carter (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi sorry i seem to have miscommunicated. I appreciate you all clarifying the "tar baby" thing and fixed that. Thanks for that. About [the dif. Here it is:

The diet is promoted with claims it can improve cardiovascular health, but these claims have not been borne out by evidence.

References

The article is not behind a paywall so anybody can check it. The ref is solid MEDRS - 2 year old review from a decent quality journal.

detail for how the ref supports the content, for anybody who wants it
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support for the first clause of the content ("The diet is promoted with claims it can improve cardiovascular health") from the Introduction of the ref: "A wide variety of diets are available to promote weight loss and improve cardiovascular risk factors, such as lipid levels, blood pressure, and glycemia. Among them, 4 are particularly popular among North Americans. Millions of copies of Atkins, South Beach (SB), and Zone instructional books have been sold,1–3 and over a million Weight Watchers (WW) members attend its weekly group meetings globally."  Done Support for the first second clause of the content ("but these claims have not been borne out by evidence") from various places in the ref: Weight: "At 12 months, the 10 RCTs comparing popular diets to usual care showed that only WW (weight watchers) was consistently more efficacious at reducing weight.... the single SB RCT (randomized clinical trial) found no difference versus usual care among severely obese patients postgastric bypass surgery: Lipid levels: "There were no or limited data on the effect of SB and WW on lipid profiles versus usual care at ≥12 months.: Blood pressure: "No blood pressure data were available regarding SB" Glycemic control: "there were no major differences in glycemic control measures between popular diets in short-term RCTs" Conclusion: "Our systematic review was designed to examine the currently available evidence on the efficacy of the Atkins, SB, WW, and Zone diets at promoting weight loss and improving cardiovascular risk factors, with a particular focus on sustained weight loss at ≥12 months. ...Our results suggest that all 4 diets are modestly efficacious for short-term weight loss, but that these benefits are not sustained long-term....Moreover, there were more limited data on the long-term effects of the 4 popular diets on other cardiovascular risk factors, with Atkins and WW being the most studied.... To our knowledge, our study is the first systematic review of RCTs to specifically focus on the Atkins, SB, WW, and Zone diets.A previous systematic review of major commercial weight loss programs in the United States examined the 3 major nonmedical weight loss programs at the time (WW, Jenny Craig, LA Weight loss), as well as medically supervised proprietary programs, online programs, and organized self-help programs, but excluded book-based diets. This previous review included case series in addition to RCTs. Similar to our findings, the authors concluded that: 'With the exception of 1 trial of WW, the evidence to support the use of major commercial and self-help weight loss programs is suboptimal.'"  Done This is not controversial from the perspective of mainstream science (which is Wikipedia's persepctive). The authors of this review also describe the obesity epidemic and say: "Consequently, effective prevention and management strategies are needed to reduce the burdens of overweight, obesity, and their associated comorbidities. Despite their popularity, the Atkins, SB, WW, and Zone diets seem to only achieve modest sustained weight loss. Comprehensive lifestyle interventions aimed at curbing both adult and childhood obesity are urgently needed. Interventions that include dietary, behavioral, and exercise components, as well as legislative measures and industry regulations, may be better suited to the multifaceted obesity epidemic."

fad diets are just that - ways for whoever is selling them to make money, some kind of identity-thing for their fans, and most importantly are just are noise in the signal that public health authorities urgently try to communicate with respect to a healthy diet - eat a variety of stuff mostly from plants, avoid sugary stuff and processed food, don't eat too much, and of course, get some exercise every day.

the removal was just disruptive as has been Anmccaff's consistent effort to delete the "fad diet" attribution over the past year and a half. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

So, an honest summation of this might also be "One study that compared , in limited areas, SBD to usual care in major bariatric surgery showed it performed similarly to usual care." That's hardly damning. Anmccaff (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Agatston's ideas circulated, gratis, for several years before commercialization, and have been available all-but-free -libraries, used book stores, &cet, for about a decade. This argument isn't just WP:SYNTH and WP:OR on Jytdog's part, it's also factually wrong. Anmccaff (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The point at issue is you have been repeatedly removing well-sourced content with incorrect edit summaries, and adding your own original research ("no longer considered a fad" - see Jytdog's diffs above). All these bad edits have been part of a consistent push to water down criticism and boost this diet. It would probably be for the good of the Project, and for you, if you took a break from this topic area. Alexbrn (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

If you read the review it summarizes all the cardiovascular-related evidence (including weight changes) for the four diets, including South Beach. It finds that the marketing claims are not supported. Not complicated. Not a surprise. Jytdog (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

here is the "South Beach Diet" website where you can all kinds of "South Beach Diet" branded stuff. The name is a trademark owned by SBD ENTERPRISES, LLC which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nutrisystems per bloomberg, and here is the Nutrisystem website where you can buy all kinds of other garbage. Nutrisystems is a publicly traded company that according to its 2015 annual report spent $124 million in marketing (p13) and had $463M in revenue. (p24) It is a marketing-driven, money-making enterprise selling things that don't work and making a lot of noise that confuses the public. Again this is not complicated. Jytdog (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note: I restored the hat that I had created in my own comment. In this diff Anmccaf changed my comment and their edit note incompetently asks: "Removed hatting, so actual discussion can take place. Who added these comments, exactly?)" Anmccaf then inserted their own remarks in the midst of mine.

This board is for addressing behavior and this thread was raised to address Anmccaff's year and a half disruption. Which now everybody can see is happening even here. Jytdog (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• just pinging to get some attention. (blatantly). Again all Aanmccaff has done at the article for a year is removed sourced content - please look at their contribs to the article. All deletions of sourced content. And from their first Talk page comment they made it clear that they have used the diet and liked it, and were going to interpret "fad diet" as they saw fit, not how it is used in sources. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I've worked with Anmccaff before, and they're not always the most pleasant user to try to collaborate with, and have a tendency to jump into combat mode. But I'm afraid that if issues on two articles in two years (both of which are probably WP:BATTLEGROUND, but neither of which broke 3RR) is all there is to go on, that's going to end up being a light case for a TBAN. TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and i recognize that. I think the removing of completely valid content for no valid reason is blockable. (not the edit warring but the tendentious removal of valid content). but i would be satisfied with a warning from the community which hopefully they would take on board and change their behavior, and with which i can come back here if they don't change their behavior. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Propose warning

Propose hopefully an uncontroversial warning/reminder to Anmccaff of the following:

• WP:3RR is a bright line, and approaching that line intentionally and especially repeatedly is still edit warring, regardless of whether you actually cross it.
• Simply the fact that two users are reverting you does not constitute "tag teaming," and accusations that this is the case may be construed as a personal attack when not accompanied by evidence.
• You are expected to follow the dispute resolution process, period. This expectation is not lessened, but is rather heightened for experienced editors, as are the potential consequences for failing to do so.

TimothyJosephWood 01:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. TimothyJosephWood 01:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Isis (disambiguation)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is a true stalker

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isis_(disambiguation)&diff=754786166&oldid=754754215 - "People: none of these people have Isis as their surname)" - Instead of changing "surname" to "forname" the editor removed the entire section without Talk.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isis_(disambiguation)&diff=754964714&oldid=754945490 - "nonconstructive, something of a content fork, contrary to practice" - Removed the section again.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isis_(disambiguation)&diff=755164590&oldid=755146976 - Removed again, despite that I removed people with the given name Isis from the section.

-- Gstree (talk · contribs) 21:01, 16 December 2016‎ (UTC)

You forgot to sign your post. The article currently includes Isis (given name), which is where the list you're trying to post should be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gstree: I've got to agree with the above here - I see you've made the edits to Isis (given name) now, so hopefully the disagreement between yourself and HW can settle down. What exactly would you like to see as the result of this thread? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 22:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: I would like to keep the article before this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isis_(disambiguation)&diff=755164590&oldid=755146976. --Gstree (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gstree: so you are asking for admin help to solve a content dispute? Admins don't decide content disputes. This is a question that needs to be decided on the article's talk page. - GB fan 23:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd encourage HW to be friendlier when making that type of edit, especially with newbies (Gstree enrolled in October 2016). 50.0.136.56 (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

User:ProgGR

User:ProgGR is systematically editing articles related to the The Young Turks and its hosts in order to maintain a positive bias in the articles. The edits are disruptive and biased. The user has been warned of numerous times on their talk page. I ask that this user be suspended from editing The Young Turks and Cenk Uygur. Examples: [32] [33] [34] [35]. (Update) Let me add that my edits may be flawed and I welcome any feedback or corrections. However, my flaws should not distract from what is likely an agenda-driven account.

Analogstats (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I was going to say this is a content dispute, but it does look possibly disruptive to me. Have you tried to discuss this with the user on their talk page or on the talk pages of the affected articles? I don't see any recent sections about this. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Multiple others have brought this up on the user's talk page, with no response. There is an active discussion about the connection between the two Young Turks organizations on the article talk page [36] [37]. Previous mentions have been removed from the article by this user and others. I think at least one sentence is warranted. Analogstats (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Um, no, Analogstats. He's been removing incorrect, badly referenced and POV edits. Really, if the program really is named after the "Young Turks" movement, you should be able to find a reference source for that; it's up to you to reference your additions. The biggest complaint I see is that he doesn't use edit summaries, which aren't mandatory. Risker (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I would point out there are currently zero citations in the intro to that article, as numerous other articles. Should all of the intro be deleted for lack of citation? I will do so if that is proper. And I will happily add a citation for the naming claim if that will ease your concerns. However, I think it's a far stretch to say that pointing out that an organization named The Young Turks is named after The Young Turks is "POV." If you have concerns about my edits, please discuss on my talk page. I am happy to improve my editing. But please do not attack me to distract from the other account that has almost exclusively made edits to The Young Turks and its hosts - all of which are to remove any edits which may show negative aspects of the subjects. If you think their behavior is unbiased and undisruptive, please say so. Analogstats (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article and does not need to be independently sourced. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Kuala Namu International Airport

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.

---

111.95.116.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Another similar incident from my previous report. An anonymous user added a destination that does not exist. I tried to remove it, but the user added it back and called me haram. I need the administrators to intervene in this issue. Cheers. Calvin Wisanto (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Calvin Wisanto The edit has been reverted by Gunkarta. I guess if it starts we can start blocking. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note to admin Can someone help remove the edit summaries here and here? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

   Done -- Euryalus (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942 I don't think the edit summary should be removed, as it could be used as evidence for the administrators to take action against the anonymous user in the future. Calvin Wisanto (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, admins can view them. And now we have this ANI for the record. (That's why I added the IP address and diffs, so that it can be easily referred to in the future). If it continues, we can block the IP. But for now, it seems the disruption has halted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You mentioned about a previous report. Could you link that here? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah OK, found the previous report. Seems like this is a case of block evasion. 118.137.145.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for a period of one month. From the looks of it, this might well be the same editor evading the block. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2016 (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.

Revisited: Tendentious editing and WP:NOTHERE behavior by User:Cassandrathesceptic

Without an expressed conclusion and due to 72 hours of inactivity, the discussion Tendentious editing and WP:NOTHERE behavior by User:Cassandrathesceptic was archived a couple of days ago. As one of the participants, I was content with this as I had hoped, vainly apparently, that the ANI discussion along with the simultaneous MFD of a polemical essay on their user page, would finally lead @Cassandrathesceptic: to accept that their pattern of behaviour was not tolerable and should cease, and, on that expectation, I was prepared to leave the discussion not formally resolved. It would seem my confidence in the prospect of an epiphany for CtS was misplaced as their returning edit is a lengthy personal attack on me, including the impertinent attribution of personal views and motivations and indicating the strong likelihood of their continuing to edit in the same manner as before. (For clarity, neither the ANI or the MFD were initiated by me but by two different users, neither of whom have had any previous interaction with me, to my knowledge.) Proven wrong that the matter may be over, I feel it necessary to revisit the discussion after all.

I would have thought it appropriate to ping all the earlier participants that the discussion has been revived plus, for info, the user on whose page the new post was made, but would prefer to check first. Would that be a suitable and appropriate course? Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe that if you notify all the editors involved in the previous discussion -- pro and con -- that would not be considered to be CANVASSING. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

My take on it is that it would be canvassing regardless of whether or not all of the editors are pinged. If this is going to end in a firefight, better not to offer up free ammunition. My advice is to trust in people to find the new topic of their own accord. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd just been checking Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification which states "An editor... can place a message... On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:... Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". On the basis that notifying previous participants on their talk page is regarded appropriate and not as canvassing, pinging would seem not only equivalent but more readily evident to all that it has been done. No? Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's against policy; you're probably fine in that regard. I think it's just shaky enough that someone might call you out on it, but that "someone" wouldn't be me. Your call. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

(uninvolved) Canvassing would be only notifying one side of the argument. If you notify everyone, that's perfectly fine (even if everyone in the previous section was on the same side, it can't be helped then). ansh666 10:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation; in which case, notifying the following previous participants of the relisting of the discussion (CtS having been notified already): @Agtx:, @Nyttend:, @Someguy1221:, @TheGracefulSlick:, @EdJohnston:, @SmokeyJoe:, @FillsHerTease:, @Andrew Davidson:. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• This fresh incident was provoked by the apparent deletion of Cassandra's user page. It is naturally alarming when this seems to happen but this turned out to be an oversight. "Sorry it was moved to User:Cassandrathesceptic/Scots Language rather than deleted. I forgot to post the link on your talk page." I expect things will settle down as this becomes clear. This essentially remains a content dispute and Matt Lunker is on the other side of it – he wanted the page to be fully deleted. In bringing this here again, he is exacerbating the matter and this seems vexatious. Both parties should agree to disagree and move on. Reading WP:LAME may help in putting this into perspective. Andrew D. (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

What is this supposed content dispute I am in, what “side” am I on in it, and where do I, ever, profess this? Andrew, I am bemused by your assertions as to the nature of this matter as you appear to hit the nail on the head in your very first post, that (in regard to but one of CtS’s favoured topics) "There is no consensus among language experts about what constitutes a language versus a dialect”. It seems that every other editor involved, you and I included, and including ones that have expressed a personal view on the matter (which I have not), accept the reality of that lack of consensus and of its coverage in the article – only CtS does not. They do not, and have continued to campaign to have the matter portrayed otherwise. If I am on a side, you are on the same one.

I've always been fond of the saying by Professor Max Weinreich, quoted by Leo Rosten in The Joys of Yiddish, that "A language is a dialect that has an army and a navy." Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

And this is not about any one particular topic, it is about CtS’s pattern of editing as a whole. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• No opinion from me; I just put in a little reminder to the person who created the thread. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, only fair to include you in the ping though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course, and thank you. I'm just trying to avoid having someone ping me or leave me a talk note saying "Nyttend, don't forget to participate" :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - In the past discussion I noted how Cts used personal attacks and accused M Lunker of sockpuppetry even after "apologizing". In my opinion, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather push their POV on articles.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I'm never impressed when someone denies sockpuppetry if they were clearly involved in it. It makes me think they're not going to behave appropriately in other areas. Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • There's a murky boundary between dynamic IP hopping (which seems to me to be what happened back in 2012, hence a rangeblock) and sockpuppetry, though I'm not qualified to comment on it in this specific case. ansh666 22:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

If the editor isn't blocked or banned but simply problematic, then yes it can be a bit murky. But there's no murky boundary when the editor is already blocked or banned. (The only exception may be when the editor isn't aware they were blocked/banned, but in that case range blocks shouldn't be needed.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrator abuse

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

---

I would like to report an editor and an administrator for abuse. User:ViperSnake151 recently repeatedly added unreferenced material to the article NHL Centennial Classic. It was reverted. He readded it, it was reverted again, and it was readded again, and again. User:ViperSnake151 never once used the talk page as instructed. When he was warned about edit warring he responded by deleting the warning on his talk page with the comment "Don't template the regulars". He then had IP user banned for 3RR for reverting his unreferenced edits by an administrator friend. He also had an administrator friend protect so that it couldn't be "vandalized" even though it was him that was vandalizing it. This kind of treatment of other users and abuse of administrator privileges is a growing problem on wikipedia. Please look into these users, he has a long list of article ownership behaviour and crass treatment of other users. 64.231.151.232 (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

G'day, from what I can tell, this relates to this [38]. I note that it does not seem that 174 clearly stated what their concerns were with their edit summaries (i.e. specifically what was wrong with ViperSnake's copy editing) when reverting. Frankly, without clear communication what the concerns were, I can see how it would seem 174's were disruptive and hence why administrator action was taken. This now appears to have sparked a thread on the article's talk page, which is the best way to deal with it. As such, in future, I would suggest that you take the initiative and start a post on the talk page yourself after you revert. Beyond that, as far as I can tell ViperSnake's edits were referenced. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

I realize the above section is closed, however, the I.P above has now | taken to showing his displeasure with ViperSnake by messing around with his page page. I reverted him and templated him for this. However, his page may need some extra eyes, just in case the I.P tried this or something worse, again. Also, there is a possibility that the IP above signed in with a different IP, given the | Changes made by the first I.P. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NHL_Centennial_Classic&diff=754718441&oldid=754712091%7C are nearly identical to the changes made by the second I.P.] (Note the changes made in the first paragraph. The second I.P has added more changes, but based on behavior, both Vipersnake and I agree this is the same person, considering the first I.P was blocked for edit warring, this looks like a pretty good case for block evasion. KoshVorlon 17:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: sorry, was offline. Agree this is the same person, please let me know if this recurs during their current block. Page protection has resolved the issue at the article, have also watchlisted ViperSnake151's page. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen, Me and egregious violations of policy

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.

---

Rjensen (talk · contribs) and I are in agreement that one of us are egregiously violating policy. We just don't agree whom of us it is. The context of this disagreement is this discussion Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rjensen_and_BLP and the original disagreement here: in which Jensen invokes BLP to justify his removal of a talkpage comment by me that he finds to be unpleasant (I agree that it was). So the questions are: Is an editor who has a biographical article allowed to remove other people's talkpage comments about them if they find them to be false or otherwise in violatoin of BLP. I would say that RJensen is in fact violating both WP:TPO and WP:COI by personally removing comments of other editors with whom he is in a discussion. I have had this discussion before woth Rjsensen who has a habit of editing his own biography to remove material he doesnt like. If it is indeed the case that he is allowed to remove other people's comments under BLP if he dislikes them then I think it would be very nice to clarify this, in which case I can avoid ever interacting with him in the future.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me repeat two points I made at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: A) Maunus refuses to provide his required RS and instead misquotes Wikipedia. 1) his false statement = Jensen's claim there was never any significant anti-Irish sentiment in the US. 2) He cites the Wikipedia article on me that states Jensen argues that "No Irish Need Apply" signs were mostly a myth and that there was "no significant discrimination against the Irish" in the job market. 3) Actually what I did write was As for the question of anti-Irish prejudice: it existed but it was basically anti-Catholic or anti-anti-republican. There have been no documented instances of job discrimination against Irish men.(FN13) Was there any systematic job discrimination against the Catholic Irish in the US: possibly, but direct evidence is very hard to come by. [Journal of Social History 2002 p 407] Maunus is in deliberate defiance of the BLP rule about verifiability. Rjensen @ 17:30, 30 November 2016. and B) every editor has the right to remove another editor's posts if they fail the BLP rules. Maunus is in deliberate defiance of these BLP rules: 1) " any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source" 2) "Dealing with articles about yourself...Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself." 3) "Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable." 4) "This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." 5) "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages" 6) "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." = Rjensen 10:53, 3 December 2016. C now I'll add some new comments: Maunus never tries to explain why his comments comply with WP:BLP As for WP:TPO he violates it too--it states " Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which applies to talk pages as well as to articles" As for WP:COI it states: "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly." My conclusion is that Maunus thinks the BLP rules do not apply to him and he can say any false or nasty thing he wants. Rjensen (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

They compky with BLP because the are true and verifiable and not defamatory in any sense. As I have stated. You are known only for your mistaken claim about anti-Irish sentiment - if it werent for that particular controversy and the media attention it got you you would not merit a biography article. And you claim that WASP is a slur. Both are verifiable facts whether you wish they werent or not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rjensen: Let's be clear -- the quotes you give refer to the article space. Almost no one gives inline citations for talk page comments about other Wikipedians, and if we applied your standard then you and I would have been violating BLP when we referred to this guy as a sockpuppet. The only source that says that is the Wikipedia SPI, which is a self-published source and therefore unacceptable for BLP purposes. You need to drop this game right now. It's been almost two months since I explained this policy to you,[39] and I can't help but imagine that others have explained the same thing to you in the past. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Leaving aside the BLP concern, your comments could be seen as "personal attack", which could justify the other editor in removing it. Essentially you are accusing another editor of having a double standard: according to you he says there was no anti-Irish sentiment in the U.S. but infers there is anti-English sentiment. But whether or not "WASP" is a slur has nothing to do with what RJensen has argued about anti-Irish sentiment, and the discussion will proceed better without that comment. TFD (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't leave aside the BLP concern, Jensen's failure to undestand BLP and COI is the core of this issue. I readily admit that my comment was not friendly, but rather sarcastic. I don't think an editor is allowed to remove comments that they believe are personal attacks, but I may be mistaken. And yes I am accusing him of having a double standard. I think he clearly has one. IN any case the point still is if an editor may under BLP remove comments from other editors in spite of WP:TPO and COI - or if they should rather have someone else make that call. And the same goes for the biography itself - Rjensen has several times removed material from his article that he disliked instead of flagging it on the talkpage and having someone else made the decision. This is why I do not trust the judgment of Jensen one little bit when it comes to judging what is a BLP violation and what it a COI. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO, clear and unambiguous personal attacks can be removed, but not comments that are simply uncivil. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I have also noticed Rjensen's curious habit of quoting BLP as though it applied to Wikipedians in out-of-mainspace discussion between said Wikipedians. I found this extremely unusual and potentially problematic since reliable sources are almost never going to be found for any of the statements one would want to make about other Wikipedians and their behaviour. For context, I noticed this problem two months back when he removed a discussion on my talk page between a now-block sockpuppet. I wound up re-removing the offending material anyway, but it was still weird. Just to show how absurd this is: if we applied the "we can't say things about other Wikipedia editors unless reliable sources have said the same" to Wikipedians other than Rjensen, I would have committed a BLP-violation by saying that Imboredsenseless was a sockpuppet just now, since no reliable sources can be found to back up this claim.

I don't think it's a serious problem that merits a block or anything like that, but he should definitely be told to stop invoking BLP when other Wikipedia editors say things about him as a Wikipedian that he doesn't like, and if he keeps it up he should receive a short block. I actually set him straight back in October, but maybe if an admin did the same he would take it more seriously.

Update: On closer examination, it turns out he has done the same thing (blanked all or part of another user's talk page comment because it contained supposed "BLP violations" against him or another user in relation to their Wikipedia activity) at least 24 times since 2010. More than one third of his talk page blankings that cited BLP in their edit summaries were of this type.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC) (edited 10:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC) )

Extended content

Wow, I did not know that Rjensen was a Conservapedia admin working to conservatize wikipedia explicitly - that explains a lot.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Watch it, snunɐɯ·. The account that posted that was almost immediately blocked as a sock and was clearly trolling, and the Conservapedia account they claimed was Rjensen hadn't edited Wikipedia in like six years. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC) (A) Hijari88 says " other Wikipedia editors say things about him as a Wikipedian that he doesn't like," -- that did not happen. the Maunus statement about me and the Irish is NOT about me "as a Wikipedian" -- he referred to writings OUTSIDE Wikipedia by a BLP (an article I published in 2002 in a scholarly journal.) Maunus got it wrong and his false statement about a real person is unsourced =a statement about a BLP & Irish that in no way refers to an internal Wikipedia discussion. (B) What is very rare or unique here is that a Wiki editor (me) is using his real name AND has a Wiki article about him. Maunus made the Irish-allegation based on off-wiki misinformation about a BLP. That is, BLP is a central feature of this discussion. (C) I think that an attack on an anonymous pseudonym is not an attack on a BLP because the username masks the "personhood" and the real person under attack is unknown. it is only an attack on a Wiki editor. (D) Of course we have rules about attacking any editor falsely = wp:civility = quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them. I allege that Maunus did that re me & the Irish. (E) Another point: "unsourced" is a key factor. If editor X falsely states on a talk page that editor Y is ZZZ regarding the Irish, then that statement has to be sourced to something Y said on Wikipedia about the Irish or else it is a deliberate falsified personal attack by X and violates wp:civility; it is not protected speech. (F) And by the way, Maunus won't stop: he just now made another false statement about outside-Wiki statements that Rjensen is "working to conservatize wikipedia explicitly" That is false. I never said anything like that anywhere and you can look at my 124,000 edits here (and my speech at Wikimania 2012 and my Journal of Military History 2012 article about Wikipedia) here to verify that my goal is to bring in standard scholarly sources to support Wiki history articles. Rjensen (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC) I am a reliable source for my own opinion - which is that your conservative agenda is clearly visible in most of your article changes. I am also of the opinion that you routinely violate both WP:COI (by editing your own BLP) and abuse WP:BLP (by claiming it as a way to censor people you disagree with in discussions).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Our article on you quotes you as saying that there was "no significant discrimination against the Irish" in the job market. The so-called BLP-violation in question consisted of the claim that you are a "person who claim there was never any significant anti-Irish sentiment in the US". The only substantial difference between these is the difference between "anti-Irish sentiment" and "discrimination against the Irish". This is not a justification for deleting a comment about article content as a supposed BLP-violation, as it seems extremely likely that you would have done the same thing if he said that you are a "person who claim there was never any significant discrimination against the Irish in the US", based on the flimsy excuse that criticisms of your actions as a Wikipedian require inline citations because BLP applies to users whose user pages list their real name and who happen to have Wikipedia articles at the moment. All active Wikipedians are LPs, and so all crititicisms of Wikipedians and their views are criticisms of LPs and their views. There are different degrees of anonymity. Your username is not easily identifiable by itself as a real name, and one would have to check your user page to figure out who you are, but I know people who simply use the username "John Doe" and "John Doe" is their real name. My username is only very loosely linked to my real name, but I have posted enough on-wiki and allowed other stuff to be published about me off-wiki that it would not be difficult to find out who I am. Others have the privilege complete anonymity. Demanding that every criticism of you as a Wikipedian and your stance on what a certain article should stay include an inline citation to a reliable source because you happen to fall very closer to the "real name" end of the spectrum is highly disruptive. Trying to use BLP as an excuse to wikilawyer your opponents into not talking about you as a Wikipedian will not end well. If you have a problem with any particular portion of a comment, remove that, or report the user. In the diff I cited above, you removed several thousand bytes of discussion (mostly by me) from my user talk page because you found three words of another users comment offensive. Pointing out that you yourself have, on Wikipedia, stated that you have edited Conservapedia is not a personal attack (it's a simple statement of fact); if you try to bring BLP into it, then since no reliable sources have discussed your activity on Conservapedia we suddenly can't comment on it, even though you brought it up on Wikipedia. Demanding that BLP apply to comments about other users' Wikipedia activity is patently absurd. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC) A wikipedia article is NOT a reliable secondary source--everyone here knows that. My 2002 article looked at discrimination against the Irish in multiple areas and explicitly said YES there was anti-Irish discrimination based on religion and politics. Maunus said Jensen " claim there was never any significant anti-Irish sentiment in the US" and that is false. Maunus admits he was derogatory. The rule at WP:CIVIL is Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. --this rule explicitly covers talk pages & is not limited to BLP. Rjensen (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC) I freely admit that I have been less than civil to you. Your abuse of the BLP policy and routine violations of COI and refusal to recognize this when poointed out to you pisses me off - and frankly you are yourself also routinely uncivil to other editors in discussions. If you admit you misapplied BLP and that you meant to invoke NPA and that you refrain from using the BLP policy to protect yourself in disputes with other editors , I will be happy and may even choose to extend an apology.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Maunas post was a personal attack - as it was irrelevant, it also looks like battleground, so it's quite understandable that BLP protection is also claimed for that irrelevant attack on a living person. Removal was correct under TPO. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC) @Alanscottwalker: NPA is an entirely separate policy from BLP. Pointing out something about someone's off-wiki activity (which is discussed in their article, which they link on their user page) that seems kinda-sorta-maybe relevant to what they are arguing about article content is somewhat DICKish behaviour, and doesn't even really look relevant to me. But Rjensen apparently makes a habit of citing BLP in order to blank other users' (perhaps sometimes valid) comments because he considers NPA-violations when made against him (and apparently only him) to be BLP-violations because they are not supported by third-party reliable sources. Allowing for such blanking (with BLP, not NPA, as the justification) is not a good idea, since almost nothing that happens on Wikipedia talk pages and noticeboards is covered in reliable sources. Trying to apply BLP to our Wikipedia activity is extremely dangerous. Note that I'm not defending Maunus's comment (if it had been replaced with Template:RPA and the edit summary didn't mention BLP I would have been fine with it). But your above comment is only going to embolden Rjensen the next time he tries to demand a reliable source for "You said X [on-wiki] before -- your credibility in relation to Y is therefore questionable". This is not an isolated incident. In October, Rjensen removed a massive block of text from my talk page and when I asked him off-wiki what he thought qualified as a BLP-violation it was literally a single part of a sentence. Nowhere in the block of text was Rjensen's real name mentioned (if someone's real name is "John Doe", "Jdoe" is not their real name, and will not show up on a Google search of his real name). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC) They are separate policies (as I already said), they protect two different groups of people but there will be and is overlap between the two groups. There is nothing dangerous about deleting irrelevant personal attacks that battleground and that overlap with BLP, and there is nothing dangerous about deleting sock-puppet, pretend outing, personal attacks which is a lie, regarding a living person. Your argument is the dangerous one, as it leads PA and BLP violation, but more importantly attempted injury to living people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC) As is yours, as you're encouraging abuse of the BLP policy by the overly sensitive, like Rjensen. --Calton | Talk 13:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Not in the least. Your argument is encouraging BLP policy violations, so people can feel comfortable making personal attacks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Tripe. Jensen is indeed overly sensitive and has been gaming this for years.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC) You've already demonstrated your long-running inter-personal problem, it's not helping your position. As someone who has disagreed with RJensen, sometime strenuously in editing dispute - it is plain false that he always has any such problem. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC) @Alanscottwalker: it is plain false that he always has any such problem Please see the two diffs I provided, one from two months ago and one from four years ago, neither of which had anything to do with Maunus. See also [40], [41], [42], [43] and [44] (falsely claiming that another user, who also appears to edit under their real name, accused him of "illegal actions" by accusing him of violating Wikipedia's sock/meat policy). The fact that several of these were in relation to our article on him makes it a little murkier, but the "BLP violations" in question were clearly accusations of violating Wikipedia policy, not "illegal actions". This is a long-term, recurring problem where User:Rjensen uses the BLP policy to justify either (a) removing or otherwise refactoring other users' comments when they challenge his Wikipedia activity in a manner he doesn't like or (b) removing entire blocks of text, sometimes by several users, because one part of it may have qualified as a legitimate personal attack. Again, there should be no block or TBAN at this time if he promises to stop doing it, but your constant refusal to acknowledge that this is even an issue, apparently driven by your personal belief that Maunus had the false BLP accusation coming because he violated NPA and CIVIL, is disturbing. If you wanted, I would have supported a short block for Maunus for the off-topic personal attack (until he acknowledged that it was inappropriate and apologized), but the bigger issue (one that has been brought to Rjensen's attention numerous times over at least four years) is Rjensen's repeated and long-term abuse of the BLP policy to create a chilling effect and get away with removing comments that aren't uncivil or personal attacks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Maunus comment was not attacking Rjensen's on-wiki actions, as much as it was attacking a living person who had published off-wiki in a Journal. His comment was using that living person's identity in an irrelevant content dispute. Even assuming Rjensen would be found ultimately wrong that that BLP permits Maunas to do so -- it's "only" personal attack -- (should we arbitrate it?), Rjensen is permitted to raise BLP and have the matter decided, and he is permitted to be wrong. As for your other examples, the overall context is Rjensen has 124,639 edits, and when compared with that almost all of your relatively few examples deal with the biography of a living person, so raising BLP issues is going to happen, the "murkiness" you refer to means that some will be upheld and some not- those discussions run to pages and pages and noticeboards. I stand by my comment, and I am sure there is nothing that should disturb you, but I can't be held responsible for what disturbs you. Should Rjensen edit war, and be wrong, I am sure he knows the consequences, and even if he does not, that's the risk he will run.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Not relatively few examples. I did cherry-pick, in a manner of speaking, as I "Ctrl+F"ed his contribs to article talk and user talk namespaces for places where his edit summaries mentioned "BLP" or "living", but the diffs I linked represented something like a third of all the diffs I checked. The rest may or may not have been legitimate BLP violations against off-wiki individuals; I just ignored them because the LPs in question were not Wikipedians and the "BLP violations" in question were not made on a talk page in a direct message to the LP in question. I was once laughed off BLPN for saying that describing the author of a source I cited as not being an expert in his field or a reliable source for some claim might qualify as a BLP violation, which Rjensen has also done[45] -- if it weren't for my own prior experience I would be inclined to agree with him, but clearly the community's opinion can't be accepted when it disagrees with me and ignored when it agrees with me. "NPA" doesn't appear anywhere in his edit summaries to user talk page edits for the past five years, except in section titles on his own talk page, and for whatever reason he seems to only use the phrase "personal attacks" when addressing IPs, and even then very infrequently. "Civility" was only mentioned twice, once in December 2013 and once in September 2014. Again, I am getting these results basically at random by searching his contribs to particular namespaces for particular search-terms, but I don't really have a choice: I don't have enough time to go back and carefully read everything he has written. What results I am getting seem to indicate that in virtually all cases where he encounters a CIVIL- or NPA-violation, he mislabels it as a BLP-violation, and never the other way around. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I'm just not seeing it so far. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Maunus comment was not attacking Rjensen's on-wiki actions, as much as it was attacking a living person who had published off-wiki in a Journal If you read the whole discussion, the two of them were having a content dispute about what the article should say, and User:Maunus made an inappropriate snipe about something User:Rjensen published off-wiki and speculated about possible bias. This is something that happens virtually all the time whenever there are ever any disputes about anything that could be considered remotely political. I have been called a Korean nationalist, anti-Japanese POV-pusher and a Japanese nationalist, anti-Korean POV-pusher, a user with Christian sympathies who is biased in favour of believing Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical person and an atheist POV-pusher who gets his ideas of early Christianity from reading Dan Brown. As far as I am concerned, none of these epithets are remotely accurate, and of course none of them can be backed up by reference to reliable sources, and I am a living person. This does not mean the application of those epithets to me was a BLP-violation. They were inappropriate, off-topic personal attacks. His comment was using that living person's identity in an irrelevant content dispute. Again, the only difference between that and when someone claimed I get everything I know about early Christianity from The Da Vinci Code is that when they said that about me they were basing on nothing but their own desire to get a rise out of me, whereas at least Rjensen mentions on his user page that he is the same guy we have an article on. Rjensen is permitted to raise BLP and have the matter decided, and he is permitted to be wrong Then he should do that. In this case, you are the only third party out of four who has not said that he was wrong to cite BLP (one more said that it didn't matter if it was BLP as it was still an NPA-violation). And again, this has been going on for years, with him challenged several times by several independent users. If he wants to keep doing it, the burden should be on him to find someone other than you who agrees. As for your other examples, the overall context is Rjensen has 124,639 edits, and when compared with that almost all of your relatively few examples deal with the biography of a living person No, some of them happen to deal with biographies of living people, but all of them deal with his or others' activities as Wikipedia editors and his removing or refactoring their comments based on bogus accusations of BLP-violations. As for his total number of edits, 85.2% of those 124,639 edits are to the mainspace, and it can safely be assumed that if he blanks something from an article and says it is a BLP violation, whether or not he is right, the violation in question was not an attack on another Wikipedia editor for their Wikipedia activity. Edits to other namespaces that don't cite BLP and don't blank other users' comments are also completely irrelelvant to whether he is abusing BLP. Of the edits to talk and user talk namespaces (together 13.1% of the remainining 14.8% of his total edit count) where he blanked all or part of someone's comment and his edit summary mentioned BLP, 35.294% are claims that a criticism of another user for their Wikipedia activity is a violation of BLP. He has been corrected about this on his user talk page, in edit summaries of users reverting him, and now on ANI. I don't know how many times he has been corrected, but it's at least three. those discussions run to pages and pages and noticeboards Again, if you can point me to a previous discussion where this came up and where community or ArbCom consensus was on Rjensen's side that blanking other users' comments because they contain criticisms of other Wikipedians and their activities as Wikipedians was sanctioned by BLP specifically, or to a previous incident where Rjensen removed a BLP-violation and inaccurately/inadvertently labeled it a CIVIL- or NPA-violation, then I will bite my tongue, but otherwise I think someone should tell him firmly, here and now, that his repeated misuse of BLP in this manner is inappropriate. I stand by my comment and I am sure there is nothing that should disturb you, but I can't be held responsible for what disturbs you. Again, an entire section of my talk page was blanked because one of the parties had made an off-topic personal attack against Rjensen that I hadn't even noticed, and I received an email that seemed to be placing the blame on me for somehow "hosting" that attack on my talk page. That disturbs me. I hope my posting this will prevent further incidents of this kind. You are entitled to your opinion, but in this instance you appear to be in the minority, as Calton, Maunus, Black Kite and I (not to mention at least one other who pointed it out back in like 2013) all agree and the only one who has commented in this thread other than you and Rjensen who didn't explicitly state that they thought Rjensen's actions inappropriate was FreeKnowledgeCreator, who only commented on the difference between CIVIL and NPA. (Rjensen's later coming out of the blue and citing a passage that implied uncivil comments can be removed actually seems to imply they were arguing against this point, but I didn't notice that until now.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC) No. Maunus and Rjensen were not having a discussion at all. Maunus dropped his "snipe" as you call it in someone else's discussion. And again, almost all of your relatively few examples occurred in the context of a biography of a living person. If you are bothered that BLP applies to talk pages, and BLP issues are raised on talk pages than you have to change policy. But it is now permitted to people (including Rjensen) that they raise objections in removal or otherwise. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Maunus and Rjensen were not having a discussion at all. Maunus dropped his "snipe" as you call it in someone else's discussion. Point taken. But if you notice a recurring problem with a user, you are allowed (even encouraged) to bring it up when it happens again. As far as I am concerned, Rjensen was wrong on the article content question, so trying to say that his mislabeling someone's comment as a BLP violation was OK because that someone had "followed" him there is not a good idea. If you are bothered that BLP applies to talk pages, and BLP issues are raised on talk pages than you have to change policy. Nice try. You are not going to turn this discussion on its head that easily. Nowhere on the BLP policy page does it say anything about Wikipedians and their Wikipedia activity being covered. They can't be, because WP:BLPSPS explicitly bans all comments made on Wikipedia by anyone other than the living person in question as sources for claims about living people. This has nothing to do with whether BLP applies to talk pages. But it is now permitted to people (including Rjensen) that they raise objections in removal or otherwise. Your grammar is a little confusing, but I think you are saying that Rjensen is allowed object to things others write, by removing their comments or some other method. Plenty of users have been blocked or banned for less than what Rjensen did on my talk page and in this very thread. Repeatedly and unapologetically hiding behind BLP to justify removing or refactoring other users' comments when they aren't BLP violations is unacceptable. Once or twice could be called a good faith mistake, but in this case he has done so at least 24 times over the past six years, he has been told he was wrong at least twice before, he has done it twice in the space of less than two months, he had a whole big ANI mess opened over it, and has nevertheless repeatedly denied doing anything wrong. Again, I don't currently support a block, and if I was keen on a formal ban I would propose one, but your comments are clearly making the problem worse, not better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC) First. I recommend you read WP:Bludgeon because your comments are just going on and on. You do go on about "blocks", for someone who is not calling for a block, and I find that odd, especially in response to my comments, as I have never mentioned blocking. Second, BLP applies to all living persons, and yes per policy, removal is a way it is raised. Third, if you don't know that WASP is "sometimes disparaging"[46]] reference a WP:Reliable Source, like the one I just provided -- that's the way Wikipedians are suppose to do it, not making attacks on others, in what you call, "following" someone or otherwise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC) You should take your own advice on bludgeoning, since in this case your bludgeoning is serving to unilaterally filibuster an otherwise unanimous consensus that Rjensen's edits are disruptive. Mine is only correcting you and Rjensen on your numerous mistakes, non sequitur arguments, distortions of policy and distortions of what I and others have said in this thread. I admit I am kind of shooting myself in the foot since if I had posted all my evidence in my first comment and then not looked at the thread again, the thread would probably be closed by now with Rjensen receiving a final warning that the next time he did what he's been doing he would be block. But shooting myself in the foot is something I'm entitled to do, and the only one who suffers for it is me. As for blocking: I would not be opposed to a block, but I'm not proposing one either. If User:Arthur Rubin or some other admin blocked him for his attacks against me in this thread or for his violations of TPO, or both, I would probably thank them for it since if he received a block he might finally start to listen. If you think a source that says a term is "sometimes disparaging" justifies its being included in a list of "ethnic slurs" despite its being used by writers of articles on both the SDLC and ADL websites, as well as in quotations from white supremacists who were apparently not speaking ironically in those same articles, then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. ANI is not the place to hash out content disputes anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC) No. FYI slur means disparage.[47] Your comment shows misunderstanding bludgeoning too, which pile on your other misunderstandings. Look to your word count, and your comments' overweening fixation. Bludgeoning has nothing to do with me standing in the way of the pettiness and pettifoggery of your arguments. (In defense of personal attack, no less). Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC) @Alanscottwalker: You're wrong again (about me being the only one bludgeoning this discussion and about me defending personal attacks -- I don't care who's right about an article I've never edited), but that's not important. Please see the bottom of this thread, and clarify whether you would be okay with all of your responses to me (except the first one, which another user responded to) being collapsed to make this thread more readable/closable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Just noticed this has apparently been going on for years. "Ctrl+F"ing Rjensen's contribs for BLP brought up a few more that happened to mention BLP in the edit summaries, with the most obvious being this. I am sure a thorough search would bring up a lot more. Yes, Rjensen is allowed remove comments from his own talk page. But saying that "Your arguments are unreasonable and obtuse. [...] Really, if you were editing honestly, you should have immediately changed the sentence" needs to be removed as a "blp vio" is incredibly disturbing. Citing BLP violations against oneself has a chilling effect since part of the reason for BLP is to prevent libel and defamation lawsuits. Plenty of accounts have been WP:NLT-blocked for claiming that Wikipedia in the mainspace includes defamatory statements, but the reason for NLT is to protect editors from a chilling effect. Repeatedly and needlessly (and sometimes baselessly) citing BLP to justify blanking comments like "your arguments are unreasonable and obtuse" is unhelpful at best and at worst looks like a deliberate attempt to create a similar chilling effect without actually citing real-world laws and so violating NLT. Again, I am not saying any sanctions should be brought against him at this time, but he should be told firmly that criticisms of his on-wiki actions do not qualify as BLP-violations, and removing entire conversations between other users because one part of one comment by one of them was a personal attack against him is unacceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Hijiri88 overlooks the rules that apply to talk pages: Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. WP:CIVIL Rjensen (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Again, you're the one overlooking the fact that you specifically told me by email that it was one sentence of the already-blocked sockpuppet's comment that you found questionable, and yet you saw fit to remove my entire conversation with them (most of which, by word count, was mine, not the sock's). You are also overlooking the fact that that quotation doesn't come from WP:BLP. I did not deny that Maunus's remark was a violation of CIVIL and NPA, so your quoting WP:RUC at me is entirely irrelevant. My problem is with your repeatedly referring to uncivil remarks when directed toward you as a Wikipedian as "BLP violations". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC) I have also recognized myself that my comment was a borderline NPA violation. But Jensen did not cite NPA or WP:CIVIl but specifically cited BLP.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC) It was an attack, and you quibble that he removed it under the wrong section of policy - that is silly. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC) It was not a direct personal attack, but it was incivil (and Jensen is himself not generally a particularly civil editor in disputes, so he should be able to take that from others as well). And what I quibble with is the fact that he frequently and routinely use a misinterpretation of the BLP policy to delete other peoples statements and disregards the COI policy by editing extensively in relation to his own biography. For that reasons it is important that he understands the difference between NPA and BLP policy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC) It was very direct. The only mystery being, at the time, why you brought it up in an unrelated discussion, a discussion which should have centered on dictionary definitions of WASP (and most definitely not on an editor or characterizations concerning a real life person) - but now it is apparent you have an acrimonious history, which may explain but not excuse that. It's not a misinterpretation of BLP policy that it requires extremely careful and conservative discussions of living people and controversies concerning them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Utter nonsense. BLP is not about conversations between editors, and the fact that he is taking that interpretation should be a cause for immediate sanction. The fact that you have written a biography about yourself does not mean that all of a sudden you can silence everyone who contradicts you or makes a statement about you that you disagree with. All editors are equally "living people" the fact that some have biographical articles gives them no special rights whatsoever. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Maunus has trouble reading the BLP rule. So he invents his own new rules like his latest one 8 lines above: "BLP is not about conversations between editors" actually BLP does apply. it states "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." --talk pages i suggest generally consist of conversations between editors. Rjensen (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC) I've read both your positions and you have both presented them enough. As someone who has spent a long time discussing and drafting both BLP policy and the COI guideline, as well as discussing NPA, it is plain that RJenesen should not be sanctioned over the underlying attack posted by Maunus. And Maunus would do well to be either more careful and stick on topic, or as he said in the OP just stay away. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC) @Alanscottwalker: Please, stop trying to provide Rjensen with justification for his repeated abuse of the BLP policy. He routinely removes other users' comments because he believes one small part thereof qualifies as an "unsourced" personal attack against him, and that BLP therefore applies because he edits under his real name (in a manner of speaking). The rest of us who have been involuntarily outed apparently have to get by citing NPA while Rjensen gets to steamroll any discussion he doesn't agree with because he chose to edit under his real name? That simply isn't fair. I agree with you that in this specific instance Rjensen shouldn't be sanctioned, but he needs to change the way he interacts with other users, since this constant inappropriate citation of the BLP policy (with the implicit claim that such-and-such comment is defamatory/libelous) is clearly designed to create a chilling effect and is borderline NLT-violation, even without the unsanctioned deletion of other people's comments that don't qualify as either personal attacks or BLP-violations by any stretch of the imagination. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC) No. Wikipedia cannot buy into your extreme view of BLP that it means an accusation of defamation or libel - that would mean BLP could never work or even be discussed on wiki - defamation and libel are court judgments, BLP is not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Please. BLP as a policy exists to protect real people from unsourced and potentially defamatory claims made about them on Wikipedia, and to protect Wikipedia from people saying Wikipedia is making such defamatory claims. Constantly citing BLP for violations of NPA and CIVIL is inappropriate, and given Rjensen's activity in this discussion it has become increasingly clear that he deliberately does so to intimidate his opponents. The chilling effect of his citing BLP has allows him to remove massive chunks of text because five or six words may have constituted a personal attack against him and go unchallenged. BLP cannot apply to arguments made about us as Wikipedians because no reliable sources ever discuss such things Rjensen is the only user I have ever seen remove personal attacks against Wikipedians (and simple incivility that probably didn't constitute personal attacks) as "BLP violations", nd he has done so on numerous occasions. He has not apparently ever cited the correct policy to justify these removals. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Rjensen's claim that personal attacks against him are covered by WP:BLP purely because he has an article is are one of the most nonsensical misuses of a policy I have ever seen. WP:NPA perfectly adequately covers removal of personal attacks - we even have a template {{RPA}} for it. In absolutely no way should the more severe sanctions for BLP violations - including an ability for someone removing a clear BLP violation to break 3RR - apply here. Having said that, the whole issue wouldn't exist if the comments hadn't been made, and I am gratified that Maunus has accepted that he was over the line. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC) @Black Kite: Yes, but if he cited NPA, he would have to be careful what he removes; when he cites BLP, he can blank entire sections of other people's talk pages with impunity, because other users will suffer a chilling effect and not challenge him on it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC) That's exactly my point. Rjensen needs to be aware that he can't use BLP in that way. Misusing the policy like that will not end well. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Hijir88 complains that back in 2013 I deleted the statement "keeping your bigoted, imbecilic opinions off the Talk Pages" in a discussion on deGaulle. Yes I think that statement should have been deleted from a talk page. (the "your" refers to third editor not to me.) Hijir88's complaint is that I should not have mentioned BLP violation in my edit summary. That's true, that was not the correct tag to use in this case since no living person was involved. Note that no citing of any rule is required when deleting a violation of WP:civil. I suggest a "chilling effect" is called for when an editor talking to another editor uses words like "your bigoted, imbecilic opinions". We want that language to never be used. Rjensen (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC) If saying that someone's edits are inspired by bigotry and imbecility is a BLP violation, then what's the point of even having WP:NPA as a separate policy? If a Wikipedian's death has been confirmed, does BLP then no longer apply and the much lighter restriction of NPA take effect? Let alone that if BLP requires that we have reliable sources for the claim that this or that anonymous Wikipediam is bigoted or imbecilic, we would also need a source to say that they are ignorant of the article subject, or else we couldn't say that without a reliable source. I have edited articles on topics I don't know much about, and am fairly certain that from time to time I have argued with editors who knew more than me (I have apologized for being wrong when the users I was arguing with turned out to be right, anyway). I have been accused of being ignorant of the subject matter, too. These things are true of virtually all Wikipedia editors who have been here for a long time and edited a wide variety of articles. They are also true of you. I would never dream of removing comments about how I do not know as much about the subject as whoever I was arguing with as "BLP violations" against me. Additionally, your belittling my chilling effect point and saying directly that it is a good thing that your comments have a chilling effect seems to indicate that you don't care much for Wikipedia's NLT policy. Could you please clarify that your accusations of BLP violations in the seven instances that have thusfar been brought up were not meant to create a chilling effect? I don't want to continue interacting with you if you are comfortable causing your fellow Wikipedians to suffer a chilling effect over what were at worst some relatively minor NPA violations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) When you made any one of the above edits, and whether you would have been wrong to blank any of those comments if you had cited RPA or RUC, is completely irrelevant. I don't care if another user back in 2013 (or back in 2007) violated NPA and you reverted them. If you cite BLP, you should be able to defend your actions on BLP grounds. The fact that some of the comments you removed (though still a small minority of the ones already cited) actually deserved to be removed per RPA or RUC is not important to the question of whether you have been abusing BLP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC) But if we are going to talk about dates, then instead of discussing one of the diffs I gave above that dated from three years ago, we should focus on your recent behaviour. In October you removed these three posts by me on my own talk page because the user I was addressing had turned out to be a sockpuppet and so his comments, according to you, were "BLP violations by [a] blocked sockpuppet". When I reverted you and requested that you email me, you did so and clarified that it was 57 words in the sock's second post you found offensive, and you included an extra bit about how you were "disappointed" that I had not carefully analyzed the sock's post and decided independently to blank those 57 words. The 57 words were indeed offensive, and may even have been untrue, but they were clearly based on your activity on Wikipedia (and some off-wiki activity that you yourself have discussed on-wiki); calling them "BLP violations" was wrong. I had already decided to drop the issue, and then independently of that you instigated another similar incident where someone made an inappropriate personal attack against you as a Wikipedian in the context of something you were trying to add to an article and you said they were committing a BLP violation against you. That's twice that essentially the same thing has happened in under two months. It doesn't even matter that you were doing the same thing as early as 2012, since this is a recurring, current problem. You need to stop making BLP accusations like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC) These are always tricky cases. "...keeping your bigoted, imbecilic opinions off the Talk Pages" is purely a civility issue as it technically refers to content, not the person themselves. But one could make the case that it is implicitly calling the editor an imbecile, which is of course an NPA issue. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC) @Black Kite: I know it's tricky, but for the matter at hand it doesn't really matter whether it is a CIVIL issue, an NPA issue, or both, because the problem is that Rjensen said it was a BLP issue. All three have provisions allowing for blanking, so the blanking itself would only have been an issue if the comment was "none of the above"; the only issue is the labeling of it as a BLP issue when it wasn't. I think it would be interesting if someone could track down an instance where Rjensen blanked a comment and cited the right policy, or even blanked with an NPA or CIVIL rationale where the problem was in fact BLP and not NPA or CIVIL. The evidence I've come across (admittedly something of a confirmation bias, mind you) indicates that the user specifically abuses the BLP policy, rather than it just being a recurring good-faith mistake where he accidentally cites the wrong policy. Since the blanking itself has rarely been a problem, then citing the wrong policy in a string of good-faith mistakes would not be a concern. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC) I agree with Hijiri88 that in one edit three years ago I used a "BLP" tag on a talk page deletion when "CIVIL" was the right tag. However when dealing with an actual BLP biography then I suggest BLP rules apply as well as CIVIL. The way to "chill" the making of improper remarks is to erase them--which is what I did. The tag is not what does the "chilling" it's the erasure that gets attention. Tags are optional in these cases and using the wrong one in 2013 is not "abuses the BLP policy." The BLP policy calls on every editor to immediately and without discussion erase poorly sourced statements about actual living people--and that includes me!--and doing so is not an "abuse." Rjensen (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Again, why are you ignoring all the more recent diffs? My user talk page is not your "actual BLP biography", nor is the talk page on our ethnic slurs article. Criticisms of your activity on Wikipedia are not BLP violations, and even when they are influenced by your (self-confessed) activity off Wikipedia the only difference is the potential violation of WP:OUT, which is also separate from BLP. And again, your comment looks like you don't know what I mean by "chilling effect". Sometimes your erasures are blatantly disruptive (again, see my talk page), while at other times the erasures by themselves would be fine if you didn't inappropriately cite BLP and so implicitly claim that someone was committing libel against you. In one case you inappropriately claimed that someone was accusing you of "illegal actions" when all they did was speculate that you may have violated Wikipedia policy. By this standard, anyone who opens an SPI, or an ANI report, or anything on Wikipedia without having reliable sources would be violating BLP. Again, you would have violated BLP when you referred to User:Imboredsenseless (doubtless a living person) as a blocked sockpuppet, because no reliable sources could be found for such a claim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC) I did not call Imboredsenseless a blocked sockpuppet. Taking the lead from US libel law and BLP rule about corporations, I think a BLP violation is only possible against an identifiable person. That includes editors using their real name but not editors using a codename. Hijiri88 makes the same point. A law textbook says "The potential plaintiff always bears the burden of proving that the allegedly defamatory statements were reasonably understood to be 'of and concerning' him or her.Bruce W. Sanford (2004). Libel and Privacy. Aspen. p. 4. Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC) I did not call Imboredsenseless a blocked sockpuppet [48] BLP violations by blocked sockpuppet. You can be forgiven for forgetting the exact words you used, but I provided the diff in my first post here. If you were not calling Imboredsenseless a "blocked sockpuppet", were you referring to me? Not only is that claim unsourced, it's simply not true. At least if you were calling Imboredsenseless a blocked sockpuppet your claim would have been accurate and all you would have done was violate your own unique interpretation of BLP as applying to statements made about other Wikipedians and their Wikipedia activity without a reliable source. Taking the lead from US libel law So you admit you interpreting BLP in a legal manner and attempting to create a similar chilling effect to a legitimate legal effect without getting blocked for violating our no legal threats policy? You have never once inaccurately referred to a BLP violation as a personal attack or a civility violation, and yet you refer to personal attacks and civility violations as BLP violations on a regular basis. Why is this? If it were a good faith confusion of policies it would not be so consistently one-sided. What other explanation is there for this, for your sudden citation of US defamation law, and for your referring to violations of Wikipedia policy as "illegal actions"? You appear to be trying to violate the spirit of our no legal threats policy by creating a similar chilling effect, while carefully avoiding making direct legal threats. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC) @Rjensen: Please respond to the above. Your denial of having made the claim that Imboredsenseless is a blocked sockpuppet based on something you read on Wikipedia appears to indicate that you are just making a series of good-faith mistakes and you believe you yourself violated BLP policy with the above edit summary and are trying to deny that this happened. If this is the case, it actually makes you look better, since no one thinks you should be sanctioned for violating your own overly broad interpretation of BLP, and if you think you yourself violated it that means your misinterpretation is a good faith mistake rather than a deliberate attempt to game the system and intimidate other editors. If this is the case, I strongly urge you to say so so that we can close this discussion as a good-faith misunderstanding that has already been resolved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC) You're both violating policy: Maunus in making personal attacks, and Rjensen in incorrectly claiming WP:BLP and in removing material from talk pages which is at most uncivil, not credibly to be considered a BLP violation nor a personal attack. I think I'm an involved admin, but Rjensen should have been blocked for some of his remarks here, regardless of unjustified violations of WP:TPO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Maunus admits it was uncivil -- and it was an attack on a living person with no RS. that fits the BLP criteria exactly. Rjensen (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Again, what you are saying makes no sense -- all active Wikipedians are living people and no attacks on other Wikipedians ever have RSs. Your real name does not appear on any of the talk pages mentioned except the one for the article on you and will not show up on a Google search of your real name. "Rjensen" is not your real name and it looked like a pseudonym to me for about a year after I first interacted you, until I noticed your user page explained that "R" is your first initial and "Jensen" is your last name. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC) my full details of course are at user:rjensen and it takes one second to find it. The argument is that to say "user12345 is a #YTWQ%%#% is not a BLP because no one knows who that is, while "Jimmy Wales is a #YTWQ%%#%" is a BLP. that seems to be the same as " I just don't think BLP applies when no one but the editor himself (and probably people whom he told in real life) can possibly know who it was he was attacking. Hijiri 00:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)" Rjensen (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC) This isn't about how long it would take to find out your details. This is about whether a random talk page you comment on and someone responds to you in a way you wouldn't like would show up on a search of your name on a search engine. It wouldn't. It simply is not true that "no one but [me] (and probably people whom [I] told in real life)" know who I am -- there have been several dozen edits revealing my personal information including my real name, my parents' home address and so on rev-delled, and these were by a troll who followed my Wikipedia activity for about a month before figuring out who I was in real life, and possibly someone else he may or may not have told. My Wikipedia activity is loosely related to my real-world identity, and on-wiki attacks on me can and have been linked back to my real-world identity. There's a spectrum -- some users edit under their real name; you don't post on talk page using your real name as it appears anywhere off-wiki, but with a moniker based somewhat closely on your real name and give your real name on your user page; some users edit with monikers based closely on their real name, but don't specify that "Yes, this is my real name" anywhere on-wiki; I edit under a moniker very loosely based on my real name but have posted material on-wiki that has been used to figure out who I am in real life; other users maintain complete anonymity and have never revealed any personal information. For most of us, it is a choice whether we want to reveal personal information (although, apparently unlike you, I had someone dig through everything they could find about me online and post it all on-wiki without my consent). Your having chosen to reveal x amount more information about yourself on your user page does not suddenly mean you are allowed invoke BLP every time someone makes an off-topic attack against you on a talk page when I am not. Additionally, your explanation does not justify the instance(s) where you removed "BLP violations" against other Wikipedians who are anonymous. The simple fact is that three out of four uninvolved third parties here have said you are abusing the BLP policy by constantly invoking it in places where it does not apply, and you need to stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC) I used the blp tag by mistake three years when no blp was involved but the removal was proper. the other cases are blp-appropriate because an anonymous editor attacked a real person and that was in violation of blp.Rjensen (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC) BLP is meant to protect real people, primarily off-wiki, from Wikipedians making contentious factual or apparently factual claims about them without reliable sources. It is not meant to allow you to prevent any criticism of you and your views as they affect your activity on Wikipedia. BLP requires claims about living persons to have reliable sources, but the assumption should always be that no on-wiki activity will ever be covered in reliable sources. Citing BLP to justify blanking statements about Wikipedia activity that don't have reliable sources is inherently disruptive, since everyone who takes part in the Wikipedia community makes such statements and by definition they don't have reliable sources -- they only have primary sources published on a wiki. You have made such statements yourself (again, you called Imboredsenseless a "blocked sockpuppet"). These are not BLP violations when you do them, and they aren't BLP violations when others do them either. Nowhere on the WP:BLP policy page is there anything about users who choose to edit under their real names being covered under the policy while users who do not edit under their real names are not. You have been asked repeatedly to provide a link to a previous community discussion or ArbCom decision where your interpretation of BLP was determined to be correct, and you have failed to do so. Alanscottwalker, who above claimed to have drafted the BLP policy and so should be considered an expert on it, also failed to link to any such decision. So all we have is the present community discussion where Maunus, Calton, Black Kite, Arthur Rubin and I all agree that your interpretation is incorrect, and only you and Alanscottwalker think it is correct. (Actually Alanscottwalker avoided specifically claiming that your interpretation was correct: he just said that the sample size of diffs I collected was too small to say that it could be considered a chronic problem, whether or not your interpretation is correct.) Your suddenly citing US defamation law in the middle of this discussion, your bogus claim that another user accused you of "illegal actions", combined with your careful refusal to either admit or deny that you are trying to bypass normal procedure as outlined in WP:RUC and WP:RPA by creating a chilling effect on other editors and your apparently never having once cited RUC or RPA to justify blanking edits, appears to indicate very distinctly that you are trying to abide by the letter of WP:NLT while repeatedly going against its spirit. This behaviour is unacceptable, and you need to stop. Again, I don't think you should be blocked for any of the previous 8+ incidents I already cited, but I'm beginning to think you should be TBANned from mentioning the BLP policy in discussions (I still think you should be allowed edit BLP articles and talk pages, just not talk about the policy since you either don't understand it or are deliberately pretending not to understand it). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC) I thought you were referring to this page we're on now; yes I did call Imboredsenseless a "blocked sockpuppet" some time ago which is supported by the official Wikipedia statement on User:Imboredsenseless of his being blocked by sysop Bbb23. (Wiki official statements by a sysop are a RS regarding Wikipedia official actions--RS can be self published.) I believe I am following Wikipedia's very strong BLP policy when named people get attacked on talk pages. I suggest that I am a real person and therefore I am covered by the BLP rules -- do you deny that? In ordinary usage "chilling" means to hinder lawful statements but I think I have always tried to hinder/chill/remove unlawful statements. Your complaint is that I use BLP tags for removing bad text in internal Wiki debates among editors when I should use another tag. That's possible but you have found n=1 instance from 2013. The BLP removals I made were based on off-wiki sources, as in the Imboredsenseless case. How many of my removals do you think can not be justified by any of the Wikirules? The debate is not my removals but my use of the BLP tag, which a few times in recent years I may have done in a non-BLP case (as did happen in 2013). The cases you emphasize are all BLP violations--which removal do you say did not involve a BLP violation?It's true that I believe (following libel law) that BLP violations require an identifiable real-name victim -- and you seem to agree too. But that is irrelevant to this debate (it comes up only in the 2013 case where I agree I mistagged an appropriate removal when the target was a coded username.) Rjensen (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Wiki official statements by a sysop are a RS regarding Wikipedia official actions--RS can be self published. When sysops say something on Wikipedia they are reliable sources for BLP purposes? You should add that to the BLP policy page. WP:BLPSPS explicitly bans virtually all self-published sources, reliable or not. I suggest that I am a real person and therefore I am covered by the BLP rules -- do you deny that? I do not deny that you are a real person, but you as a Wikipedian are not covered under BLP. BLP bans virtually all claims based on self-published sources. Virtually everything on Wikipedia is self-published. Your proposal would prevent all discussion of your behaviour on Wikipedia if applied to you, and if the rest of us tried to apply it to ourselves then ... well, virtually everything ever posted on this page would need to be blanked as a BLP violation. In ordinary usage "chilling" means to hinder lawful statements but I think I have always tried to hinder/chill/remove unlawful statements No, if you wanted to remove "unlawful" statements, you could cite NPA or CIVIL. You never have. You have been choosing to remove personal attacks as "BLP violations". On several occasions (my talk page, the ethnic slurs talk page) you threw the metaphorical baby out with the bathwater. When you claim that other users are "defaming" you and violating "BLP" it serves to intimidate them and disccourage them from restoring the non-problematic text you removed. Why did you remove this non-problematic text in the first place, and why did you choose to cite BLP? The BLP removals I made were based on off-wiki sources, as in the Imboredsenseless case As I pointed out on my talk page, speculating that the "RJJensen" on Conservapedia was you (and not, say, a joe-job by someone who didn't like you) would be a violation of WP:OUT (but not BLP) if it weren't for the fact that you have said several times on English Wikipedia that you have edited Conservapedia, and specified which articles on Conservapedia you had written. Your complaint is that I use BLP tags for removing bad text in internal Wiki debates among editors when I should use another tag. [...] How many of my removals do you think can not be justified by any of the Wikirules? Removal of virtually any borderline attack could in theory be justified based on RUC or RPA. The problem is not whether your removals could in theory be justified by those other, unrelated policies. The problems as I see it are (1) your repeated citing of BLP in cases where BLP does not apply (at least twice in two months, and at least eight in four years, including three corrective notices from other users) and (2) your removing inoffensive material, sometimes by several users, because one part of one comment constituted a personal attack against you. Again, something like 80% of your blanking on my talk page in October could not be justified by any policy. The cases you emphasize are all BLP violations--which removal do you say did not involve a BLP violation? What part of these comments were BLP violations? I did not appreciate your email that cast aspersions on me simply for having another user post a personal attack against you on my page, and I don't appreciate your continuing to assert that my comments were BLP violations just because you don't want to admit you were wrong and apologize. It's true that I believe (following libel law) that BLP violations require an identifiable real-name victim -- and you seem to agree too. If it bothers you that much because other editors comment on you in a manner that you're uncomfortable with being associated with your real name, request a username change and speedy-delete your user page, or create a clean start account. But whether or not you choose to do that, you need to stop referring to perfectly innocuous and civil comments, comments that arguably fall below the acceptable level of civility, blatant CIVIL violations, borderline NPA violations, comments that might be taken as "outing" attempts and legitimate NPA violations as "BLP violations". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Hijiri88 is a very careless reader who is unable to accurately quote the rules here. 1) I said "Wiki official statements by a sysop are a RS regarding Wikipedia official actions--RS can be self published.}} " Hijiri88 mis-stated that as "When sysops say something on Wikipedia they are reliable sources for BLP purposes?" 2) Hijiri88 falsely states "[WP:BLPSPS]] explicitly bans virtually all self-published sources, reliable or not." That is refuted by WP:BLPSELFPUB 3) "but you as a Wikipedian are not covered under BLP." That is a false statement and is NOT in the BLP rules which cover living person at all times on all Wiki pages. WP:BLPSOURCES 4) "Your proposal would prevent all discussion of your behaviour on Wikipedia if applied to you" No my proposal applies to false statements about any named specific person. 99+% of the Wikipedians use code names and are unnamed. I specifically cited US libel law as a model where "The potential plaintiff always bears the burden of proving that the allegedly defamatory statements were reasonably understood to be 'of and concerning' him or her. 5) ", if you wanted to remove "unlawful" statements, you could cite NPA or CIVIL. You never have." There is no requirement to cite either one. I often revert illegal remarks and usually give no tag at all and often I also give the offender a vandalism warning. For example I reverted 20 offensive edits on White Trash alone for BLP attacks without giving any tag. 6) "When you claim that other users are "defaming" you and violating "BLP" it serves to intimidate them and disccourage them from restoring the non-problematic text you removed." The only example you provide is your dialog with User:Imboredsenseless -did that intimidate you? In fact you allowed him to make multiple defamatory claims on your own talk page. You facilitated him. 7) "speculating that the "RJJensen" on Conservapedia was you" No one speculated that. He said it was me and you agreed. In any case he made extremely nasty statements about RJJensen on your talk page and you facilitated it by continuing to egg him on, with your comments about me like this one If there is in fact someone actively editing Wikipedia who is also an admin on a competing Wiki whose whole reason for being essentially boils down "Wikipedia is biased and is operated by liberal scum" then I intend to monitor their edits closely from now on. You say that was "inoffensive" and I should not have removed it. I say your part of the dialog was offensive and false and should be removed. In all I have done thousands of reverts in recent years-and use the BLP tag in under ½ of 1% of those reverts Rjensen (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC). Hijiri88 is a very careless reader who is unable to accurately quote the rules here Thanks for the baseless and off-topic personal comment. I didn't 'quote' anything. Hijiri88 mis-stated that as "When sysops say something on Wikipedia they are reliable sources for BLP purposes?" You said BLP applies to Wikipedians and their on-wiki activity. This means reliable sources are needed. You said a statement from a sysop was reliable enough. Am I missing something? A sysop in this thread said you should be blocked -- was that sysop's statement a reliable source for BLP purposes too?. Hijiri88 falsely states "[WP:BLPSPS]] explicitly bans virtually all self-published sources, reliable or not." That is refuted by WP:BLPSELFPUB Ha! I am the one misquoting the rules, you say? The exact wording is Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only [under certain very limited circumstances] This exception is why I said virtually all self-published sources, and it clearly doesn't cover Bbb23's statement about Imboredsenseless. That is a false statement and is NOT in the BLP rules which cover living person at all times on all Wiki pages. WP:BLPSOURCES Stop trying to turn this discussion on its head. I am not trying to apply BLP to statements about Wikipedians and their Wikipedia activity. You are. The burden of finding passages in the policy that support your interpretation is on you, not me I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your long comment. Every sentence contains either an error or a deliberate distortion. It's just not worth trying to discuss this with you. You have already received more than the formal warning I suggested (an admin specifically said he was tempted to block you) and you still show no signs of improvement. I will not respond again, but I hope for the project's sake that this thread receives a proper close by an admin. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Hijiri 88 says "The burden of finding passages in the policy that support your interpretation is on you, not me". OK Here are 4 rules that I follow and he seems to reject or not know about: (1) "Very obvious errors [about me] can be fixed quickly, including by yourself." WP:BLPSELF (2) the main BLP rule "Contentious material about living persons (that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." that rule applies to everyone. [Hijiri 88 seems to think it does not apply to me.] (3) "In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism....Similarly, you should feel free to remove obviously mistaken facts about yourself" from WP:AUTO#IFEXIST (4) "If you believe reliable sources exist which will make the article more balanced ...if the problem is clear-cut and uncontroversial, you may wish to edit the page yourself." WP:AUTOPROB [I used rule (4) to add footnotes that were requested on Richard J. Jensen--that is the only writing I did about myself in an article. Apparently Hijiri 88 ignores (1), thinks I am not allowed to use (2) when I am the "living person"; and is simply unaware of (3) and (4). He also ignores my allegation that he deliberately facilitated really nasty statements about me by Imboredsenseless on the Hijiri talk page. ok I'll knock it off for now. Rjensen (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC) There is a longstanding best practice that parties at noticeboards and so forth should not be continuing mutual combat and policy-breaking sniping in discussions. Can you all knock it off for a while? The points were made, let uninvolved review. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC) And given the incredible length of this section, good luck in getting many uninvolved people to review. Maybe if some sort of summary were possible? John Carter (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC) I would be happy with all of my comments except for the first one and the one dated "12:45, 5 December" to be collapsed, but that wouldn't do much good with all the interspersed responses by Rjensen and and Alanscottwalker left still making the thread TLDR but without the context of my comments to which they were responding. If they both approve I guess everything I posted and everything both of them posted in response can be collapsed with a neutral heading like "Longer discussion". Care would need to be taken that Maunus's (brief) comments are not touched and that comments by Arthur Rubin and Black Kite (which fell between long exchanges between the three of us but which were not necessarily related) remain. The reason I want to keep my original response to Alanscottwalker (and his response to me) is that User:Calton also commented an expressed an original opinion, but his comment would get lost in a collapse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Interaction ban: Rjensen/Maunus

Withdrawn by proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest an indefinite two-way interaction ban between Rjensen and Maunus, neither editor to comment on the other anywhere on Wikipedia. They may edit the same articles, as long as they have edited them in the past, but neither is to change in any way the other's edits, leaving it to other editors to make any necessary adjustments. Neither Rjensen or Maunus shall follow the other editor to a new page they havent edited before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Support - Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC) See below Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Support and let's add Rjensen - Hijiri88 and we can all end this Rjensen (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Please use a separate section for that suggestion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Let me just add, that if your edits, or those of Maunus, actually do go against policy, this interaction ban is not carte blanche to continue doing them. Any other editor can still revert those kinds of edits, or ask for relief from AN/I or ArbCom, should it come to that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Support Maunus-Rjensen IBAN, only because if the problem persists after an IBAN is put in place, that will conclusively prove that if there is a problem here it is not Maunus hounding Rjensen. I remain convinced that Rjensen is (and has been for a very long time) abusing our BLP policy. I therefore think a six-month IBAN would be better than an indefinite one, but would support the latter if if the former is not on the table. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Changed to Oppose in favour of alternate proposal. (see below). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Extended content I make lots of reverts and fewer than 1% get a tag of any kind. I think all my reverts were proper: I was removing unacceptable language. The question is whether I used the BLP tag when it was not necessary. He claims that there were 24 cases since 2010, out of over 3000 reverts. He states "in virtually all cases where he encounters a CIVIL- or NPA-violation, he mislabels it as a BLP-violation" Well all three are somewhat different issues. BLP violations are contentious statements about a specific real person that lack a very strong RS. I can remove them without any tag: For example where I erased "Howard Zinn ruined countless lives. He turned the brains of Boston University Terriers into communist mush." with no tag at all. Rjensen (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Let's not get into this again. 35% of your talk page blankings that cite BLP are wrong to do so. Your reverts of other edits and ones that don't cite BLP are irrelevant to the question of whether you have been abusing the BLP policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC) But if you misquote me again, I will simply remove the portion of your post that misquotes me. I did not say there were 24 cases, and I was not talking about "reverts". While I agree that you do have a habit of edit-warring, and perhaps using BLP as an excuse to violate 3RR when BLP's applicability is questionable, that was not my concern. I checked 68 talk page blankings (not reverts) and of those 68 I found 24 that were clearly problematic. It's entirely possible you have blanked someone's talk page comment because of "BLP" and not said so in your edit summary, and since I ignored edits where there was a net increase in the size of the page, it's possible I missed some blankings where you also posted something of your own that was longer than the piece you blanked. This is why I said that there were at least 24 cases. It is against TPO for me to alter your comment to say something you didn't mean, but if you legitimately meant to misquote me then you are at fault; if you did not mean to misquote me, then you should change your above post yourself and I will remove this clarification. By the way -- "3000 reverts"!? In article talk and user talk namespaces? You've only made around 11,500 edits to those namespaces since 2010 -- were you reverting other users' edits in more than a quarter of those? What you are saying doesn't make sense unless you are deliberately distorting the figures with mainspace edits (which presumably don't have anything to do with "BLP violations" against Wikipedians and their Wikipedia activity). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC) I counted yesterday & made about 12 reverts per week in recent years on Wikipedia on all pages. That includes BLP violations in articles (which I seldom tagged as BLP) for example Rjensen (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC) "Almost no one gives inline citations for talk page comments about other Wikipedians" and "almost nothing that happens on Wikipedia talk pages and noticeboards is covered in reliable sources" is the base of Hijiri88 's claim and that is irrelevant or false. An editor who makes a contentious claim against a names person on a talk page is providing all the RS evidence needed--they have published it (on Wikipedia) and have signed it with 4 tildes ~ Hijiri88 and I agree that there is no BLP violation if the target is an anonymous coded username. However I argue that if the target is a known, named person then BLP applies. He repeatedly complains I erased a chunk of his own talk page. I did so because he was attacking me and facilitating and encouraging others to attack me there: Yes, I very quickly found that page, and I'm also fairly certain they are the same person [ie Rjensen]. If there is in fact someone actively editing Wikipedia who is also an admin on a competing Wiki whose whole reason for being essentially boils down "Wikipedia is biased and is operated by liberal scum" then I intend to monitor their edits closely from now on. Hijiri88 keeps that personal attack & threat of stalking alive right now on his talk page. Rjensen (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC) I counted yesterday & made about 12 reverts per week in recent years on Wikipedia on all pages. That includes BLP violations in articles (which I seldom tagged as BLP) That doesn't matter, since this is about your abuse of BLP policy by interpreting it as applying to Wikipedians and their editing activities, particularly you. "Almost no one gives inline citations for talk page comments about other Wikipedians" and "almost nothing that happens on Wikipedia talk pages and noticeboards is covered in reliable sources" is the base of Hijiri88 's claim and that is irrelevant or false. Again, almost nothing that is reported and discussed on ANI is based on external reliable sources. If your interpretation were correct, this would make virtually every ANI discussion a BLP violation. An editor who makes a contentious claim against a names person on a talk page is providing all the RS evidence needed--they have published it (on Wikipedia) and have signed it with 4 tildes Yes, that is true for NPA and CIVIL, but not for BLP. BLP requires reliable third-party sources and self-published sources by anyone other than the subject themselves are never permitted. I did so because he was attacking me and facilitating and encouraging others to attack me there: Yes, I very quickly found that page, and I'm also fairly certain they are the same person [ie Rjensen]. If there is in fact someone actively editing Wikipedia who is also an admin on a competing Wiki whose whole reason for being essentially boils down "Wikipedia is biased and is operated by liberal scum" then I intend to monitor their edits closely from now on. You have explicitly stated at least twice[49][50] that you have edited Conservapedia and explicitly named the articles you wrote there. This means that linking you to the account you used on Conservapedia is neither a BLP violation nor even an OUT violation. Hijiri88 keeps that personal attack & threat of stalking alive right now on his talk page. Monitoring the edits of someone you know is making problematic edits is not a violation of Wikipedia policy, and in fact is encouraged. However, I quickly thereafter realized you make far more edits than I care to keep track of, most of them apparently benign, so I don't have any intent of making good on that statement anyway. Accusing me of "stalking" is simply nonsense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC) A factual disagreement. Hijiri88 above says " BLP requires claims about living persons to have reliable sources, but the assumption should always be that no on-wiki activity will ever be covered in reliable sources. Citing BLP to justify blanking statements about Wikipedia activity that don't have reliable sources is inherently disruptive, since everyone who takes part in the Wikipedia community makes such statements and by definition they don't have reliable sources -- they only have primary sources published on a wiki." Well no--a primary source in this case is a RS. When an editor publishes a remark on Wikipedia --including on a talk page--and then uses the 4-~ signature, he has created a primary source that is a signed reliable source for his actions. WP:WPNOTRS says "Primary sources ... can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. there is no OR if everyone in the world can see the primary source for themselves. [[the WP:PRIMARY rule is A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. ] I think this factual dispute is a foundation for most of Hijiri88's complaints. In other words, if X is uncivil or NPA to Y on talk page, then Y has the RS needed to prove X is in the wrong & to delete the remark. Rjensen (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC) You are talking about primary sources, but the quotation you provide, and even moreso every other time I have made the same point in this thread, was clearly about self-published sources (hence "published on a wiki"). WP:BLPSPS explicitly bans all self-published sources except, in some rare cases, those by the living person him/herself. WP:PRIMARY applies to the article space, not discussion of Wikipedians and their edits. Furthermore, while it's a relatively minor point, could you format your posts a bit more consistently? It's very confusing with double and single square brackets, and double and single quotation marks all over the place with apparently no regard for wiki markup and no apparent purpose except to make your comments less readable. I recently discovered Template:tq, which I find very convenient for what you are apparently trying to do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Will you two please shut up? Even in your little echo chamber here it's annoying. Get a hotel room. Hijiri, I don't know who you are, but "Professor" Jensen, with every post you're getting closer and closer to Carl Hewitt territory. EEng 00:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose. After reading through this monstrous thread, I have to agree with Black Kite in saying that citing BLP in the situation above is nonsensical. I don't think this is a symmetric situation, and treating it with a symmetric IBAN is not going to work. Maunus needs to moderate his language, something he has already acknowledged. Rjensen, on the other hand, needs to stop abusing BLP: and this is a potentially more serious problem, because such misuse compromise neutral editing, and I say this as somebody with experience in a different but hugely contentious area. There are a number of fringe sources in the area of south Asian politics and history, as there are with race-relations in the US. Dealing with these requires discussing their nature on talk pages, and since these sources are ignored by proper RS, these discussions cannot be cited. If we take Rjensen's argument to its logical conclusion, any fringe author of any fringe source that has been ignored by the mainstream media could register an account, and proceed to remove any criticism of their sources from talk pages. This is quite ridiculous. If we must have sanctions at all, I would give maunus a warning about civility, and Rjensen a ban from removing or refactoring talk-page posts of other editors.Note: I have had minor interactions with Rjensen, and somewhat more significant ones with maunus, so I'm not deeply involved here, but not completely uninvolved either. Vanamonde (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Vanamonde brings up an interesting hypothetical situation about fringe sources. But it is irrelevant to this discussion. If some editor says "theory ABC is a fraud" then no problem. But is an editor writes about real person XYZ that "XYZ is a fraud" then anyone can call that a BLP and demand reliable sources. it does not have to be XYZ; XYZ does not need to set up a Wiki account under his real name. The BLP rule says that any time any editor makes a contentious statement about a named person then BLP comes into play. Rjensen (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose any i-ban or sanction. This is a storm in a teacup. SarahSV (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC) What about the six years of abuse of the BLP policy by someone who really should know better? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC) What does that have to do with the interaction ban? Drmies (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Slimvirgin said she opposed "any ... sanction". I have changed my position on the proposed remedy a few times, but opposing all remedies because one has examined the one with the weakest (well, second-weakest) rationale doesn't seem like a good idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose all, per SarahSV. Come, now. The irrelevant parade of horribles above is fun and all but ultimately silly. Actually, it is regularly done and encouraged on talk pages that we quote and cite - that is a well accepted way to promote not only neutrality, but V, NOR, all our content polices -- and, here, it is easy to quote and cite Richard Jensen, should it be relevant to anything at all, as it's published in an Oxford Journal. Similarly, the only asymmetry in this case is Richard Jensen is a known living person. The only thing Maunus has to do (because he seems so bothered by Richard Jensen, in a kind of wp:battle fashion), is in Maunus's comments, make Richard Jensen irrelevant to the comment, which should be easy since we are not suppose to be focusing on the person (and we regularly don't know, who an account is). All Hijiri88 needs to do is not host WP:POLEMIC from banned sock-puppets that refer to people off-site. All Rjensen needs to do is not get blocked for edit warring, per BLPREMOVE. 'Tempest in a teacup' has it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Unless some specific policy is violated, or unless it has nothing to do with Wikipedia and someone finds it questionable, I will "host" whatever I please on my user talk page. Trying to turn this around on me because someone posted material on my talk page that you find questionable and that outed them as an obvious sockpuppet, but that was not in itself apparently polemical or unrelated to the project, is pretty disruptive. And the fact that 35% of Rjensen's "BLP" talk page blankings are discussion of Wikipedia editors is a serious cause for concern. Your continued refusal to recognize this baffles me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Modified I-Ban: Rjensen/Maunus

• Support, with a modification of the standard IBAN. Because each editor claims the other is violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines (and both seem correct) they each may point out such alleged violations (once, for each alleged violation) to another editor. This should allow admins, not actively monitoring these editors, to step in, if warranted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This might save the rest of us the trouble of looking out for further violations. BMK's proposal didn't address the core problem and actually would have made it more difficult to deal with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose this strange modification of IBAN does not make much sense. It encourages Rjensen and Maunus to monitor each other on a daily basis. I think the further we stay apart the better. Rjensen (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that an indefinite IBAN is a pretty extreme solution to the very minor hounding problems in this thread, but this alternate proposal would allow for future serious violations of the much more serious kind (BLP) to be reported in an appropriate manner. I would love if Vanamonde's proposal that addresses the core issue could pass, but this seems like the best can hope for at the moment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, as above. Vanamonde (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: You and I appear to be in complete agreement here as to what the core problem is (to the point that I was a little hurt that you attributed the view to Black Kite rather than me ;-) ), but unless you open another subthread for your proposal, and even perhaps if you do so, it's not going to pass, and this whole monstrous thread will get archived without any result. This proposal, which recognizes that there exists some kind of problem without placing all the blame on Maunus for "hounding" (if such a thing even happened here), is the best one that's currently on the table. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support. I don't like iBans but OK. As for the talk page removals--I think there is broad agreement here that Rjensen's invocations of BLP are at least problematic. If that is the case, it is worth its own investigation. Preventing them from removing talk page comments is OK, I suppose, but it strikes me as a bit lame if there are indeed bigger problems. But maybe it's a good idea if they simply ask an admin or someone else to look at the offending comment and ask them to remove it if indeed BLP or NPA is violated. It would also be good if no one really followed anyone else's comments very closely, but I suspect some people are frequently bored. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC) [put this in the wrong section...]

User:Drmies first posted the above in the wrong place (the Rjensen/Hijiri88 IBAN proposal), but when I pointed this out he moved it to the section immediately above it (the "warn Maunus, sanction Rjensen" proposal). I then moved it again to its current location, but I'm not sure if what he did was deliberate or not, since there is stuff about talk page removals in the above post, even if it appears to be primarily about Arthur's modified IBAN proposal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Warning/Ban: Maunus and Rjensen

Proposal: per Hijiri88's suggestion above, opening this section. I'm proposing that Maunus be warned about WP:CIVILITY, and that Rjensen be banned from removing or refactoring talk-page posts from other editors, with an exception for minor/non-controversial changes. Note, as above: I have had minor interactions with Rjensen, and somewhat more significant ones with maunus, so I'm not deeply involved here, but not completely uninvolved either. Vanamonde (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Vanamonde (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support as appropriate to each's offenses. I suggest formulating RJ's ban as specifically forbidding him to act under the bullets in WP:TPO labeled Removing prohibited material, Removing harmful material and Off-topic posts. EEng 05:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I would have supported a block for Maunus for the personal attack, but he already acknowledged it was wrong several days ago. Rjensen, on the other hand, has been constantly and aggressively denying that he did anything wrong. I think it might be better if Rjensen's ban explicitly mentioned BLP, though, since if it doesn't the current proposed wording could easily be taken as not applying to BLP, in the same way as 3RR doesn't apply to BLP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Hold on here. Hijiri88 is voting??? he is not an administrator and instead he has been accused by me (above) of facilitating an intense personal attack on me by Imboredsenseless . [Hijiri88 wrote https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hijiri88&diff=prev&oldid=744883814 his own personal attack on me and promised to stalk me: Yes, I very quickly found that page, and I'm also fairly certain they are the same person. If there is in fact someone actively editing Wikipedia who is also an admin on a competing Wiki whose whole reason for being essentially boils down "Wikipedia is biased and is operated by liberal scum" then I intend to monitor their edits closely from now on.] which I erased with a BLP tag about User:Imboredsenseless|Imboredsenseless --Hijiri88 was egging on an attacker who was pretty nasty. and has no right to vote here. Rjensen (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC) I am a member of the community. Community-imposed sanctions are not !voted on exclusively by sysops. You too are not an admin, yet you have !voted twice. Your long-term disruption is reason enough for others to monitor your edits and make sure you don't continue -- my offering to do so (probably in vain, as I'm much too lazy) was not a violation of any of our policies. And your renewing your threat of some kind of action for "hosting" a personal attack against you on my talk page is ... not helpful. And please stop trying to filibuster this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support just coming around to this after starting the initial talk page conversation that apparently kicked off this kerfuffle. The comment was uncivil and could have been expressed in a better manner, but the removal of content by citing BLP from a talk page is problematic, and at the very least increases the drama. A better approach would have been to ask for it to be removed by Maunus per WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA. BLP shouldn't be used to deal with behavioral issues of editors interacting with other editors on talk pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support The offenses are different in type and in scale. Remedies tailored to each party's behavior make sense. The incivility is acknowledged. A warning is enough. The faux BLP claim - over a course of years and as yet unrecanted - by an editor who routinely dismisses his own obvious COI, requires stronger measures. (And if the behavior continues, still stronger ones ought be on the horizon.) David in DC (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• oppose I say there was one "faux BLP claim" in 2013 which I recanted. No diffs provided for supposed others. The idea of a penalty for "faux BLP" is an new notion with no prior discussions, policies or warnings before 2016. Rjensen (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Vanamonde93 (here and above) and David in DC. An IBan would fix civility issues, but would do nothing to curb Rjensen's behavior regarding comments made by editors other than Maunus. Maunus has admitted his failings and even offered to apologize. Rjensen, on the other hand, is still defensive and steadfast in his misunderstanding and misapplication of BLP (yes, I've read this entire section including diffs), behavior which has far wider implications for the project than some minor incivility.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 21:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is by far the most sensible solution. IBans often exacerbate situations and create even more ill-will. It seems clear that RJensen is abusing talk-page removals in distinct violation of WP:TPO. I don't personally think Maunus is being uncivil but an encouragement to stay civil couldn't hurt I suppose. Softlavender (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Better than my suggestions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I tried to put this fire out when it first started at the BLP notice board and when that failed suggested they'd take it here. I'm amazed how something so simple can become such a huge thread/problem. In any case, this seems to most sensible solution to me. Yintan  09:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I-Ban: Rjensen/Hijiri88

• Proposal User:Beyond My Ken above recommended that I propose as a separate motion an interaction ban between rjensen and Hijiri88. So I amn doing so, based on his egregious misbehavior at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hijiri88&diff=prev&oldid=744883814 It came about when User:Imboredsenseless visited that personal talk page. Neither one mentioned a grievance against me but instead discussed how best to attack me for the political viewpoints I allegedly displayed on an entirely different website Conservapedia. (Those supposed viewpoints are false--I never held them.) User:Imboredsenseless made really nasty edits against me based entirely on knowing my real name. Hijiri88 incited him and cooperated with him. Hijiri88 knows that Outing an anonymous editor is a serious violation--it's what protects anonymous editors and makes the system fair. So he made sure there was no outing before proceeding to ridicule me and also promised to stalk me. Hijiri88 said: Yes, I very quickly found that page, and I'm also fairly certain they are the same person. If there is in fact someone actively editing Wikipedia who is also an admin on a competing Wiki whose whole reason for being essentially boils down "Wikipedia is biased and is operated by liberal scum" then I intend to monitor their edits closely from now on. I erased his entire interaction with User:Imboredsenseless and he restored his own statements. He refuses to admit he violated wp:NPA and has promised to stalk me. So I propose a one-year interaction ban between Hijiri88 and rjensen. Rjensen (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

*Weak support. I don't like iBans but OK. As for the talk page removals--I think there is broad agreement here that Rjensen's invocations of BLP are at least problematic. If that is the case, it is worth its own investigation. Preventing them from removing talk page comments is OK, I suppose, but it strikes me as a bit lame if there are indeed bigger problems. But maybe it's a good idea if they simply ask an admin or someone else to look at the offending comment and ask them to remove it if indeed BLP or NPA is violated. It would also be good if no one really followed anyone else's comments very closely, but I suspect some people are frequently bored. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC) I struck this because it should have been in the section above this one. Mea culpa. This one, I do not support. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose What's even the point? I have not interacted with Rjensen before, except once (briefly) last September and once (even more briefly) this October. I only got involved in this thread because it was on ANI and I had something to contribute. This "egregious misbehavior" consists of my doing him a favour by removing a personal attack against him by another user on my talk page, but refusing to accept his bogus argument that it is a BLP violation. Since I have barely interacted with Rjensen before, an IBAN wouldn't be much of an imposition for me, but why he is proposing this makes his good faith questionable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Half this LONG discussion is Hijiri88 repeatedly attacking me for deleting remarks he at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hijiri88&diff=prev&oldid=744883814 made to User:Imboredsenseless on how to attack me for my siupposed political views as expressed on Conservapedia. He still refuses to admit that it was uncalled for and wrong. I did not say he made a BLP violation (I said User:Imboredsenseless did so). He promised to stalk me and that was equally wrong. Rjensen (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC) No attacks. Just posting evidence of the same abuse that everyone else here has acknowledged. You might as well ask for a TBAN with User:Vanamonde93, User:Arthur Rubin, or User:Calton. I have never once "refused to admit" that Imboredsenseless's attack on you was "uncalled for and wrong". I said it to him when he first posted. I have said numerous times in this thread that it was a personal attack that merited blanking, which is why I blanked it. I would like to see a diff of me "promising to stalk you". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC) I deleted the offensive remarks by User:Imboredsenseless and by Hijiri88 in encouraging him. Stalking? Yes: after explicitly discussing me by name you promised him: "If there is in fact someone actively editing Wikipedia who is also an admin on a competing Wiki whose whole reason for being essentially boils down "Wikipedia is biased and is operated by liberal scum" then I intend to monitor their edits closely from now on." I erased it and you put it back--your threat based on your opposition to what you mistakenly think are my political views is on your talk page now. Rjensen (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Okay, I was deliberately holding off on posting this material (which includes the full text of an email) as a courtesy, but since it has been repeatedly brought up: I had a very, very brief disagreement with Rjensen as to whether our History of the United States article should lump Jim Crow lynchings in with mob violence targeting immigrant groups like Chinese and eastern Europeans (or something, I don't even remember).[51][52] At roughly the same time I was posting on User:Curly Turkey's talk page, and another user who was active on that page, User:Chie one, apparently decided to do a bit of trolling and created a new account and an elaborate backstory to explain why they started posting on my talk page about Rjensen, a user with whom I had only interacted twice before. I naturally found this highly suspicious, and opened an SPI.[53] After the account was blocked, Rjensen removed the entire discussion from my talk page.[54] He had not commented once on the SPI or on anything before doing this, and had not asked my permission to blank a section of my talk page. He claimed "BLP violations", and we now all know how much stock to put in Rjensen's claims of such BLP violations in talk page discussions of Wikipedians. I reverted, but then got a notification that I had received an email and re-reverted pending my checking my mail.[55][56] The email read as follows: Email received from User:Rjensen 2016/10/18 (Tues), 10:42 here's what was off limits: Now I have no idea what he's been posting but I would be staggered if he veered away from his nutty skewed version of history. Anything Republican (politicians, parties etc.), Christian, right wing, American, he will skew to the heavens. He's right out of the Fox News book of white washing history, white being the appropriate term. I'm disappointed you didn't erase that yourself. I decided to reinsert the discussion, minus the material he had specifically told me was offensive to him.[57] None of it was a BLP violation, but much of what the sock wrote was definitely NPA-violation and worthy of blanking. I thought that was the end of it, but then about two months later an unrelated discussion of Rjensen's abuse of BLP to blank talk page discussions of him as a Wikipedia editor showed up on ANI, and I decided to post what I knew. I was then met with a long string of highly aggressive personal comments by Rjensen (see above), who still continues to deny that he did anything wrong in blanking my and others' talk page comments in this manner. Now he faces a sanction for this behaviour and is apparently trying to get me banned from reporting him for further violations. Either his behaviour on my and other talk pages was disruptive and he should be sanctioned, or not, but an IBAN between me and Rjensen would not accomplish anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC) By the way, my statement that I would monitor his activity for Conservapedia-esque edits was months ago, and I have not made any effort to carry through on it. Part of this was because I have better things to do with my time (like building an encyclopedia), but it was mostly because I didn't mean it to begin with. I was humouring an obvious sockpuppet to see if I could find a smoking gun; SPI has not historically been my friend (a few weeks later almost the exact same thing happened and Bbb23 denied my CU request as "fishing"), so I was trying to get as much evidence as I could. Now, though, I have even less incentive to carry through on my "threat": I would sleep better if Rjensen and I had no further interactions after this thread is closed, and the reason I am opposed to the IBAN is because IBANs are so easy to game, not because I have even the slightest hint of desire for further "interaction" with Rjensen. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC) well that is humorous indeed--except that the nasty uncivil threatening humor against me is still there on Hijiri88's talk page and the sockpuppet is long gone. --I think we're agreed never to interact again. Rjensen (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC) You've posted enough in this thread for me to ask for a one-way IBAN against you, and I'd probably be successful. Where on earth have I "threatened" you, or been "nasty" or "uncivil"? It's all on you. And immediately above you deliberately misrepresent my use the verb "to humour"; it's inconceivable that an American with a graduate degree could be legitimately unfamiliar with that word. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Hijiri88 "humoured" = facilitated a really nasty attack on me for no reason whatever. He added attack words of his own which I removed and he put back on his talk page where they remain today. He wrote: If there is in fact someone actively editing Wikipedia who is also an admin on a competing Wiki whose whole reason for being essentially boils down "Wikipedia is biased and is operated by liberal scum" then I intend to monitor their edits closely from now on. That equals a promise of stalking and a personal attack. Those are dirty hands. Rjensen (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC) I have explained the rules of English grammar to university professors before, but they were Japanese, and English was neither their first language nor their primary field of expertise. I never thought I would have to explain what an if-then sentence is to another native English speaker who holds a graduate degree from an American university. If there is a person violating English Wikipedia's content policies (NPOV, but I didn't name the specific policy), then I will monitor their edits. Please learn to assume good faith, and please stop abusing our BLP policy. I don't care if you start stalking me, but you don't appear to have done so up to this point, and I certainly haven't been stalking you, despite your somewhat unique interpretation of something I wrote on my talk page several months ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Hijiri88 "humoured" a person, as defined by Webster 3rd = HUMOR implies an unusual attention to or a voluntary yielding to what are regarded as another's whims or caprices, often suggesting a purposeful sometimes patronizing accommodation to another's moods. That is he admits he yielded to User:Imboredsenseless and supported and encouraged those personal attacks on me. Hijiri88 ridiculed falsely & promised to stalk a Wiki editor who identified as me in his previous sentence, ["I'm also fairly certain they are the same person" = rjensen]. Now instead of apologizing he denies he meant me--did he plan to stalk some other Wiki editor? Who? All dialog that was unknown & unprovoked by me. He has spent 11,000 words hounding me & attacking me on this thread (I spent 4300 words defending myself. Everyone else here added another 2800 words--I counted.) It's gone on long enough. Hijiri88 still has been unable to quote word-for-word any Wiki rule I violated; that's because I "violated" only his imaginary unwritten rules that he made up in the last week right here. He violated the NPA rules and unlike Maunus can't seem to understand that devoting his talk page to hate messages about me was uncivil. Rjensen (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Rjensen, you are one of the worst wikilawyers I have ever encountered on this board. Please stop twisting my words. I never once denied that I meant you, and even if I had, your claim that the previous sentence was meant to indicate about whom I was speaking would still be complete nonsense. The previous sentence was meant to indicate that I agreed with the sock that you were in fact the Conservapedia editor RJJensen. My reason for believing this was because you had specifically identified your Conservapedia account on Wikipedia. This is not a violation of any Wikipedia policy, BLP or otherwise. If you specifically identify yourself as Conservapedia editor and former admin RJJensen on Wikipedia it is not hounding or outing or a BLP violation to say that you look like you are the same person. Kindly drop it now. I posted material about my off-wiki activity once before (on my user page) and later regretted it; I asked for the page to be deleted, and it was quickly done. You could probably get a rev-del of those two times you connected your Wikipedia identity to your Conservapedia account if you wanted, but constantly drawing attention to it on ANI, and going so far as to request sanctions against other users merely for having had it brought up on their user talk pages and doing a minimal amount of research to verify it, is not the right way to go about this. Have you heard of the Streisand effect? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC) "worst wikilawyers"??? that sounds uncivil (WP:WL says it's "a pejorative term) . But you're nearly at 12,000 words on this thread and still have not quoted word for word any Wiki rule you think I have violated. By contrast I have repeatedly I quoted the rules I followed. Rjensen (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC) I don't think you yourself have violated BLP. I think you have violated TPO by removing entire sections on talk pages because you found three or four lines insulting, and I think you have abused BLP by constantly citing it in cases where it doesn't apply. No one here has claimed that your belief that BLP applies to our discussions of each other as Wikipedians is correct, and nowhere in WP:BLP is there any passage that even hints at supporting such an interpretation. It doesn't matter which irrelevant policies and guidelines you provide out-of-context quotes from, because all that matters is that you have been reading something into one policy that isn't there. 180.221.235.82 (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC) (Sorry, that was me. I don't know why my phone, iPad, and now apparently laptop keep logging me out automatically. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC) )

• Oppose this thread has gotten silly. I don't see the purpose of this I-ban. If you all both don't want to interact with the other, then don't, but I also don't see a reason to formalize that as a sanction. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is wiki lawyering gone mad. I can't take this seriously, sorry. You can't ban people for talking about you. Yintan  09:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Ban them all, and let the Wiki-god sort them out

Extended content: Arbitration suggestion collapsed by request of an involved party, with the acquiescence of the initiator. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Probably unfair to someone, but no other proposal seems to have sufficient support; alternatively, one of the three main actors here could take the bull by the horns and file a request for Arbitration. Certainly the community doesn't seem to be able to unknot this one, and electrons are dying like flies. I think the structure of an ArbCom case would help. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC) If Hijiri88 agrees we'll both shut up here. Rjensen (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC) BMK, your proposal received almost no support, but that is not the case for the rest. Arthur Rubin's modified IBAN proposal has received more support, and there is near unanimous support for Vanamonde's proposal. I want nothing more to do with Rjensen, and I am sure he wants nothing more to do with me, so that IBAN proposal is redundant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC) You are more or less correct in your assessment of the response to the various proposals, but almost no admin is going to close on the basis of the response to Vanamonde's proposal because it has been so paltry. In my experience it takes more than a handful of !votes to generate warnings and bans, especially for an issue as complex as this one. So for all intents and purposes, none of the proposals, in my view, would be acceptable to a closing admin, hence my suggestion to take it to ArbCom, which exists to deal with complex issues such as this which involve, as Maunus describes in his opening, potentially serious breaches of policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Well, ArbCom won't accept a case just because some random editors didn't bother reading through the single ANI thread that has been opened so far (although quite a few actually did read it). The actual problem is cut-and-dry, as everyone who has read through it except one has already noted, and doesn't merit an Arbitration case. If it comes to ANI again, I'll be sure to post everything I've got to say in my first post so I don't have to keep responding to what looks like a deliberate filibustering on the part of one of the two main parties to this thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Well, it all depends on how interested you are in seeing a resolution come about. I disagree with you about the response to Vanamonde's proposal (4 supports and 1 oppose), in that I don't believe it's sufficient for an admin to close this on that basis, and the other proposals are going nowhere, so it's more than likely that this will be closed (eventually) as "no consensus". If you, or any of the other main actors, are interested in seeing it resolved, I think ArbCom is the only way to go, and --despite your statement -- they will indeed look at this thread and determine that the community couldn't resolve the problem, which is obvious on its face (or why else are there all these words and all these proposals?). Of course, if neither you nor Rjensen nor Maunus is really interested in resolving the perceived problem(s), then, sure, don't take it to ArbCom, but I doubt anybody else will. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Let's be clear: I don't think this thread should be closed without a proper result, but I really don't think the one, relatively minor, problem that remains to be resolved (the future talk page blankings that will likely take place given that Rjensen doesn't accept that he did anything wrong) is worth all the red tape of an ArbCom case one way or the other. I've been trying to get back to building an encyclopedia for like a week, and the only reason I keep coming back here is that I don't want to see the untruths about me (which are completely irrelevant to the current case as they relate to something that took place two months ago). I think Rjensen and Maunus are both good content producers and this thread has already drained far too much of their time, and I know I'm a good content producer and this thread has already drained too much of my time, so if it's a choice between letting the thread get archived without a close (or closed without a definitive result) and letting it drag out even longer than it already has by elevating it to Arbitration, I think that the latter option would be the worse option for everyone involved. I really don't care all that much that Rjensen blanked a section of my talk page two months ago, and even if he was actively threatening to do the same thing again just to get a rise out of me I still would not think it was worth all the energy I've already wasted on it, much less any future effort that would be necessary to take it to ArbCom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Support the idea of taking it to ArbCom, but not of banning all those involved, unless the other proposals above get more attention than they have to date, because there does seem to be some basis for thinking that the matters raised here are sufficiently important to be addressed in some way. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Hey, I thought John Carter was supposed to stop following Hijiri around ... ? Maybe an Arb case should be opened for that ... Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Oppose. the problem is one person who invents fake rules. Hijiri88 says ‘’ you [Rjensen] have abused BLP by constantly citing it in cases where it doesn't apply.’’ Hijiri88 since December 5 has invented his own rules that I supposedly violated or 'abused'. He has failed in his 12,000 words here to find these rules anywhere in Wikipedia – not in the rules, the guidelines, the essays or the official decisions by Wiki bodies like ArbCom or this page. His fake 'rules' contradict the actual written rules at BLP. For example, he says that BLP does not apply to editors' talk pages, but WP:BLP states: “BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.” Rjensen (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC) @Rjensen: You may well be right, or you might be wrong. I don't know. What I think I do know is that Hijiri88 only became involved in the discussion here after it was first posted here (correct me if I'm wrong, of course), and that I don't think I've seen ArbCom take on a case for months now. If that is true, particularly if there is no reason to think it will change much in the near future, they might be in a position to spend more time and effort on the matter than some of the more or less random volunteers here (like me), given that they were elected to do that and they don't seem to have done much by way of casework in months now.That could, of course, qualify as demeaning ArbCom, which might make me eligible for some sort of sanction myself, but, hey, what the hell. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC) On further review, from some of the earlier comments above, it seems that Rjensen may well have been applying BLP to comments about himself in a variety of spaces, including userspace. Rjensen has also on his user page publicly announced his identity, and it is, perhaps, not unreasonable to think that on that basis WP:BLP might apply, particularly the statement in the lede of that page to the effect that all material "that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." There has been, so far as I know, only one real ArbCom precedent in history, regarding The Atlantic, which might relate to application of BLP toward publicly known editors, and as I remember the decision in that case didn't address the matter at all. Having some sort of action which might be able to clarify how to apply BLP to editors whose identities are public knowledge would probably be helpful. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Just a reminder that WP:BLP does not say that all material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed, but that "contentious" unsourced or poorly sourced material should be removed. Of course "contentious" is in the eye of the beholder. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Thanks for having caught my mistake in the cut and paste there. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Keep in mind we have some equally strong related rules: WP:LIBEL states This page in a nutshell: Delete libelous material when it has been identified. It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. for its definitions that page refers repeatedly to Defamation (= "the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person...") Rjensen (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC) But, of course, in the United States, a public figure must prove intent as part of libel, so mere negative material is not ipso facto libelous in that case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC) "intent" regarding a public official applies when the target sues in federal or state court. But of course that is not part of the Wikipedia rule.Rjensen (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Since Wikipedia used a legally-defined word, then the US legal standards apply, since Wikipedia is located in the US. If it wouldn't pass muster in a court as libel, then it cannot be libel as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I think you would be better off editing the encyclopedia in your professional capacity as a historian, and be less concerned about yourself as a subject, since that seems to be what has raised the ruckus. If you're not notable, then let's delete the article about you, if you are notable, then the same standards apply to you as to anyone else. There's no special treatment for a BLP subject who happens to be a Wikipedia editor. If there's a need to remove information about yourself, you're better off asking another editor to take a look at it rather than deleting it yourself, since you obviously have a serious COI regarding yourself. If the material violates a Wikipedia policy -- any Wikipedia policy, then it will be removed -- but you shouldn't be the one making that decision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC) well yes I'll be doing that. Rjensen (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC) It is not the case that since Wikipedia is located in the US, then only US laws and standards apply. Foreign editors can be challenged under the laws of their own country. The High Court of Australia ruled in the case of Dow Jones v Gutnick (2002) that Internet-published foreign publications that defamed an Australian in their Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian defamation law. Similar court rulings have been handed down in many other jurisdictions including England, Scotland, France, Canada and Italy. This is why our WP:LIBEL policy is by design broader than that of US libel law, just as our WP:COPYVIO policy goes beyond what is required by copyright law. Defamatory material must be removed, and intent doesn't matter. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC) @Hawkeye7: Could you clarify that your comment is about the general applicapility of WP:LIBEL and is not related to this specific incident? The "defamed individual" in this case is American, not Australian, so that Australian ruling does not apply, and the "defamatory material" is such that its "defamatory" nature was questionable to begin with (it was an off-topic personal attack and merits removal anyway, but WP:LIBEL doesn't apply). Your comment, in light of the comments immediately preceding it, is fine as a clarification/correction of the slightly off-topic and inaccurate claims made therein. But the last sentence in particular might serve to muddy the waters if this ever comes up again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Sure. I only intended it at a clarification/correction. To clarify: As a general statement, unrelated to this case, our rules do apply, and Americans must conform like everyone else. I would think that the relevant policy in this case is not WP:LIBEL but WP:BLPCOI. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Hijiri88 completely misstates the issue with a fake quote that is a severe distortion of what Maunus wrote. [Maunus wrote Jensen's claim there was never any significant anti-Irish sentiment in the US. I actually said there WAS in fact discrimination against the Irish on religious and political grounds.] Rjensen (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC) You misread my comment. I wasn't trying to state or misstate any issue. I was trying to clarify that since you are American, an Australian court's ruling that Australian defamation law applies to foreign websites that defame Australian citizens doesn't apply in this case, regardless of what the comment in question said and whether it could be considered libelous under this or that definition. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC) I've registered the message that folks here do not encourage me to delete false statements about myself. So will someone else here please delete the totally fake quote by Hijiri88 a few lines above, and will he please apologize for it.: the defamatory material in question is "this user states on their user page that they are this real-world person, who is primarily known for his revisionist view of discrimination against Irish-Americans, and so his edits that touch on the subject of ethnic relations may be biased" thanks. Rjensen (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Fine. I will not apologize for providing what I thought was an accurate summary of what you found questionable about Maunus's original post, but I have deleted it anyway. Are you happy now? In return for my deleting the material, would you please, please, please stop accusing other users of "fake quotes" when said "fake quotes" were clearly not presented as though they were quotations from anyone? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC) thanks for deleting your fake defamatory quote--it indicates you have trouble remembering what this controversy is all about. You invented that fake quote when the real one by Maunus that I removed is actually right here on this page several times. and please please do not use "collapse" to hide your blunders. Rjensen (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Please stop making false accusations against me, or I will request that your comments be blanked per RPA. It's your fault this veered dramatically off-topic, and barely any of the text in the section I collapsed was mine, so why would I use the collapse template to "hide" your "blunders"? I was motivated primarily by a desire to assist the closer in assessing what the consensus is on whether this dispute should be sent to ArbCom, which is why I blocked off this off-topic discussion between you and BMK. Haven't you noticed how the amount of outside input in this discussion is inversely proportional to the amount of text by those already involved that is uncollapsed? Anyway, I will not respond here again, as every new comment makes the problem worse. If you still don't want this off-topic thread to be collapsed I will respect your wishes, but I do wonder why you would want to make this discussion less readable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC) @Beyond My Ken: Vanamonde93's proposal seems to have significant support. I suggest that we close this with that as the adopted proposal. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Yes, since I made my remark above, there has been an increasing number of "Support" !votes, so it now stands at 7 Supports and 2 Opposes. Whether that response is sufficient for a close should be determined by an uninvolved admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Let's not discount Vanamonde's own !vote. It's 8-to-2 based on what's their now (and one of the two is the one who would be sanctioned by the proposal), and if we include Drmies "weak support" (see my comment below it for why it probably should be counted) it's 8.5-to-2. @Beyond My Ken: Is it okay if we hat off this subsection, since your initial rationale for it no longer really applies? My comment about inverse proportionality above still applies, so maybe hatting off this section will lead to an even clearer consensus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Wouldn't bother me. Oh, and I didn't discount V's vote, I merely miscounted, somehow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Anyone else wanna do the honours? I'd do it myself, but, to paraphrase the movie I saw last night, you don't want to know the probability that Rjensen will revert me based on the assumption that I'm doing it in order to hide my own blunders. That said, the situation has changed so it might be a good idea to ask him. @Rjensen: Would it still bother you if we hatted off this entire subsection (not just the part you already uncollapsed) now that BMK has said he doesn't mind? Sorry to ping you -- it annoys me as much as you -- but the sooner this discussion is closed the sooner we both never have to deal with each other again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC) No let's not collapse/ hat anything off. Just what is the actual wording of the current proposal? Rjensen (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom is the only way to go

The reason I acquieced to the hatting of the above section was to see if Vanamonde's "Warning/Ban" suggestion picked up support, but, in fact, it has stayed the same for the last three days or so. So.... I reiterate my suggestion that the only way this is going to be solved is to take it to ArbCom. If none of the parties are willing to do about, then I suggest that the entire thread should be archived, as no one is really serious about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's stayed the same -- overwhelming consensus (8 or 9, depending on whether Drmies's "weak support" !vote that I moved rather than duplicating is counted, vs. 1 or 2, depending on whether Rjensen's "don't sanction me" !vote is counted) in favour of the proposal (let alone Calton, who expressed support for some such proposal before it was formally proposed). All we need now is an uninvolved admin to come in and close it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, if you yourself are not going to read through the thread and provide a solid opinion (your previous posts made it pretty clear you hadn't read the previous discussion), you should not be saying definitively that "ArbCom is the only way to go" when about a dozen other users who have read the thread (including one Arbitrator!) disagree. This is a cut-and-dry case and all we need now is for someone to close it in accordance with the clear consensus (although I did notice that one of the parties who perhaps should have been notified had not been, so if their interpretation differs radically from my own I might bite my tongue). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, we see things somewhat differently, and I suggest you be a bit more careful in your assumptions about what other editors have and haven't done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You have a long history of joining in ANI threads, not reading them or looking at the evidence, and suggesting out of the blue that the subject should be sent to ArbCom. In this case, it is painfully obvious that this is the case, as everyone here has come to the same conclusion except for one user who doesn't want to be sanctioned, and one user with OWN issues who doesn't want to admin he was wrong about a policy page that he claims to have helped draft. Everyone who is uninvolved has, based on the evidence, come to exactly the same conclusion, so your claiming that this is a grey issue that no admin will be willing to close and should be sent to ArbCom is evidence enough that you are the only one here who hasn't looked at the evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting into your own "long history", which has resulted in a number of bans due to behavior similar to that seen in this section, but I do suggest that you read Psychological projection as it might be helpful to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone has spoken, which causes me to question the nature of the above comment, as does the rather regretable making of unsubstantiated allegations in that comment. Also, as several others have done repeatedly, I urge the above editor to maybe realize that one way to avoid having to regularly hat many of his comments is to not make clearly off-topic and potentially incendiary comments in the first place. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That party would be me. Thanks for the heads up. I knew this 'problem' had been taken here but I wasn't really following it as I expected it to be sorted within a day. It obviously hasn't, which I find quite amazing, so I've added my two cents to the proposals. Yintan  11:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Only one of the oppose !votes was from an uninvolved party at that. I agree with Hijiri here, there is overwhelming consensus for one of the proposals. Get an uninvolved admin to close this and be done with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2016 (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.

Inappropriate Redirects from User:Dacheatcode

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.

---

Dacheatcode has created multiple inappropriate Redirects and page edits related to an old meme. Disruptive edits and redirect creations persist despite receiving all 4 levels of warnings on Talk page. The redirects have all been Speedily Deleted under CSD R3 (but an Admin should be able to see them in his contribution history). The last warning I gave this editor informed them that I would be reporting them to AN/I but it hasn't had any effect. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: Could you provide some examples of inappropriate redirects? Are you referring to Chickens nuggets redirecting to Chicken nuggets? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: That's just one. As I said, the rest have been speedily deleted. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Just had a look, yes I agree these are a bit silly - I've deleted Chickens nuggets. @Dacheatcode: you need to understand the purposes of redirects and what could be realistically considered plausible. Perhaps you should take a break from creating redirects for a bit? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Here are all of Dacheatcode's deleted edits from 2010 or later:

• (change visibility) 16:37, 14 December 2016 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Chickens nuggets (←Redirected page to Chicken nugget)
• (change visibility) 16:37, 14 December 2016 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Chickens nuggets (←Redirected page to Chicken Nuggets)
• (change visibility) 10:35, 14 December 2016 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Chicken nuggies (←Redirected page to Chicken Nuggets)
• (change visibility) 10:03, 14 December 2016 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Chicky Tenders (as per popular chilean slang for chicken tenders)
• (change visibility) 00:04, 14 December 2016 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Chicken tendies (←Blanked the page)
• (change visibility) 00:04, 14 December 2016 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Chicken tendies (←Redirected page to Chicken fingers)
• (change visibility) 08:50, 13 December 2016 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Talk:Chicken tendies (→‎Contested deletion: new section)
• (change visibility) 08:40, 13 December 2016 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Chicken tendies (←Redirected page to Chicken fingers)
• (change visibility) 08:40, 13 December 2016 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Chicken tendies (←Redirected page to Chicken Fingers)
• (change visibility) 08:40, 13 December 2016 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Chicken tendies (←Redirected page to Chicken Tenders)

Normally it's considered a personal attack to make strong arguments without evidence, but I think we shouldn't complain at Exemplo, because he clearly pointed us to Special:DeletedContributions, and non-admins really don't have any better way to refer to deleted pages, aside from mentioning ones on the user's talk page. Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

<redacted>

he might be john podesta so hide your kids ...Are we really doing this? TimothyJosephWood 12:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

im just saying its plausible just watCH your back friends Dacheatcode (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It would certainly be entertaining ... unique ... something ... to see an editor topic banned from articles relating to processed chicken products, but this kind of commentary is not encouraging of the notion that the editor is here to build an encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 13:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Woah - there's a personal attack on me right there in this section - @Nyttend: or @Samtar: I'd like to know what action an Admin intends to take about this? Exemplo347 (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm afraid this may have fallen prey to a deadly syndrome here, where the threads at the very top basically already involve everyone from Jimbo down, and the threads at the bottom are new and exciting, but everything in the middle is quietly archived without resolution. TimothyJosephWood 16:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I've sent a couple of pings just to draw attention to it. Not only is it a personal attack on me, it's a BLP violation for John Podesta. The fun never ends here... Exemplo347 (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, there was definitely an allusion to Antoine Dodson in there somewhere, so at least it had some originality, right? TimothyJosephWood 16:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That John Podesta thing is a meme straight out of 4chan. It looks an awful lot like the user is WP:NOTHERE to me. AlexEng^(TALK) 16:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Poking around their edits: this is damn near vandalism; this actually is outright vandalism; this, this, and this] is a good old fashioned edit war. Yeah. I think we're probably pretty good for a NOTHERE block on this one. TimothyJosephWood 17:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed. While they've made some good edits since 2007 the bulk of their contributions have been unhelpful, and the latest edits are unacceptable from any editor. Acroterion (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

While that's definitely not what I intended when I originally filed this report, the editor has essentially done this to himself. Thanks for your help Exemplo347 (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2016 (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.

Block Special:Contributions/166.216.159.197 for vandalizing Wikipedia and delete their racist edit

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.

---

166.216.159.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please block this user's IP and cross out, delete and hide this racist, inflammatory edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romani_Americans&diff=prev&oldid=739924259 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.33.34.80 (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Mies, I presume? –EEng

Hi IP, looks like that edit has been reverted - it doesn't meet the criteria for revision deletion, and that IP hasn't vandalised in a while, so we can't really block it as it could have been re-assigned to someone else. I'll keep an eye on the article for you -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please cross out and hide their racist edit Wikipedia:Revision deletion I'm really offended and bothered about it.

Get over it. We don't delete edits just for being offensive. Please read WP:REVDEL. Also, please sign your edits. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree, but I've been accused of being a softie. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Dunsinan is a word-salad-generator

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

---

User:Dunsinan is primarily just generating Word salad. This has been going on since 3 November 2016, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dunsinan, and repeated warnings at User talk:Dunsinan have not helped. Administrators can probably see a longer history than I can, because there has been a lot of speedy-ing. I suggest an indefinite block as either not here to build the encyclopedia or lacks some sort of competence. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Why oh why don't people listen to advice :-( I'm going to block as they're not here for the right reasons (per Coming apart and Guanches), but I'm open to hearing their side of things in an unblock request. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 21:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd support a block; they aren't creating viable content. Mackensen (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Already done. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Strewth. Some of that could have come out of The Darkening Ecliptic. Very black swan of trespass. Inlaid with patines of etcetera.../Sting them, sting them, my Anopheles.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

That was word-salad in meter. That cleared a slightly higher bar. Jabberwocky cleared a much higher bar, but it was written by a mad logician. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2016 (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.

Boab: InfoWars is reliable, Snopes isn't

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.

---

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

Since August 31, all of Boab's edits have been to argue that Snopes.com is not reliable, and (starting today) that Alex Jones (radio host) (a 9/11 truther who assumes the existence of the New World Order (conspiracy theory)) is not a conspiracy theorist and that his site InfoWars.com (which previously hosted a conspiracy theory that prompted someone to shoot up a pizzeria) is not fake news. (Just so no one says "content dispute," the sources calling Snopes.com unreliable have been found unreliable by the consensus on that talk page, and there's plenty of reliable sources and a longstanding consensus at the Alex Jones article for the conspiracy theorist and fake news labels).

In these past four months, he has edit warred, continually accused others of being liberals, refused to accept any professionally published mainstream sources that conflict with his beliefs, cited blogs and propaganda echo chambers, avoided questions by others, and so on.

I normally provide diffs, but this is seriously all of his edits since August 31. He has done nothing useful, just disruptively crusaded against Snopes.com (and now for InfoWars). He has been notified about discretionary sanctions relating to American politics (which is the clear motivation for his edits).

These sorts of article get wave after wave of drive-by conspiracy theorists trying to make the same argument -- but they usually give up quickly. Boab's history shows that he does not give up. Whether he needs discretionary sanctions, a community topic ban, or something else, I don't know, but something needs to be done. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at the user's contributions, and I have to agree with Ian that this editor seems to have a motive other than improving the project. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hard to believe the guy has been here 10 years and never been blocked for this sort of thing. But he's got a fundamental logic flaw in his argument. Whether someone calls himself a conspiracy theorist or not, is not relevant. What's relevant is if external valid sources call him that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked, with an unblock being contingent on demonstrating a thorough understanding of RS and FRINGE policies. Alex Jones, seriously? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If an uninvolved party could hop over to the talk page for Snopes and archive it that would be good, as the whole damned thing is Boab complaining for the last 5 months. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done TimothyJosephWood 01:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC

Well, technically, snopes, being a personal web site, isn't a WP:RS. The sources it points to are reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Strange, a quick scan of the Reliable Sources noticeboard archives suggests otherwise. --Calton | Talk 02:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Being a "personal website" does not disqualify a site from being considered reliable: the standard is whether it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and Snopes has that in spades. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

What BMK said. Snopes has been looked at repeatedly and found to be reliable whenever its brought up. It has a reputation for fact-checking, it clearly shows where it gets its information, and while a personal site, clearly has an editorial (not necessarily professional) staff working on its content. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2016 (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.

Habitual addition of unsourced content to rap-related articles

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

---

JayPe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This editor is a large contributor to rap-related articles, and habitually adds unsourced content. Often, one part of an edit contains a reliable source, while other parts of the edit are personal research.

On Dec. 3rd, JayPe was blocked here for adding unsourced content, and was cautioned "if you continue adding unsourced content after this block expires, the next block may be indefinite." JayPe responded here, calling me a "no life faggot" and User:Laser brain "a bitch".

On Dec. 11th, I made this report at WP:AIV and was told by User:samtar to "consider taking this report to WP:ANI".

Examples since returning from block

• Dec. 17th - At Gucci Mane discography, this edit added with this iTunes source. The source supported only part of the edit, but at the iTunes source, someone had written a comment "Can't wait for Heartbreak On A Full Moon :)", so JayPe added "Heartbreak on a Full Moon" to the Wikipedia article.
• Dec. 16th - At Murda Beatz, this edit added the song Yet to the production discography. No source provided.
• Dec. 16th - At YFN Lucci on Dec. 16, this edit JayPe added "They Forgot, "They Like" Yo Gotti White Friday (CM9)". No source provided.
• Dec. 16th - At Yo Gotti discography, this edit added "Weatherman (featuring Kodak Black)". No source provided.
• Dec. 12th - At YG discography, this added "Slim 400" to the discography without a source. "Slim 400" is mentioned nowhere in the article, nor is "Slim 400" mentioned at YG (rapper).

(These are just a few examples)

Warnings since returning from block

Since returning from the block, JayPe has been cautioned for adding unsourced content by myself, User:Lemongirl942, and User talk:Black Kite on Dec. 10th, Dec. 10th, Dec. 10th, Dec. 10th, Dec. 11th, Dec. 12th, Dec. 12th, Dec. 16th, Dec. 16th, and Dec. 18th.

Why this is a problem

JayPe's personal knowledge of rap music track listings aren't always correct. On Dec. 11, JayPe made this edit, adding unsourced content to Elephant Eyes. On JayPe's talk page, I asked for a source and was told to stop wikihounding and harassing. When a source was finally provided it showed that JayPe's unsourced edit was incorrect. These music articles deserve the same accuracy and care as every other article on Wikipedia. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. I will watch his edits as well upon his return. If he carries on this way, the next block will be indefinite.--5 albert square (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Yogesh D Churi disruption, personal attacks and swearing

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

---

The List of active Indian military aircraft had been protected to stop Yogesh D Churi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from adding images against the consensus guideline at WP:AVILIST. The protection expired and the user has immediately returned to non-consensus edits, moving the article to List of active Indian military aircraft without images in evident preparation for recreating the non-consensus format and swearing at me when I gave a warning in good faith. This user had earlier tried to create List of active Indian military aircraft with images but that was dealt with. Please can you:

1. block this editor to prevent further disruption, and
2. Move List of active Indian military aircraft without images back to List of active Indian military aircraft.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC) [Updated 18:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)]

The editor responded to a talk page warning about their edit accusing others of racism by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nigel_Ish&diff=prev&oldid=755542325 saying "stop threatening". They also use edit summaries such as "Their highness keep removing images citing their royal consensus.(to hell with views of indians like me)" when moving the page.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Steelpillow

No 1) I haven't added Images even if I wanted to as it also contributes to Knowledge and Information.

2) I have said truth that there are no Images.

So now what Ban me for saying truth a new low for the Group of editors ganging against counter views or opinion.

So much for freedom of speech, equality and expression

No freedom of speech or counter view or Images, really starts to feel like demands of a banned State in middle east.

They say off with our heads This gang say Block Ban continuously threatening.

They Quote Holy Book This gang quote consensus.

Instead just justify your opposition to Images Pictures of aircraft on logical grounds.

So much for truth prevails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh D Churi (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

In case it still matters, here is just one of his recent attempts to insert images, an action which he sees fit to deny above here. And here is his first attempt, back in September, there have been plenty in between which have been reverted by various editors. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC) [Updated — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)]

And now we have personal attacks that defy description — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at the dispute, but I have deleted the redirects List of active Indian military aircraft with images and List of active Indian military aircraft without images left over from the page moves. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Editor cannot communicate civilly or comprehensibly, and seems to be here only to add pictures to articles. Blocked indefinitely, until they..., well, I don't know: apologize for the insults, change their ways, improve their English, rethink what they think Wikipedia is. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Arutun

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.

---

• Arutun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could somebody please take a look at recent edits by Arutun? While many of the edits and edit summaries are intemperate, two recent edits stand out: [58] for the text "He deserves to be shot" and [59] for the text "Every single one of the people behind this deserve death". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for personal attacks, disruptive edits and as not here. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 20:16, 18 December 2016 (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.

Non-free images issues

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

---

FryUp32 (talk · contribs)

The above editor has had numerous issues with our fair use policy in regards to images. After multiple warnings regarding the issue their images were deleted either speedily or through FFD. However, they have continued to upload more violating images. Their latest upload, File:Jessica Cunningham Apprentice.png, is clear cut F7 (replaceable fair use). I don't know what to do anymore. They aren't listening to what other editors are trying to tell them and the repeated additions of fair use violations is extremely troubling. Unfortunately, it looks like this is my only option left. --Majora (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Image tagged for deletion and the editor has received a clear explanation of the issue. If their response does not inspire confidence that they understand our fair use policies then I will either indef block or enact an image upload ban (if someone doesn't beat me to it). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

This is pitiful. Find something better to do than disrupting productive editing on Wikipedia FryUp32 (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

And attitudes like that will get you a ban, I suggest you strike the "This is pitiful" line.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked with an explanation of how to get unblocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:15, 19 December 2016 (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.

Block evasion and addition of unsourced content

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.

---

Earlier this month, I asked for a range block on 2A02:C7D:561D:1D00::/64. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive940#Range block for disruptive IP editor who changes sourced content. There was consensus for a range block, but nobody actually performed it. After the range block request scrolled off ANI, a few more IP addresses from that range continued to pop up, all of which were individually blocked by Sergecross73. Following this, a logged in account, Smoke weeds (talk · contribs) appeared and made very similar edits as the blocked IP editors:

Article	IP editors	Smoke weeds	notes
All Is Lost	[60], [61], [62], [63]	[64]	misrepresenting the AFI source, unsourced changes to production companies
List of Warner Bros. films	[65], [66]	[67]	unsourced changes to production companies
List of DreamWorks Pictures films	[68]	[69]	unsourced changes to production companies
Spyglass Entertainment	[70], [71]	[72]	changing tense in lead, unsourced changes to production companies

I would like to reiterate my desire for a range block on 2A02:C7D:561D:1D00::/64, and also a block on Smoke weeds, who seems to be the same user. I reported a few disruptive IPs to Sergecross73 at User talk:Sergecross73#AtlusZachary socks if you'd like to see what the IP editors have been up to in the past two weeks since my previous ANI complaint. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Some of the previous IPs are still blocked. So, 2A02:C7D:561D:1D00::/64 blocked one month for block evasion and Smoke weeds blocked indef as the master. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:03, 19 December 2016 (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.

IP user edit warring and possible sockpuppetry

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

---

The IP editor 101.174.128.107 has installed the blue shading that JordanBaumann1211 once vandalized using in the article Television content rating systems. He has made two reversions now and I have warned him of a possible 3RR violation. His edits were as follows:

• [73] (Installed the blue shading) His edit summary says that he reverted to an edit by JordanBaumann1211, which is simply not true and is misleading. Reverted by me.
• [74] (blue shading again) Reverted by me again, and explicitly told him to "Stop edit warring" in my edit summary.
• [75] (more blue shading) I [76] reverted his edit once again, and warned him of a possible 3RR violation.

I felt as if this was simply enough disruption for one day. Apart from this, however I suspect a case of sockpuppetry, although it is highly unlikely because JordanBaumann has been indef blocked and revoked access to his talk page. Despite this, it is still possible. I have not actially found any evidence yet of this suckpuppetry. The only evidence I have is that this IP has installed the blue shading which causes accessibility issues for the purple in the comparison table, which is something JordanBaumann would do. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

No, you're quite perceptive and quite probably right. It's highly unlikely that a random new IP user would just show up and start revert-warring the same edit that a just-blocked user was reverting. More likely, he's evading the block by switching IPs or something. At this point you're reverting a blocked user, which is an exception to 3RR, so don't worry about that. An admin will probably come around block the IP shortly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2016 (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.

IP vandal

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

---

The IP is blanking a page repeatedly. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Stopped a couple hours ago after being warned. If disruption resumes, please report at WP:AIV. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 19 December 2016 (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.

Malicious Sockpuppetry reporting by admin TomStar81

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.

---

Yesterday, in response to sideways comments that there may have been socks working on the article 34th Infantry Division (United States), I took a basic lap through the article's history and singled out several accounts that to me were editing in a similar style. I took my preliminary findings and filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Combatinfvet, but unbeknownst to me I had included the account DCB (talk · contribs) as an edit from the account seemed to match the basic profile for what I was looking for from the socks. It has since been brought to my attention that DCB is unrelated to the case, and I have apologized for that, however from the nature of the replies I have gotten at the SPI page from Vogone and DerHexer I get the feeling I haven't suffered enough for my mistake. Therefore, I am self reporting here so as to allow the community to review the incident and if necessary level sanctions against me for my apparently piss poor judgement in this matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do not exaggerate. If you recognise your mistake you can apologise to DCB and we can forget this matter, which you appear to have done already. There is absolutely no need to make a bigger issue out of this. Kind regards, --Vogone (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Vogone. We all do make mistakes. No need to worry. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Persistent sockpuppetry, block evasion, and blatant off-topic editing

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

---

I don't have the time at the moment to dig up all of the details but for a few months an editor has been adding a huge block of text about "Obamacare" mostly to college and university articles and some BLPs. The most recent example is this morning's edit to the University of Pittsburgh article. He or she has used many different IP addresses to make these edits over the past few months and I know that at least a few of them have been blocked. He or she doesn't make many edits at a time and they're all quickly reverted so while this is annoying it may not be pressing. However, the edits usually include the same edit summary and it includes some phone numbers so I'm slightly concerned that including these phone numbers is a problem i.e., the edits may need to be revdelded instead of just reverted. And some of the edits have targeted BLPs so that is a problem, too. So far he or she has also been pretty consistent in the edits and edit summaries so a simple edit filter may be sufficient to stop all of this. ElKevbo (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I've already got a /21 rangeblock down to stop this guy, but I'm considering widening it to 173.67.128.0/18. I've blocked a couple more individual IPs, but if he persists, let me know on my talk and I'll do it. Katie^talk 19:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

We're now testing an edit filter to catch him, so hopefully I won't have to block a gazillion Verizon Wireless IPs. Katie^talk 20:49, 19 December 2016 (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.

Please check this discussion

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_15#Category:2_ft_gauge_railways. It looks like this discussion actually belongs here. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion was closed about 24h ago, but the initiating editors Andy Dingley and Oculi have gone silent instead of reducing/closing their CfD issue. So now it is exploding into ANI, left for others to clean up. btw Marcocapelle, I was not notified. -DePiep (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Notified [77] [78]. -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion hasn't been closed. It would anyway be unusual to close a CfD in less than 2 days. Please do not write falsehoods like that here, or accuse other editors of having "gone silent" when there is simply no need for a reply or an undue delay. I would remind you what happened last time you were at ANI and started making similar comments towards me. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I refer to "the discussion" as mentioned by Marcocapelle in the OP here: "It looks like this discussion actually belongs here. Sure afterwards you changed the topic (though not in the CfD itself). Your accusation of sockpuppetry has been killed (as you know), and you could have closed that discussion by noting that in the CfD. After that, the CfD would be gently about what you now want it to be.

And in this comment you turn a topic (including an accusation towards me, which I can consider being rational) into a personal attack. Yesterday too. Please stop that. -DePiep (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• What is the ANI issue here? We just need confirmation from CfD as to what we really want, then to rollback these edits or keep them, as decided. I would note that no-one has yet notified Finnsburuh Park Ranger. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It is here because of wrong venue, as was noted in top here and before [79]. And now you come here changing your nominating rationale? (A CfD discussion at ANI?) You could have solved this by making that edit where it belongs: at the CfD. -DePiep (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is an administrative issue, and thanks for bringing it here. The editor in question did a bold merge that had already been rejected by the community. The CfD was opened just to try to figure out how we're going to clean it up and address the user issue, something that is best handled at an administrative noticeboard. I've undone the out-of-process merge. In my opinion, these edits are highly suspect. I'll bring this to a CheckUser shortly. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It went through SPI yesterday, with (as expected) no discernible master. Thanks for rolling it all back though. Time to close the lot? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Rob13. Good action. -DePiep (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, alright, wasn't aware of the SPI. Yeah, probably good to close everything. I'll warn the editor. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, someone should have told you. -DePiep (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Springchickensoup

I have tried over a period of several weeks to engage with Springchickensoup (talk · contribs) and correct problems caused by their edits. I am aware that inexperience may be a factor here. Other editors have also tried to provide feedback to this editor who has been active on pages relating to Cowal and the Firth of Clyde. There has been some comment at WikiProject Scotland. I have reverted a large number of edits where they have not been appropriate- for example adding parent categories. I have tried to explain this using my edit summaries and also by leaving messages on this editor's talk page. Unfortunately, aside from some defensive responses, they have not engaged with my attempts to discuss matters on their talk page but have pushed on with their categorisation changes. They are now leaving shouty responses in the edit summary. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The above poster seems to have a problem with anyone changing anything that they feel is within their domain. Adding Towns into Highlands and Islands of Scotland, where these towns/features have been in the Highlands and Islands for centuries. The above poster, also does not so much edit but REMOVES any additions that in their opinion are wrong. (Springchickensoup (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC))

To give further explanation, I have never found myself reverting this many edits by any single editor and this has now been going on over a period of several weeks. I have tried to restrict my reversions to where changes relate to unverifiable claims or additions of categories that are non-existent or overlapping. I have provided specific explanations in my edit summaries. This isn't based on personal opinion and I have tried to explain the importance of reliable sourcing to this editor on their talk page. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is, just REMOVING problems rather than fixing them while retaining the information/change is totally unhelpful and smacks of arrogance. Just reverting changes without considering the intent of the change is not a welcoming approach. (Springchickensoup (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC))

Per Drchriswilliams's comments above, I had clocked Springchickensoup's pattern of edits, have engaged a little with them but have largely been an observer in this. I'd concur with Drchriswilliams' assessment and he has been extremely sensitive in the way he has been dealing with this. It is clear that Springchickensoup's copious edits are well meant and many are an improvement to the material tackled but they have been stubbornly impervious to advice and constructive criticism to the extent that the oversight required over their editing is demanding an unreasonable degree of work from the community. Hopefully some further advice from the wider community, stemming from here, may help Springchickensoup realise that this isn't a few editors with WP:OWN issues, that they should amend their manner of editing and thus no stronger action should need be taken. As I have posted on Springchickensoup's talk page "it is asking a lot of hard work from the community to pick out your problematic edits from your good ones". Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It is therefore to be expected that editors will have different experience and views on such matters. The issue of categories seems quite a minor and/or debatable matter. Categories are far from perfect and the FAQ says "Category policies are still being refined by experimentation, discussion, and polls. Categorizations and systems are likely to be discussed and improved upon for a very long time." Editors should therefore be relaxed about such differences of opinion and seek to resolve them by local discussion and consensus rather than escalating to ANI. Andrew D. (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Drchriswilliams' point, at least in part, I believe? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I entirely acknowledge the imprecise nature of categorisation on wikipedia. The difficult is that after weeks of attempts to provide feedback, there are problematic behaviours that have not been addressed. This editor's additions of parent categories was still occurring today, as are defensive responses to any attempt to fix these problems. I'm certainly not someone who just removes this editor's contributions - have a look at Dunoon where this editor has made over 400 recent edits. I have tried to help these recent changes to be policy-compliant. I left instances of this editor's addition of a non-existent category "Firth of Clyde" and another editor then created this category (There are lots of Firths in Scotland but only one other has a category associated). It is time-consuming to address the problems created, but that is not the issue here- the issue is the lack of any positive response to feedback. I brought this here because attempts at local resolution had not met with success. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no obligation to edit. This is publicly sourced and edited. An "editor" just removing submissions however misguided and not correcting and retaining the intent of the submission is just arrogance! (Springchickensoup (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC))

i have only noticed three people "Editing" my entries, two just remove. While one corrects and retains the intent of my entries. (Springchickensoup (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC))

Springchickensoup, while noting I have not looked into the nature of this dispute at all and don't intend to, it may help you to realize the changes you make are not "yours". Once you press the save button, everything you wrote ceases to be yours and becomes the Wikipedia community's to do with as they see fit. Glad you are a Wikipedia editor. But it will never serve you to take things here personally. John from Idegon (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It was not me who posted this to Admin. It was someone who claims to be an editor, but continually just removes/deletes anything they don't agree with. Rather than editing, ie correcting or adding to a submission to make it better. (Springchickensoup (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC))≈

All I am trying to get you to see is that sometimes that's just going to happen. You referred to "your edits" multiple times. They are not yours. Sometimes you'll get reverted. it does no good to get upset about it. Politely enquire why. If that doesn't clear things up, then ask for help. Feeling ownership over your additions is not a positive attitude here. Advice given; do what you will with it. John from Idegon (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I have had enough of this now. I still maintain that Drchriswilliams does not edit, but is a serial eraser of contributions to wikipedia. (Springchickensoup (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)}

User:drchriswilliams Now being confrontational and warring.

The above user is now confrontational and warring. This seems to be because I believe, they don't so much edit, but just delete anything they don't agree with. (Springchickensoup (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC))

Springchickensoup, when you report someone here, two things are required. First, you must notify the person you are reporting. Someone did that for you. Second, you must provide specific evidence in the form of DIFFs for the behavior you want to report. You're new and due to that, you shouldn't be here reporting someone, but they did drag you here first. Just do it right so your hands are clean. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see what this is doing at ANI, other than being a tit-for-tat response to my bringing this editor's own behaviour to ANI a few hours earlier. I only brought it here after failure of several other approaches. I don't accept the description of my actions offered here by Springchickensoup. I have left several messages on this editor's talk page. Before my attempts to help this editor, others had also tried to provide feedback. None of this has appeared to result in much productive discussion, despite these multiple invitations to Springchickensoup to engage. Drchriswilliams (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

There is not much to discuss, when Drchriswilliams, deletes then invites you to discuss. They are acting as judge and jury. This is their method of operation and suppression of free input onto Wikipedia. (Springchickensoup (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC))

Respectfully, that sounds like the very definition of bold, revert, discuss - you were WP:BOLD, they reverted you, they initiated (or attempted to initiate) a discussion. However, without diffs (as John from Idegon mentioned) it's unclear whether there's more to it than that. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Springchickensoup, please take heed of this. Bold, revert, discuss is central to the process of establishing consensus on Wikipedia. If another editor reverts you, the next step is supposed to be an attempt to talk it over - either on the article's talk page or on a user page. ANI is for when this fails. It does not appear that you have been engaging in this practice sufficiently, which explains both why Drchriswilliams felt the need to make a report here, and why you should not at this point.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Other editors try and accommodate, like adding the Category "Firth of Clyde", whereas Drchriswilliams just continually reverts. I thought this was a community, not a personal fiefdom. (Springchickensoup (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC))

Yesterday afternoon, I thought I would try adding one Link on the Dunoon article. Sure enough within five minutes Drchriswilliams had reverted the link (Springchickensoup (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC))

You made several edits to that article that day. One of these edits added a wikilink that was already included in the lead section of the article and I felt this was WP:OVERLINKING so I reverted the addition of that single duplicate link, describing the basis for this change in my edit summary. [80] Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I see that Drchriswilliams has 500 pages of revisions when you search their talk page. On how many occasions did they edit rather than delete that persons good faith contribution? (Springchickensoup (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC))

Many editors spend much of their time fighting the deterioration of developed articles; it leads to a lot of reverts and is a crucial part of keeping the project healthy. Come on, mate - it does you no good at all to throw mud at experienced contributors rather than try to take on board what they are telling you.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Springchickensoup, do you mean this revert? I can't really see anything else Drchriswilliams could really have done here - your edit purported to link to "Cowal Peninsula" while linking instead to "Cowal", which had already been linked earlier in the article. Drchriswilliams explained that in their edit summary. To be honest, I'd have reverted, too - the only way I can think of to improve your edit would be to change [[Cowal|Cowal Peninsula]] to [[Cowal Peninsula]] and create an article for Cowal Peninsula (which is a big ask, simply to accommodate another editor. What action would you have preferred Drchriswilliams to have taken? 80.229.60.197 (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

This is degenerating into silly season! "Cowal Peninsula" and "Cowal" on Wikipedia is the same place. "Cowal Peninsula" is how it was written, and "Cowal" is the article on wikipedia for the "Cowal Peninsula"! (Springchickensoup (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC))

OK, but (again) - "Cowal" had already been linked. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I have had enough of this now. I still maintain that Drchriswilliams does not edit, but is a serial eraser of contributions to wikipedia. (Springchickensoup (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC))

Sockpuppet POV pusher at Acupuncture

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.

---

Ellaqmentry (talk · contribs), an account created about a week ago, shows clear familiarity with Wikipedia from his first edit, though he claims to be a new user. His sole contributions have been to push a POV on Talk:Acupuncture, and I think we can safely assume he is a reincarnation of another editor. I propose that this user be either indeffed as a sock or topic-banned from from alternative medicine topics. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If you can determine which editor they are a sockpuppet of, WP:SPI is thataway. Please don't make accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Given that user:LesVegas was just topic banned for exactly the same POV-pushing, and this user has piled right in with LesVegas' debate, picking up where he left off, that is the obvious suspect. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that and I had a look, but it's not obvious to me that the two accounts are related. Can you put some diffs together in an SPI case? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I am a new user. I made my first edit to Wikipedia last week. Regarding my "clear familiarity with Wikipedia" from first edit, there's this absolutely amazing new place on the interwebs called "YouTube" - you won't believe the stuff they have on there. When I set up my new (and only) account, I could see that a page had been created for me, and not knowing how to set it up, I typed in "Wikipedia create user page" into the search thingy and this man on the screen started explaining exactly how to set it up. Of course, he didn't realise at the time that this would make me look like I know what I'm doing, which could result in attempts to have my completely valid and well-referenced perspective censored in Orwellian fashion. Perhaps, I'll have to let him know about that in the comments. Otherwise, my familiarity with word processors, HTML, CSS and other languages has made discussing edits on Wikipedia more or less straightforward.

It's scary to think that LesVegas has been banned for pointing out the POV violations on the acupuncture page. He hasn't violated any of Wikipedia's policies, as far as I'm aware. But Guy, you can clearly see that we both contributed at the same time. And I'm guessing (if you can see his IP address), that you'll find he's not in my house or, in all likelihood, in my time zone. I know that you guys care very little about fact-checking, referencing and accuracy of statements, but from what I gather Wikipedia does find these to be important, especially when making accusations against individuals who have done nothing wrong. Not cool.

user:Ivanvector, if you have a moment, please go over to the Acupuncture talk page to have a look at the discussion. We could really use an unbiased perspective over there. Any sanctions or repercussions for editors and admins falsely accusing editors in order to censor differing opinions?Ellaqmentry (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll check the talk page, but I don't think a CHECKUSER is needed. Just compare phrasing between LesVegas (a few several sections above) and Ellaqmentry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Ellaqmentry was created before the LesVegas section above. That doesn't mean it wasn't inappropriate WP:SOCKing before.

I have done absolutely nothing wrong. I have participated in the discussion of improving an article in line with Wikipedia's policies. My comments have been referenced, appropriate and fair. I am being threatened with sanctions for no other reason than my perspective differs from that of the admin, which I would imagine is seen as an abuse of his admin role. So here's what I suggest. Either drop the accusation and apologise to me. Or run the CHECKUSER - if you are unable to confirm that I have done what you are accusing, then Someguy1221 should lose his admin privileges and be banned from editing the acupuncture article, as he clearly is violating Wikipedia's policies through unfounded accusations and abusing his privileges in order to censor differing opinions.Ellaqmentry (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ellaqmentry: You have done absolutely nothing right. A cursory inspection of the talk page archives should have shown you that your arguments have been made and rejected for years. Whether or not you are the same person as an editor banned from Acupuncture, if you persist in making those comments, you are likely to become another (editor banned from Acupuncture).

As an aside, if you can point to the YouTube videos which encourage editing in violation of WP:CONSENSUS, I'd like to comment on them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, I encourage you to check both the substance and tone of your comments to me. Please note:

1) I have not made any edits on the Acupuncture page, "in violation of consensus" or otherwise. I have only participated in the discussion of how to improve the page.

2) I have not started any new discussions or topics on the Talk page, but merely participated in ones that others had started, including the page's admin. I feel it is entirely inappropriate to expect an editor, new or otherwise, to examine the Talk archives before participating in a current discussion topic started by others.

3) I have provided new WPMEDS to the discussion. If we pretend for a moment that the discussion over on the acupuncture page is actually one that seeks to understand best-evidence, then new WPMEDs such as new evidence regarding medical consensus (e.g. acupuncture recommended in new medical guidelines, 3 Cochrane reviews published in 2016 concluding that acupuncture is effective and efficacious, etc) should be helpful to invite a fresh look at the CONSENSUS and perhaps adjust it so that it is indeed in line with current evidence. If you are actually saying that providing new evidence against current consensus is a bannable offence on Wikipedia, then please point me to the relevant policy.

So, if you would like to explain to me in a civil manner how I have violated either the spirit or letter of WP's policies, I welcome the learning opportunity. Otherwise, please check yourself as your threat to block me after my entirely appropriate participation in the discussion seems a heck of a lot like bullying.Ellaqmentry (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to SPI quite deliberately because I don't know who this user is. But that doesn't prevent an uninvolved admin here from blocking an obvious sock pov-pusher, or the community from topic banning Ellaqmentry. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I not saying this as definite evidence, but in any case purinergic signalling as "the scientifically proven" mechanism of acupuncture has been championed in Talk:Acupuncture/Archive_10 and later archives by A1candidate (a.k.a. RoseL2P). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Since it seems probable that this is a sock, and there are several possible masters: {{checkuser needed}} Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 Clerk declined:  CheckUser is not for fishing. The account is already blocked. If anyone would like to form a coherent case that this is any particular user's sock, instead of just guessing at it here, I look forward to reviewing your evidence at SPI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, can we get an impartial moderator in here, please? Someguy1221 has launched this discussion accusing me of something very specific, which I haven't done. I have invited and welcomed further investigation, which he is now saying he does not want to pursue but he's encouraging others to do so. This is clearly harassment.

WP:Sockpuppet states:

"Before opening an investigation, you need good reason to suspect sock puppetry.

1. Evidence is required. When you open the investigation, you must immediately provide evidence that the suspected sock puppets are connected. The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected. (This requirement is waived if the edits in question are deleted; in this case just provide the names of the articles that both have been editing.)

2. You must provide this evidence in a clear way. Vaguely worded submissions will not be investigated. You need to actually show why your suspicion that the accounts are connected is reasonable."

Someguy1221 has not provided any evidence and has made a very vague claim. He now says he is not launching an investigation. His accusation is WikiBullying, specifically, he's intentionally made a false accusation in order to censor opinions different from his own: "False accusations are a common form of bullying on Wikipedia, although people do sometimes make honest mistakes. Accusations of misconduct made without evidence are considered a serious personal attack." I am officially asking that the accusation and threats to block me get dropped and that Someguy1221 be disciplined for bullying. All I have done is share an opinion different from his and I have done this in a reasonable and fully referenced way, entirely consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Tgeorgescu, multiple editors providing the same peer-revied published evidence for acupuncture's mechanisms? The first landmark study on this, published in 2010, was cited 431 times at last check on Google Scholar . Adenosine and purinergic signaling in acupuncture mechanism research is hardly a secret.Ellaqmentry (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to note, I wrote the above comment before Ken's official check. I'm not objecting to the checking, just the accusation without any evidence or specific reason to do so. I have the benefit of actually knowing that I'm not a sock, which is why I also know that you don't have any valid reason to suspect I'm one. All I've done is share my perspective (as others clearly have before me) in a way that is entirely consistent with WP's guidelines. I assume that WP's bullying guidelines will also be followed as obviously Wikipedia doesn't work so well when anyone with a different opinion gets censored from participation.Ellaqmentry (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to note: I did not "check" anything, as I am not a Checkuser, or even an admin. I merely raised a flag so that a Checkuser could take a look at this discussion and see if there is sufficient evidence presented to warrant a check. Also, this is not the place to discuss content or content disputes, except insofar as they might have a bearing on whether you are or are not a sock. (BTW, impressive knowledge of Wikipedia's policies for a newbie.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have the benefit of actually knowing that I'm not a sock, which is why I also know that you don't have any valid reason to suspect I'm one. The first does not, actually preclude the other. Most of the United States had valid reason to get ready to welcome our first female president a few months ago, for example. Whether you are or are not a sock is irrelevant to whether you act like a sock. Even if you aren't a sock, and have never edited WP before creating this account, and it turns out the evidence that you were a sock is not only outweighed, but absolutely dwarfed by the evidence that you are not, your edits to the talk page in question still demonstrate a disregard for WP policy as it applies to scientific consensus and medical subjects. I suggest you read and internalize WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS, lest the question of sockpuppetry become immaterial without taking the utility of this thread with it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Block request

It's been pointed out to me that this could be argued to be WP:INVOLVED so I have unblocked. I think another admin needs to reinstate the block as this is a blatant impermissible alternate account, almost certainly to evade editing restrictions. I think A1Candidate / RoseL2P is the most likely suspect at this point. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've reblocked. I'm completely uninvolved at Acupuncture. Bishonen | talk 11:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC).

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

User:Keri

User:Keri and I have been involved in various content disputes on the page Generation Snowflake, mostly related to NPOV. My view is that the page is heavily slanted towards the narrative that millennials are coddled, over-sensitive, can't handle contrary opinions etc. Rather than discuss the matter civilly, Keri has persistently attacked me and accused me of bad faith.

In my very first interaction, I am accused of "POV pushing". Despite the fact that I have engaged in discussion, I am slapped with a template and reported for edit warring. Upon being advised by an admin to assume good faith, he says "As MaxBrowne clearly does not wish to engage in discussion - merely roll up, push POV, edit war to maintain it, then fuck off into the sunset again - that is not particularly helpful." - again a clear personal attack and assumption of bad faith. On being advised that no violation took place, he denies that my attempts at discussion were substantive with another offensive suggestion that my edits were disruptive and "pointy" just because I just because I substituted a NPOV template to cover the whole article, not just the lead. I noted this and reminded him yet again of AGF.

After more unpleasantness I advise them that I intend to disengage. They respond with further personal attacks. In reporting me for edit warring again, the incivility continues - I am accused of withdrawing "in a huff" and of "gaming the system", an accusation gratuitously repeated here. I made it clear at this point that I was fed up with this user's persistent personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and battleground behaviour. However I was blocked for 3 days (reduced to 24 hours) for a technical 3RR violation while his incivility went unpunished.

After a post on the talk page in which I severely criticized one of the sources used, without engaging in discussion at all (unlike DynaGirl) they immediately attack me personally, accusing me of "clutching at straws" and "threatening" me with an article ban. This is followed by gloating at my block for 3RR. I then issued a final warning to cease the assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. The response was "AGF is not a suicide pact", whatever that means.

Concerning the disputed source, having made no headway in my discussions with DynaGirl (Keri did not participate) I raised my concerns with the source at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. I was advised that the issue was related to NPOV rather than RS, as GQ is "considered a reliable source" (for how to match your shoes with your Armani suit maybe!). Accordingly I raised the issue at the NPOV noticeboard, and advised the users DynaGirl and Keri of it as required. Keri [81] responds with more snark and more bad faith accusations. No I'm not "asking the other parent", in fact the editors at RSN were helpful and for the most part agreed with my position, but advised that RSN was not the correct venue. Keri then makes a copypasta to both noticeboards [82] & ([83], clearly disruptive and hindering actual discussion of the issue involved.

This user has shown a consistent pattern of personalizing content disputes, personal attacks and assuming bad faith over the past two weeks, and has continued with this behaviour even after a final warning. This must stop. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@MaxBrown:Just out of interest, why have you listed this on 3 different noticeboards in the last 5 hours or so? You've brought this matter up at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, at the Neutral POV noticeboard, and now here. And there's the ongoing discussion at the article's Talk page. Couldn't things be solved there? Yintan  14:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This is concerned with the behaviour of the person concerned and is separate from the content dispute. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for both sides to state their view on this before I can. I respect that Max feels personally attacked, and don't think it's my right to say whether they are or not. For a start, I think there are two actions to do away with – the use of "Fuck off" (by both users) and the templates. The former just doesn't get you anywhere, period. As for the latter, WP:DTTR, while merely an essay, does have good points, and templating just causes more animosity. Max, if you don't want to be templated, you might wish to put the {{DTM}} template on your talk page. I have it on mine. In fact, to be honest, it might be better to just stop leaving each other messages, for now, at least. As far as the actual dispute on the Generation Snowflake article is concerned, noticeboard threads might be making things worse, so maybe an RfC might be of use? Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 15:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

More snark, and an apparent refusal to respond when called to account for his behaviour. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just to comment as I responded at the original RSN post (as did Masem who concurred) - GQ is reliable for the opinion of a GQ writer, which was how the content was cited and used in the article. *Should* the material be in the article was an UNDUE/NPOV issue, so asking at the NPOV noticeboard for further guidance should not be held against Max. Max, generally in cases like these its best to try and detach from interacting directly with the other party once you have brought it to the attention of other editors. Duck's back etc etc. Its clearly not forumshopping if people have pointed you to the relevant place. Give it a day or so for some more editors to opine at NPOV and go from there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The RS/NPOV stuff will no doubt sort itself out with more eyes. But the civility/assumption of bad faith stuff....this is what I'm raising on this board. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Note:This case was twice archived by bot without being addressed. Adding this note to avoid that again. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Considering MaxBrowne keeps pulling this out of archives, I figured I’d comment as another editor on that page. In my experience, MaxBrowne is actually the disruptive force on the page. I’ve seen Keri express frustration with what comes across as WP:IDONTLIKEIT editing and I’ve seen Keri be blunt on the talk page, but Keri does not edit the article disruptively, while MaxBrowne’s edits to the article often do seem confrontational and aggressive. Max has suggested above that Keri filed a nuisance edit warring report on him, but this isn’t what occurred. MaxBrowne made at least 6 reverts to the Generation Snowflake article in 24hrs [84]. Additionally, I’ve seen Max make reverts with misleading or inaccurate edit summary, such as this one [85] which leads other editors to think he removed an external link when he actually removed an internal see also link. Also, Max seems to have a weird habit of manipulating the talk page comments of other users on various notice board entries regarding Generation Snowflake, via hatting the comments of others, which seems kind of disruptive. [86], [87], [88], [89]--DynaGirl (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with Dynagirl's characterization of my edits but I won't get into specifics right now, I want admin attention to this. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 3 days. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 12:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of anti-Korean sentiment in two articles (NPOV, V)

Illegitimate Barrister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Affected articles

• Korean nationalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Korean ethnic nationalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On 24 March 2015, the user Illegitimate Barrister started engaging in the article Racism in South Korea (talk, history, commenting on the talk page: "It's pretty disappointing that the article is very small, considering the extremely widespread nature of racism in South Korea." This is of course not a good start, editing with such a biased opinion. Then, with his edits he clearly showed that he is following an agenda of spreading anti-Korean sentiment in the wikipedia, ignoring WP:NPOV and WP:V. There was nothing of value in the article he created. See also Talk:Racism_in_South_Korea#Problems_with_citations. Fortunately, the article had been eventually nuked since then.

However, unfortunately, two other articles are affected, too. On the article Korean nationalism, the user added the following (diff):

According to Robert E. Kelly, a professor at Pusan National University, anti-Japanese racism in South Korea stems not just from Imperial Japanese atrocities during the colonial era, but from the Korean Peninsula's division. As most Koreans, north and south are racial nationalists, most South Koreans feel a kinship and racial solidarity with North Korea. Due to this perceived racial kinship, it is considered bad form for a South Korean to hate North Korea, to run the risk of being a race traitor. As a result, Kelly says, South Koreans take out the anger rising from Korean division against Japan. This view is supported by another professor, Brian Reynolds Myers.

Note that the original text doesn't mention anything like this. The closest would be "All Koreans, north and south, right and left, agree that the colonial take-over was bad." Also the sources later added for Myers don't support this claims. Clearly WP:V.

References

The user also started harming the article Korean ethnic nationalism over several months:

• Without doing anything on the sources, the following had been changed:
  • "In Korea, pure blood theory is a common belief justified as 'defensive nationalism'." to -> "Throughout the Korean Peninsula, the 'pure blood theory' is widely accepted as legitimate, and is a commonly held belief among the populace, often being justified as 'defensive nationalism'" (under "reception"; note like the source is not saying anything like this and also is speaking of the past and not of today's Korea [90])
  • (same diff): "Racism is an ongoing issue and there has been a great deal of awareness in South Korea." to -> "Racism is heavily prevalent in South Korea and is thus an ongoing issue in the country, with a great deal of awareness." (no source given at all)
  • (same diff): "Borrowing from the Japanese theory of nation and race [...]" to -> "Borrowing from the Imperial Japanese theory of nationalism and racism [...]"

(the original source says: "Borrowing from the Japanese notion of minzoku (nation), Sin located the martial roots of the Korean minjok in the ancient Kingdom of Koguryo, which he depicted as militarist and even expansionist" [91])

This is only a brief extract from the edits the user made to these articles.

The user does not seem to care or know about the current state of art in the literature, only adding opinion pieces, news articles or even blog post like this (diff). I already deleted all the web blogs and the unsourced wording changes the user made from the article Korean ethnic nationalism. However, it should be thought about what to do with the article Korean nationalism. The overall quality is poor and it is kind of redundant to the "ethnic nationalism" article. It would be good if admins would further look into this. --Christian140 (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Christian140, I have issues with this user too. I reported him at Wikimedia Commons, and he was warned not to cause any incivility. Also, look at the edits he's done to other pages:

• Sammy Lee (diver) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [92][93]
• File:Sammy Lee in You Bet Your Life 1950s.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [94][95]
• You Bet Your Life (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) [96][97]
• File:You Bet Your Life (title card - 1955-60).jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [98][99][100][101]

I don't know whether the scope should extend to other sister sites. However, his conduct at En Wiki is... troublesome. In one of edits, he made a swearing to indicate his disregard determination of copyright status. Look at his contributions at Commons: c:Special:Contributions/Illegitimate_Barrister. --George Ho (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I see it as Sebari. Copyright can be tricky for beginners and it takes some time to really understand when a picture is free and eligible for commons but swearing is not okay. By the way, I also noticed it here. My post was more about the verfiability issues and that it seems that there is an anti-Korean agenda behind these edits, though. --Christian140 (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Whenever any of us tried to converse with him, Christian140, he immediately archives the messages. George Ho (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

As with most of the ANI reports made by Christian140 this is just another content dispute that would be better served on the article in question's talk page. Illegitimate Barrister has over 90000 edits on Wikipedia without a single block, that says a lot about his conduct here.

You can't just start an ANI report every single time you dislike content or a talk page discussion isn't going your way. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You really should stop only getting personal and focus on the content. Edit quantity says nothing about edit quality. Looking at the articles the user startet, it looks even more worrisome. Nearly all articles have been deleted. And for the ones who still exist, it looks like this. Every version of the user has been deleted. This is not just a content dispute or a minor issue, as I have clearly shown. It is also only my third time on ANI and the two previous times, you were the one reported.. --Christian140 (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Christian140, you realize the irony of telling someone they are "getting personal" and should "focus on the content" in response to their accusing you of opening an ANI thread about a content dispute, right? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It might sounds ironic?! I am not the most versatile in the use of the English language. I meant the content of this post or the content of this topic. Here on this site. The user wrote an entire article were most claims which were stated was in the source and the user added paragraphs in a similar fashion to at least two other articles. And I think admins should note that and maybe put the articles on their watch list. --Christian140 (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Very few admins are topic experts (and those who are should be contacted via WikiProjects, not ANI), so your claiming they should watch an article that you claim (very awkwardly) is biased is not going to help. If you think the article misrepresents its sources, or its sources are unreliable, then you have to put in the effort to fix it. If one user consistently prevents you from doing so, then go to RSN or a WikiProject or NPOVN or open an RFC to get more people to chime in. Coming straight to ANI to complain about a user when all you've got on them is "I disagree with this user on article content" is blatantly disruptive, and is increasingly likely to backfire. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding to George Ho's claims, the user engaged in another personal attack recently. Diff. An admin should delete this version. --Christian140 (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

And what has every single result of your ANI reports been so far? Have they all resulted in you being told not to bring content disputes to ANI, when there are far better options available for you? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

No. Further I think my statement is very clear. This is not just a content dispute. In fact, it is as George Ho said and the user does not engage in discussions and immediately "archives" them. --Christian140 (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

He "immediately "archives" them." on his own talk page !! that's just cold. He's a monster.

Seems similar to me just deleting posts from my talk page that I don't like and also quite similar to you ignoring messages on your talk page.

His talk page/my talk page/your talk page - I fail to see any problem. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Christian140, they have a point about content disputes. Did you try pinging him at Talk:Korean nationalism and Talk:Korean ethnic nationalism? --George Ho (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

However, Illegitimate Barrister might violate WP:TPG#Ignoring comments by immediately archiving them. --George Ho (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I think WP:UP#CMT might apply here instead, as it's his own talk page. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is no problem. Just saying. There were no better options since my statement at the top should be noted by admins I think. --Christian140 (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Try talking to him again at the article talk pages that I mention about. If that doesn't work out, ping me or leave me a message at my talk page. Okay? Going to ANI won't do matters here. --George Ho (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, constant immediate archiving is.... unusual to me. George Ho (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If admins think it doesn't belong here, they can just archive it. I still think it belongs here since I gave only examples above. It might be only the tip of an iceberg. There is more. The user also added: "As most South Koreans are racial nationalists, they tend to see positive achievements, such as sporting successes, as being a result of racial characteristics, whereas negative events are attributed to the incompetence and inherent inferiority of the state." (diff). Clearly WP:NPOV and the complete sentence is not backed by the added sources ([102], [103]). --Christian140 (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Started discussion at Talk:Korean nationalism. George Ho (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, there is already an ongoing RfC discussion at Talk:Korean ethnic nationalism#RfC: Retention of content. George Ho (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

IDHT and aggressive talk page etiquette from Illegitimate Barrister

As evidenced above, I am sympathetic to IB's plight and have no love for this ANI thread and the manner in which it was started. I noticed that Christian140 appeared to be trying to get around the requirement to inform IB of this thread by posting a long, spammy message mostly about article content, the last few lines of which briefly mentioned this thread, on the latter's talk page.[104] If I received such a message from someone I was in conflict with, I too would probably read the first paragraph or two and conclude that they were forum-shopping the article content discussion to my talk page, and blank it without reading the rest.[105] So I decided to directly and unambiguously inform him that he was being discussed on ANI.[106] The response was a bizarre, apparently sarcastic, "Quoi?", followed by more blanking.[107][108] I don't blame him for not wanting to respond to this mess of an abuse of ANI, but perhaps someone should politely advise him on how to address other Wikipedians (especially those who are trying to assist him) in a more civil manner. Again, given the more serious abuses on the other side I don't think there should be any sanction for IB, but I was frankly somewhat shocked at how my attempt to inform him of this discussion was met. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Fuck it.Not worth it. The gross, persistent IDHT on Christian140's part (If admins think it doesn't belong here, they can just archive it) is clearly a much more serious problem, and I don't want to seem like I'm blaming IB for being frustrated with that. If I wasn't already involved I'd NAC this content dispute as not belonging on ANI and clearly being premature. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It all comes down to Christian140 making huge changes to stable articles, getting reverted and when talk page discussions don't go his way, taking everything to ANI. We don't always "win" in content disputes. There will be content that we don't agree with. This needs to be closed, with (obviously) no sanctions against Illegitimate Barrister and clear confirmation that content disputes don't belong on ANI. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

SPLC

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.

---

Some dude on 8chan is coordinating an attack against Southern Poverty Law Center. Probably a good idea to step in now. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Fully protected for 2 weeks before someone gets themselves blocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2016 (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.

This probably needs to be redacted or something

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.

---

Here: [109] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I clicked on the wrong explanation in the dropdown, but revdel applied. I'm going to poll some other oversighters to see if it warrants suppression as well, due to the accusations and the links to sites with pictures, etc. Thanks, -- Avi (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

To the OP: thanks for reporting this, FWIW it is better to send things like this to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org rather than here. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I´ll try to remember that if I do this again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2016 (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.

Springee hounding me AGAIN. Please stop him.

Here is yet another example of Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) stalking me. We've been here again and again, with multiple complaints of WP:WIKIHOUNDING from me and many other editors. Can someone finally block this guy to get him to leave me alone? Wikipedia is nothing but a battleground to him, and he follows one target after another to any article to carry on his personal grudge. I have moved FAR away from topics that I previously ran into trouble with Springee, but he's tracking my edit history. I can't escape him. How many times has he been warned? Please block this guy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I would certainly like to hear from @Springee:, why he felt it necessary to follow Dennis to an article he has never touched before in any capacity, just to chime in on which map goes better in an infobox. It's not like Springee was unaware that Dennis finds his presence unnerving. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Dennis seems to feel a lot of people are hounding him. Look at his recent edit summaries accusing others of hounding just today [[110]], [[111]], [[112]] . Anyway, Dennis and I were recently engaged in discussions oh the Chrysler talk page.[[113]] Based on those discussions and the fact that Dennis never replied to my comments and questions I looked at his edit history to see if he just hasn't edited since our last discussion. I saw his recent edits, got curious given the edit summaries and looked at the edits. So yes, I did find the discussion via his history. Given his previous accusations I probably should have known better than to comment. Anyway, I'm actually sympathetic with Dennis's POV in that case and think an RfC would be the correct way to deal with the map issue so I said so. I will state right here and now I don't intend any more involvement than my RfC suggestion. My apologies to Dennis. Ps, replying via my phone, sorry for any errors. Springee (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

In looking back over the post I see that part of my comment could be seen as a provocation. I removed that text. Springee (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I think it may be time for an interaction ban. Miniapolis 23:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't do anything to deserve an interaction ban. Are you proposing a one-way interaction ban to get Springee off me? Springee has engaged in a long term campaign of abuse. The reason he has hounded me and several others is that he uses Wikipedia as a battleground. He has negotiated in bad faith, stonewalled, edit warred, and more, all in pursuit of his only reason for editing: to fight. He checks my edit history to find new things to fight with me about. I have tried repeatedly to get him to stop, and each time he scrapes by with a warning and promises to clean up his act. Yet here he is again. His comment above admits that he should not have followed me, yet his next statement tries two wikilawyer it, walk it back, and argue that in fact he was justified in following me. One face is for AN/I, the other face is for editors he's recruiting to join his battles.

I shouldn't have to curtail my editing to avoid Springee. He is the problem, he is the one tracking me; I don't track him. He is the one who has refused to heed warnings to stop. The next step is a block. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, I'm sorry you continue to make these accusations against myself and other editors. It really appears that any time things don't go your way you claim others are acting in bad faith. I've interacted with you on very few articles. Most recently you reverted changes I made to Chrysler, edit summary "Rvt pov pushing;" no talk page comments. I tried to discuss the changes and was accused of acting in bad faith. [[114]] ("typical bad faith"), [[115]]. When I finished the edits in what I hoped would be a mutually agreeable compromise there was no reply. Now we have this map issue where you are edit warring with at least 3 editors who don't agree with your changes and have reverted these editors 4 times on one page [[116]], [[117]], [[118]], [[119]] (plus the initial change [[120]]) and four more times on related pages [[121]], [[122]], [[123]], [[124]]. Rather than seek consensus you accuse them of hounding. TexasMan34 [[125]], PalmerTheGolfer [[126]]. Four involved editors and 3 don't agree with you. All I did was note that you are an experienced and generally good editor and that an RfC would be the correct way to handle the issue in question. Remember WP:HOUND isn't just because you looked at other articles editors were involved with. It states that "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." This isn't running around, reverting your edits with no intent of helping the articles (what you have accused me and others of). This was suggesting a RfC to avoid further edit warring (some of the above reverts are after my suggestion). In this particular case the overriding reason was to try to avoid an edit war. Springee (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant filibustering. You use this tactic at AN/I explode the word count of the thread, and make any admin say "tl;dr", and not bother to take any action. You're pinging uninvolved editors in the hopes that they will post long replies about other irrelevant topics. You're hiding the fact that this all about one thing: you're tracking me and hounding me.

The bottom line is this: you're not sorry for what you did, and you have no intention of stopping. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

We have already been down this road many times. The bottom line is, Springee is unsanctionable, so drop it before you get into trouble. 2607:FB90:2B0D:846:6114:D538:6E0D:EB4A (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I have been hounded by @Springee: as well. Since August 14, 2016, the majority of Springee's edits have comprised following me and disagreeing with me. He has followed me to articles, talk pages, user talk pages and even a project page.[127] Every single edit he has made to articles within the Firearms Wikiproject has been in opposition to something I've done. Looking back over his edits since at least May 2016, almost all of his edits have been to further personal conflicts - I can't find any that have added new material to articles. It would appear that he participates on Wikipedia in order to pursue individual editors whom he tries to drive away. Example of his battleground behavior include accusing other editors of behavior he engages in too, such as calling reasonable edits "vandalism"[128] and hounding itself.[129] When I asked him to stop hounding me on November 23 he deleted the post without coment,[130] however he has not followed me to any fresh pages since then. If he is acting the same way towards @Dennis Bratland: then it looks like a pattern. Felsic2 (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Feksic2, I don't have huge amounts of time to devote to Wiki editing and yes, I typically focus on a few topics at a time. You had made a number of related edits that several editors questioned, some more than others[[131]]. I don't see that we have actually interacted on that many topics (The automotive RfC which included the F-650 and Caprice pages), the Mini-14 and Sig SCX pages and the Eddie Eagle topic. Am I missing any? Note that some of these discussions occurred on more than one page (the automotive RfC spanned was at least 5 when you include talk pages, subject vehicle pages, project page). You've edited countless articles over the past few months. Let's also be fair, I am more than willing to discuss changes and work with other editors. I've also been complementary of a number of your edits and opposed others (several of those related to RfC discussions). As for the IP editor, that page was semi-protected twice in a short period of time to deal with IP vandalism. The edits in question had already been tagged by the system as vandalism [[132]], [[133]]. Once you and I discussed that material I admitted I was wrong about some of the content and added it myself [[134]], [[135]] and I was very complementary of your edits once you addressed my concerns [[136]]. Legitimate editorial disagreements handled with reasonable debate isn't hounding. While I still think Dennis is a good editor, he seems to be single minded as it relates to the map issue and has trouble compromising (sounds like why we butted heads regarding the automotive discussions). Since I last posted above there has been another round of reverts [[137]], [[138]], [[139]], [[140]]], [[141]], changes to additional state maps [[142]] and an insistence that there is only one correct POV on the subject [[143]] regardless of the number of editors who object. This seems like a perfect case for an RfC to address the question and that was my suggestion. Springee (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Nobody appointed you as sheriff to go around following editors you disagree with to 'correct' them. You make mistakes and get into disagreements too, but those don't entitle other editors to follow you either. Don't complain about being followed while you're engaging in the same behavior. Felsic2 (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between an unknown IP editor who reverts changes with only the comment "rrv", refuses to engage in talk page discussions and gets two pages semi-protected vs legitimate editorial disagreements with accompanying talk page discussions. Springee (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

When you follow editors around to create editorial disagreements, then that begins to look and feel a lot like harassment. Felsic2 (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"Create"? Again, how many firearms related articles have you edited in the last three months? How many have we actually interacted on? Three? I disagreed with you on three. Several editors had the same objections I had two pages (MCX-found via a NPOVN and Mini-14) pages. Given your extensive editing in the firearms area it's not surprising that a few editors have taken noticed and thus got involved in several pages you edited. You made hounding accusations against other editors who didn't always agree with you[[144]] and your edits raised concerns [[145]]. At the same time I believe you followed me to the automotive space to argue about the F-650 discussion and add to the controversy. I'm OK with that and I don't see any reason why you shouldn't look at other articles I'm involved with if they are of interest to you. Springee (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Springee, , you keep deflecting the issue away from your own behavior, as if Dennis and I have done things which require you to follow us around. Can you list three articles or talk pages you've edited significantly in the past three months that didn't involve Dennis Bratland or myself? Felsic2 (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

How many articles have I edited in the past few months? Corvette Leaf Spring, Sig MCX, Mini-14, Eddie Eagle, Chrysler and the Vehicle crime discussion (Project page/F-650/Renault/Caprice)? Of those Dennis chose to joint the automotive RfC/F-650/Caprice and Chrysler topics after I was involved (not the other way around). In fact I've never followed Dennis to an article page and made what, 2 comments on two talk pages over three months and only one of those was directed, in part, towards Dennis (suggesting an RfC to avoid an edit war). Springee (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is another example, when you followed me to the Oso mudslide talk page. You're gaslighting again, baldly lying to deny reality, and pretending everything is debatable. Here you've gone and turned this thread into a magnum opus of irrelevant monologues, which nobody wants to read, leading to nobody taking any action. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

That is one of the grand total of two I mentioned above. I didn't follow you, the link was in another editor's talk page and as I have told you I was interested in several topics asking related questions, is weight reciprocal. I was interested enough to working with another editor on that very question (see my sandbox). The Oso topic, the sig mcx question, the mini-14 question as well as the automotive RfC all had the same core question. Did I direct that reply at you or what you said on that talk page? No. Springee (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The reason your excuses are not credible is that cases where you find a new battle with the same handful of adversaries across diverse topics constitute the majority of your edits. It isn't as if 99% of your edits are elsewhere. Nine tenths of your work is connected to only one or two or three others that you are hounding. Legobot lists scores of discussions on user talk pages. On the date in question, you had no less than 40 "please comment on..." threads in front of you. You picked out the two that involve editors who had asked you, more than once, to cease and desist. You expect anybody to buy that excuse? It doesn't add up.

Take away your grudge battles, and there's nothing you're interested in at Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me repeat, Oso was on CM's talk page at time I was talking with him. It raised the same reciprocal weight question as the vehicles in crimes RfC hence my interest. I didn't reply to you or your comment. That was a month and a half back. Now I suggest a RfC. No edits, no reversions, not even disagreeing. I said I'm sympathetic with your pov on the subject and that an RfC would be a good way to resolve the question. That's hardly impeding your editing or fighting with you. Recently at the Chrysler article you reverted my edit almost as fast as I made it. You choose to attack my motives rather than discuss and work to find a mutually agreeable solution. I stated my concerns, was treated to accusations of bad faith then silence when I asked for your input. As far as I can tell the most egregious thing I've done to you is not agree, not simply accept what you felt was right, then had the gull to set up an RfC that didn't go your way. To a lesser degree the same thing is happening with the map issue. One of the other editors was tired of fighting with you and basically gave up. Yet another editor came up with the current truce solution though your edit summaries clearly show aren't happy with it. Was an RfC that bad an idea? (sent from phone, sorry for typos) Springee (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Terrible idea. Every one of these battles of yours drags on for weeks, months. The first act of unproductive posturing is followed by a second act, wherein one of your ugly RfCs is lodged, which goes on for several weeks in itself, filling with drive-by !votes and long rants that nobody reads. You canvass for sympathetic allies to pad the vote, creating more ugliness, more time-sucking sideshows. Nobody wants to close or resolve your horrible RfCs, but when a decision is forced, or demanded, nothing is resolved. You don't respect the outcome of your own RfCs, unless it is in your favor. The egregious thing you do is simply that you insert yourself and your poisonous style into any otherwise productive effort to build an encyclopedia. I, and most others, are here to create content. I try to keep at that [146][147][148][149] and not get drawn into your games. You are not here to create content. This is your debating club, and you are here to fight and draw others into fighting. Nobody can deal with you. Nobody wants to work with you. Your behavior is incorrigible and intolerable. Everybody you go after ends up complaining about you at AN/I and begging to have you off their backs. We want to build an encyclopedia. You don't. Leave us all alone. Get it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"one of your ugly RfCs" How many have I lodged? I've started 1, the vehicle crime RfC, in the last year. Please make sure your facts are correct before making accusations. In that case it was done because you refused to respect local consensus, actually a non-consensus which according to WP:CONSENSUS means the article reverts. The RfC wouldn't have needed formal closure if you had respected the near 20:5 consensus against your pov. I've attempted to hold out olive branches to you only to be rebuffed. Saying I don't create content just ignores things like the extensive number of sources and near total rewrite of much of the Ford Pinto article. It's far better now vs last January. That was many hours of off line reach and writing. I also totally rewrote the Corvette leaf spring technical article recently. I'm sorry that I don't always have the free time to do extensive edits like that. Yet here we are because of a single talk page suggestion to create a RfC to head off an edit war in the making. Springee (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I know I should probably just let this drop but there was something about an accusation Dennis made above that bothered me because it just wasn't as I remembered it. He said, "you had no less than 40 "please comment on..." threads in front of you." but that wasn't how I remembered it. Then I figured out why. Dennis, for what ever reason, showed the 40 "please comments" on CuriousMind01's talk page as of (Nov 26th) but I posted on the Oso mudslide talk page on Oct 4th![[150]] Given the time stamp of my Oso post, I would have seen only six suggestions [[151]]. Furthermore, I was already talking with CM01 about the weight reciprocity question on his talk page (see my Sept 28th comment [[152]]). Based on my discussion with CM01 I added my opinion to both the Oso mudslide article [[153]] and the Mini-14 articles [[154]], (both Oct 4th about 20 minutes apart). As I said before I didn't follow Dennis to Oso nor did I follow Felsic to the Mini-14 article. Both were of the 6 (not 40) articles on CM01's "please comment" list at the time and both because they raised a similar weight related question, an issue I was already discussing with CM01 even before Dennis posted on the Oso talk page on Sept 29th. Springee (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Springee, I still don't see any explanation for why you showed up at Eddie Eagle. Regardless, you've been asked now to stop this behavior by three different editors. The solution is simple: stop looking at editors' edit histories and follow your own interests instead. There millions of articles and thousands of topics on Wikipedia where neither Dennis nor I have edited. That's a simple request. Felsic2 (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Because you reverted an edit that I agreed with. In the end we reached a compromise and I was very complimentary of your final edits to the page. Springee (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You've evaded answering why you came to that page. In the event, the original text was retained with little change after lengthy discussion. As I first wrote, you have not followed me to any more pages since I complained on your user talk page in November. I appreciate that and expect you to continue your good behavior. Felsic2 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I still don't feel the material should be on the page but the compromise which you and I, with input from others, reached is reasonable. Little changed in that the references are largely the same. More than just a little changed in the tone and neutrality of delivery. Springee (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Interaction ban between Springee & Dennis Bratland

Dennis is right this has gone on for a long time (I wont link to the archives, anyone who has been here more than a year will be aware of it) so its about time something is done. I propose an interaction ban (WP:IBAN) between the two users. Either a 1-way or 2-way ban. Personally I dont think 1-way bans are that effective - so do not take my endorsement of a 2-way ban as indicating fault on your part Dennis. "A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption."

• Support 2-way ban as proposer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Mild Object I see the value in the two way ban. Contrary to Dennis's statements I haven't sought out articles he's involved with. Rather he joined discussions I was already involved with in two of the four subjection interactions we've had (the large Chrysler RfC and the automotive crime RfC). In both cases he was quick to make accusations of bad faith[[155]], [[156]], [[157]] (as he did to other editors recently with the election maps by accusing editors who didn't agree of hounding). If Dennis is willing to drop accusations against me and avoid reverting my edits then I'm willing to avoid areas he's involved with as well. Conversely, if Dennis is willing to bury the hatchet and accept an olive branch I'm more than happy to go that route as well. Springee (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Springee has failed to acknowledge any problem with his behavior and failed to assure anyone that he will stop following them around. A formal interaction ban seems necessary as voluntary change appears to be unlikely. Felsic2 (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban against Dennis, Oppose (as an involved admin) on ban against Springee. Springee states he isn't folloing Dennis, and no credible evidence has been presented that she is following Dennis. Dennis, on the other hand, believes that any revert of his edits by Springee constitutes "harrassment". On the other hand, Springee was following a now-blocked editor (who, IMO, needed to be followed, but consenses was against us at the time), so it might rationally be assumed that she would follow an editor she considered disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This is an IBAN proposal. Are you suggesting a community ban or something, because IBANs cannot be one-way. --QEDK (愛) 04:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

We've had one-way IBANs, but they're rare, and probably not warranted in this case. However, a ban on Dennis commenting on Springee might be a good idea. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Because the only reason a new thread about Springee's behavior appears here twice a month is because of me? Is that a fact? What are you planning on saying in a few weeks when someone else starts an ANI thread asking to get Springee off their back? Let's sit back and count the days until another editor lodges another complaint against him, and then you can try to rationalize that one too. Even on his best behavior, it won't be long. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I haven't done anything to deserve having my editing restricted. Diffs have been provided showing Springee's primary activity is hounding. Ironic that Arthur Rubin ignores that evidence, then proceeds to make a baseless accusation against me. Where's your diffs, Arthur? So sick of these games. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

  I read your evidence, but it is not evidence of anything resembling harrassment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not seeing enough evidence that either is hounding the other. I am seeing evidence that edit-warring may be occurring, which should be halted via the usual methods: WP:WARN, WP:ANEW, WP:RfC or WP:DR. I'm also trying to fathom the Felsic issue but the evidence provided is pretty inconclusive there as well. Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • FYI, I'm not asking for any administrative relief, so I haven't presented a full case. Felsic2 (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Wazir Khan

Mass creation of unsourced articles on people, comprising their names and jobs - e.g. SP Khan Hameedullah Khan Niazi, Ghulam Akber Khan Niazi, Hakim Khan Niazi and unsourced articles on tribes Kallah Khel, Kokay Khel, Hathi Khel with false templates - e.g unsourced templates dated April 2011 in articles created in December 2016. Needs blocking and mass reversion - Arjayay (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted all of the articles created. none were more than one sentence, unsourced stubs. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - but there is still one left:- Khalil Khel - Arjayay (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Taken care of, left a final warning on the user's page as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. They were work for the New Page Patrol. I am not sure that the editor understands enough English to understand the warning, but we have done what we can. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Pkbwcgs

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

---

User being reported: Pkbwcgs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was previously blocked for not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia but appears to be demonstrating the behaviour that led to the block again, by creating articles which have no indication of notability . Me and Nordic Nightfury have been trying to explain the different guidelines to him, but it seems he's not listening. He is also under a conditional unblock by Jackmcbarn so his input may be needed as well. We have also spent quite a bit of time clearing up the mess that was caused. Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 16:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

As an involved editor I have left him a number of advising messages but he appears to be unphased by them, or refuses to read them. The user really needs to learn before he continues to edit, in my humble opinion. Also of note, user has identified themself to be of a premature age. Snöggletög Nightfury ^{Happy Christmas!!} 16:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I recommended, along with Oshwah, that this discussion be moved to ANI from AIV. I'm uninvolved, but if not for the previous good-faith unblocking, I would have blocked this editor for WP:NOTHERE. This is a younger kid, and I admire their want to create pages here, however regardless of age, one of the tenets of Wikipedia is WP:CIR. Right now, this editor does not seem to have it. It's possible that mentoring may help, but the editor has seemingly already not heeded the advice given for their unblock previously. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This is just an FYI--I'm making no judgement, as I have not been involved in any on-wiki interactions with this user this far. Pkbwcgs came on IRC initially asking "why are all my articles being deleted? Everyone is making me upset." Xe described them feeling attacked, feeling stressed, and their articles being "vandalized by administrators." Pkbwcgs also described that they perceived the messages on their talk page (given by administrators) are "rude." When I advised "a number of users seem to have expressed concerns that they have offered advice that you have not heeded," the user logged off. My sense is that the user may not be personally ready to heed the advice of others. This seems to be one of the more central issues in this discussion. --JustBerry (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Class455: @Nordic Nightfury: @RickinBaltimore: Courtesy ping. --JustBerry (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks JustBerry, that kind of adds to my idea that they may need to be a little more mature to collaborate here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, this goes to show the user needs to be a bit more mature. Backs up the lack of WP:CIR. I appreciate the user may be young (I was 12 when I signed up back in 2012), but there does need to be a bit more maturity involved. Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 18:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't working out as well as I'd hoped. Unless someone wants to take the time to WP:MENTOR him (I don't have time to), I don't really see any way to fix the disruption short of a re-block (though in a year or so we could re-evaluate). Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: I think mentoring maybe ignored by him, as you can see, I've explained policies such as GNG to him but won't heed the advice needed. Reblock may need to be in order here, unfortunately. Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 18:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I was waiting for him to defend himself here so he'd have a chance to change my mind, but his next edit was just to bug you for his article back. As such, I've reblocked him. Can you take a look at the message I left him and see if you have anything to add? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you've said it all there. Thanks for your help Jackmcbarn, I will now close this discussion. Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 22:02, 20 December 2016 (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.

Need eyes on article: "Clean Air Act (United States)"

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.

---

Anonymous IP 38.88.33.114 made changes to this article, "Clean Air Act (United States)", that were inaccurate and I reverted [158] for the reason stated in the edit history. Then this IP added a paragraph which appears to be WP:OR because no source was provided and no sources seem to indicate this is factual - which I reverted [159]. The IP restored the paragraph and began calling the 1970 Clean Air Act an amendment again in the text [160] (please scroll down to see restored paragraph). I reverted these edits one more time [161] with the Twinkle Vandalism tool.

I also left two messages on their talk page [162].

The first message was about the edits (as can be seen) and the second message pertains to the ANI notification. Scrolling down, both messages can be easily read. I am asking for my eyes on this situation in case this type of editing by Anon IP continues. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute and neither of you appears to have raised it on the Talk page. Try that. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 19 December 2016 (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.

Automated vandalism

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

---

At 2014 World Junior Championships in Athletics – Women's discus throw an IP user:58.85.120.16 has apparently set up a system to restore vandalism automatically. I've never seen this before but indicates a greater problem if this is possible. Trackinfo (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately a known issue. Solution is just to report them when you see them. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:RBI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Rulletsure

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.

---

My talk page is being vandalized few times by this editor without any given reason. You can see that the same content is being removed 20+ times for the last year, initially by IP addresses, then protected, then vandalized by User:Errer728, which is currently indefinitely blocked. Now this User:Rulletsure continues to remove the same content. Please, take a proper action, as you see it fits. --StanProg (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I saw the user's been blocked as well. If the vandalism on your page keeps up, post a request at WP:RFPP and it can be protected again, should it be needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked as an obvious sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 20 December 2016 (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.

Mikijirō Hira

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.

---

Greetings. There's rapid script-vandalism going on at Mikijirō Hira, so can an editor please intervene? I've been reverting, but editor Jim1138 pointed out at my talk page that this is creating an unhelpfully long edit history. Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP. SmartSE (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

That was quick, thank you! Wikishovel (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2016 (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.

False allegation on disruptive editing, admins take initiative

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

---

The article Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation was cleaned up,as it has multiple issues, the clean up ,tag has been removed, by the editor User:Vanamonde93 as per diff , claiming it disruptive tagging [163]. The contents of article Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation have been edited to pages, without any speedy deletion, but the following edit [164] diff, false allegation of disruptive editing.Junosoon (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Moreover the editor User:Vanamonde93 doesnot seem to have respect the other editors contributions as well , as the revert edit [165] removes others contributions [166] Along with it the editor User:Vanamonde93 leaves a harassment message on talk page of lengthy block[167].Junosoon (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute to me. You made major changes to an article, they were reverted, and now the onus is on you to start a discussion on the talk page and seek consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and I see you did not notify User:Vanamonde93 of this report, despite the big orange banner when you edit this page saying "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page". I shall do that for you now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding few copy edits to pages,of Income Tax Department and Reserve Bank of India: Working and Functions [168],[169],[170].Junosoon (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• You removed large amounts of sourced text. You were reverted. Now you discuss - WP:BRD. There is nothing for administrators to do here. Closing. Black Kite (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2016 (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.

• So, uhh... when are people going to start noticing that this is not the first time the OP has opened an ANI thread on this same content dispute, he has never edited in anything but this content area, and his edits to this area have almost universally been recognized as disruptive? The community has given this user far too much ROPE in my opinion, and continually closing his threads before they can be hit with a boomerang is not a good idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Continued stalking and personal attack by IP user

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

---

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

The same IP responsible for this posted this on my talk page, and is continuing to dispute my edits by reverting something it claimed was unsourced in favor of one that was also unsourced. The same user was responsible for previous disruptive edit warring on another article through another IP.

The user is clearly not here to contribute to Wikipedia, and will likely continue IP hopping to stalk and revert my legitimate edits. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please take note of my post above in the now closed section started by this same I.P entitled "Admin Abuse". I'd say we have edit-warring, block evasion and now a bit of harassment added in too! KoshVorlon 17:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked. This IP has been blocked previously for block evasion. I've blocked for 72 hours for harassment. ViperSnake151, please provide the other IP you think is the same person. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 17 December 2016 (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.

Only just after the block was lifted, the same editor is continuing with the same exact disputes (i.e. reverting sourced claims in favour of restoring unsourced claims) on a different article, and is accusing me of non-familiarity with Wikipedia policies. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

POV sockpuppetry by blocked user:Urchu at Japanese war crimes

• Pedro8790 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sockpuppet of blocked user:Urchu, has been POV pushing, edit-warring and renaming the article at Japanese war crimes. I have reported this at Vandalism, but here might be more valuable and longlasting. I propose a longer block for user:Urchu as well for defying the block.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You should open a case at WP:SPI and make your case in detail. Notably, Pedro was not blocked when @Ponyo: checkuserblocked Urchu and his socks, but pinging her just in case she has anything to add here. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Just pointing out that the block on Urchu expired yesterday. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

If there were multiple or large ranges involved then it would not be surprising for a sock or sleeper not to show up in a check. Ping me if you raise a case at SPI and I'll take a look.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Fram

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

---

I want to complain about administrator Fram. He don't like the way I'm editing Wikipedia, and over the last weeks we had many discussions about it. However, during his conversations it's for him a common use to say his bad opinion about me or my work like it is a fact. On 21 and 22 November I gave him some warnings at his talk page. However he continues behaving in this way, and can give you loads of more examples. Most recent example, today on my talk page he said that everything I said was all a load of crap, while it was not at all. I think this is not the appropriate way of acting as an administratot and makes life on Wikipedia hard. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Good, I was thinking about starting a section about the many, many problems with the editing by Sander v. Ginkel, this saves me the trouble. I'll add a subsection, just give me some time to collect the major problems. Fram (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

As Sander v. Ginkel hasn't provided any diffs or links, let me help: [171]. As can be seen, "he said that everything I said was all a load of crap" is not true. I said it about three specific statements he made about my edits: "your claim that "important info was not copied", "you didn't copy all the information", "I had to put the information back manualy" was all a load of crap". The "important info I didn't copy" was a disclaimer which was already in the article, and an incorrect link. Fram (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact is you didn't copy anything and by stating it I don't think what I said was all a load of crap. You might have your reasons to say that some things are wrong, but my problem is that your language is not how it should be. And that is my main issue. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't copy anything? No, I substituted it all, and then removed the superfluous or wrong bits. You then repeatedly reinserted errors I had corrected or removed, and started then claiming that I hadn't copied "important information", but you haven't shown any example of "important information" you have reinserted. Here you readd a date disclaimer which was already present for all teams anyway (so it is superfluous), and readd an incorrect link to a 2012 page for this 2011 article. You may not like my language, but perhaps it is time you start considering why people get fed up with you. Fram (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

We can discuss about that, but it doesn't rectify the way you're always talking. And it's not a new thing, you've always talked this way and I've seen you're not only talking this way to me. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Sander v. Ginkel

These are some of the problems from the last few weeks. Sander v. Ginkel is a very prolific editor, creating many articles in a semi-automated way through the use of templates. While most of the articles are about notable subjects (though often borderline notable ones), his way of editing has many issues, and he seems to be unwilling to change his approach.

• Copyright violation: 2020 Summer Olympics opening ceremony[172] (revision deleted).

• SvG short reply: I shouldn't have done that. Sorry for that.

• Creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Copa Sudamericana Finals, and immediately after its "Snow Keep" closure starting Talk:2016 Copa Sudamericana#Merge discussion (2016), which also heads for a snow close against the proposal

• SvG short reply: At the AfD nobody replied to my reason, for that I started the merge discussion. (you closed it as "Snow Keep" yourself before I could reply)

• Proxy editing and edit warring on my user talk page: he thought it a good idea to repeatedly readd a comment from a Kumioko sock to my user talk page[173][174]

• SvG short reply: I didn't know it was a sock. I've said sorry for that, and again, sorry for that

• Creation of BLPs with a false source. Kristi Hausenberg, Evelin Harjakas, Berle Brant, Anželika Ahmetšina, ... were created with a link to an Estonian online sports encyclopedia. None of these had an entry for these persons. An article like Nike Winter first had two sources[175][176], both without any mention of her. A page like Mariann Mortensen Kvistnes has a similar problematic history with repeated additions of sources which don't mention her or don't worked. These problems have also been commented on by User:Manxruler and User:The Banner.

• SvG short reply: Yes that was my fault which I also didn't notice myself. As I thought they had a page there. This was one of the main faults where it started together with the Norwegian footballers.

• Using Wikipedia as a source. For example with Ahmed Badr, he copied the wrong date of birth from another page, without actually checking the sources.

• SvG short reply: Like we discussed, Ahmed Badr was never on Wikipedia. I added him with an error in the dob and so also an error in the page.

• These sourcing problems continued after the above had been pointed out, pages like Maria Averina and Diana Klimova had two sources, one of which failed already at the time the article was created. All this shows that Sander v. Ginkel creates BLPs with sources to comply with the unsourced BLP requirements, but without even checking whether the sources exist, are about the subject, and support the contents. His BLP creations are not trustworthy at all.

• SvG short reply: It was a typo I made in the reference (with these many numbers), I explained it to you. Nothing wrong with the content on the page.

• His rapid-fire templated creations lead to repeated problems, like 11 male water plo players in a row who competed in a women's championship, or a whole bunch of templates where the "edit" link lead to the wrong template as he had forgotten to change that.

• SvG short reply: I didn't notice the (tiny) women's/men's link in pages I created. I changed it. I saw the other template errorsmyself, but was not finished with fixing them before you noticed me.

• 2015 Women's LEN Super Cup: the article he created had a list of competitors, but no information on when the cup was played, or where, or even who won. I tried to explain the problem with this, and many other problems with his editing, at User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel/Fram#Summary, but to no avail

• SvG short reply: Page meets notability. When you think it wrong the page should be moved to 2015 Women's LEN Super Cup squads.

• Too many errors in articles. At User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#Fram, I noted that at least half the recent creations he had made then, had either a wrong date of birth or one contradicted in reliable sources. When questioned about where he got his data from (something I had had to do numerous times before as well), it turned out that the pages were based on revolvy.com, which is ... a Wikipedia mirror. His talk page from the last few weeks contains numerous other examples.

• SvG short reply: when discussion this issue we saw that most of the players had different date of births in different sources. The 5 I created with the data I exported in 2015 via a site, of which I didn't know at the time it was a mirror website, were changed immediately.

• Wrong links. User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#Nomination for deletion of Template:GPC2011riders somehow got sidetracked in a discussion of his addition of links. He simply adds links to names, and then waits for a disambiguation bot to indicate the wrong ones, which he then corrects. Minor problem with this: links which don't point to disambiguation pages, but to wrong subjects, never get noticed by him. For example, 2016–17 LEN Champions League squads links to Manuel Cardoso, Sérgio Marques, Pedro Sousa, Aleksandar Ignjatović, ... Other players are created as "former water polo players" despite being listed on the 2016-2017 sqauds (Rui Santos, Dragan Drasković).

• SvG short reply: I resolved the disamb links hours before you listed them here. Didn't know the issue of the former water polo players, but changed them. See also our most recent discussion (in good harmony :D )on my talk page about this.

• My comment was not about the disambig links, please read what I wrote. My comment is about you inserting links blindly, without checking them, and trusting disambig bot to tell you the wrong ones. While these indeed need correcting (which you did), these are only part of the problem, and in fact the more minor aspect of it. People following links to disambiguation pages will only be confused or will need to follow a second link; but with the links to the wrong person, they may well leave with the idea that footballer X is the same as water polo player Y, or whichever combination you end up with. I specifically listed a number of examples from that page which pointed to the wrong person, but you don't seem to have checked these at all. There are other examples in the same article, like the link to Marko Petković, Filip Janković or Balazs Szabo. Fram (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Basically, he creates articles from some template that allows him to rapidly create numerous nearly identical articles, without bothering to check if e.g. the source provided even mentions the subject, or whether we don't yet have an article about the subject, or whether the information (often taken from Wikipedia itself or from other sites which don't get mentioned in the article) is correct, and so on. And then he waits for other people or bots to find his errors. Pleas to slow down and create decent basic stubs, with the right sources and verified information, are ignored. Problems and errors get minimized.

Any help in guiding him to become a trustworthy, truly productive editor (one who produces quality stubs, not simply quantity) is more than welcome. Fram (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not have very much to add after the edit by Fram. Too often Sander makes mistakes, like giving sources that do not contain the subject or producing templates for squads years ago while pretending they are current squads. An often heard comment of him is At the time I created them I didn't know it had these errors. In my opinion, it shows that he values high volumes of low quality production over quality production while expecting other to solve his mistakes and inaccuracies. And that is in general the issue with Sander.van.Ginkel. The Banner talk 12:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I defended myself already against the issues Fram said above, so I'm not going to repeat it all here. I´m a hardworking editor and yes, I do make mistakes. As I make many edits and create many pages I may even make many errots. As Fram screened all of my pages he indicates the mistakes. But as I´ve showed, I'm always there to fix my erros. You say to me that I'm unwilling to change his approach, and yes again, that is your opinion listed as a fact. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you indicate wheer you defended yourself, as I don't see it. You haven't addressed e.g. the copyvio and so on. As for the fact that you are unwilling to change your approach, you have yet again, after this discussion has started, created a BLP with an incorrect source. Alexey Kamanin has as single source [177] which says "an error occurred while processing this directive. Search Results: Found 0 hits that match your search." Is it in this case an easy fix? Yes, the source you need is [178]. Is it normal that this happens once again and that you don't check this yourself? No, that is not normal. That's an unwillingness to change your appraoch evidenced right here, right now. Fram (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I added in short my reason for it. Sorry for putting it in your text, but that was most practitcal. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Sander v. Ginkel, why did you turn this subsection into a separate section[179]? The two discussions clearly belong together. In general, don't edit posts about you. Fram (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Even if I make mistakes, the things you're saying don't allow you to behave as I'm complaining about. To complain about me it's better to start a seperate section. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

No it makes perfect sense to leave this altogether since the gist of the issue is whether or not Fram's concerns are real. SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

To paraphrase what I said at User_talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#Fram - I agree with Fram that some of Sander.v.Ginkel's edits are problematic and it's increasingly clear that he is unwilling to change, or are not taking the time to check articles he creates. He said in the section linked that he had taken account of Fram's advice, but two random articles I picked both contained BLP problems. Benedicte Hubbel continues to have an unsourced DOB, even after this was pointed out (c/f: "I'm always there to fix my erros [sic]" above). He needs to slow down and concentrate on quality rather than quantity.

I actually first came across Sander when he was unblanking courtesy blanked AFDs e.g., with no consideration for the reasons these were blanked in the first place. That led me to notice his WP:FAKEARTICLE userpage, which after I pointed out the problems, this was the only change made. If that was a new user's userpage it'd be deleted on sight per U5. SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I see that he's a new page reviewer - in fact he's been granted that right twice for some reason. Given the number of problems mentioned on his talk page, going back a long way before the current incidents, I don't think he's qualified to review new pages. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not that active with reviewing pages. Sometimes when I don't know what to do I check a few pages and add only obvouis banners. I don't know if you can check it somwhere but had never problems with that. Regarding to the issues listed by Fram you could better take my Autopatrolled rights away so the pages will be checked by more users. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

What Fram has already written pretty much covers the issues. I first came across Sander.v.Ginkel when he created a large number of articles on Norwegian footballers. What these articles had in common was that they included a reference, but that that reference did not mention the person in question at all. In effect, he created a large number of unreferenced BLPs. One example already mentioned above is Mariann Mortensen Kvistnes, which has recently had references added. Others, like Kari Nielsen and Bjørg Storhaug have also had some actual references added since creation. By my count the Norwegian footballer articles created by Sander.v.Ginkel that are still unreferenced BLPs masquerading as BLPs with references are: Trude Haugland, Torill Hoch-Nielsen, Sissel Grude, Turid Storhaug, Tone Opseth, Hege Ludvigsen, Lisbeth Bakken, Åse Iren Steine, Katrine Nysveen, Monica Enlid, and Elin Krokan. This mass creation of articles with at best no regard for sourcing, has to stop. Manxruler (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty damning for someone who has a Master's degree to be so lax in source checking. Doubling damning when unsourced BLPs are being created. I'd say a restriction that an article must be created in draft space and be checked before it is released into article space is warranted. Failing that, an article creation ban for 6 months. Blackmane (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It must also be said that I originally only looked at the Norwegian football BLPs he created. Looking into it more now, I see exactly the same pattern with many other articles, for example Danish footballers like Kirsten Fabrin and Italian footballers like Florinda Ciardi. That's just a very small sample, listing them all would take too much space here. This sort of mass creation of unreferenced BLPs pretending to have references is very, very problematic. Further, I can't see that Sander.v.Ginkel has been willing to admit that a large percentage of his work (really his quantity-oriented, semi-automated approach to editing) has serious problems. Manxruler (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, SvG needs to stop using whatever template they're using to create BLP's, whether it be voluntary or community sanctioned. Blackmane (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• As a first step, I have removed SvG's autopatrolled rights. BethNaught (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• As a next step, I have warned the user to stop creating new articles. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

As others are already moving forward with !voting on my suggestion, I've taken the liberty of separating this section out and framing it formally. Blackmane (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Sander.v.Ginkel is hereby restricted from creating articles directly in article space. For a period of no less than six months, Sander.v.Ginkel may only create appropriately sourced articles in draft space. They must approach an outside reviewer, not necessarily an admin, to review the accuracy of the sourcing before they may move the article to article space. This restriction may be appealed after the 6 month period has lapsed.

• Support Blackmane's first solution as the kindest way out of this mess. Miniapolis 23:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I have seen this kind of mass article creation before. It becomes a complete mess and some of the subjects were notable, but no effort was put into making a quality page. Quality should always trump quantity; I feel that should go without saying. A draft space restriction will assure this behavior is corrected, and maybe give him time to improve his past work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - The proposal is severe and should only be considered after multiple polite attempts by a single editor to resolve it are proffered (e.g. "Hey buddy! There's a slight issue with XYZ, could you please do ABC?" not "You're doing a terrible job and everyone thinks you're incompetent."), or after a community warning. I say polite attempts, because simply yelling at someone is never likely to produce a meaningful change and cannot reasonably be counted as a GF attempt at resolution. (For the record, I'm not accusing anyone of doing that in this case, nor am I saying it did not occur, I just note this as a general point of good guidance for the future.) LavaBaron (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • But multiple polite attempts by multiple editors have already been made (in addition to my attempts), making the premisse of your oppose invalid. Basing an oppose on something that should happen but where you don't know if it has happened here or not is faulty logic. Fram (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Then the next level is a formal warning by the community enacted by consensus, in my opinion. It can sometimes be unclear to an editor if individual warnings represent the escalation of an edit dispute or an actual caution of restraint regarding some action. A formal, community warning removes that ambiguity. LavaBaron (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You're funny. "Oppose, you need to do A or B first!" "A was already done". "You need to do B first!". Right... Fram (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thought I'd point out the irony that I based my restriction proposal on the same restriction that was levied on LavaBaron not too long ago. Blackmane (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per LavaBaron, too drastic, at least at this stage. Not least, I think that SvG should be given time to reconsider his approach and put in place better quality assurance protocols. It is clear that a subset of his articles have issues, but there's no measure, that I have seen, as to whether the problem is endemic or on the margins. SvG in my experience is very open to correcting issues when they're brought to his attention, and I value his work, even with its faults. My immediate suggestion is that, as his creations appear to be series of bulk creations each series-instance based on a common set of sources, he should publish on his user pages a logging system each time he releases a new series, describing the series - "Spanish Water Polo Players" - specifying the sources, and listing the created articles: this sort of transparency would facilitate better oversight from the community. QA protocols should include, mainly, that there is at least one RS for the series and, perhaps, that more consideration is given to the temporal aspects - are his subjects still members of teams, or past-members. The community can then provide any necessary feedback at the series level. (I grant that, as I write, it becomes clear that this could be done by way of publishing first to draft and migrating to mainspace once a check has been done: I'm minded right now to give SvG the benefit of the doubt with the caveat that the community does not have infinite patience.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, as multiple attempts to discuss this with Sander v. Ginkel already happened, and a lot of advice was given by different people, but the problems persist. His latest creation is the BLP Tineke de Nooij, which has, despite only having three sentences, a false claim in one of them. "She is seen as the first Dutch discjockey" is not true at all (she started as a DJ in 1962, but Radio Veronica was active since 1960), and obviously not in the source given (which has a wrong title as well). Fram (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support- At the very least SvG needs to stop with the semi-automated creation of articles, since these are clearly riddled with inaccuracies and unverifiable statements. Reyk _YO! 08:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Serveral of my articles had unverifiable content. I think a better solution is (I) needs to stop with the semi-automated creation of articles with inaccuracies and unverifiable statements. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Its actually a very light restriction - it in no way restricts SvG from working in areas they are interested in, nor does it restrict them from productive contributions. All it does is restrict them from using a method of editing that they clearly cannot use without causing significant errors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• If you say support for craeting stubs, you are saying actually it would be good to delete all my previous articles. If (significant) errors are raised, I solve them. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support what Only in death said. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - The sheer number of these "articles" is astounding Exemplo347 (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Note - He's continuing to create a vast number of these questionable articles. The fact that his behaviour is being questioned has not stopped him from spewing out these automated things - I'd hate to be the one to have to go through each one and see if the subject meets notability guidelines! It would surely make sense to block him from creating new articles temporarily while this discussion takes place. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The articles are still being churned out even as this discussion goes on (the most recent batch having this as the sole source, which isn't remotely acceptable); the alternative to this proposal isn't "no action", it's a site ban. ‑ Iridescent 22:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, these stubs need review before being moved to the mainspace, period. Also, he should stop creating articles using bots or semi-automated tools, that's not a serious way to build an encyclopedia. Cavarrone 23:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Iridescent and Only in death. This is beginning to become a CIR issue.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per reasons I've listed in the discussion above and per Iridescent. Manxruler (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support But I would like to see the templates included in the restriction also. The Banner talk 10:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose and start talking.

If I summarize the main issue raised by Fram is: articles are created without a good or false source (where the date of birth for instance is not listed). Of course we should all say, stop doing that. And it’s easy to say that, as I see above. However is the solution to don’t allow him to create stubs? Well I did the last hours some research into him and I would strongly say No. An other issue is, is that not all the info is referenced. After screening some articles where Sander.v.Ginkel added reference, like the football players above, all the info that was originally in the article was not wrong.

I’ve seen he created in the last year >14,000 articles (!). I think no one else in the world could say that. I see Sander.v.Ginkel always helps when issues are raised. All issues raised above have been fixed. I see for instance he made from August-October ~2500 articles about weightlifers that looks as great and valuable stubs. I see all the weightlifers at previous world championships are created, all medalists at all world championships have been created and also medalists at other competitions. I see he created 1000s of Olympic participants. I must say, they look better as an average Olympic stub.

To me, this shows Sander.v.Ginkel is a hardworking editor, and I don’t think the solution is restricting him from making stubs. The solution is talk with him and making togheter some rules for his stubs. It would be such a shame to see him leaving for instance. Stubs are valuable!

Wikipedia always say don’t bite the newcomers, but I would also say don’t bite Wikipedian editors at all. I see that since the last few weeks Fram is raising many issues. However, not all, but most of this issues are not major and/or errors in his ‘template’ as Fram it calls, and were changed by the creator. It appears that Fram is looking/screening for issues in the articles the pages of Sander.v.Ginkel. His approach to Sander.v.Ginkel is always negative and, like the editor wrote above, not kind at all. He names the issue and states every time something like, ‘everything you’re doing is wrong and is all crap’. This is really biting an editor and only trying to make is life hard. Fram is not willing to help, but only willing to see him leavin. I think if he would have start a proper and kind discussion (as an administrator should do) this wouldn’t all have happened!

I see people are listing some 10s of articles about with issues, while he created in that time >1500 articles(!). If a bot on Wikipedia is making a mistake every 1000 edits, the solution is not to abandon the bot, but to stop the bot temporaty solve the problem and let the bot continue doing his work. And I think, this is what we should do. Maybe only Fram could state he tried to do this, but he didn't do it the right way. If you just state stop doing this is not talking. (If you want that someone stops smoking don't say stop smoking but give him a flyer how to stop or give him the address of a clinic.)

I see the main issues in articles of Sander.v.Ginkel is creating articles (sometimes) without good references. As everybody would state, this really has to stop!! I thinks we should talk with him and make some rules. I think we should say that the reference of his articles must always list (at least) the date of birth and the fact why the person is notable. I think if he would do so, all main issues listed above are covered.

MFriedman (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

A few errors in your statement. If we listed a few 10s in the last 1500 articles, then you don't have an error every 1000 edits but every 50 or so. And of course, we didn't list every article with problems, just some examples. You also claim that "I see Sander.v.Ginkel always helps when issues are raised. All issues raised above have been fixed." I have raised the link problems with 2016–17 LEN Champions League squads thrice now (once on his talk page, two times here), he has replied to this, but he hasn't fixed these problems at all. Many of the main problems (e.g. with his sourcing) simply continue. Fram (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

A few errors in your statement. What are the link problems with 2016–17 LEN Champions League squads? When you placed this on 21:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC) you said there were disamb links while these were repaired by me already on 09:33, 6 December 2016‎. And secondly you are naming here not only just some examples, you are naming the articles or group of articles with the main problems as discussed on my talk page. Or there must be main problems you never mentioned here or on my talk page. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 19:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, we are now rapidly approaching WP:CIR land. I have now thrice explained to you that it's not about links to disambiguation pages, but about links to the wrong targets which are not disambiguation pages but simply articles, and thus don't get flagged by a disambiguation bot. On your talk page: "You add links and just hope that they are the correct ones? Really? And you then only correct those that get flagged by disambig bot, and don't bother to check the others? Fram (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)". And then in this very discussion: "Minor problem with this: links which don't point to disambiguation pages, but to wrong subjects, never get noticed by him. For example, 2016–17 LEN Champions League squads links to Manuel Cardoso, Sérgio Marques, Pedro Sousa, Aleksandar Ignjatović, ..." and "My comment was not about the disambig links, please read what I wrote. [...] with the links to the wrong person, they may well leave with the idea that footballer X is the same as water polo player Y, or whichever combination you end up with. I specifically listed a number of examples from that page which pointed to the wrong person, but you don't seem to have checked these at all. There are other examples in the same article, like the link to Marko Petković, Filip Janković or Balazs Szabo. Fram (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC) " So I have given you by now 7 examples of links on that page which don't go to a disambiguation page, but link to the wrong person. There probably are more such links on that page alone, and many more on other squad pages you created. Fram (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Reply SvG I just see there is a proposal about me going on. Thanks for noticing me, as I didn't know this was going on. I think it's not fair restricting me after having creating stubs for over years. I do like the reply of MFriedman. I'm open to talk to anyone and solving this issue. Many of the sport articles start with a stub. Medal templates, are added, major results are added and over the time they become a larger and larger article. Of the >18.000 I created the only article that was deleted, was recently, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Henderson (weightlifter) (2nd nomination), and was more a GNG issue than a N:SPORTS issue. I know I made mistakes. And yes I learned from them, and I'm willing to learn from them to create better stubs. I will never ever created articles with for instance only the name of the athlete or to a link that only had the information in the past. I thinks after having serverd for Wikipedia for years it's not fair to say at one day stop creating all of them without having had a proper warning. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note canvassing here and here. Fram (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Questions Why a six-month restriction? Only if Blackmane is going to review each and every draft (seeing as they suggested the time-frame). However, Blackmane only seems to edit on this noticeboard judging by their last 150 or so contributions, so I'm guessing they'll back away from helping almost as quickly as it was proposed. Which leaves the question of who is actually going to spend their time looking at all the draft-space creations? "They must approach an outside reviewer, not necessarily an admin" - Who exactly? From looking at SVG's talkpage, he's replied to each and every concern. Are we going to bring each editor who creates stubs not up to the community's standards here too? You should see some of the utter dross that gets through in other areas. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• I think Fram (talk · contribs) can review them, because he is already screening all of my articles. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

If you think that you can bring a case for how I choose to spend my time, then feel free. Actually, if you probably go back through the last thousand, maybe even two thousand, or so of my contribs, most of them are likely here. If you have a problem with how I choose to spend my very limited time, then my talk page is that away. If you think there's a history of any shit you can make stick, then feel free to raise a case against me. Otherwise, you know where you can stick your snark.

Now back to the matter at hand. As I have phrased it, seeking "an outside reviewer" may mean anyone. If SvG chooses to approach me then I will certainly assist as best as I can. Blackmane (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thought as much. Another one who throws their weight around, but can't help with the solution they come up with. Why would I need to "raise a case against you"? Why bring that up at all? Unless... Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I just started creating in the draft space, please see these drafts that could be reviewed. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• • Well, since you want me to review them... I notice that, despite all claims of improvements, listening to criticism, changes, and whatnot, you still make the very same basic error. Draft:Willi Kirschner has one source, [180], which gives no results. How bloody hard is it to use a reference to create an article, and to copy-paste that URL? If your method of creating articles through templates and programs makes this impossible or way too hard, then stop using that method. If you can't even make that effort at a time you know your edits are being scrutinized and possible sanctions or remedies are being discussed... Fram (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Note I was already aware of this thread before Sanders alerted WIR.. I agree with Fram on a lot of the articles and issues. I personally dislike short sportspeople stubs as they turn wikipedia into a database and nobody expands them in years, but I respect the outlook of people like Lugnuts and Sanders in wanting to make wikipedia a comprehensive resource. I think we can agree though that a lot of the subjects are worthy of coverage. The best thing for those I think would be careful bot preperation and use it to produce fleshier articles upon creation which are accurate. Banning Sander from creation isn't the way to go, and I think there's a way his abilities could be used to produce something a lot more productive (which Fram would be happier with) if he sacrifices quantity in places for better quality and accuracy. What I would suggest is start discussing a way to produce a bot or semi-automated tool which ransacks databases on sportspeople and produces fleshier stubs which are accurate. I do think for the generic sportspeople which use sports reference type sources that might be a more productive way to do it, but it's got to be carefully planned so everybody is happy with the quality of information, and efficient to produce without causing problems.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I stopped using a template, and never worked with programs as you assume. (bye the way you're also stating a link that was never in the article, but I understand what you mean). But I understand your point. But again, you are only saying that everything is wrong, even the method you are supporting. If I take a look at for instance the replies of Dr. Blofeld and MFriedman they come with better solutions. @Dr. Blofeld:, that would something realy great. Do you know how to create such a semi-automated tool or someone who I/we can ask? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Content creation bots are very difficult to get approval on, that's the problem. They're seen as a negative thing on here since the US geo stubs were generated back in around 2004. I see them as necessary for subjects which have a lot of generic data which could be replicated, like sportspeople. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You stopped using a template and don't use programs? Then how do you explain this? In your drafts just know, you make the same error (mathces instead of matches) in four articles in a row. You correct it in three[181][182][183], but forget to change it in the fourth, [184]. You then again start creating articles, which all have the very same error([185][186][187]. So you can't be trusted to correct your errors adequately once you are aware of them, and you can't be trusted to correct your program or template to avoid the error in the future. This happens with simple things like this typo, this happens with important things like your refs. Fram (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I copy-pasted this (see below) and add all the data from sports reference. I saw that I typed matches wrong, and changed it alreay before (I saw) you mentioned it here.

{{Infobox handball biography |name = |image = |image_size = |caption = |fullname = |nickname = |nationality = {{flag|}} |birth_date = {{birth date||||df=y}} |birth_place = |death_date = <!--{{death date and age| | | ||||df=y}}--> |death_place = |height = |weight = |position = |currentclubs = |currentnumber = |years = ?-? |clubs = [[]] |nationalyears = ?-? |nationalteam = [[ national handball team|]] |nationalcaps(goals) = '''''' () | show-medals = | medaltemplates = |ntupdate= only during the [[Handball at the 1936 Summer Olympics|1936 Summer Olympics]] }} ''' ''' (born ) was a male [[handball]] player. He was a member of the [[ national handball team]]. He was part of the team at the [[Handball at the 1936 Summer Olympics|1936 Summer Olympics]], playing matches.<ref>{{cite web|title=Profile of |url=http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/ /--1.html|work=[[Sports Reference]]|accessdate=8 December 2016}}</ref> On club level he played for [[]] in . ==References== <references/> {{Authority control}} {{DEFAULTSORT:, }} [[:Category: births]] [[:Category:Year of death missing]] [[:Category: male handball players]] [[:Category:Field handball players at the 1936 Summer Olympics]] [[:Category:Olympic handball players of ]] [[:Category:Place of birth missing (living people)]] {{-handball-bio-stub}} Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

So, you don't use a template but you then go on to show that you use this template which you then fill with some information. You note an error in your template, but don't correct it. And then you just happen to correct the errors after all minutes after I post about them here. Makes perfect sense... Fram (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as per MFriedman. It would be a sorry state of affairs if an editor who wished to complain about the actions of an administrator should fear to do so because he was liable to get sanctioned himself. This has happened in this instance. Sander made a complaint and Fram made a counter-complaint which resulted in this proposal. Fram has a long history of "attacking" and trying to humiliate editors who he thinks are inferior. He tried to get me topic banned from DYK and now he is after Sander. In my case he proposed the ban to ArbCom two days before the workshop phase of the recent TRM case closed. Fortunately ArbCom was too sensible to adopt his proposal and the arbitrators here should act similarly and reject this proposal. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Please keep your personal attacks to yourself. You started an ArbCom case about me which was utterly rejected by ArbCom, so apparently my actions aren't as atrocious as you describe them. I don't try to humiliate editors, I try to improve Wikipedia, and sometimes this means telling people that they either need to improve some aspects of their editing (for which I present examples), or stop doing those things. As for the boomerang effect, this is normal practice: when someone makes a complaint, people tend to look at both sides of the issue. In this case, many uninvolved editors recogniseed the problems, though not all agreed on the solution. And then there are some editors here with a Fram grudge, like you or Jaguar. Fram (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't hold a grudge against you, or anyone. I actually don't. I just think banning Sander from creating articles doesn't seem like the way to go forward. More supervision is needed if his articles are still clad with errors. JAGUAR  12:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per MFriedman mainly. I also agree with the reasoning from Dr. Blofeld and Cwmhiraeth. Banning Sander from creating articles in mainspace doesn't seem the way to go. JAGUAR  17:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Appreciate the work that Sander.v.Ginkel has been doing. The minor issues that come up can be addressed by making fairly easy edits to an article or merging content. Hmlarson (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It is the tendency to create sloppy work that is worrying. Too many times Sander did not notice his mistakes of adding sources to BLPs that do not give any information. Too many times he does not see his mistakes when creating a "current squad"-template when the squad is in fact years old. In fact, his whole work should be checked... The Banner talk 22:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Like MFriedman proposed is fair and I agree with it. I will create articles were at least the date of birth and the notability statement is listed. I didn't do that for the several footballers (have fixed them), and see that was really wrong. The other thing, I have asked you several times, but never got an answer, what do you mean with a "current squad"-template?
• Note I created User:Sander.v.Ginkel/drafts waiting for approval of drafts meeting N:OLYMPICS that needs to be "reviewed". Like Lugnuts alreay asked, Blackmane/Black Kite/Cavarrone (as you support my pages needs to be reviewed) who is going to review them? Fram are you going to move some to the main space, or are you only going through them, searching for some errors (as usual) and complain? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 21:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page you've created and will certainly look at some of them, although I'm going to be at a wedding all day tomorrow. I think a lot of editors would also want you to just slow down your rate of creation and check through things before just putting them up. Blackmane (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - per nom and Fram. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Per Fram. Also, I think the canvassing issue should discussed further, as it's an abhorrent way of trying to gain an upper hand in a dispute like this and muddies the process. Any editor that responds here after being canvassed should be discounted from the consensus. Valeince (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Meh I prefer "SvG is prohibited from creating more than 1 new mainspace article in any 24 hour period". That will let any interested parties check that the new articles are up to standards. SvG can then receive further feedback/attention if there are still problems. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to that idea. Blackmane (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, but... I'm not a fan of the proposal as stated; it's a pretty harsh measure for a mostly productive editor, and nobody seems to have thought through who will do the work of reviewing all these drafts. That being said, though, I think SvG really needs to slow down his article writing and take more time and care in evaluating content and sources. He's written the 12th-most articles (excluding redirects) on Wikipedia despite only having been active since 2012, which is the sort of thing that looks impressive on its face but means he's churning out new articles unusually fast. While that doesn't have to be a bad thing (and I'd be a hypocrite if I had a problem with writing stubs on sportspeople and the like), and the occasional typo is to be expected from any editor, it seems clear that SvG's rate of article creation is tied to a high number of quality issues. I'd be more inclined to support a proposal that limited his rate of creating new articles (though I still think it'd be worth giving him a chance to improve first). (For full disclosure, I found out about this discussion because of this post; I'm commenting anyway, because I browse ANI regularly enough that I would've found it anyway.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• The "nobody seems to have thought through who will do the work of reviewing all these drafts" seems to be a false issue. We have the WP:AFC system for that, which already deals with the hundreds of articles which are created daily, I don't see why SvG's stubs (which because of their size are easy to evaluate and eventually correct) are supposed to have a fast track. The six month limit will give him, northeverless, enough time to comprehend and fix his mistakes, and to adopt a different, not-semi-atomated method to create articles. The fact that in spite of the current discussion recent SvG's articles still have heavy problems such as being based on false/unchecked sources is a clear sign the point was not taken. An article should be based on what a reliable source say, not the opposite, i.e. I will start an original research-full of mistake-stub and then I will append whatever unchecked source I can find to scrap a WP:BLPPROD deletion: I cannot see any possible compromise on this point, otherwise it would set a terrible precedent. Once SvG will show to have taken this point, the ban could be lifted. Cavarrone 07:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• AFC is typically backlogged for months, and it's a monstrous hassle to get an article through it, even a solid one that's sourced to the eyeballs. The last thing it needs is dozens (hundreds?) of sports stubs daily from one editor. Better to slow the creation of new useless stubs down and ask for substantial improvements to existing articles. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with 50.0.136.56 and also thinkg that AfC is not waiting for loasd of stubs every day. However I placed there the first bunch of articles. I think a contributor will deny them all, or after reading a few, moving them to the main space without probably checking the other ones propperly. When moving, it will also take them a lot of their valueable time as the ":" before the category has to be removed of every article and in the redirects the "Draft:" in the link has the be removed. And when not accepted, as they all meet N:SPORTS and are referenced they will be published sooner or later, as stubs of notable people are valuable for Wikipedia. I think a better solution it that I create the stubs direct in the main space without autopatroll, so the articles will be checked by many different users, it won't take them time to move them to the main space and I can also link them to Wikidata, create categories and add link the articles to places where a blue link is required. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• I know the AFC timeline, and obviously if someone want to speedily review/suggest corrections/fix and move to the mainspace SvG's drafts is welcome, but this could not be an obligation for anyone. The point is that THERE IS NO RUSH to move inaccurate stubs with inappropriate sources to the mainspace. We are not supposed to apply a double standard compared to IP's and newbies' drafts, which are often better referenced and more accurate than these stubs, only because someone is a registred/regular editor and uses to create a stub per minute. In an ideal world, instead of opening a complaint at ANI or at least immediately later, an experienced and intelligent editor such SvG would had taken in account the suggestions/warnings he received from Fram and others, and significantly changed his way of creating articles, but considering the terrible stubs which were still created during the discussion I don't see this happening soon. If your point is that the reviews of the articles require too much time to the community, the alternative is setting a number-limit of new drafts per day, surely it could not be to allow flood of inaccurate articles with unchecked sources into the mainspace. Cavarrone 11:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• If you take a look at the articles I created, you calling terrible stubs, during this discussion you'll find out that they are well referenced and informative. Why are you calling it terrible stubs? Because I made a few errors in it which I noticed myself and fixed myself? Only the typly in the URL Fram said can be seen as a real error. However everybody makes these kind of mistakes. Even you. After taking a quick look at some random articles you created, I noticed that I see many articles without a webpage, so I can't check that information. But the few articles with a link as reference I saw has also serious issues. For instance: Luigi Tosi (only using a bare URL as reference) In the reference is not listed the date of birth that is in your article. If you got the information from the external link you're listing you had to put it in as a reference and you would have noticed that his date of death is not unknown. Or Glauco Mauri listing the wrong date of birth. You probably got that wrong date of birth from IMBd, like probably many info in your other stubs? But note that IMBD is often subject to incorrect speculation, rumor, and hoaxes and is therefore not reliable. And note that such a stub is even shorter compared to the stubs I created during this discussion. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)re

• Sander.v.Ginkel, instead of taking a "quick look", you should actually check the page history before accusing people. The only edit of Cavarrone at Luigi Tosi wasthis, the problems you mention were added by others. With Glauco Mauri, he only made these two edits:[188] and [189], so again none of the problems you mentioned were caused by Cavarrone. Fram (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Ah, Yes I see it now. I take it back, so sorry for accusing you. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Yes in both cases I just created redirect pages which were expanded into stubs by the same editor (to be fair, I don't really think it was a quick look at random articles, it looks like you digged a lot in my history to find them!). This does not mean that me or Fram does not make errors. The point is that you cannot create articles in one minute or less using a pre-formed template without checking the sources, and not even verifying if the links work. When I want to create an article, I generally search for sources, and if and when I have found a couple of decent ones, then I create the article based on such sources, differently I renounce/wait. Otherwise I would had probably created 10,000 or 20,000 additional articles. Cavarrone 14:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Again sorry that I didn't notice that. I went to WM Fieldlaps listing your 1000 most recent articles. I clicked on about 10-15 old ones of which these two attracted my atention. I didn't do it as structured as by Fram. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 18:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as an AFC and NPP reviewer, please don't do this. It's far more work to review each article at AfC than at NPP. If you've already taken away his autopatrolled status (so that everything goes through NPF) that should be good enough. Bradv 18:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:AFC is to help new editors who need assistance creating good quality articles, and to convince them to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner. AFC has a perpetual backlog, which means that many of these new editors don't get helped for a month or more. If we also have to police someone's automated additions (many of which are poor quality), that will adversely impact our ability to help new people. Special:NewPagesFeed is the place to review SvG's articles, not WP:AFC. Bradv 18:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you created mistakes in the article Henry Oehler does not give me much confidence in your work there. The Banner talk 21:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

As I explained on my talk page when you complained about it, the AFC tool adds the duplicate defaultsorts. In this case, it was because SvG put a space after the surname, (i.e. Oehler , Henry). Going forward (if these articles are going through AFC) it looks like we need to tell the AFC tool that the articles are not biographies so that they don't add the duplicate defaultsort and categories. Do you want to help, or are you content to sit there and criticize? Bradv 21:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Re SvG: "they all meet N:SPORTS and are referenced they will be published sooner or later, as stubs of notable people are valuable for Wikipedia", I realize it's a matter of philosophy but some of us here don't see any use for such stubs, and see them as WP:KITTENS. See also WP:MASSCREATION since these look like script-assisted creations. If you think any of those sportspeople are notable enough to be the subject of a well-developed article, then writing even one such article is much more worthwhile than making more stubs. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• I know some people don't like stubs. However I got the input from people at including Wikiproject Volleyball, Football, Women's football, Cycling, Olympics and Women's in red that these kind of stubs are appriciated. I'm not using a script for creating them, but if you could tell me how to get the data from for instance Sports Reference it would be appriciated, so I don't have to copy every single value manually. As WP:KITTENS States that stubs could be usefull it might be a good idea that we make some rules which kind of stubs are usefull and which are not. Wikipedia:MASSCREATION is about creating articles in a automated or semi automated way, so working with a bot and/or special software. However I'm creating manually and could never create as much as articles as when doing it in a (semi-)automated way. But as I'm spending a lot of time, I've created many articles. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 11:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment I think it's an awful situation to have to Draft short stubs. Pointless. It places a massive burden in the queue for reviewers too. Going about this the wrong way. If you want to create new articles enmasse on sportspeople arrange for something to use multiple sources which write fleshier/accurate new entries and create them at a fast rate using a bot. There is a way that this could be done efficiently and accurately and significantly reduce the workload for all. Aymatth2 might have some comments.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. It sounds like SvG has been warned several times and is just not getting the message. Stubs are annoying to readers and often discourage creation of full-length articles. Inaccurate stubs about living people are as bad as it gets. Any article on a living person must be based entirely on reliable sources. The AfC reviewers can easily learn to skip the SvG stubs. Maybe other editors will start real articles on these notable people. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose because this will destroy AfC without further restrictions. We simply don't have enough editors there to handle 50+ additional creations from a single editor per day. Unless this is heavily restricted, AfC will not keep up, and the reviews of articles by new editors will suffer as a result. The backlog is already over 1,000 drafts and rising. Six months of 50 additional creations per day would put us somewhere around a backlog of 10,000 articles. This cannot be done. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Great point, BU Rob13. From a logistical view this seems like it could be a Baby-with-the-Bathwater proposal. LavaBaron (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose #1 There is no way AfC can handle this. #2 A better way to deal with this is to force the editor to slow down (10 new articles per day?) and be more careful. I'll also note that the original complaint about Fram's behavior has some validity. Hobit (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I think your second point is a good observation, Hobit. I didn't want to mention it before in my original Oppose !Vote, as he recently expressed some frustration with me on my Talk page in a passionate series of posts, but I think it bears consideration. That said, I think we'd probably all be better off just closing the whole thread and moving on. LavaBaron (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Question As it's not the option to put my drafts in AfC, and nobody is willing to review the drafts I recently created, can I move the pages at User:Sander.v.Ginkel/drafts waiting for approval to the main space? As I'm not autoconfirmed anymore, they have to be automatically reviewed by Wikipedia users. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sander.v.Ginkel: Please do not do that. I am looking into creating a bot that will generate stubs from the sources you use like http://www.sports-reference.com/, but that will do the job accurately, and will make full use of the available data. Adding your partial, hand-written sub-stubs would just get in the way. A machine can do the job much better, and avoid wasting a whole lot of reviewer time. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support as a minimum step given the severe, repeated, and pervasive BLP problems (criminal allegations with no basis or source) described in a later subsection. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Irresponsible editing of BLPs. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC).

Making from an exprienced and devoted editor a problem case

One of his main issues Fram has with me is that I created about 10-50 articles (out of the about 1000-1500 he screened) that the date of birth was not in the reference. As he furthermore lists every single tiny error in an article and says that everything is wrong, I was wondering how is own performances are. Well, to find some issues, I only had to go through a small amount of articles and can list already some results. I'm only listing main issues Fram had with me. I went to the last 50 (51-100) of the most 100 recent articles created by him, and focussed upon the the date of births/deaths of biographies. Out of the 40 articles I found issues in 20 of them. So in ~50% of his own pages he created has the errors he is heavily complaing about to me. If I would go through about 1000 of his articles, I will find prbably many, many more of such issues.

1. Pierdomenico Baccalario (revision), no date of birth listed in references. He said himself he copied content from Italian Wikipedia. He didn't check the year in the reference and also didn't use Template:Translated page
2. Valerius de Saedeleer (revision) No date of birth in references. Copied from Dutch Wikipedia(?)
3. William Henry James Weale Date of birth (8 March) not given in references. Could have been copied from Dutch Wikipedia(?)
4. Isabelle Errera 2nd reference refering not complete, 279 should be 279-280 where the date of births and death are listed. The 5th reference has not all the information as written in the section, for instance about the sculpted by Thomas Vinçotte.
5. Henri Kervyn de Lettenhove (revision) No year of death and birth given in references. And also 1st reference refering to a page without content about him (wrong page number)
6. Andrea di Cosimo (revision) As in reference born about 1490; died about 1554. In article born 1478, died 1548. Could have been copied from fr:Andrea di Cosimo(?)
7. Pedro García Ferrer (revision) with 1583 births and 1660 deaths, however no date of birth and date of death in reference. Name Pedro not in reference. Could have been copied from Spanish page
8. John of Westphalia (revision) states he died in 1498 but can not be found in the references
9. Camillo Gavasetti (revision) according to reference died in 1628 an no date of birth given. In article a date of birth is given and data of death is 1630.
10. Pierre-Marie Gault de Saint-Germain (revision) According to source born in 1754 in article 1752. No date of death in reference in article 1842.
11. Oliviero Gatti (revision) No year of birth and death in reference but article is stating 1579-1648. (Might have been copied from Italian Wikipedia).
12. Gaspare Gasparini (revision) No year of death in reference but in article 1590
13. Franz Gareis (revision) born in 1776 in reference, stated 1775 in article
14. José García Hidalgo (revision) according to reference born about 1656 in article 1646. No year of death in reference, in article 1719. Could have been copied from the Spanish Wikipedia(?) (Catalan WP is giving other years).
15. Carlo Garbieri (revision) No year of births and death given in reference while stating in article (ca. 1600-1649). Exactly the same as the Spanish Wikipedia
16. Cosimo Gamberucci (revision) No year of births and death given in reference, while in article (1562-1621). The same at Italian wiki (copied ?) while the French wiki is not sure about it.
17. Juan Galván Jiménez (revision) Year of birth in reference 1598 in article 1596. The same as the Spanish Wikipedia (copied?)
18. José Galofré y Coma (revision) Year of death in reference 1877, in article 1867. No date of birth in reference, while in article 1819. Same years as in Spanish Wikipedia (copied?)
19. Gaspare Galliari (revision) Year of birth in reference about 1760 an in article stating he was born in 1760. Also refering to other sources, while these sources are not even listed!
20. Bernardino Galliari (revision) Year of death in reference about 1794, but article is listing the year without the about.

An additional small note: most of the articles he created, the content is copied from [190], but from a book of>750 page, a page number would be appriciated in the references.

I don't want to say with this that Fram is a bad editor, not at all. No, I want to say that if you put effort in it, you can even make from an exprienced and devoted editor a problem case. And that's what Fram is doing. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 18:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Nice try, but Fram is not the only editor to be critical about the quality of your work. What you now are doing is singling out one critic and hounding him to get him to shut up. The Banner talk 21:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

He is the user who listed every single error on my talk page in an unfriendly way. And because of him this discussion started. Probably many user got a prejudicie about me when they visited my talk page. And here I show that he makes the same mistakes. And it's here about reasoning not about opinions. You complained about 'current-team squad templates' above in this discussion, I asked again what you mean with it because I didn't create recently current team squad templates, but again I didn't receive an answer what you mean with it. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 22:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Try not using the passive voice. "Because of him this discussion started" should read, "Because of his action I reported him here." Please take credit (or blame) for your own actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW, Fram does not identify as male. {{Gender|Fram}} returns "they". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't really mind how people address me, I often address people with the wrong or guessed gender here as well (not deliberately picking the wrong one of course). As for the above list, apart from the one I listed as being partially translated from another Wikipedia article, none of the others have any info taken from another Wikipedia article. All info comes from reliable sources, but not all sources are always listed (like I said at your talk page, in the "summary" section and elsewhere, having everything referenced is not a requirement). You claim that these are the kind of "errors" I complain about with your articles, but the above are not errors, but information with the source not listed. You added wrong sources, wrong information (e.g. men playing at a women's tournament, "former" international players at a December 2016 international tournament, wrong ages, and so on), ... Claiming that Tineke de Nooij was the first Dutch DJ was an error; what you listed above from my edits were not errors. Fram (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I added sources where the information was not as in the article. The data was correct in the articles, but was not always in the references. It's not that I'm adding wrong content to Wikipedia. As everybody will understand that a link with the women in stead of men for a men sportsperson can obviously be seen as a typo. That's not the case with the info in your articles, that have been copied also for instance from foreign Wikipedia's. Your articles are literally copies of a book that have 1 reference(that book) but includes year of birth that is not corresponding as in the reference. In that case you need to list the other reference! And in another case if you're talking about another reference, you should list it! And Tineke de Nooi is the first Dutch DJ. See for instance here and watch the RTL late night programm where she was honored for it. And note I created the article during the programm. That is what I call information with the source not listed. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Tineke de Nooi is not the first Dutch DJ, she may have been the first Dutch woman to be a DJ but that's a different claim. This was already corrected in the article, I'm surprised you still defend that incorrect claim. My articles (from years ago, I stopped creating articles like that more than two years ago anyway) often had a different date of birth or death than the source listed because the source was old (public domain) and especially for things like those years was often simply wrong (since new research in the last 130 years had corrected these). My changes to these years were based on such sources (not on other Wikipedia versions). You have now added fact tags, so I will source these dates explicitly. Fram (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I note that now when you added sources, in most cases you changed the dates or years. So it doesn't look to my you did some proper investigation for changing the year of birth/death from the reference like you're saying above. And in the article José García Hidalgo where you didn't change the years after finding a reference you'r listing this as a source, of a single painting. But the painting is at the Museo del Prado. If you look at their website they have a full page about the painter, listing other years. And My changes to these years were based on such sources (not on other Wikipedia versions) is not convincing stating things like based partially on Italian article. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

As seen above I said about: "José Galofré y Coma (revision) Year of death in reference 1877, in article 1867. No date of birth in reference, while in article 1819. Same years as in Spanish Wikipedia (copied?)" Now you added this scource also staing 1877 as year of death, but you didn't change the year of death in the article! Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that was stupid of me, thanks for checking it. Now corrected. Fram (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Sander, I've seen your work, which I think is frequently good but sometimes lacking. Fram is kind of a grumpster, but they usually have a point. Plus they have a ton of experience, and a really cool username. (Nothing wrong with yours--nice and Dutch--but it's not as powerful or concise.) The thing to do right now is probably to listen and see, or try to see objectively, what is or has been problematic and how you can take that criticism and improve. Few people will want to block/ban/whatever someone who is of good faith and is working on being even better. Lots of people will gladly get rid of someone who sounds like they're blaming others or can't handle criticism. The choice is yours; I hope you'll do the right thing and stick around. If I can help, let me know. I'll be happy to invent a reason to block Fram but it's going to cost you, in old-fashioned Dutch guilders and pepernoten. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Fram is a brand of automotive oil filters here in the US. It's also Ferromagnetic RAM among other things, but that's more obscure and most people here would probably think of the oil filter. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It's funny how people who try hard to uphold standards in the face of ever-increasing sloppiness around here are always accused of being grumpy or snarky, and not precise and "to the point". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    • It is, isn't it! Drmies (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: I'm taking care of his advice. I see I did made some bad mistakes. I also learned from it.I won't create an article with a source that is stating all the important info in the article. I'm also willing to work together with other people like Dr.Bofield said in working on even better stubs. Would be great to get such kind of a collaboration working on even better, and more accurate stubs. If people have input I'm really open to change. However Fram is not willing that I create better stubs, he is only willing to stop creating of them (by me) at all. In my opinion that is not the best way and constructive, even if people do make mistakes. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
      • @The Rambling Man: That is what I started with, and later heard from more editors. I'm not against the points of Fram, but he has serious and unprofessional communication problems when stating his problems. He is not constructive but only willing see people leaving in a bullying way.Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
        • So... Fram's right and you're wrong, but you don't like the way Fram told you that. Next case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this dispute, but administrator incivility is just as potentially actionable as any other complaint and I don't think it's helpful to suggest otherwise. Gatoclass (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Admins should be civil, sure, I totally agree, but the point here is that the OP admits to being wrong, but really doesn't want to do anything about it, or suffer any sanction because of it, so the issue of whether Fram was uncivil or not is rather irrelevant, since they were correct. Maybe accuracy trumps delicacy. Still, if you think Fram went past the boundaryline, start a new section suggesting a sanction - I doubt it'll get very far. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Fram is often right about errors, and from what I've seen rarely issues verbal attacks at people at least from what I've seen, he mostly plays by the book in terms of wiki conduct and that's part of the problem a lot of people have in dealing with him. Persisting with finding flaws in people's new article work or giving scathing reviews of DYKs is not a punishable offence on wikipedia, however irritating it can be to have to deal with it on the other end. I think the issue is more, when does genuine concern with article accuracy start to cross the line and become personal harassment/cyber bullying? And what is more important, editor retention or 100% accuracy in article work? Does Fram cross the line at times? And how would you measure when he does and make it a punishable action? It's one of these grey areas of wikipedia which are unlikely to ever properly be dealt with.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of this, but to some people any online criticism of another person, however mild or justified, is automatically "cyber bullying", so the term has lost a great deal of its value, and is most useful in talking about the interactions of underage people, who are particularly apt to lack empathy or to overreact to criticism. I find it much less useful in discussing the interactions of adults, especially here, as any child who enters into the arena of editing Wikipedia should understand that they are most welcome to edit, but they are, after all, participating in an endeavor that is primarily meant for adults.

Now harassment, as defined here at WP:HARASSMENT is another matter, and is quite specific in its meaning, and, although I haven't looked into it to any great degree, I greatly doubt that anything Fram did qualified as harassment. Would I like to be at the other end of Fram's accusations? No, I would not. Would I take umbrage? Judging from my past, I probably would, but whether that has more to do with me or with Fram would be debatable, since it's a system with two parts, each of which contributes something. As they say, "it takes two to tango." Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Fram recently left a series of, I guess I'd describe them as "very passionate", expressions of frustration with me on my Talk page and, while I agree with Gatoclass that administrator incivility should not be swept under the rug I tend to view it through the Drmies lens of mere grumpiness as opposed to incivility per se. In my case, Fram gave me a good ol' fashioned tongue lashin' like one might expect from one's grandfather; and, viewed in that light, I don't necessarily think it was uncivil and just noted it with an "oh Fram"! At the same time, I might appreciate how someone who was not familiar, as I am, with Fram's particular M.O. could think it uncivil. I guess the lesson here is to neutralize our interactions with each other to the greatest degree possible, realizing that we each draw from different experiences that shape the way we act and react to the rainbow of diversity we have on WP. I think a valuable lesson has been learned by everyone involved here. Maybe we should just close this whole thread and move on? LavaBaron (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing "very passionate" about these posts (a "series" of two posts, impressive!). Nothing really relevant for here either. Your dismissive attitude to every post you don't like, even when they indicate stupid errors on your part like in User talk:LavaBaron#Off the record, is well-known. Why we should just "close this whole thread" when a lot of people have supported a proposal for some action (a proposal not made by me, by the way) but which you happen to oppose, is not really clear. Fram (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about my stupid erorrs! LavaBaron (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Or a much simpler and easier solution that I am sure everyone could get behind, would be that people who consistantly make errors over a period of time, listen to editors who actually know what they are doing and stop wasting their time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I think closing the thread per WP:NOTPERFECT would be easier. (Also, not to nit-pick, but that's actually "consistently make errors" not "consistantly".) LavaBaron (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTPERFECT, close this, and if BLP issues continue, then bring it back here to waste another chunk of everyone's time. Again. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, another one who opposed the suggested sanctions and now just want to close the thread without action. Fram (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep. What has this achieved? Nothing. All of SVG's submissions have gone through AfC and have been pushed into the mainspace. Sander.v.Ginkel - keep doing that if this thread is anything to go by. Give a load of extra work to AfC. Job done. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

And Fram, why saying another one who opposed the suggested sanctions as a reason while he never said he is oppose? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

One can oppose without a bolded "oppose" of course. His comments are quite clear. Fram (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

So sum up the last 6/7 days of hijinks to show what "action" you would like, now the community have had their say on the matter. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"Hijinks"? Anyway, a speed restriction coupled with a requirement to have at least one source that is not a database-like entry but has some actual text about the subject. And definitely no more creations like Amani Rashad, an article about an Egyptian footballer which has links to a "website under construction" and the FIFA page for Rwanda. The same two uselsss sources are used for Hayam Abdul Hafeez, Sally Mansour, Ehssan Eid, Jihan Yahia, ... 26 articles, back to Rabiha Yala, all with the same two references not about any of them. Any proposal that may prevent the unchecked creation of similar series of articles would probably get my support. Fram (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Well that's again a statement you think. He has a critical question against the proposal, and I think good questions, however he also said Only if Blackmane is going to review each and every draft. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I have started looking through that list, but I'm only on about 1-2 hrs a day, if that, so make of that what you will. Blackmane (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

"Making a problem case", or a real problem case?

I was just looking at some older articles Sander.v.Ginkel created (late October 2016, so not that old), and noted the 26 articles in a row about Egyptian women footballers sourced to a page about Rwanda. But then I came across Oluwatobiloba Windapo. The article claims that she is the same as Susana Angono Ondo Oyana, and that she (or her federation) changed her year of birth to let her compete in an u-20 competition while she was actually already 29 years old (!!). This is a serious allegation (probably criminal, and certainly something that may get her banned from the sport for a very long time), so it needs very, very good sources. Sander.v.Ginkel sources it to [191], which you label "CAF - Competitions - WWC-Q U20 2016 - Team Details - Player Details (Oluwatobiloba Windapo, as Susana Angono Ondo Oyana)". Looking at the page, I see information about Susana Angomo Ondo Oyana, but no information about her naturalization, previous name, previous date of birth, ... In fact, not a single link between the two players. I looked online, and apart from other Wikipedia articles and one comment by a random passerby in a comments section on a website (a comment which may or may not have been based on Wikipedia in the first place), I could not find any reference to this controversy.

You are writing things which could have a very serious impact on the life of these people. You need much, much better sourcing for this kind of thing, or omit it completely. I will now remove it from the article and delete the history per BLP, please indicate here where you based this "controversy" on. Fram (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I simply deleted the article, there is no evidence that the title / supposed subject of the article is even the same as the other person who played the international matches. I deleted it because serious BLP overrules "involved", but I invite all admins to check my deletion and change or overturn if needed. Fram (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

As an admin, you probably shouldn't delete the article while you're involved in a content dispute. And if it's deleted for BLP violations, you shouldn't post the details of that violation here. Bradv 15:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

(EC)::Its actually quite rare BLP violations are completely expunged from the record (given the amount of them). Discussion of them is generally kept in BLPN archives and the article talkpage archives. Complete deletion only tends to occur when either the article & the talkpage are deleted, or the BLP issue is serious enough to justify oversight/revdel. And often then there are still descriptions hanging around at BLPN etc where people have been notified. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'll be the grumpy one now. Bradv, there is no way in which Fram is INVOLVED with this article. And while I think that Fram could have been more sparing with the details, by the same token a. they are obviously couched in disclaimer terminology, not presented as fact as our article did and b. it is important in this public conversation that the extent of the BLP vio is clear--and let's be clear, it is a violation, and Sander better explain this; I may have to revisit my earlier comments based on their answer.

  Fram, I checked the article and the links (one of which a domain that's for sale), and I thank you for your due diligence. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

As an admin, I should delete any BLP violation, involved or not. And I post it here (a non-indexed page, contrary to the main page) so that Sander.v.Ginkel at least has an idea what he is being accused of. Stating "you created a BLP violation which I deleted" without any details wouldn't be fair towards him or any non-admin participating here. I'm looking further into this, and while I note that Equatorial Guinea has had an age scandal in women's football[192], this was about a different player, not about the one above or Ruth Sunday, where he made the same unsourced allegations. I'm now going to continue searching for more articles with the same problem. Fram (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I have not deleted or edited it as it is less outrageous, but Christelle Nyepel has some of the same problems. It claims that Christelle Nyepel (born 16 January 1995[193]) is the same as Véronica Nchama (born 10 July 1995[194]). Why? No idea, the article gives no source for the claim, and I can't confirm it online. Fram (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have. It's a scandal, apparently, and without evidence no one should be implicated in it. Fram, consider this: she's also listed on Wikipedia here, added by User:MonFrontieres without a shred of evidence that I can see. I don't know if mere inclusion is enough for revdeletion on BLP ground--but worse, I'm thinking that this entire list should be nuked. Even it's very first instance (this, by User:TheBigJagielka), contains a list of unverified names. I think these two editors have some explaining to do as well, and I'm going to place a BLP DS notice on their talk pages. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The evidence above shows that Sander is an editor who starts thousands of stubs, often claims the information came from a source that does not even mention the subject, publishes incorrect and possibly harmful information about living people, and refuses to stop. Why wait for explanations? We should:

1. Block him permanently from Wikipedia so he does no further damage
2. Purge all the stubs he has created. Better to get rid of a lot of trivial stubs than to leave an unknown number of dangerous ones. Someone can later write a bot to copy the data – what the site really says – from http://www.sports-reference.com/ into Wikipedia

Is there any reason not to act at once? Aymatth2 (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

We can at least wait to see if we get a good explanation once he resumes editing. If these deleted articles were based on solid sources which simply weren't included then there is less of a problem than if no such sources exist. Deleting all the articles is tempting (many of them are of limited or dubious notability and don't meet NSPORTS), simply redirecting them all to list articles (where most of them originate from) may be the better option for now. As for blocking, I think looking for other solutions is for the moment still preferable, but my opinion may change depending on his reaction (or other actions) of course. Fram (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

There can be no good explanation for an article about a living person with only one cited source, where that source does not mention the subject. Creating articles like that is utterly unacceptable. Yes, a lot of these trivial stubs may be accurate, but how many are time bombs? Get rid of them. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I´ll explain everything. I agree that there can be no good explanation about it. But an honest explanation is the bext explenation I can give. It's not about all the stubs I created, but it's all about 1 (big) group of articles: the women's footballers. While creating the women´s footballers, I´ve made many sloppy errors, and as I see the statemt of Fram above I have to agree I made too many mistakes in references. I know this is unacceptable, but I now where I made the errors and I know how to solve it. Starting with the Egytian players, after having created footballers from Rwanda, I started creating footballers from Egypt. I got the data from this webpage. However I forgot the crucial thing to change the reference, and so the reference of the Rwanda was listed in all the Egytian articles. For me this was during my work a small error, however I see for Wikipedia it is a main problem. As I have on my computer exactly where I got the data from and how I published the articles, I can see where I made errors. As I made many sloppy errors that are main problems for Wikipedia, I'll go through all of the articles I created to see if I made more these kind of mistaktes. These are my mistakes, so I have to fix the errors I made. I think that's a better solution in stead of deleting all the women's football articles because 1) Only a small percentage of the pages have these issues, most of them are correct and it won't be a shame to see 2 months full time work seeing deleted including many good pages. 2) On the wrong pages the content is however correct, so it's about a wrong reference. 3) The footballers meet WP:NSPORTS, because they played at least 1 match for the national team. 4) the most imporant one, I can and will fix it. (see my proposal at the bottom). The other thing, the Equatoguinean footballers. I actully wondered that Equatorian Guinea was relative so good in football! However after reading some about the national team I saw that in history they made many naturalised players and also some scandals. It's common that the players who are naturalised get another. I saw that the above mentioned Nigerian players Tobilola Windapo and Ruth Sunday joined the Equatoguinean national team (for instance here and here. However in the occasions I looked at, I never saw their names on the official squad lists, in the matches they would have played. However I saw at Equatorial Guinea women's national football team that they played with another name. After reading some articles on the internet I became familair with the fact that this a common case for naturalized Equatoguinean footballers, and that it's the case for almost all naturalized Equatoguinean footballers. After seeing that there is even a special Wikipedia page about it List of naturalised Equatoguinean international football players I believed it. And that is the big mistake I made. As I believed it I literraly copied the statements about them from List of naturalised Equatoguinean international football players to their own pages and saw that the reference are about them. And now I see that I should have never done that. This information was added on 9 April 2016 and expanded with Ruth Sunday 16 August 2016. I also see it's the same user who is responsible for most of the content at that page and of the information at Equatorial Guinea women's national football team (9 April and 16 August. I will write him a message and ask where he got the information from. I was totally wrong by copying the information. I totally agree with that. But I think if there won't be sources that can verify the information User talk:MonFrontieres is the real problem case. The proposal I make is

1. ) I'll go through the ~2000 women's footballers pages I created and will check them for mistakes.
2. ) When creating new articles it must include a reference with the main information (name, date of birth, why being notable)
3. ) Always when creating articles I will double-check my references
4. ) If wanted, I can make a list of which kind of articles I'm planning to make
5. ) After I created the page I won't copy statements and data from other Wikipedia pages

To finish with, I agree with Aymatth2 that the errors I made, shouldn't be made, but I think fixing it is better than deleting it. The other thing I want to say is thank you Fram for saying to wait giving your opinion after I made my comments. I do realy appriciate that. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 20:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Equatorial Guinea Football Federation board directors usually "Equatorial Guineanize" foreign footballers when they called-up for their different national team categories (for men's and women's, seniors and youths), that includes to give to the "new Equatoguineans" an Equatorial Guinean passport with a national identity. They did it for all their national teams, especially in women's football, which they have got a limited quantity of good native players - they don't usually call up to the players of Equatorial Guinean descent who develop their careers in Spanish lower leagues (Spain being the country they became independents). It's a long story from more than a decade. For example. this happened in men's national team around May 2014, when they called Cameroonian defender Franklin Bama for the African Cup qualification but later at the moment of the match he was already Francisco Ondo.[195][196][197] Although Facebook and Twitter are not reliable sources, these express-naturalized players have accounts there, and actually Ruth Sunday is on Facebook and if you go to her profile you could see: "Ruth Sunday (Lucia Andeme)".[198] Meanwhile, Tobiloba Olanrewaju Windapo is on Twitter,[199] and her last tweet includes an Instagram link that if you follow it, you will arrive to the account of "Susan. O.O. Enny" (O.O. meaning Ondo Oyana, the fake names from Equatorial Guinea).[200] Equatorial Guinea FA works that. They want immediate results for their national teams either way.--MonFrontieres (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your explanation. Clearly a totally unacceptable use of hearsay, unreliable sources, and connect-the-dots to put BLP violations (no matter if they are true or false) on Wikipedia. I have contacted you on your user talk page and removed a number of other similar violations from view. Fram (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Sander's explanation is irrelevant. Creating thousands of articles on living people from dubious sources with bogus citations is utterly unacceptable. Any editor who has done this should be banned. All these stubs should be wiped out at once. How many people's careers do we want to risk so we can salvage a few months of sloppy work? One? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Holy walls of text, Batman! I'll go through the ~2000 women's footballers pages I created and will check them for mistakes. Let's see, at 4/hr, 10hr/day, that will only take 50 days = 2 months. That's fast enough, of course. EEng 23:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Just kidding. Nuke 'em all. This is ridiculous.

• That reminds me of an editor, whose name escapes me for the moment, who created over 10,000 stubs on various small towns and settlements in China using a single source. The problem that editor had was they were using a source that was written in Chinese and they couldn't read the source, so they just sourced it to a menu page. The error rate was, according to their own words, about 20% and they hoped that other editors would be able to help fix the errors. The other problem was that they were creating stubs using a copy paste method and, if my memory serves me correctly, was running up 6 stubs per minute. The scale of the problem was so big, the Tsar Bomba had to be deployed. Blackmane (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• I believe this is the incident in question, for what it's worth. Not the only time in the past we've had to deal with someone creating a massive quantity of stubs with quality issues, either. (Darn sloppy stub creators, giving us good stub creators a bad name...) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• 8000 stubs by Jaguar, and 2000 stubs by Dr. Blofeld, are the two largest such "delete them all" actions I'm aware of. I think there has been aremoval of thousands of bot-created articles in the distant past as well, but I don't quite know the details of that instance (if it ever happened), and it is less relevant here. But indeed, mass removal of stubs because a fair number of them had serious problems has been done in the past. In those two cases, it was a more defined series of stubs with one specific (sourcing) problem, while here we have a wider range of (sporting) stubs with a variety of problems, and with sometimes considerable additional edits by other editors afterwards (though many remain in their original state as well). Fram (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Something good did come out of it, though... JAGUAR  12:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• There is no time to check each stub for accuracy against the cited source, which would take months of tedious work. Turning them into redirects to lists would take more work. We would have to find the list and confirm they are in it and belong in it. But there is too much risk in leaving stubs that could wreck some poor athletes' careers. A good start would be to zap all articles that were started by Sander, cite no more than one source and are about living people. A lot of the zapped articles would be valid, but could be easily recreated from the single source if anyone felt like it. We could maybe use different criteria for a second pass. Once the mess was reduced to a few hundred it might be practical to review the remainder more carefully. Or just delete them all. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• The articles won't wreck the athletes career what you're afraid of. All of the doping cases I mentioned For the weightlifters were all proper referenced. I think As I have all the info on my computer I think I can create a list of the footballers with errors in references this week. I probably could have fix them within a week later. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Minor errors can cause problems, which is why the rules for articles about living people are so strict. For example, a discrepancy between a job candidate's resume and their Wikipedia biography may make a potential employer hesitate. We know from spot-checks that there are a number of different types of problem. A careful independent review of these 18,000-odd stubs is not practical. Bulk deletion is the simplest approach. Very little information would be lost, since in most cases all the information in each stub is also in a table entry for the sporting event they competed in. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Can you list the problems of People who could not get their job due to my created articles Wikipedia!?!? I think People will get the job because the company will find he/she had a Wikipedia article and so is notable. As I can see from your reply, you didn't check the kind of stubs I created. I didn't hear things that can't be solved and that there are still prolems in loads of articles. Especially in the sentence most cases all the information in each stub is also in a table entry as it's not. What is that based upon? What about the weightlifters articles with all the data from all their competitions? What about those many orphan Olympians? Actually what about all the data I implemented in the Olympian articles? And if you think the articles are wrong and the lists are correct, did you check who created many of these lists? Yes, it was me. Let me solve the issue of the recent created footballers and come back. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 21:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Sloppy, incorrect article can wreck Wikipedia. Athletes don't just play at the Olympics, as you suggest in your articles. Even now you are creating draft-articles with incorrect ages or incorrect dates of death. Really, you have to seriously upgrade the quality of your articles. The Banner talk 22:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• The ages were not incorrect. Like I said on my talk page they are all proper calculated with Template:death date and age, and they are all correct. I removed the redundant info as how old they should be by now, that information is not needed in the articles and I removed it. For the other things, these people only meet WP:NSPORTS because they competed at the Olympics. Almost all of the former Olympians who are created, are created in this way. To create such an article 1 reliable source is enough the start the article with. I tagged the articles as a stub, a definition of a stub is: A stub is an article that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion. But I you find some usefull information about the players with a reference, I invite you to add it to the drafts. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, after I wrote my comment, I did end up remembering who was responsible for it and the outcome, but decided against naming names. And yes, Jaguar certainly proved their resilience to that mess, for which I must heartily commend them. I fear the ramifications of this incident, if not dealt with, may be dire. I started plowing through the list of drafts that SvG had placed in their userspace and the scale of the task is enormous. If SvG was restricted to a number of creations at a time, my original proposal further up might have been feasible, but I am beginning to think that I severely jumped the gun. Blackmane (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment If anyone remembers the Darius Dhlomo CCI a while back, DD had created around 10,000 sports stubs that turned out to have a lot of copyvios. After a long discussion, the decision was to deploy a bot that blanked the stub articles but left the history intact. Editors then were able to examine the archived revisions, restore the acceptable articles, and clean up the ones with too much copied text. I think that took place over a period of a few months. I myself don't see the use of these stubs at all, and would rather just put all the names into a "requested article" list with links to sources, but the Darius Dhlomo approach might be something to consider for those who can't bear the thought of deleting useless stubs. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Why are they "useless"? How many articles have you created? Oh, it's zero. So maybe you can come back and comment on that when you've made some content. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

To be precise, I can comment when I feel like it. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to drag you away from your content building. Or whatever it is you do. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Extent of the problem

The blank-and-review approach would consume a huge amount of valuable editor time. From his pages created list we see user:Sander.v.Ginkel has started 18,323 namespace pages (excluding redirects). Articles from August 2015 and earlier were increasingly list-type articles about events rather than people. Sampling 1 article in 1,000 up to that time gives:

#	Article	Date	DYK Size	Event	Source	Source type	Comment
1000	Michail Vasilopoulos-Koufos	2016-11-12	240	2016 European Weightlifting Championships	[201]	List
2000	Lee Lai Kuan	2016-11-02	289	2016 AFF Women's Championship	[202]	List
3000	Batjargalyn Densmaa	2016-10-18	239	2014 Asian Games	[203]]	List
4000	Kuo Ping-chun	2016-09-27	273	2001 World Weightlifting Championships	[204]	List
5000	Kim Un-dok	2016-09-06	266	2011 World Weightlifting Championships	[205]	List
6000	Dylan Schmidt	2016-06-14	826	2015 Trampoline World Championships	[206] etc.	List	Multi-source, some personal data
7000	Gabriela Khvedelidze	2016-05-04	256	2014 World Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships	[207]	List
8000	Ginna Escobar Betancur	2016-04-13	268	2013 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships	[208]]	List	Data in list linked from cited page
9000	Cristiana Mironescu Iancu	2016-03-25	225	2010 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships	[209]	List
10000	Iryna Papezhuk	2016-02-27	183	2012 UCI Track Cycling World Championships	[210]	List
11000	Go Yerim	2016-02-12	216	South Korea women's national volleyball team	[211]	List
12000	Florian Landuyt	2016-01-28	192	2015 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships	[212]	List
13000	Francisco Fernández (water polo)	2016-01-12	329	2011 World Aquatics Championships 2014 Men's European Water Polo Championship 2016 Men's European Water Polo Championship	[213]	List	Some data not in source
14000	Susan Kahure	2015-12-03	194	Kenya women's national volleyball team	[214]]	???	Dead link
15000	Gilmar Teixeira	2015-10-06	271	2000 Summer Olympics	[215]	List
16000	Sapana Sapana	2015-08-29	443	Athletics at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's 20 kilometres walk	[216] etc.	Bio etc.	Multi-source, some personal data

"DYK size" is a count of readable text characters that would count towards the 1,500-minimum needed for a "Did You Know" article. The articles on living athletes based on list-type sources typically come from an entry like (under heading "69 kg Men"):

16

VASILOPOULOS-KOUFOS Michail

13.07.1992

GRE

68.43

B

116

150

266

This is basically reproduced in a table in 2016 European Weightlifting Championships#Men's 69 kg. The stub puts some of the data into text form as "Michail Vasilopoulos-Koufos (born (1992-07-13)13 July 1992) is a Greek male weightlifter, who competed in the 69 kg category and represented Greece at international competitions. He competed at the 2016 European Weightlifting Championships.^[1]". It then repeats the 2016 European Weightlifting Championships#Men's 69 kg table entry. The stub does not add any information to Wikipedia. (It may be slightly inaccurate, since the source does not say he competed in any other international competitions.)

Sapana Sapana and Dylan Schmidt probably pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, since they have significant independent coverage. According to Wikipedia:Notability (sports) some of the other athletes are technically notable, while some are not. Olympics competitors are considered inherently notable, as are competitors in the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships, but competitors in the World Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships and the World Weightlifting Championships are not. Perhaps 2/3 of the stubs would fail an AfD challenge: the subjects are not inherently notable and very little has been written about them. I am NOT proposing to submit 10,000 articles for deletion. It would be crazy to waste that much time over stubs that only took a minute or two to create.

The primary concern must be the serious inaccuracies and bogus citations that have been found by spot-checks of some of the articles. We have no idea how many stubs have problems like that, but they have to go. The simplest first step will be to mass-delete all the Sander-stubs that are for living people and have just one source. Little if any information would be lost. Sapana Sapana and Dylan Schmidt would be kept, because they have more than one source. Then review the remainder manually if the list is not too huge. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This is totally crazy. In your research I didn't see you pointed any serious inaccuracies and bogus citations. So because of that you want to delete all the articles!?!? Rergarding to the info for for instance the weightlifters. Your concern: It may be slightly inaccurate, since the source does not say he competed in any other international competitions. Did you see that for instance for all the weightlifters at World Championships, all their results are listed? Including the data that was not in a seperate article, or list article you would say. So it adds a lot of informtion to Wikipedia. You say the articles can be created again in about 1-2 minutes per article. Well I think if you ask someone to do it, it will take much, much longer per article. Another point Wikipedia is not a database. So because of that, readers want the same information on different kind of pages, so it is not a reason to delete a page because that information can be found somewhere else on Wikipedia. Stubs are seen as valuable content, even if the information is already listed somewhere else. Your concern is that World Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships and the World Weightlifting Championships does not meet WP:NSPORTS. Due to a lack in the discussion on the talk page there, the Weightlifting and rhythmic gymnastics is not yet listed. As seen in the discussion there was reached consensus that the competitors at these world championships meets notability. Many, many people appriciate the stubs on Wikipedia. Many stubs have been already expanded, and data has been added to it. It's very likely many more of the articles I created will be expanded, as I see it on a daily basis on my watchlist! If there is a problem with a page, the page will be nominated for discussion at one day. Your statemet of Perhaps 2/3 of the stubs would fail an AfD challenge, but that's based upon nothing. Many of my articles have been in AfD, only one was deleted and not even obvious. That would mean 5-6 of the above listes articles would be deleted. That would never happen. We're not in a rush, so why deleting everything in a rush? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sander, all it takes is one bad article that gets noticed for Wikipedia's reputation to suffer. That's exactly what the Seigenthaler incident was about. That article had a false allegation that the subject was involved in criminal activity, and it got publicized because somebody told the subject (a journalist) that there was bad content in his Wikipedia article and he wrote about it. You said something interesting just now: that people are seeing our articles, even ones on obscure subjects. Your experience proves that. Well, what if the wrong person had read one of the articles on the Equatorial Guinea players with the BLP violations mentioned above? It could very well have cost them a job, as others have said. By the time an issue like that receives attention, it's too late; the damage (whether to our reputation or the subject's life) is already done. This is the very essence of the BLP policy: we must be careful so that we do not harm living people. You must be much more careful in your editing, Sander. When people tell you to slow down, listen to them. They're not doing it just to annoy you; they want you to avoid making mistakes in your work. If slowing down means that you can't do as much in a day, just take it to mean that you'll have something to do tomorrow. Also, I don't see how there is a consensus here to change the sports notability guideline, as you seem to be the only one supporting that change. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• The 16 articles above do not have serious errors, but they are just 16 out of 16,000. They are sloppy, e.g. "Gilmar Teixeira ... is a former Brazilian male volleyball player." Do we know he no longer plays, perhaps in an over-40s league? But as pointed out earlier in this discussion, other stubs violated BLP guidelines so badly they had to be deleted. We must assume there are others. That is the reason to act fast. Better to drop a lot of trivial stubs than to keep some damaging ones. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes I understand. But you might understand I'm the one who knows best what content I created and if it was harmfull or with wrong content or not. On almost all articles I created I also check incoming links. Like you are stating for the water polo player I added if he/she competed at other competitions. These I added without reference because it is that obvious. If I started writing an extra sentence or section about the person, like when he/she is involved in a doping case I always listed a reference. If you want, I can list some examples. So actually when following the above procedure, if there would be harmful articles it must be articles with >1 reference. If I think about content that might be harmful might be the New Guneien footballers that are stated as naturalized people (I don't know if that is harmfull but that's the only thing I can think of in my articles). I'll list them tomorrow here as I have no time this evening, and if wrong they should be deleted. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 19:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• "If I think about content that might be harmful might be the New Guneien footballers that are stated as naturalized people (I don't know if that is harmfull but that's the only thing I can think of in my articles)." You were stating in multiple articles that people had deliberately lied about their age to be able to compete in Under20 competitions. This was explained above, and checked by uninvolved admins. So if the naturalization is the only thing you can think of that can be harmful, then you are clearly not the right person to write or check these articles. You were explicitly accusing people of fraud, without reliable sources to back up that claim. That's a lot worse than some trivial error or a claim of being naturalized. Fram (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• If a reliable source says the footballers were naturalized there is no problem recording that information in Wikipedia, citing the source. But damage is often caused by errors that seem trivial, like saying she was born in 1956 instead of 1965. We have 16,000+ stubs with a very low level of confidence in any of them given the BLP violations and faked citations. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• How about taking 1/3 of the articles in that table (say #1000, #4000, #7000 etc.) giving a total of 5 or 6 articles, and examining them carefully for significant errors. If the sampling above was random, the number of errors found in it would give a statistical estimate of how many are in the whole pile. Doing something like that with the Darius Dhlomo articles led to an estimate that around 10% of them had copyvios, which were then handled by a blank-and-review process. I think that was ok for the reviewers since they were the ones who wanted to keep the articles and thought reviewing them to preserve them was worthwhile. People who didn't think it was worth it didn't have to participate.

  Also regarding Gilmar Teixeira ... is a former Brazilian male volleyball player, even if we know that he doesn't still play: unless he has changed nationality or gender, it would be more precise to say he is a Brazilian male former volleyball player. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Added: if the 16 articles have been fact-checked and don't have serious errors then maybe this situation is not so bad. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• I doubt a more careful review of this set would show up much. It is a random sample, but only a 0.1% sample. With most of these stubs all that is available online is one line in the source. Maybe Sports Reference is not the greatest, and the Bulgarian http://todor66.com/ seems to have shut down, but the data do not seem controversial. At least two of the 16 articles have wording problems and another includes unsourced data, but these are not huge problems even if they indicate a rather slipshod attitude.

The sense I get is that the author would find a web page or document like this one, and use it to churn out a few hundred stubs on subjects that might or might not be notable, but copied the source data with cut-and-paste accuracy. Then he would stray off the path, copy unsourced and damaging stuff from other wikis, and add fake citations to support it. Some of these have been found and deleted, but it is impossible to tell how many more there are. Which of them urgently need to be deleted? We cannot afford the huge effort needed to review all the stubs, they have so little value and the downside is so great ... Aymatth2 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't let this pass... The accuracy of an estimate, based on a sample, depends only on the absolute size of the sample, not on what % it is of the population. It is also a very bad idea to take every nth entry in a list. If you want to get an estimate for a Yes/No question to about +/- 7%, get a random sample of 50. Random. EEng 02:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: I think "random sample of 50 for +/-7% accuracy" is the right answer to the wrong question. That would work if you wanted to find voting intentions, but not if you are looking for very small levels of contamination. The question could be phrased as "How many samples are needed to obtain 90% confidence that there are less than 10 seriously libelous articles?" I forget the formula, but think the general idea is that if there are 10 bad ones out of 16,000, the chance the first test will miss them is (16,000 - 10) / 16,000, or 0.999375. As expected, a very high probability. The chance that two tests will both miss one are 0.999375², or about 0.99875, and so on. The chance that 50 tests will miss all ten serious libelous articles is 0.999375⁵⁰, or about 0.969. If we did 1,000 tests, the chances of missing all ten would drop to about 0.535, still not exactly a high degree of confidence. We would have to do 3,683 tests to get down below a 10% chance of missing them all. I never much liked statistics. Perhaps it shows. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, it does show, but don't let that bother you -- most people feel the same way. Your calculations are correct (so take some comfort in that) for P(seeing 0 when there are 10) but what you're trying to do with it is a little vague. You seem to be trying to reject the hypothesis that there are -- no more than 10? exactly 10? any? zero? -- articles with a certain bad property, but your result isn't the p-value for any of those (though it's a bound on the p-value of at least one). I don't see, though, what the point would be of any of those anyway, since I would think we'd just want an estimate of the proportion with the bad property. If you want to discuss this further would should take it to your talk page. EEng 21:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: +/-7% accuracy is far too loose. We know from user:Fram's spot checks that the set did include at least one bad one, and it is reasonable to assume from the evidence that there may be more. If there are ten seriously libelous articles, a totally unacceptable number, a random sample of 50 stubs would most likely find none and indicate that not many are bad. True, but not very useful. We may need to sample several thousand to be reasonably confident that there are very few bad ones. Too much work. Easier to just nuke them all. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree they should all be deleted -- I said that elsewhere. I was only responding to the inappropriateness of the attempt at sampling. EEng 01:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

See the article sunrise problem for the approach I used (the rule of succession) to deal with this. You can't start with p=0 because of Cromwell's rule. The sunrise approach is actually conservative for this, because it starts with a uniform prior for p on (0,1). 50.0.136.56 (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't bring up your obvious Bayesianism because I was afraid of being blocked for making a personal attack. But now that you've voluntarily WP:OUTed yourself I guess I don't have to worry about that, and I'm bound to say... sorry, I'm a strict frequentist, and truck not with your kind. I have my reputation to think about. EEng 11:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Even if as few as 1% of the total list has a problem, that's still 160+ stubs. Finding 160 in 16,000 articles is a task that isn't reasonable for anyone. To take a manufacturing analogy, each article is a customised piece of work and in effect is a sample size of 1 because no two BLP's will ever be the same. What we have is not one population of 16,000+ articles, what we have is 16,000+ populations of one article. Blackmane (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Blackmane, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. No reference work can ever be totally free of errors, so my ideal for Wikipedia is that its error rate should be on a par with other encyclopedias (if it's much higher, we're slobs; but if it's much lower, we're excluding good info due to overcaution and redefining what an encyclopedia is). The only way I see to compare is by treating the content collections as populations when counting errors.

We should also distinguish "issues" (some assertion isn't backed up by a reference, but checking it shows that it was right anyway), normal errors (we get a date or event wrong--it needs a fix but nobody should freak out about it), and serious errors (we claim somebody is a criminal when they aren't). Overall I'd be ok with having these articles collapsed to lists, or maybe moved off to our database sister project (Wikidata).

EEng, for this sample (n=17, k=0) I get μ=(k+1)/(n+2)=5.25%, σ=4.75% using the beta distribution. σ is larger when k/n is larger. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I was trying for an analogy which makes a bit more sense if one is familiar with manufacturing process, but that might muddy the discussion. I'd be more than happy to have an extended discussion on my TP if you really want to discuss the finery points. Blackmane (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Break and examples

Thinking other ways to get an indication and solve things is adding to all articles as indicated with 1 reference the 1 source tag and for instance marking 1000 of my articles as unreviewed. If there would be any major error that would be bad for the subject it would be noticed (and it can be shown from a larger bunch that this is not the case) Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 06:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

While articles with major errors can be a good reason to get rid of all of them, the many tiny (and not so tiny) errors in other articles are also a good reason not to keep them around (the "they will eventually get corrected by someone" is not more convincing than "they will eventually be recreated by someone with more information and less errors in them). In late March, Sander.v.Ginkel created Katheleen Lindor. It has since then only been edited by a bot. It has one source, a 2007 entry list to a world championship.[217] It uses this to source the claim that she competed at the 2008 Olympics (not in source), and that she was born 29 August 1989 (different date than in the source). The one thing that is sourced, that she competed at the 2007 World Championships, is not mentioned in the article. The infobox adds the information that she was part of the national team 2004-2008, no idea where that comes from. The next article that was created, Daniel Hypólito, turned out to be a misspelling for another gymnast who had had an article for years. Federica Macrì, Maryna Proskurina, ... all have the same sourcing problems as Lindor. Proskurina claims in the infobox that she was only on the national team in 2008, and has as only source evidence that she competed at the 2007 world championships... It seems she was active with the national team from 2003 on[218] (that source also gives a different date of birth, for what's it worth). Andrea Coppolino is a nice example of the creative use of sources. According to the article, he competed with the national team at championships from 1999 to 2008. According to the infobox, he competed for Italy in 2008 only. And according to the source, he competed in 2009...

One of his most recent edits was [219]. Nice, but neither when he created the article, nor now, did he seem to notice that Batjargalyn Densmaa doesn't seem to exist outside of Wikipedia[220]. Her name is Batjargal Densmaa. Why he created a redirect from her correct name to the invented name isn't clear. In the same period he created this article (October 2016), he also created Linda Curl. Two sources, neither mention her. This indicates that indeed, only getting rid of those with one source won't solve much. Jackie Slack, one source, doesn't mention her. I have been unable to confirm her date of birth anywhere, this site leaves the date open, even though they have dates for most other players. The remainder of the text seems hard to verify as well.

Eleonor Hultin has the same sourcing problem, one source which doesn't mention her. It has the unsourced claim "She won the Best Female Football Player Of The Year Award (Europe) in 1987.". This links to the somewhat clumsily titled Best Female Football Player Of The Year Award (Europe), which makes it clear that no such award exists, and that she won in 1987 (and 1989) the award for best Swedish female football player. Basically, Sander.v.Ginkel took info from Wikipedia (an unreliable site in any case) without even understanding what he was using.

So, do we need to go through all his articles, many of them in reality unsourced BLPs, looking for such errors? Do we need to spend lots of time because he spent (per article) very little time to create them? Or do we just get rid of them once and for all? Just delete all articles created by Sander.v.Ginkel in the category:living people and get it done with. And then restrict him to a small number of creations per day (5?). Fram (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing whether those undocumented world championship participations etc. can actually be validated/invalidated some other way. I don't mean for 1000s of them but just for the few listed above. That would tell us something. How many of the articles are about living people? I'm cool with taking them out of mainspace, and wouldn't want to turn them into 1000s of draft articles, but maybe the info/misinfo in them can be preserved as a few tabular pages in draft space or something like that. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Most articles are about living people. Most facts like world championships participations will be correct (though often incomplete, and mostly unsourced). But inbetween those unsourced facts are too many errors.

• 25 October 2016: create Manuela Schultealbert. 15 November: create Manuela Schlamann. They are the same though...
• 25 October 2016: create Susanne Brück. 15 November: create Susanne Messner. Look at how many articles I create! Everyone deserves two of those!

The more I look, the more massive the cleanup task seems to become. Fram (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• In the sample of 16 stubs above, derived from lists, all had entries in tabular pages about events or teams. That data, probably accurate, would not be lost if the stub were deleted. The wording, which often contains original research (e.g. "he represents Ruritania in competitions" vs. "he represented Ruritania in a competition"), would fortunately be lost. Where Sander copied from another wiki, then made a guess and added a "citation", we have a mix of correct and incorrect data and malicious gossip. I say delete them all but keep the tabular pages. Letting Sander make 5 mainspace pages a day is too much. We have no shortage of stubs. 1 a day in AfC would be enough. None of these BLPs would have made it out of AfC. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Ok I don't see much good reason to keep any of these stubs at this point. It's probably time for someone to make a formal proposal to delete them (or at least the BLP ones). I wouldn't wish regular use of AFC on anyone though. It's very strict about notability and other issues so the discipline will do SvG some good, but the AfC volunteers are overloaded, and at the same time the process is overengineered so that it can be frustrating for contributors (I know this from using it myself). How about something like: no new article creations until 1 successful trip through AfC, then 1 article/day after that? Also no more than 2 submissions in the AfC queue at the same time. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• AfC can be a bit frustrating for newbies, but Sander is one of our most prolific editors. I would go with no new article in mainspace until ten have passed AfC, then maximum 1 article per day. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support Aymatth2's suggestion directly above. If problems persist even with that set-up, then more stringent measures should be taken. Also, per Fram, could delete all his BLPs up to now; this is a Neelix-type situtation that needs a bulk Neelix-type solution. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

If it's a Neelix-type situtation then we don't delete them all in one go, rather each one would be checked individually, over a period of many, many months. Or is it different as Neelix was an admin and SVG is not? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• I can't in good conscience ask anyone to put 10 articles through AfD because of the amount of hassle it takes even experienced editors to get one through these days, unless it's improved a lot recently. 1 or 2 AFC's is a good exposure to external review; more than that is just sadism. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Who said anything about them being non-notable (the whole point of AfD)? You seem to know a lot about how things work around here, considering you only post in this forum and have only recently shown up to contribute. Care to disclose your other account(s)? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Lugnuts: I noted under the table of 16 samples that the majority do not pass the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) inherent notability criteria, and a web search for most of them shows no more than an entry in a table of competitors in one event, so they fail general notability too. All of those 16 were included in one of the table-type articles on events or teams like 2016 European Weightlifting Championships. Very little real data would be lost. Even for athletes that meet the inherent notability criteria, the stubs often give a distorted view, e.g. saying a person is an artistic gymnast who represents her country, when in fact she is a website designer who competed in gymnastics as a child. With some cases, as Fram has found, the stub says (without any foundation) that the person lied about their age or nationality so they could compete. Knowing that libelous attacks are scattered through the 16,000 BLPs, the only practical solution is to nuke them all ASAP. A few useful articles will be lost, but that is a small price to pay to avoid destroying lives for the sake of keeping this huge mass of sloppily written sub-stubs. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree, but if you think so, put them all 16 up for AfD and we will see how many of them get's deleted. And can you list examples of libelous attacks are scattered through the 16,000 BLPs? Sounds as you saw a lot of them. And how many is in your opinion a few!? 2? 3? 10? 100? 1000? 10,000?, how many useful articles must I list to show you're wrong? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note Aymatth2 wrote I would go with no new article in mainspace until ten have passed AfC. Note that again 17 articles were accepted and putted into the main space. One (Eugen Mühlberger) was sent to AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugen Mühlberger) by The Banner as being "completely unreliable and without a proper source". During the discussion nothing was found the be unriable in the article and the source I used was a proper source. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• It is funny to see you finger pointing to others instead of taking a critical look at your own work. But to point at the article mentioned above, what I nominated was this thingy. 114 years old, unsourced death in 1943, exact date of death while missing in action, dying in 1943 AND 1944.
• It is true that AfC is not a good option. What I noticed is that they only check if the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. They do not look at any quality or lack thereof. So it is useless to send the SvG-articles to AfC, as it will not fix the problem. Somewhere above was a proposal to limit SvG to one new article a day. That seems a good idea. But I would like to add to that that SvG would use multiple sources about the subject itself, so not only statistical pages. Side note: Sports Reference is closing down. The Banner talk 12:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• That is his age as he would be by now. Note that is age at death is given correctly. This is not a reason for an AfD. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It's easy to dig in my creation history and search for some errors. He screened many, and only list some with an issue. A fair claim could only be made when is stated in about how many cases error exists. The reason of Fram that articles have not been edited since creation is logic. After having creating a few thousands of articles last month we can't expect that all articles have been expanded. Note that many articles have been expanded. Medal templates have been added, previous and current teams have been updates and many have been de-stubbed. For sports bios editors are willing to update information when there is a page, but leave it when there is one as it costs already a lot of time to create one. Also there reason that it wouldn't have much of time to create an article is not a fair reason. Creating the stubs costs me over 5 minutes per page. The data have to be found, the data has to be listed. That already costs loads of time and is not visible. I think an average editor will it costs at least 15 minutes to create such a stub, if not more. The reference I used are listing the most important information, at least name, date of birth, that the person represents the national team etc. The point that not all competitions or different competitions are named in the article is not a main problem. All the competitions where the People competed at are correct. This would not be a fair reason to delete such an article. Of course I agree improvements are always possible. Starting the fact in a case that the date of birth is not correct shows that the data in the articles haven't been automatic copy pasted. As many results are in pdf format, I typed them manualy. And of course an error could occur. I don't see this as a fair reason to delete an article. About the Mongolian athlete with different names, all are not the original name as the name is in Mongolian. Names could be written in different ways. I leared that Wikipedia uses for the first name always the style ending with 'yn' or 'in'.I spend years of full time work to make the notable sportspeople in several fields complete. The reason pointes above are not indicatief that all the articles should be deleted. Only all the negatieve things are listed here. Many more positie things from these stubs are named. Several years of hard and dedicated full time work I putter in these stubs, many people are thankfull for that and some people say in one sentence, delete them all. If such s proposal would be made it must be done in a discussion like here where s verry limited amount of editors comes to,, but many more People should be involved in it, like the People of the affected WikiProjects and People at AfD. Don't let a few years of fulltime work be destrourd by only s few people. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Sander.v.Ginkel: The media watch this page. We must deal with scandals quickly and efficiently. Could you please provide three lists in your userspace but with links here:

1. All articles where you took the data for a biography of a living person from a Wikipedia in another language, or some other unreliable source
2. All articles where you faked a citation in a biography of a living person, meaning you later added a citation to a source that you thought might support the content
3. All articles where you included information that could clearly be damaging to the subject, such as an assertion of fraud

Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Aymatth2, I do really appriciate you ask this. I was already busy with it. So yes I will. I only don't have time this weekend, but will start lists on Monday. Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 00:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I started creating a list where I got the data from. See User:Sander.v.Ginkel/articles. However, it's a lot of work and will include the other info asked above. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Sander.v.Ginkel: We do not need a list of data sources. We need lists of the three types of potential problem articles, and we need them quickly. We cannot afford to allow articles with serious problems to remain in mainspace. How soon will you provide the complete lists? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• The thing is that your opinion is that only a few of my articles is realiable and usefull. To show how I build my articles it is important to know where all the data is comping from and that it's not copied from an unrelaiable or from a Wikipedia page in another language. Some users are even sports-reference naming as unreliable, so it's good to have an overview of everything. As retrieving the info of the 1000s of athletes, it can't be done in a few hours and will take time. The only thing I've written that could clearly be damaging to the subject is writing about doping in weightlifting. I've created most of the people in Category:Doping cases in weightlifting, like for instance Gergana Kirilova and Vasiliki Kasapi. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• "The only thing I've written that could clearly be damaging to the subject is writing about doping in weightlifting." and about fraudulent ages of football players. Anything else? Fram (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• @Sander.v.Ginkel: We have an emergency caused by finding serious problems with a sample of these stubs. We do not need a history of how all the stubs were prepared. We urgently need complete lists of the three types of potential problem articles.

1. All articles where you took the data for a biography of a living person from a Wikipedia in another language, or some other unreliable source
2. All articles where you faked a citation in a biography of a living person, meaning you later added a citation to a source that you thought might support the content
3. All articles where you included information that could clearly be damaging to the subject, such as an assertion of fraud

Please give a date when you will supply these lists. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• "It's easy to dig in my creation history and search for some errors." True, it's very easy, as there are so many. "He screened many, and only list some with an issue. A fair claim could only be made when is stated in about how many cases error exists." I didn't screen all that many actually. And to be able to tell in how many cases errors exist, I would have to check all your creations. No thanks... You sometimes create series of at first glance allright ministubs, and then you create a next series of highly problematic articles. It is unpredictable where the errors are hidden, but they are quite common. Fram (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• For God's sake, why are we still screwing around with this? Delete them all. EEng 01:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• I agree, whatever the percentage of "good" stubs is, it's not worth the time and energy being expended here, and the importance of those "good" stubs is negligible at best. Nuke 'em from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• If anyone has been following this pointless discussion, please move to close, it's also fine if more than one person closes it. A simple dispute between 2 editors has evolved into this painful thing no one will bother to go through. --QEDK (愛) 04:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I expanded the list with the articles containing information that could clearly be damaging to the subject, see User:Sander.v.Ginkel/articles. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2

1. All articles in the category:living people created by Sander.v.Ginkel are speedily deleted.
2. Sander.v.Ginkel is restricted to create no more than 10 new articles per week.

It has been discussed above, with some support, but not in a structured fashion. The deletion of the BLPs is to get rid of all existing problems with them once and for all. Sander.v.Ginkel can not be trusted to identify problem articles himself (even above, he claims that the only potential problem articles would be some weightlifting ones, ignoring e.g. the Equatorial Guinean footballer articles). Many articles, despite being identified above as such, remain unsourced (technically, they have a source or sources, but none of them mentions the article subject at all). Others have clear errors (like the wrong award example above). The mass deletion will include many harmless stubs as well, but this can't be helped. There is no deadline, these can be recreated if and when someone wants to take the time to write decent stubs or articles.

The second restriction is to prevent the reoccurrence of the problem. The first proposal, discussed above, to move all his creations through AfC but without a limit to the number, will simply overburden AfC. With this new restriction he can, if he wants to, create less but a lot better articles, and/or improve existing articles. "Creating articles" should be read as "in any namespace, whether main, draft, user sandbox..." and includes turning redirects into articles and the like. Fram (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support both as proposer. Fram (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The stub creator has shown he cannot be trusted to clean up the mess. This is the only practical solution. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Aymatth2: Can you please explain why I cannot be trusted to clean up the mess?

• @Sander.v.Ginkel: because a) you continue to say the doping allegations are the only problem, and ignore unsourced allegations of fraud by footballers, etc., b) you were asked several days ago to provide lists of articles with specific issues and have yet to even give a date when such lists would be ready and c) you continue to add damaging assertions citing totally unreliable sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• As you could have seen I'm busy with it. I already made a long list. At the time I posted it here, I already saw I was incapable of doing things. Is it normal that everything is done within a day!?!? See in my history I'm spended serious time in getting the athletes. As I started doing it, of course I can't tell you a specific time. But in you opinion a day is already too long.. And I didn't continue to add damaging assertions. I only added an extra reference. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - There has been no net benefit to Wikipedia. I'd type something longer but this particular issue takes up enough space and time already. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Exemplo347: What do you mean with There has been no net benefit to Wikipedia?

I have no idea who added this comment and I can't be bothered to check. Sign your comments next time, whoever it was. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Umm...is it really necessary to explicitly drop all semblance of discretion? Some of these article have been created through AfC, and at least one speedy kept at AfD. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • We can change the proposal to "all articles created before 1 December 2016", it's just that the more complicated a proposal is, the more trouble it seems to cause afterwards. Fram (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Perhaps there is also some way to word it so "oppose" may be taken to mean "oppose – I volunteer to review and tag 4,000 of the stubs." Aymatth2 (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
      • No, that's not how Wikipedia works. "Oppose" doesn't mean "and I will clean up thee articles", "Support" doesn't mean "And I'll recreate these articles". A support or oppose should be based on the merits of the case, not on the consequences for the !voter personally. Fram (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
        • It somehow seems that "keep 'em and let someone else fix all the problems" is in line with the stub creator's philosophy. Never mind. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Is there any indication that SvG-articles created before are of a better quality than the ones created after or on 1 December 2016? Beside that, SvG (and others) still has WP:REFUND available. The Banner talk 14:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
      • The proposal is to delete the ones from before 1 December, so no, there is no indication that these are better, as that would be a reason to oppose this. Fram (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Note that we are mainly looking to the most recent articles I created of the footballers, we are not looking to all of my articles. And the second thing, of course if you ask to fix the problems withing a few days when I was almost not online I haven't done it.

In the proposal is written Sander.v.Ginkel can not be trusted to identify problem articles himself. However I started listing articles asked for. If Aymatth2 said he was in a hurry, I listed a category where most of the articles could be found. Did I say I'm not able to create such a list: no. Am I not willing to create a list: no. Today I started listing specific articles also including water polo players and volleyball players. As I have to go through 1000s of articles it takes time. I didn't point to the Equatorial Guinean footballer because you deleted them already previous week! I'm busy with it, also with my very limitted time in December. But I'm doing everything I possibly can.

I think this would be the largest deletion discussion in Wikipedia history ever! However, the proposal is based on some articles found by Fram. It's known that he screened 1000s of my articles and list some with problem. This causes it looks like everything I created is wrong. As seen by a proper pick of articles by Aymatth2 the problem can't be proven. When putting all of the 10,000s articles up for deletion, the reason given above is not enough.

As all the articles I created are years of fulltime work and with most of them is nothing wrong. It would be a shame to delete them by a few people saying support. I also think this page is not the best place to decide such a big thing. As this is about many many people, from different sports, the related WikiProjects must be getting involved in this proposal.

Most artices I created are proper sourced. (But of course they are never named. ) prove it I started listing how I created my articles. See this at User:Sander.v.Ginkel/articles. As can seen by the volleyball articles, the data is taken from the FIVB website and the articles countains a external link to their personal profile. The 1000s of weightlifters are created contains all their performances at World Championships. See for intance Mohamed Ihsan. It would be a shame to delete 1000s of these kind of articles.

All the articles that where put up for AfD with reasons given above were kept or speedy kept.

The article with the wrong award example is a verry poor reason to get an article deleted. The article will never be deleted in an AfD, so is no reason to get all of my articles deleted. So put some articles up for AfD, and see what happens. I can say, they won't be deleted there.

The problem is with the footballers I created, with the data I had I created articles that had wrong references. I said I'm going through all of them, and also fixed 100s of them, but didn't have time yet to fix them all, as also several other things were asked me to do above.

As the serious problems are in the football articles I created, why not only proposing the footballers?

Data that is in the articles I created without is source is not proven to be wrong or made up.

100s of articles have already been destubbed. Other editors putted hours of work in it. Just delete them all?

Articles have been at the front page of Wikipedia in the Did You Know section. Just delete them all?

The mass deletion will include many harmless stubs as well well it is actually The mass deletion will include mostly harmless stubs.

The harmfull content of the people I've written about is well referenced. See the articles at User:Sander.v.Ginkel/articles.

Wikipedia always says we're not in a hurry. So why hurry with delete all? Why not looking good? As the content is not harmfull, why such a hurry?

This proposal and replies are based upon opinions how bad it would be. But where are the facts? How many % of the articles are wrong?

Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support without prejudice to an outright indefinite block or ban. I've never seen such a complete waste of community time for no apparent purpose. Whether it's CIR or IDHT doesn't matter. EEng 17:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support in preference to Proposal 3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - per EEng. Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 19:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, emphasizing the statement that "these can be recreated if and when someone wants to take the time to write decent stubs or articles". These list-or-worse-sourced sub-stubs do no good to the project, and their demonstrated sloppiness could do actual harm. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support – I don't take a mass deletion like this lightly, particularly when some of the articles are on notable people. However, I'm not sure we have too many other options here. In an ideal world, I'd back handling this like we did the Darius Dhlomo case, by blanking all of the articles and letting others vet them before unblanking. Unfortunately, I don't think that's practical here; it took almost three years for the Dhlomo case to be closed, and I doubt we have enough interested users to review these articles quickly. The BLP violations could be anywhere, and many errors in many different articles have been pointed out, making it probable that more problems exist than have been identified. In this case, I think we're better off getting rid of the damage and allowing interested editors to create higher-quality versions of articles that are about notable people, as much as deleting pages on notable subjects pains the content creator in me. Also, I'm not impressed by the user's edits here, here, here and in several other places, which strike me as a pretty clear case of canvassing for opposition to this proposal. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Irresponsible behavior must be curbed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC).
• Request As all the major problems raised are in the footballers and I listed the articles containing harmfull content I request to change the proposal in only deleting the footballers. There are no clear reasons given why deleting all the other articles and I can prove they are different created from the footballers like I started doing for the volleyball articles. 62.72.193.116 (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC) sorry it was Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 11:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Literally the section just below this one is about a problem you created while this AN/I was ongoing on a page about someone who wasn't a footballer. CMD (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact is, SvG, even you don't know how many of your articles contain errors because you didn't check them before posting them. What do you suggest - someone individually goes through each article you have created to check everything? You've tried to take short-cuts using automated processes and it's gone spectacularly wrong. Personally, if I'd done that I'd be requesting a mass delete so I could start over, doing things properly. Whatever script or other process you're using, it doesn't work and nobody - not even yourself - knows how many problems you have created. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the footballers I would create the articles the same way, as these were made all from their original source. That's why I asked for only removed of the footballers. The other article is in the list I made with harmfull information. I didn't add content, I added a reference as the previous link gave a 404 error. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you know for sure that none of your other articles contain factual errors? The large quantity makes that knowledge unlikely. You've created so many articles in such a small space of time that you can't possibly have had time to check every single one for factual errors. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support- Flooding the encyclopedia with factual errors, particularly in BLPs, needs to stop. Reyk _YO! 07:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I am hesitant to support the community ban, but I do not oppose it. He did a lot of damage to himself with his "Proposal 4". He has made a spectacular mess of it and he has blown up his own credibility. It will take quite some time to restore that. His battleground mentality, finger pointing, WP:IDHT, revenge proposals, following around, lack of quality is now coming back to him as a boomerang. I will give him one last chance by voting for proposal 2 so he gets a chance to show the community that his attitude can change and that the quality of his work can improve. The Banner talk 11:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Opposed at the idea of delete its articles about cycling. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Note that this !vote was canvassed. SmartSE (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Even prior to this discussion I had doubts about the articles and this has strengthened those concerns. I am also not far from supporting a ban, particularly with edits like the one I linked to above. SmartSE (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Note on canvassing - SvG canvassed 8 wikiprojects regarding this proposal: [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228]. I have removed them. SmartSE (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Wow. What can I say? Olympian articles are deemed notable by the relevant Wikiproject. I oppose deletion of Olympian articles, but the others I am neutral about. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The articles are mainly of people who are notable due to participation in events such as the Olympics or World Championships. If the problem is the notability criteria for sportspeople then that should be addressed, not the activity of a single editor. --Racklever (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Note - @Sportsfan 1234:@Racklever: - The problem isn't the subjects of the articles, notability isn't in question. I suppose SvG forgot to tell you what the actual problem was when he canvassed you to come and post here. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - rather than mass delete everything, split out the cycling articles (cyclists, teams, races etc), I'm sure WP:CYC can trove through all the articles and either pass them or fix any issues/reservations. XyZAn (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Mainly point no. 1. Mass-delete helps nobody (read: nobody). I have given more context in my proposal below, if you care to read. I would also request Fram to give his take on my proposal, since he was one of those directly involved. --QEDK (愛) 21:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support in addition to the indefinite block. Might I suggest that, given the size of the article deletion being proposed here, that a broader cross section of the community be made aware of it? I think a much wider consensus be sought. A posting to WP:CENT might do the trick? Blackmane (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment No opinion on this proposal but concur that this issue needs a wider consensus as it is proposing a nuke of a very large number of articles in particular subject areas. Appable (talk | contributions) 02:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 3: community indef block

• Sander.v.Ginkel is indefinitely blocked for continued violations of the BLP policy

Today, during all the discussions about his problematic BLP editing, he repeatedly edits Vanessa Hernandez, an article he created in January 2016. His edits today[229] have achieved the following:

• Add an incorrect year of birth (1982 added in three places, so not just a typo: all sources give 1983)
• Add a completely unreliable source to her supposed doping offense[230]
• Add a doping category

The doping edits were done while leaving the original source, which gives a 404 error in place. The doping case seems to be completely unverifiable at the moment (in the article, but also in general online). What also wasn't changed, and was there in his original creation, is the claim that she is a retired water polo player. Aged 33, she still plays at the highest level in France[231].

So during this case, and after all the BLP problems already listed above, he made an article actively worse instead of better. Whether he simply doesn't care about his subjects and about our BLP policies, or whether he lacks the competence required to deal with sensitive subjects here, is not clear and not really important. The end result is the same, he can't be let loose unsupervised on BLPs, and having prolific editors who need constant supervising is not tenable.

Therefor I support that we simply indefinitely community block him, delete his creations and be done with this. Fram (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You forgot to add "Merry Christmas" at the end of that. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support, as a supplement to Proposal 2. Bizarrely irresponsible behavior given the context. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Note: Please state why this website is unreliable. Are you going to delete her from List of doping cases in sport (H)? In that case you should remove all the swimmers/water polo players etc. from FINA sports from all these list, as FINA dicided to remove the doping cases from the internet. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to see how a site called "Olympic anecdotes" wouldn't be reliable. EEng 16:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note 2:She had already the doping allegation in the article. I improved it with an extra reference and she was already in a doping category. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Why do we indulge such people? EEng 17:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Proposal 4, formed by this user also shows a lack of CIR, and also after the evidence put forward. Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 17:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Note 3 Because the original source is now an 404 error, this is suddenly an violations of the BLP policy?!
• Oppose This matter all started with an ANi complaint by Sander.v.Ginkel against Fram. For it to end with Sander being blocked would be unfair and disproportionate. Proposal 2 is a better option in my opinion. Limiting him to 10 new articles a week might encourage the production of more worthwhile, properly referenced articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - per Fram. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Someone who's been here this long and still thinks a statement like Data that is in the articles I created without is source is not proven to be wrong or made up is helping his case, is never going to get it. Before Lugnuts starts shouting about double standards, I'll point out that I not only supported blocking Neelix but seriously proposed using a bot to remove all traces of his additions from Wikipedia, and as far as I can tell SvG's edits are more problematic than Neelix's (which were mainly just incompetent rather than actively damaging). ‑ Iridescent 19:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I considered opposing this in favor of a topic ban on BLPs, broadly construed, but the "broadly construed" part would end up covering most of Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support – I was initially hoping to find myself opposing this proposal, in the belief that the limits on article creation in proposal 2 might persuade Sander to take a more patient approach to building athlete biographies, which might in turn prevent quality issues. Then I noticed that earlier today Sander created Category:Maltese sportspeople in doping cases and added similar categories to several other articles, not just the Hernandez page that Fram mentioned. They also added doping info to several BLPs. Given the issues raised to this point, any edits involving athletes' doping are probably the last thing that Sander should be doing right now. A lot of us have said that this editor needed to be more careful and check for obvious mistakes in their work, and none of it seems to have sunk in. Iridescent has got it exactly right: I don't think this user is going to change. They've shown no indication of doing so yet, and their recent edits imply that they're going to continue down this path. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. BLPs are the most sensitive of articles and must not be created irresponsibly. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC).
• Support Reluctantly supporting this after seeing that other proposals aren't going to work. Could we not nuke the articles in similar vein to the Chinese stubs? JAGUAR  23:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Time to bring this Michael-Jackson-Popcorn-Eating trainwreck to the station. While I'm not an admin the behavior here is passed the CIR/IDHT level into willful disrespect of process. Making a tantrum proposal to subject your greatest critic to the same treatment you're about to be subjected to only demonstrates the lack of temperment and understanding to contribute here. No objections to other proposals, but I am strongly convinced that the Light > Heat ratio would take absolutely perfect editing for several years for this editor to return to net positive contribution status. Hasteur (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This doesn't at all seem like the least restrictive option necessary to address the issue. I would probably support a year or six month topic ban from BLPs along with something along the lines of the editing restrictions proposed above, of course, to be extended to indefinite if the user can't fix themselves in that time. It's also not necessary to theorize on "broadly construed" because the core issue here seems to be the creation of articles about individuals, who are for the most part, either alive or dead (apart from the occasional missing in action). TimothyJosephWood 00:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Making such edits while this discussion is going on shows a either a complete disregard or a lack of understanding of the BLP policy. Either way, it needs to stop, and given this discussion hasn't gotten that message through yet, perhaps a block will. Indef is not permanent, and I would support an unblock (or even no block at all if BLP article editing halts while unblocked, but that seems unlikely) if they note an understanding of their mistakes, and agree to a plan fixing them moving forward. In the interim however, it's ridiculous that this continues. CMD (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support indef. SvG has contributed a lot to the community, but we ate are a collaborative community. Continuing to make the kind of edits being discussed here while they are being discussed here shows a total disregard for the community's concerns. It seems strange that an editor with this much experience can show this much IDHT. Throw the ludicrous crap below into the mix, and the only thing coming out of that cocktail shaker is block. John from Idegon (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

John from Idegon, please refrain from eating any more collaborative communities. Aside from the ethical issues involved, they may contain large indigestible masses, pointy edits, excessive bloat or flab, and long tangled threads which can stick in your craw. EEng 06:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support- Silly "Proposal 4" below has convinced me that this user is not interested or able to curb his disruptive behaviour. Reyk _YO! 07:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - For most of the above issues. I will say that that Doping sourced to Fina is not in itself a problem - FINA only keep currently active sanctions online - to satisfy its 'publishing' rules. So anything sourced to them *will* drop off at some point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it is not a good solution. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that this !vote was canvassed. SmartSE (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Sander does need to get it that wikipedia isn't just about number of articles, and that with BLPs you can't afford to be careless. But remember that Sander is a human being with real feelings. Obviously he arrived here to build content. He wants to see content flourish. Banning him from the site seems very extreme, and rather than teaching him a lesson we're in danger of losing an editor who if given some guidance could be very productive. I would suggest a six month ban on creating articles instead and encourage him to start focusing on quality. If his editing is sitll problematic then.. But he deserves one last chance..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Indefinite doesn't mean infinite. When he can coherently express an understanding of what he's been doing wrong, he should be able to return. EEng 16:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment While staying neutral for now on the block proposal, I'd like to second Dr. Blofeld's comment. SvG's articles have obvious problems but the personal beatdown that this thread has turned into isn't nice. (I may have contributed to it early on too). Dr. B, if you're willing to work with SvG on content issues for a while, that might help. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Dr. Blofeld's statement: "Obviously he arrived here to build content" so I would support a 6 month restriction to something such as Cwm's suggestion of: "Limiting him to 10 new articles a week". If after that period of time, there are no issues with his BLPs, I'd recommend re-assessing the restriction. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• So to be clear, given that very large numbers of his BLP articles have continuing issues, you would be OK with ten possible BLP violations a week? Black Kite (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support We cannot have editors creating BLP's with such a cavalier attitude about sourcing and factual errors. A ban on creating BLP's, or even one banning creation or editing of BLP's would address that problem, but the CIR/IDHT behavior on this thread has persuaded me that this editor is incorrigible. For that reason, I support a block. If indef is too long, perhaps making it a year is enough. If the behavior recurred after a year, per WP:ROPE moving on to indef would be a short step. David in DC (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Skimming through this thread from the top things seem to have escalated quickly with the general theme that Sander has continued disruptive behavior whilst under investigation and has made poorly thought through moves like proposal 4. However, I challenge anyone to act rationally when the thousands of edits that they have made, I believe in good faith if often misguided, are at threat of being deleted en masse. What we have here is a user who wants to put in the time and effort to be a valuable member of the community but perhaps lacks some of the skills needed to do so. Chasing such users away is counterproductive to this project in the long term even if some time and effort by others is needed in the short term to help fix the mistakes and provide some teaching on how things should be done. I'm in favour of some kind of limit on BLP article creation and for those articles to be reviewed by an experienced editor with the aim of providing constructive feedback on how Sander can make their articles better - Basement12 (T.C) 16:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support There is no messing about with BLP. Given the editor's recent antics on BLP articles (not to mention the ridiculous section below) I don't see why any more editor's time should be wasted on this. The only other option is a complete topic ban from BLP article creation (and, to be honest, editing). Black Kite (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

don't see why any more editor's time should be wasted on this -- Amen. This one thread is now a full 2/3 of the entire ANI page, an unprecedented achievement largely traceable to SvG's bobbing, weaving, and bludgeoning. It's fantastic. EEng 17:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I've only had positive dealing with Sander going back a couple of years or so, granted everyone makes mistakes and some of those people may not handle the situation in the best way possible, but on balance I think this extreme, reading through all of the above I can see editors trying to keep personal dealings out of the situation but I get the feeling the discussion has become amorphous and opaque. XyZAn (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support BLP is not something to take lightly. Also the blatant canvassing should solidify the result. Valeince (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - As long as the first part of proposal 2 is also implemented. The BLP violations, canvassing, and sad excuse for a "proposal" below should make this rather easy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose We're making a mistake, read my proposal below for further context. --QEDK (愛) 20:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support re many of the above. Canvassing and revenge proposal doesn't help, but the very serious BLP violation are more than enough on their own. Manxruler (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support while I had made, what is now, proposal 1 in an attempt to address some of this, I vastly underestimated the scale of their article creation. 20/20 hindsight and all that. I'll say it again. For someone to have a masters degree and yet fail so abysmally in sourcing and source checking is unacceptable. Furthermore the fact that Jaguar, who has been on the receiving end of a nuke of their articles, to support this says volumes. The canvassing and retaliatory proposal seals the deal for me. Blackmane (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Proposal 4 tipped the balance, I'm afraid. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Normally, I would support something like proposal #5 below - a targeted remedy that attempts to rehabilitate an editor into a valued member of the project. (I recognize that the Blocking Policy states that blocks are equally intended to achieve the same end, but they have an inevitably punitive cast.) In this instance, however, the editor in question has made it clear that they are determined to not make any change to their behavior. Beyond the tit-for-tat "proposal" below and canvassing issues many other editors have mentioned here, I see a very basic refusal to understand the importance of BLP. The BLP policy is one of our most important policies. Jimbo set up "anyone can edit," as a principle, but not everyone should edit. Particularly, a person should not edit if they can't grasp, despite some vigorously applied cluex4's, why issues of verifiability ans accuracy are extremely sensitive in application to biographies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 4

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.

---

• All articles of people created by Fram are speedily deleted.
• Most of his articles (see for instance Carlo Garbieri) is text copied from an old book. Under the article text is a note written that some text is incorporated from an book. However this is a note and the book is not actually used as a reference! So the article 1) lacks inline citation in most cased 2) lacks any citations and 3) it can't be found which part is copied!
• As seen above I did a check upon 40 consecutive articles of Fram. I noted 20 serious errors on 40 of these articles, that's 50% of his articles. These errors included no references of years of birth/death and another year of birth/death compared to the reference. Fram didn't fix the errors and only in the articles where I placed a note where changed. And also he didn't do them all. He didn't change the other things I listed.
• In 6(!) out of the 20 articles I listed with errors the year of birth/death had to be adjusted. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
• The wrong year of births/deaths corresponed obvious with the Spanish/Italian or Dutch Wikipedia. In one occasion Fram even said he used the content from the Italian Wikipedia (without proper references) and also didn't use the translate template.
• Support as proposer. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Nonsense, and this is just more evidence of the SvG's CIR/IDHT. EEng 17:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose- This proposal shows a lack of WP:CIR by this editor. Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 17:31, 20 December 2016 (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.

Proposal 5

#Sander.v.Ginkel (talk · contribs · logs) is restricted from creating any article on living persons due to his failure of understanding the BLP policy, for a period of 1 year from the enforcement of the ban.

1. 1. After the ban duration expires, the editor may only submit articles through the AfC process and this restriction can only be removed with the approval of the community.
2. In addition, Sander.v.Ginkel is restricted to a 5 article/week limit and all of them must be submitted through the AfC process, for a period of 6 months from the enforcement of this ban. This ban operates exclusively from the BLP article creation ban.
   1. After the ban duration expires, the editor can at any time request a community discussion for the removal of this restriction.
3. Sander.v.Ginkel is made aware of the behavioral guidelines before going any further, and reminded that the community will not give any more leeway.
4. Sander.v.Ginkel is warned that upon violation of the community-enforced bans, any UNINVOLVED admin may impose sanctions up to a month and then indefinite, after which it can only be removed by the Arbitration Committee or the community.

I kinda regret how the community handled the situation. IDHT does not really equate to wild brazenness and refusal to cooperate. I think we should give the last bit of ROPE and get this over with. --QEDK (愛) 20:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

And it just doesn't end here, we'll need troves of people to dig up SvG's history and check each article for discrepancies and have a central page to actually coordinate and fix all of it ASAP. --QEDK (愛) 21:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --QEDK (愛) 20:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support and let's put this hopefully behind us. TimothyJosephWood 20:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is getting ridiculous, how many proposals does this community need? Why should leeway be given when the subject in question only added to their problems during this discussion with canvassing and a bogus proposal.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only solution is site ban and nuke of all creations. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose per support for other proposals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is a risk that SvG would start mass changes to articles on living athletes in which he asserts that they are guilty of fraud, doping or other offenses. This proposal does not address that very real possibility. I am more concerned with the people affected than the stubs. If an athlete is truly notable, and there is enough public material to support a decent-sized article, it is reasonable to record violations that were proven and reported by the press. But a minor athlete should not be stuck for the rest of their life with an article that says only that they competed in a sporting event, failed a urine test and were banned for a couple of years. So, they had a lousy coach. I see nothing good in stubs like that. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Really? There's also a risk he might start spamming pictures of genitalia on talks, but I'm not sure that's a legitimate rationale. TimothyJosephWood 23:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The reason to consider this is a risk is that he added a doping allegation from Olympic Anecdotes to a stub only yesterday. That site and others have lots of lists of athletes, and he has certainly shown that he likes working through lists. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a diff of that addition? Thanks. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Enough with dragging this on with more unnecessary proposals. This is already taking up more on ANI than (hyperbole alert) the other requests combined.Valeince (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Not hyperbole. As pointed out elsewhere, this thread is already twice the size of all other threads on the page combined. EEng 00:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'd also like to request that someone copies & pastes this to all the future Nonsense proposals that keep popping up for this. It reminds me of a Filibuster - hopefully an Admin will see through all of this nebulous, way-too-long post and follow both suggestions in Proposal 2. Please please stop with the mindless "proposals" Exemplo347 (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Apologies to those above, but WP:IMQUITETIRED and WP:IVELOSTPATIENCE are both, I believe, still redlinks and not a legitimate rationale for issuing a block. TimothyJosephWood 01:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless QEDK is volunteering to deal with every last one of SvG's contributions in AfC space within 1 day of them being created, this is a non-starter from me both as a regular editor ans as an AfC volunteer. AFC already has more than enough crap to sort through and cannot afford to spend more than a minute consideratin on this user's efforts. Remember, BLP policy is not suspended in AFC space, it's just not as stridently enforced because users are expected to be improving their competence. Hasteur (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• I second Avi's close, for taking level-headed affirmative action. --QEDK (愛) 10:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Of course you do, his close more resembles your clearly opposed proposal than the two which actually had clear support. Fram (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I understand SvG caused you some real bit of distress but that's no reason to have such mentality. If you're dissatisfied, you're more than welcome to drag this to the AC or move for a closure review, which will of course need a consensus to overturn. No one's stopping you. --QEDK (愛) 18:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by User:AB GenC

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.

---

Here.[232] Veiled threat from lawyer at pet food drug company. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not exactly seeing a legal threat, or anything that would suggest legal action really. I'd keep an eye on this, however. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I think "I am General Counsel for PetMed Express ... Your changes amount to an unfair smear campaign of our company. ... [we] are hereby formally asking ..." is litigious language in my view. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here and assume that's simply how she writes. Some lawyers are like that. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree. Saying that they are the "General Counsel for PetMed Express" and that the changes "amount to an unfair smear campaign of our company" is and of itself not a legal threat, or implies one. As for the "formal request" part, I'm pretty sure they just mean request Jytdog directly in hopes of getting their request fulfilled. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Where exactly is the legal threat here? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Inherent in the phrases "I am General Counsel for PetMed Express ... Your changes amount to an unfair smear campaign of our company. ... [we] are hereby formally asking ..." as above. Roxy the dog. bark 17:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat. She's identifying herself and then requesting something. No threat at all. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Intending to have a chilling effect imho. Roxy the dog. bark 18:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake. No more than any other subject complaining about an article about them. If they hadn't introduced themselves as attorneys it wouldn't even occur to anyone this was an LT. It's what's said, not who's saying it. There's no threat here. EEng 18:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Concur, it's a legal threat In above comments Someguy1221 dismissively says that some lawyers are just like that and I certainly agree that some lawyers exude legally threatening vibes with every word they utter, but I disagree that this behavior is welcome at Wikipedia. If User:AB GenC really is a lawyer, then they got thru law school and if they got thru law school they have at least two brain cells to rub together. For the privilege of participation here, they need to learn how to speak in favor of collaboration instead of threats. Some lawyers are like that, also, and those kind specialize in building up relationships through deal making and working together. This user sounds like the "You-Do-X-or-we're-gonna-sue" type. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

PS The rationale for our No-Legal-Threat Policy trumpets the vital importance of "free editing of pages" so that "Wikipedia remains neutral". The policy further states that "Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other. The only reason to have your attorney post to Wikipedia instead of doing it yourself is to WP:Right great wrongs through the inherent intimidation that editors are confronted with officers of the court. It's an implicit threat, more sneaky than an explicit one, but just as damaging. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Where exactly is the threat? She identified herself as the general counsel and then requested something to the article. There was no threat, implied or otherwise. We need to stop with throwing around false claims of legal threats. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Your summary missed out the accusation phase of the statement, about "an unfair smear campaign of our company". Maybe I've spent too much time around lawyers. Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Where exactly in our WP:NLT policy does it say you can inimidate editors into making desired changes so long as you refrain from making promises of explicit consequences? The policy is not about explicit consequences, its about intimidation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Before anyone jumps to conclusions and escalates matters out of hand, has someone tried politely explaining to Alison the verifiability, no legal threats, and other pertinent policies on her talk page and engaging her in conversation prior to invoking protective measures? -- Avi (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, but I thought WP:Don't bite the newbies applied to humans. Are you suggesting we expand its scope to include lawyers? Well...... ok. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• She started it! on Jytdogs Talk page, about forty minutes ago. C'mon. Roxy the dog. bark 18:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• It's clearly and indisputably a legal threat designed to have a chilling effect on editing. I really don't understand how anyone can disagree with that, it's so blatantly obvious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh well, everyone is well aware of the situation now. Let's see how it develops and hope all proceeds smoothly. Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2016 (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.

Strange close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harris Schachter

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.

---

Harris Schachter was created by SPA User:HRA5967 and nominated for deletion by User:KDS4444 . The article creator then closed the AFD as having been withdrawn by the nominator [233] and removed the notification from the article [234] [235]. I see no evidence of a withdrawal of the nomination in the AFD or in KDS4444's edit history. If there was a discussion it was not done on Wikipedia. I asked both editors what was going on [236] [237] and, after a brief wait to see if the nominator was online or the article creator would respond, undid the closure. Did I miss something or is this just a blatant attempt to circumvent an AFD? Meters (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you handled it appropriately. I assume HRA saw such a close somewhere and tried to copy it - I doubt he even knows what it means. As long as he knows not to repeat it, I think all should be well. You know, even in the event that KDS really did want to withdraw, that would be controversial at this point, since an uninvolved editor has come in to support the deletion. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Someguy. You handled it properly and there is an uninvolved editor advocating deletion, so it should run its course at this point regardless. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. There is a sudden surge of editors looking at the AFD and agreeing with the nomination. There's probably a moral of the story to be drawn there. Meters (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I didn't mean to imply that KDS4444 had anything to do with this closure attempt. Meters (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back— no, I did not withdraw the nomination: someone is messing with the system by claiming this. (And to Meters: no worries, never thought otherwise but thank you for making sure I didn't misunderstand!) KDS4444 (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2016 (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.

Rococo1700

ANI notification here

Rococo1700 (talk · contribs) was BOLD in his edit in the Menachem Mendel Schneerson, but he was reverted (several times) and a discussion ensued in Talk. Unfortunately, for what ever reason, Rococo had a very difficult time comprehending what many editors wrote, time and time again, explaining as to why certain items should not be considered as "controversial" or why other parts simply fell outside of the scope of the article. Most editors were patient with him, again and again, repeating what they had already explained several times to him. Also, most editors agreed that it was worthy to place something into the article. Subsequently, we were in the process of building a strong consensus on two items: the text itself and placement. However, because Rococo didn't agree with the consensus, he hijacked the discussions and, while discussions ensued, Rococo continued to add his own edits into the article. In this edit here, I gave Rococo four difs showing a consensus that the insertion should not be placed under the heading "Controversy". Those examples were here, here, here, and here. And here was even more to the consensus by Kendall-K1. However, Rococo responded here with "Kamel, none of what you states, I repeat none, constitutes "consensus". Sorry to be blunt but you have a difficulty understanding how Wikipedia works." He then went and placed his own wording in the article here UNDER the heading "Controversy".

• Rococo was admonished by Bus stop here

Rococo has violated WP:DISRUPTIVE WP:EDITWAR WP:EXHAUST WP:WOT

Following are the Article diffs:

• [238] 2016-12-15T08:36:27 Kamel Tebaast reverted Rococo (Summary: Reverted. Does not belong under controversies and needs a proof read.)
• [239] 2016-12-15T09:51:54‎ Rococo1700 reverted Kamel Tebaast and placed back under Controversies
• [240] 2016-12-15T11:46:10‎ Debresser reverted Rococo1700 (Summary:This was discussed before. The consensus remains that this is not relevant in the article about the rabbi.)
• [241] 2016-12-15T14:25:33‎ Rococo reverted Debresser
• [242] 2016-12-15T20:28:30 Kamel Tebaast reverted Rococo (Summary: Reverted because Talk consensus is that this does not belong under Controversies)
• [243] 2016-12-16T15:22:17 Revert by Rococo
• [244] 2016-12-16T15:41:45 Revert by Kamel Tebaast (Summary: Reverted because Talk consensus is that this does not belong under Controversies)
• [245] 2016-12-16T17:07:01 Revert by Rococo
• [246] 2016-12-16T18:22:36 Rococo reverted by Bus stop (Summary: consensus opposes this; see Talk page; the implication is one of cause-and-effect; the riot was not caused by the accident; the riot was not caused by anything Schneerson did or did not do) [NOTE: Bus stop self-reverted here, then self-reverted that here.]
• [247] 2016-12-19T05:25:59 Rococo reverted Bus stop, no reason given.
• [248] 2016-12-20T11:48:25 Kamel Tebaast reverted Rococo (Summary:Reverted per Talk. Consensus presently backs other wording and insertion under New York)
• [249] 2016-12-20T13:34:56 Reverted Kamel Tebaast following warnings to Rococo on the article and user Talk pages. No explanation given.
• [250] 2016-12-20T13:45:39 Rococo moved the section, but did not follow the consensus for the wording, as had been requested (and warned) several times.
• [251] 2016-12-20T13:47:11 Against Talk consensus and many warnings, Rococo added his own heading, placement, and wording, and proclaimed in his summary (Now it should show up in index)

Following are Article Talk page diffs: Rococo's WP:WOT: here, here, and here.

Rococo was warned:

1. here
2. here
3. here
4. here
5. here I gave Rococo another warning and a chance to self-revert, but he ignored it.
6. here After being warned about a possible AE complaint against him, he responded with "by all means report me to AE. Threats mean little in Wikipedia if they are not backed by substantive contributions."
7. here Rococo's final parting shot to take him to AE while accusing other editors

Rococo deleted the warnings on his user Talk page

1. here
2. here.

While I have not commented on the substance of Rococo's edits or arguments, his many WP:WOT are filled with absurdities, such as this, where he equates Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who was simply a passenger in a police-led motorcade with Rodney King.

Rococo is an extraordinarily disruptive editor who has flagrantly violated several policies while being given many warnings. He has demonstrated zero interest in building consensus in the Menachem Mendel Schneerson article.

At the least, he should be temporarily blocked, and I support a ban from editing the Menachem Mendel Schneerson article for a period of time. KamelTebaast 06:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I had a very quick look at the issue and the talk page. Normally an article about a person should not have a coatrack section about a riot caused by incidents only peripherally connected with the person. However I see claims on talk that at least one major biography of the person has made the connection, and that reverses the normal situation. If consensus is hard to gauge, an RfC would be the best approach. At any rate I don't think ANI is suitable. If there is a consensus that the material should not be included, there should be a pretty clear cut case of edit warring to report. If it is blatant, the report would be at WP:AN3. If not, the focus of an ANI report would be on diffs showing an editor persistently re-adding material that was removed by several other editors. Diffs of talk page comments don't help much here (unless the diffs show bad WP:CIVIL violations and that does not seem to be the case). What I'm saying is that this report is too long and has too many links that don't matter for ANI. If pruned down, the situation would be much clearer. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I bounced this here from AE without looking at it in any detail because it doesn't fall into an ArbCom case, but on looking closer I agree that it is probably a content dispute best resolved with a neutrally-worded RfC. Evidence of edit-warring or rank incivility is needed for this to be actionable here (or elsewhere). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Really, seven reverts on the article while it is being discussed in Talk? I thought the rule was once an editor is reverted and a discussion ensues in Talk, that's it until there is a consensus. I guess that only applies to the Arab-Israeli topic. KamelTebaast 16:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I would be interested in an RfC, I thought that was what I would get from going to Neutrality Noticeboard or asking from comments from the various wikiprojects. Kendall-K1 did try some mediation but appears to have backed out. I can look into it, but "oy vey", do we really have to argue this all over again, or can we have someone neutral, just look at the discussion and decide. It reminds me of a Mexican joke of a man climbing mountain after mountain proclaiming Que viva Pancho Villa, the joke keeps repeating this over and over again, until the man says Que viva Pancho Villa, pero que no viva tan lejos. Anyway, funnier in Spanish. I will see if the other editors gets an RfC started. Que viva Wikipedia.Rococo1700 (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on the editor who wants to add to a consensus version. Rococo1700 has been reverted by three or four editors, and still goes on, including rant-like posts and forum shopping. I will support any block or ban request against such an disruptive editor, even though I agree with the present paragraph. In the end, this editor is here to WP:BATTLEGROUND, not to contribute, and he has managed to utterly antagonize me. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute and one with entrenched viewpoints. It's basically a question on should there be a mention or not. If you can't resolve it on the talk page, then open an RFC or mediation. But you shouldn't let your biases get the best of you. I stopped watching that page because the whole article looks like a hagiography and not a biography. If you do dare to edit in a critical or negative piece it will be reverted, so I do sympathize with Rococo, but ANI is not the place for this discussion. (For the record, here is the ARBCOM case about Chabad: [252] 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This is where you're wrong. A content dispute can be settled. There is also, as you mentioned, the option for a RfC. Rococo did none of that. He moved forward with seven edits after reverts by three different editors while consensus was being discussed. That is not a content dispute, it is a policy violation. KamelTebaast 05:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Gerry1214

User:Gerry1214, who is currently blocked (by User:Bbb23) for a week over edit-warring on Immigration and crime in Germany, has responded to his block with a pretty nasty comment on his own user talk page which blames the 2016 Berlin attack on another Wikipedia editor[253]. While his comment seems to indicate that he intends to leave Wikipedia, he also announced his intention to leave Wikipedia after his last block some weeks ago, calling other editors "braindead" at that time.[254] In my opinion, his most recent comment is totally unacceptable and warrants an extended block, whether he sticks to his most recent promise to leave the project or not, particularly because it is not the first time he makes such comments and because he has received advice and warnings over his behaviour many times. --Tataral (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I should also mention that the editor engages in block evasion to continue edit warring on Immigration and crime in Germany, per Talk:Immigration_and_crime_in_Germany#Block_evasion. --Tataral (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like this is old news. Is there current disruption that requires attention? Tiderolls 07:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The comment was made on 19 December. He's still blocked, so he can only edit his own talk page. I don't consider this old news as far as a possible extension of his current block is concerned. --Tataral (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:KLRT line and Template:KLRT lines

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.

---

{{KLRT line}} appears to have been created by a cut and paste edit from {{KLRT lines}} [255] [256] instead of simply moving KLRT lines to KLRT line. I turned the former into a redirect to the latter to avoid any further WP:CONTENTFORKING, but would an admin mind merging the two and fixing the history? Useddenim (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2016 (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.

Removing comments from another person's user talk page?

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

---

Is it not permitted to remove another person's comments from a third person's user talk page? I ask because a unsuccessful Arbitration Committee candidate (most candidates are esteemed Wikipedians that people should emulate) did so.

I ask about the behavior, not about the person. In fact, ignore the person's name because my question is only about the behavior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrKay&diff=prev&oldid=756220279

Lakeshake (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I am merely seeking advice only. This is not a dire emergency. If this is the equivalent of calling 9-1-1 or ringing 999, let me know because I don't intend it to be such. Is there a link such as WP:DontMessWithOthersUserTalkPages? Lakeshake (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This is too much. Bullied by a prospective Arbitration Committee member? I quit Wikipedia, at least for the time being. I urge you to answer this question and not close and box up this question but I don't plan to edit Wikipedia for the time being. You win, you've chased away good people from Wikipedia, Mr. Arb Com Wanna-be. Lakeshake (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lakeshake: in general, users are prohibited from editing another user's talk page in the way that Calidum did in this case, and I do not see a valid exemption that applies here. That being said, your attempt to bring attention to the matter on Harry S. Truman could be interpreted as canvassing—although in this instance, I recognize it as a call for help. May I recommend that you instead follow the proper channels for an RFC. It may be valuable to get more exposure to this issue, but it should not be done by asking specific editors for help. With regards to the original issue of talk page behavior, I have reverted Calidum's problematic revert. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This seems resolved already, but I'd just like to comment that the edit summary by Calidum (talk · contribs) identified Lakeshake's comment as canvassing or extortion. I read your post and it is easily understood as both "help" and "canvass". But extortion? Generally I'm pretty good at reading ambiguous things in multiple ways, but I can't fathom why Calidum thought "extortion" might describe your post. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The not so subtle threat to try and get the page stripped of its featured article status if he doesn't get his way: "take steps that lead to delisting the article as FA on the basis of a slow but record breaking edit war. I really hope that it doesn't come to that!" followed by a threat to escalate an already settle content dispute to arbcom. Extortion might've been a strong way to phrase it, but neither of those ideas should be taken lightly. The editor in question had also just compared me to Hitler and made other put downs on my talk page [257]. He also accused me of accusing him off being a sockpuppet, which I hadn't done, but now I strongly suspect he is not a new user. Calidum 23:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining.... I originally read it as possibilities the other side might try that LakeShare wanted to avoid, but upon another reading I can certainly understand why you read it that way. My apologies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not say you were Hitler. You are being too grandiose. Lakeshake (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Strongly suspect? Don't suspect but state it as a true fact. It is true. I freely disclosed when starting my account that I lost my password. See, this is typical Wikipedia attack behavior....want to attack someone, just accuse them of being a sock. I am shocked that Calidum could have been an Arb Com member with her/his bad temper. How can she/he enforce rules when she/he is so lawless and disruptive. This has got to stop because it is ruining Wikipedia. Calidum and like users should be warned to be cooperative or be banned. Wikipedia would be so much better if these disruptive people would just stay with Facebook.

Calidum should just confess and allow to be banned if she/he doesn't stop being so disruptive. Lakeshake (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

So, if you simply lost your password, and that's why you have a new ID, it should be no problem to reveal what your previous ID was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Lakeshake, being so accusatory in your posts isn't going to help your case. Please, try to discuss this calmly and rationally so it can be resolved in an amicable fashion. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Lakeshake I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG it has some advice that might be helpful. And don't try to argue semantics, you appear to intentionally be casting aspirations against Calidum's character with the reference to Hitler, which is definitely uncivil. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Lakeshakes userpage

Could an admin do me a favor and nuke Lakeshake's user page. It's literally a copy of mine. I think it's fair to say he's harassing me at this point Calidum 00:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

JJMC89 did so here [258]. Thanks. Calidum 01:16, 23 December 2016 (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.

The most brutal Wikihounding I've ever endured

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

---

I knew touching a page involved with alternative medicine was probably a mistake, but was naive and underestimated how aggressive the resident editors would be. Four editors from the Amen page have now accused me of being a paid editor on the mere grounds that I post so many pages, cherrypicking obviously forced and inconclusive evidence and running wildly with conjecture and supposition. It's gotten bad, to the point they are trying to go after everything I've done, and I'm at my wits end. I don't have a problem with editors scrutinizing my edits and sanctioning me for misdeeds if need be, but I literally feel attacked by a posse with a vendetta because I touched their pet page. Alexbrn, for example, has tagged the page plenty of times himself, but refused to let me add a simple balance tag at the start, and every single one of my accusers at this ANI has been fiddling with the Daniel Amen page for years (and here, see Doc James).

1. . My initial interaction with these editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Amen&action=history
2. . My initial report on their behavior: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Alexbrn_reported_by_User:Earflaps_.28Result:_.29
3. . The initial crapstorm: Talk:Daniel_Amen#Balance_tag
4. . Where the aspersions on my neutrality start: User_talk:Earflaps#Are_you_paid_to_edit_Wikipedia.3F
5. . Where the wikihounding gets worse: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Lovegrove
6. . Where I tell Smartse to stop the harrassment (note it continues afterwards in the Nick Lovegrove page): User_talk:Smartse#Wikihounding
7. . My giving in: Talk:Daniel_Amen#I'm_out

This is my favorite website and I would be beyond distraught if the community tossed me aside like this. Please help? Earflaps (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The link you have added pertaining to me is simply someone mention my username on the talk page.

I have made two edits to that page which you can see here[259] back in 2014.

They were unrelated to the person in question but were to correct a misstatement that made it sound like ADD and ADHD were separate conditions when they are simply different names for the same condition.

My issues with your editing has nothing to do with the Daniel Amen article. It has to do with the articles you have written about medical companies and their products. Specifically this OrthoAccel Technologies and Cardiac Dimensions which were before clean up very promotional and similar to much of the paid editing I have seen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Earflaps: I have said some of your editing resembles promotional content for corporate entities and publicity seekers. Yes, I !voted at an AfD to delete one of dozens of such articles you created over the past two years. Where can anything I said reasonably be construed as ad hominem or wikihounding? Please provide specifics, preferably as a diff that I can respond to. - Brianhe (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This looks like WP:Boomerang per current ANI against them. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The evidence is piling up. I am convinced by the on Wikipedia evidence that this user is a sockpuppet of User:MusicLover650 per what I have described here. One needs to be an admin to put it together. There initial edits were simply finishing the jobs that MusicLover had failed to finish before being indeffed.

Gah. We have a lot of clean up ahead :-( Our ability to deal with undisclosed paid editing is miserable. As MusicLover was not the first account either.

We can get legal to force this user to take down their use of the Wikipedia logo to promote their business. But this user makes such a good living doing paid promotional editing that they will simply move on to another sock such as they have done before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Another likely sock of the family User:Robohearteipr with the classic edit formating[260] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Earflaps has been indeffed as a sock. Can this be closed so we can concentrate on cleaning up the mess they've created. SmartSE (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2016 (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.

Smallbones failing to heed WP:CIVIL

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 a very public discussion, User:Smallbones labeled the dialogue of another long-time editor in good standing as "ignorantly blathering". WP:CIVIL policy states "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect". When I requested that Smallbones reconsider his words, he erased the request. Smallbones has been notified of this discussion. - Truth about MVNOs (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't find this to be uncivil. I think there was pointed language was used but it does not cross a civility barrier. The content of Smallbones' post and what it brings to the discussion outweighs concerns about incivility.--WaltCip (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to remember that; as long as I bring informative content to a discussion, I may label my counterpart's thoughts as "ignorantly blathering", and I won't have to worry about crossing any civility barrier. Thank you! I look forward to using this soon. - Truth about MVNOs (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You risk being blocked for trolling if you blather like that at ANI, Truth about MVNOs. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC).

You wouldn't say the blathering is ignorant, would you?--WaltCip (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, no, nothing to do with ignorance. What I'm asking for is simply a little respect for the noticeboard, and for the informative reply you took the trouble to write, WaltCip. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 22 December 2016 (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.

Pearson Wright

• Pearson Wright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a user who came here solely for the purpose of promoting his own recreation of the Pirates of the Caribbean Online game called Pirates Online Retribution. Unfortunately, it looks like he thinks he owns the page and no one is allowed to edit it except himself. At first, any mention of another recreation of the game, the one called The Legend of Pirates Online, was unacceptable to him which is why he began replacing all traces of TLOPO with his own project ([261], [262]), making his project look like the only one, which is not true. That led to an edit war between him and Mike48374, who I believe is a member of that other project, TLOPO. For those who don't know there's an ongoing feud between the leaders of those two projects and now they're spreading the war here. Of course, when anyone undid his edits, Pearson Wright would call that "vandalism" ([263]) and even go so far that he claimed that his project is the only accessible Pirates of the Caribbean Online recreation, which is again, not true. People are playing both games whenever they want. Finally, AryaTargaryen edited the page so it would include the mention of both projects. [264] Arya also notified the admin AlexiusHoratius about Pearson Wright's disruptive edits but there was no reply. [265] Mike48374 removed the unnecessary bold text in links [266] and I put TLOPO in the first place because that project is older than POR. [267] It didn't take long for Wright to start another edit war, undoing my and Mike's edits, claiming that "an admin has intervened and has taken appropriate action", even though there were no admins involved in the dispute. I explained to Wright why his edits were wrong [268] to which he replied with accusing me of being a member of the TLOPO project [269] which I'm not, and continuing his rants about my "vandalisms". After another day of edit warring Wright broke the three-revert rule despite my warning not do that [270]. Something needs to be done about him.--Max Tomos (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This user has been consistently attempting to change the placement of our two emulators on the Pirates of the Caribbean Online article, placing his own emulator (TLOPO) in front of ours (POR) for the sake of making his more visible. I am fine with TLOPO's project being left on the page. At first, I was not given the fact that their Staff are criminals, some indicted felons who have previously been charged with SWATTing, RATTing, and DDOSing numerous people. See here if interested: https://www.piratesforums.com/threads/evidence-against-tlopo-and-their-crimes-against-the-community.965/ Naturally, I was not in favor of such a criminal organization even being allowed to be mentioned on the POTCO article. A while ago, I replaced TLOPO with POR, and then the user Mike48374 replaced POR with TLOPO. A compromise was eventually reached when Arya Targaryen intervened and both project's names were left on the page. For a while, things cooled down, and then Max Tomos decided to begin another edit-war by changing font styles, and positions of the project names on the page for the sake of advancing his own project, and shoving ours under the rug.

TL;DR, we'd like things to remain as they were when Arya Targaryen intervened. This is only fair. Our project is far more popular, is in a fully public state, and is actually in good standing with Disney Interactive; unlike TLOPO whose Staff are notorious for engaging in criminal activities. Therefore, we (POR) should be mentioned on the article before TLOPO. The fact that Mox Tomos is putting me on blast for essentially doing the same thing that he's been doing is hypocritical, narcissistic, and short-sighted. I was editing this article long before he was. Another user (Arya Targayen) also edited it, and I was fine with his/her edits. Mox Tomos has single-handedly attempted to overturn all of our edits for the sake of advancing his own ends. Furthermore, his argument that I've broken a "three revert rule" is also hypocritical since all of his edits are essentially nothing but reverts of mine. We can agree on one thing though, something does need to be done.

Regards,

Pearson Wright

I suggest you strike the uncited accusations of criminal activities against living persons, and possibly against fellow Wikipedia editors. They are unhelpful personal attacks and do nothing to improve the encyclopedia or to solve this content dispute.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

For the last time, TLOPO is not my project. I'm not involved in any of those projects. I don't care whose project is "more popular" and whose "Staff are criminals". Keep your feuds out of Wikipedia. I'm simply putting TLOPO first because it's older than your project. That's all. If you can't understand that, that's your problem.--Max Tomos (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Who's project is "Older" is irrelevant. As i said before and i will say it again, i don't care who is right and who is wrong. Nothing good ever comes from an edit war or personal attacks for that matter as is precisely the case here.

I will not engage in this dispute any further unless i absolutely have something further to add.

AryaTargaryen (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

• I have no opinion on the merits of the editors concerned, but the vast majority fo that article was either sourced to blogs and fansites, or not sourced at all. I removed most of this material. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"perennial disruption problem from this ISP"

There's a user making abusive unblock requests. See for example, [271] and [272] and [273] and [274] and [275], which are basically all the same. This is a /13 block so I'm not sure if there's a better way of responding other than blanking the page and protecting it. If I don't protect the page, the vandal just reinserts the request. I expect this is a long-term vandal, though I'm not generally familiar with most of them. Any suggestions to more efficiently respond other than WP:RBI? --Yamla (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikinger, most likely. I don't know if talk access can be removed with a rangeblock but if so it would be appropriate, they won't stop. Suggest semiprotecting any page they touch for at least as long as the rangeblock. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Yeah, looks like it. The suggestion there is to semiprotect any page he touches. --Yamla (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that you might be busy for a while :( Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Requesting lifting of create-protection imposed by "office actions"

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

---

Hello. I posted here at WT:FOOTBALL to ask if any passing admin could lift the create-protection on the page Paul Hutchinson so that I could create a stub about a footballer of that name. In reply, Number 57 said he couldn't do so because the page had been protected as a result of WP:Office actions and I should make a request here. So here I am.

Is it possible to lift the protection, or alternatively should I create the stub at a suitable alternative name, such as Paul Hutchinson (footballer). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence of OFFICE actions (though second opinions are most welcome). The unprotection page does say (as it always does), "If this page is protected due to office actions...". Maybe Number 57 wants to check again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with zzuuzz, the appropriate page doesn't show Paul Hutchinson as an office action, | this log shows it's been protected from recreation, per | this AN request which doesn't specifically mention Paul Hutchinson, however, on the protection log , made in 2012 it does state he's an un-notable youth football player. Any evidence of notability ? KoshVorlon 20:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The AN request is only a bureaucratic deprecation of cascaded protection, and the deleted revisions all relate to a different player (born 1986/7). I understand this player played for Darlington, which I think might be good enough, so as it's a different article I'd defer to Number 57's judgment, as it's within his field of expertise. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon and Zzuuzz: My bad, I misread the thing at the top of the page when I went to unsalt the article. @Struway2: I've now unlocked it for you to create (your subject is notable). Apologies for wasting everyone's time. Cheers, Number 57 22:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Doniago

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

---

User:Doniago

I noticed this user had warned another about " incorrect edit summaries".

[[276]]

Yet here he does just that.

[[277]]

Not only did it not remove the uncited material, but reinserts equally uncited material (it just moves my added section back to where I moved it from). In addition the edit is marked as a minor when (this seems to be a common practice with this user) it is not.

When I asked the user why he had done this his response was to claim he could not see what he had reinstated, and to say "well you have removed it anyway, so why do I need to explain myself".

I was not going to report this, but as the editor seems to accept that incorrect edit summaries are in fact against the rules he has (surely) to be judged by the standard he judges others?

Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2016 (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.

Editing issues in railway articles

• Southern Railway 722 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 24.88.92.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Sundayclose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The users above have been engaging in a slow-motion edit war it seems since August across many articles, which is boiling over at present on this one. I encountered Sundayclose repeatedly templating the IP with level-4im vandalism warnings a week or so ago (see this version of the IP's talk page, much of which I reverted). I replaced all of Sundayclose's warnings with what I figured was an appropriate level-2 unreliable sources warning, as it appeared to me that was all that was warranted, and I also advised Sundayclose that if they wanted to persist in warning the user that they should use the right templates (since the edits were not vandalism, just poor sourcing). They insisted that the IP must be given a stronger warning so they adjusted my warning to a level-4, and then after a bit of discussion in which I also suggested that they should report at AIV rather than fill the page with "final" and "only" warnings and that assistance could be requested from SPI if the anon jumps to another IP, I figured it was best to leave it at that.

Yesterday and today I saw the IP's talk page come up in my watchlist again with more level-4im vandalism warnings added by Sundayclose. The edits in question are, again, not vandalism, just poor sourcing, and Sundayclose has still not reported the user to AIV, and so it appears to me that Sundayclose is more interested in WP:HOUNDING the user than actually resolving the situation. I would appreciate if an administrator would review the situation, both with regard to the IP's poor sourcing, the present 3RR violations ([278] [279] [280] [281] [282] [283]), and Sundayclose's repetitive templating of the anonymous user. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Given this report, I'm backing away from any more reverts of or warnings for 24.88.92.254. It's not worth my time to try to prevent numerous railroad/train articles (which I really have very little interest in) from being overbloated with unsourced and poorly sourced information. 24.88.92.254 and his/her many other IPs will never be blocked because of IP hopping and stale warnings, so it is what it is. I apologize if I have offended anyone, and I have no animosity toward Ivanvector who made this report in good faith. I have taken all of the related articles off of my watchlist. Sundayclose (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Ivan seems to be a pretty nice guy. I think you two can resolve your differences by talking about them. Please try (again). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: See above. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: Thanks for your comment. I agree completely that Ivan is a nice guy. As I said, I'm not making any more edits related to the IP's edits, so at this point I don't feel that Ivan and I have any differences. I'm always willing to discuss anything with Ivan or any other well-intentioned editor. Sundayclose (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You are both well-intentioned, and I think you are both partially correct. Ivan can perhaps reword his message, it seems it was worded too strongly, and I think your differences can be resolved. We need more people who are willing to keep our railway articles in good condition, not fewer. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Happily retracted (see above). I would still like someone to review the IP's behaviour and block if necessary. Contrary to Sundayclose's worry, there are things that we can do about IP disruption of this sort, and competence does certainly appear to be lacking on the IP's part. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ivanvector. Regarding the competence issue, I have not been able to figure out how much is incompetence and how much is willful disregard for sourcing requirements. After another editor and I gave the IP many warnings, both templated and personalized, he/she finally started adding some sources. But the sourced edits are sometimes interspersed with unsourced information; that doesn't seem like a competence issue. Then again, IP has linked to sources that are only photos as if a photo confirms details that a photo can't confirm; that my be a competence problem. I do feel strongly that there is an immaturity problem. In one of the very few instances of IPs willingness to comment on a talk page or edit summary, the comment is much like a child's tantrum. Anyway, since all of this is off of my watchlist, I'll leave it to others to figure it out. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way for anyone who is interested, thanks to the efforts of Jackdude101, there is a list of other IP addresses, many of which are very likely used by the same person. This also highlights the difficulty of getting a block because of IP hopping and stale warnings: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/174.107.173.231/Archive. Sundayclose (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, that's what I mean by competence. It's one thing to want to add content and only have some poor sources and want to learn from the advice that other editors are giving you and build your referencing skills and such. It's quite another to keep making the same mistakes disregarding that advice and throw your toys out of the pram when editors keep having to revert you. And in the second case, when the editor is obviously wilfully ignoring that advice, then continuing trying to advise them is just a time-sink for editors like yourself; it becomes better for the project to block them so we can go back to doing productive things. Or at least with an IP that we can't block indefinitely, you can deflect some of that burden onto administrative processes (like AIV and SPI) designed to handle them more efficiently so that you don't have to. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

(after ec) I'll take a look. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh hey, I already closed that case! Very well then, I'll take a better look. I don't have time to investigate deeply today but if I haven't commented by this time on Saturday then please ping me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

In terms of the edits made by 24.88.92.254, to put it the most polite way possible, let's just say that his strengths lie elsewhere. His edits are not just poorly sourced; they are also poorly written with incorrect spelling and grammar throughout. This guy reminds me a lot of my four-year-old son whenever he insists on "helping" me with something. His heart's in the right place, but in the end it's better that you decline his help, because he's just going to make a mess that you have to clean up later. Most US rail transport articles that are not related to currently-used urban mass transit systems are sub-par in terms of quality, and immature and unprofessional unregistered users like 24.88.92.254 are largely responsible for this. Jackdude101 (Talk) 03:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin declining requests at WP:UAA

User:Linguist111 has been declining reports at WP:UAA, and subsequently removing reports that he declined. This has apparently been going on for a while, but I just noticed. I tried to have a friendly discussion with the user on his talk page, but Linguist111 simply removed my note without comment. I also just noticed that the user was previously asked at Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator_attention#Users_who_have_only_edited_drafts_or_whatever to stop commenting and filling up the holding pen by User:Beeblebrox, but Linguist111 instead said he would do whatever he wanted, and stepped it up to outright declining reports. This behavior seems problematic to me. What should be done? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not responding to you; I just wasn't sure how I should respond. I don't decline anything as much as I used to, only removing clear bot-reported false positives, removing declined reports and moving waiting ones to the holding pen, and only rarely declining ones that definitely needed waiting or discussion. But from now on, I'm not visiting UAA at all except to report users. Thank you. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 21:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I would not have noticed if that was all you were doing. As linked above, a history of your edits to WP:UAA show repeated, recent use of responseHelper to decline requests. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but only the ones that I thought definitely were not vios at all, needed to edit, needed discussion etc., as opposed to when I was doing a lot before the first ANI discussion. But I'm not doing anything any more. Feel free to undo any of my edits there you think need undoing. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 22:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Linguist111: Unless we've started using AIV clerks, why are you removing reports at WP:AIV? This is similar to our discussion about your tagging users with sock templates. You appear to think you can do administrator tasks even though you are not an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I was only removing the ones that were declined by an admin. The rest I did not touch. Beeblebrox told me on the UAA talk page that I could help by removing declined reports and moving waiting ones to holding pen. I thought the same would apply to AIV too. But I'll stop removing those too, if that's a problem. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 22:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was a previous Ani discussion. I see at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive939#User:Linguist111_at_WP:UAA you promised to stop declining reports, yet you continued to do so. This is problematic. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Linguist111 has a habit of putting on a plastic sheriff's badge. Keri (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ramaksoud2000: I know. I'm sorry. I'm not going to do any UAA stuff anymore, except reporting. I've disabled ResponseHelper.

@Keri: Another user said they wanted admin attention. The thread had gone two days without any replies, and it would have then be archived, so I added the bump template to postpone this. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 22:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The thread had gone 11 days with no interest. It had already been pulled out of the archive twice. It has now been prohibited from archiving for a further month. Will it still be there next Christmas? Keri (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

But not because of me. I set the template I added to 3 days. I don't need to do anything with that thread anymore, so I won't. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 22:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) We all need to remember that unfortunately, RfA voters expect you to have demonstrated competence in administrator areas, and sometimes this is very hard to do without doing some of the things that administrators do in a non-administrator capacity. This is why we have the templates {{nac}} and {{non-admin comment}}. It's not necessarily a bad practice unless you're doing it so poorly that it's causing problems. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

A non-administrative disclosure of an AfD or even a report at ANI is not the same as clerking on administrative boards that have no clerks. You can get experience as a non-admin by reporting problems to various administrative boards, not by doing tasks that have been reserved for administrators even if they don't require the tools.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't like telling users that the only way to get involved at those boards is to report issues to them. To make reports at UAA you first have to come across a problematic username and hope that no one else has seen it and blocked or reported it yet. Similarly, to make reports to AIV, you have to have the luck of being the user who first reverts them following a final warning. For this reason, I welcome non-administrators leaving their input on reports at those two or other admin boards, so long as they don't try to pass off their assessment as a final decision on the matter. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

He's not "leaving [his] input" - he's removing stuff from AIV and declining reports at UAA. If you feel that these boards would benefit from non-admins doing that sort of thing, then propose clerks for the boards. Until that happens, I'm dead set against it.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I had previously seen one or two other non-administrators decline reports (by decline I mean add any template e.g. {{UAA|no}}, {{UAA|w}}, {{UAA|d}}, {{UAA|m}}), so I thought it would be acceptable and helpful to the administrators for me to join in. If you look through my decline history, you'll see I did use the {{nao}} template for a long time, but I eventually stopped using it as I didn't think it was necessary anymore. Given that I was doing it so often, I reckoned everyone already knew that I was a non-admin. I didn't think it would make much difference anyway, and was fine with any admin overriding it if they objected. As far as removing reports was concerned, I removed reports declined by admins on sight, moving ones with {{UAA|w}}, {{UAA|d}} etc. to the holding pen, as Beeblebrox had told me I could do. I think most of the ones I declined I left on the board until they were moved to HP by someone else or the bot; as for the ones that I removed after declining, I removed them because there was no apparent objection to my declining after a few hours and didn't see a point in just leaving them there; any I did remove that I put a {{UAA|w}}, {UAA|d}} etc. I moved to HP. However, I'm not doing any of this anymore. No declines, no moves to HP, no removing of bot FPs, nothing. I understand and respect what everyone has had to say. This will be my last reply to this discussion, as I will be taking a WikiBreak. Thank you, and Merry Christmas! Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 23:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• 1. Does the task require administrative tools to complete? 2. Is the task being completed incorrectly? Rejecting a report which is incorrect does not require the administrative toolset so unless someone protects the pages so its administrator only, or there is a policy somewhere prohibiting non-admins there, or the editor is formally restricted... tough. As for 2. Are the reports they are declining incorrect? Has someone got any examples? Those would be a much more persuasive reason for preventing an editor from doing it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Minor note, but we do have clerks for UAA...there's just only one of them...and it's a bot. if Linguist is doing a good job, then wave a magic wand and make him a clerk. If he's not, then he shouldn't be there to begin with. We shouldn't be preventing someone from contributing to the project because they didn't tick the right boxes and submit their requisition form to ArbCom in triplicate. TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Beetstra and Twitter/ Facebook

User:Beetstra is using semi-automated (AWB) edits to mass remove instances of {{Twitter}}, {{Facebook}} and several other external link templates, at a rate that shows he cannot possibly have manually checked the articles and external sites involved. The articles for which he has removed Twitter links include those where the official website link is dead or no longer maintained; or where the subject's official website home page does not link to their Twitter account.

I and at least four other editors have asked him to desist; it is clear from his replies that he intends to continue, claiming that WP:ELMINOFFICIAL "prohibits" them. It does not.

Please can someone revert the recent removals (well into four figures in the last 36 hours), and prevent further such removals? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), Theanonymousentry, Montanabw, and Moscow Connection: - all of whom have been discussing this on Beetstra's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if Beetstra is removing that crap then we should thank Beetstra. Consider giving him a barnstar. The burden is usually on those who include stuff to prove that it is actually an improvement. If you have specific examples where you think that his edits should be reverted then you can discuss those on Beetstra's talkpage. See also WP:ELNO #10. This page is for stuff that requires admin attention. Giving someone a barnstar or talking about a situation where you would like to include a link to a social media site because you believe the link is among the tiny minority of those links that are actually useful does not require a mop. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that ELNO says: Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject. If you click that link you see this:

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Basically none of the Twitter links primarily cover the area for which the subject of the article is notable. There may be a handful of useful links to Twitter (out of thousands), you can discuss those cases individually on Beetstra's talkpage. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL clearly states: "Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances."

It seems you disagree with the guidelines; you should consider trying to change the guidelines instead of reporting someone on WP:ANI who didn't do anything wrong. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• I for one did not report anyone. No reason for me to, yet. However, I'm not going to discuss it on his talk page if I have to revert one of his plethora of removals. If it's wrong I'm just going to revert it. If it continues I'd mark it as disruptive and then revert it. Since I started discussing it on his talk page I haven't noticed zillions of other removal errors, and he certainly kept talking... at least to me. We have a disagreement on due-diligence before removing links, so that's my beef. About half the articles I bothered to check yesterday had issues with his edits. As long as he's more careful in the future I'm good with things. We want a good official website in the external links. If no official website is around or it sucks, then a twitter or facebook link is fine. But we usually only need one. My original complaint was that he didn't bother to check if the bio had an official website listed in the external links, and if it did he didn't check that it was viable or had prominent twitter and facebook links. As long as that is checked out, I'm ok with things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Reverting when you feel a specific edit is not an improvement is completely reasonable, as long as you've checked if that link is an exception to the guideline. If no official website is around or it sucks, then he is still allowed to remove those spammy twitter or facebook links. He is not required to check if there is an official website, and if it contains links to social media profiles, prominent or not (that seems to be a misunderstanding). Cleaning up crap is usually not considered disruptive. Maybe you'll end up reverting him a couple of times for every thousand or so links he removes. You wrote: "No official website yet you removed his official twitter page. That is wrong.". That is incorrect. The existence of an official website has no influence on the appropriateness of social media links (that seems to be another misunderstanding). He seems to be restricting himself to pages where there is a {{Official webpage}} template transcluded, something which he is not required to do. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes it absolutely does matter. You are incorrect. It is not like twitter sites and facebook sites are against policy or even guidelines for that matter. What we want is one good link to. If he just removes all twitter links that is quite disruptive. And I had found bios that had no official website listed in the external link where he removed twitter. That is really disruptive. I'm all for the best site to link to whether it's twitter, facebook or a personal website, but he needs to check before removing. I tend to mull about a lot of tennis articles and his percentage was very low on getting things wrong... at least at first. I haven't seen another tennis article removal marathon since i discussed it with him. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you are incorrect. You seem to disagree with the guideline, why don't you try to get consensus to change it? Please read the guideline again, you misinterpret it. The existence of an official website has no influence on the appropriateness of social media links. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

We are at an impasse because nope, you are incorrect yet again on the guidelines. Quite often social media links ARE a person's personal website. Musicians ditch their original websites all the time and let them rot, letting facebook serve as their website. We have to take that into account and not just throw out every link. The best one can certainly stay but that can only be determined by taking a look. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I am a potato, and you are incorrect. Please re-read the guideline. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You need to re-read the guidelines once again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Barring a few initial mistakes, user:Fyunck(click), I only removed social networking sites that were in ADDITION to the listed official site (in most of the cases referenced by you the official site was defunct, or plainly wrong, but still there). Your assertion that I throw out every link is wrong. In the cases where there is (really) no official (working) link, selected re-inclusion of one (the major) social networking site is warranted. Note however that I am not required to take into account that there is an official website in the first place: "A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." - maybe the subject does not have a proper web presence, they just happen to have a never used Twitter account. Question is, what use is thát to the reader. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

There are very few actual "requirements" at wikipedia... it's mostly guidelines. However there are plenty of things that are disruptive when multiple people complain about it. I have said I'm on your side as far as cleaning these multi-links out. I am not on your side if it's going to be done with a chainsaw, without checking the context or without checking if it had been discussed on the article talk page.

I sort of agree with the Potato here. I dont disagree with rationale for the base removal, or even the method, however I do feel that any sort of mass-removal by automation needs some form of discussion first, even if the editor feels there is a valid policy based reason for it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Striking above. After reading the relevant guidelines in more detail its clear the consensus already exists that those links should only be *rarely* used, and that the burden is on those who want to include them to justify it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

For what's it worth, I support Beetstra's removals, which are beneficial and in line with our guidelines. Fram (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not about whether or not the guidelines are correct. It is about the fact that the guidelines do not support mass removals, with no human intervention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines support 'removal'. It makes no mention of the means of doing so. They do not prohibit mass removal any more than they endorse it. If the removals are correct and supported by policy/guidelines (which all the relevant documentation strongly endorses) then you need a much better argument to prevent them than 'they shouldnt be mass-removed'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The removals are not supported by policy in the least. And guidelines tell us to use the best source. For some that will be twitter, some facebook, and some a personal website. When you remove one or two it behooves one to make sure which is the best. That isn't done with a bot. Also, if it was discussed on why a particular site was kept, a bot will miss that too. It needs a personal touch. I'll tell you this right now...he has been told by me what the original problems were. If it keeps happening to tennis articles that pop up on our watchlists, it will likely be taken as vandalism by tennis project members. I assume his removal process is fixed now so that all will be good. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The removals are supported by a guideline. Sourcing facts is something completely different. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Then tennis project members will get a very swift lesson in WP:NOTVAND and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Andy, you seem to disagree with the guideline, why don't you try to get consensus to change it? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You are replying to comment in which I said "This is not about whether or not the guidelines are correct. It is about the fact that the guidelines do not support mass removals, with no human intervention.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That is what you claim, but you are incorrect. Please re-read the guideline, you misinterpret it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the relevant guideline; they allow for the use of such links in certain cases. The algorithm used by Beestra takes no account whatsoever of that and removes them regardless. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you are very familiar with the relevant guideline then you may have to ask someone to explain it to you because you misinterpret it. Being very vocal doesn't hide the fact that you are in the minority. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Strictly spoken, the pillars, policies ànd guidelines support keeping them out, yet they creep in, and it is not only newbies that are not aware that they should stay out.. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

And again you misquote the guidelines. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't even a quote, how can it be a misquote? Please re-read the guideline, you misinterpret it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Andy, the guideline says to avoid linking to social networking sites. How is that not discouraging them, how is that not suggesting to keep them out, how is that not trying to keep official websites to a minimum? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

And again you misquote the guidelines. Please stop. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Andy, the horse has died, please stop beating it. The header says: "Links normally to be avoided" and #10 is "Social networking sites". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

There is more to the guideline than a heading, even if it does include the word "normally", which disproves your point and precludes mass, automated, removal. We're going round in circles, so I'm going to respond less to such misrepresentations, A neutral admin needs to review this case, and the guideline. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The horse isn't moving though. If you look closely you can see it isn't even breathing. The community creates guidelines. Admins aren't here to overrule guidelines when you disagree with the guideline. Fram is an admin. Fram wrote: "For what's it worth, I support Beetstra's removals, which are beneficial and in line with our guidelines.". (emphasis mine) (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

"Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to: ...... Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists." .. yet you insist that the guideline does not say to avoid such sites? Stop beating the dead horse, it was already dead on your first revert of my removals. And the same for many other reversions which are NOT backed up by policy, guideline, the template instructions. It doesn't say anything about removals (which, if I did them slow would result in the same - complete removal), it does however say that they should not be there in the first place. ---~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs)

And now you're quoting the guideline selectively (albeit including the word "generally", again disproving your own point), and misquoting me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You still seem to misunderstand the guideline, please ask someone to explain it to you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply from Beetstra

Twitters, Facebooks, youtube channels, flickr profiles, google+, Myspace profiles, Instagrams, etc. etc are discouraged since ages, especially if there is already an official webite listed. Everything, including our pillars, guidelines ánd the templates for these say the same: Do NOT add them if there is an official website, and even more if the official website is also linking to them. The consensus established in discussions that resulted in our pillars, policies, and guidelines gives us reason to uphold those pillars, policies and guidelines. It allows us to bring articles in line with them. Having to rediscus that because s.o. is mass cleaning up is unnecessary, editors claiming that should read the pillar, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY.

Yet, we have this crap everywhere!

I have restricted myself to pages where there is an official website, something that I am not even required to (we discourage social networking sites .. FULL STOP). We only list them if they are the main web presence of a person, or if they are of an extreme high importance for the subject (a subject that has an official website, but is exclusively known for their youtube presence or twitter feeds, for example). Those insertions are often reverted on sight (but it is hard to keep up with, and as is clear from this thread, even long term editors have no friggin' clue that we actively discourage linking to these websites, they happily (re-)instert them). We are NOT writing a linkfarm, we only add external links to expand on the information on the article (read the intro of WP:EL). I removed Elon Musk's Twitter feed from SpaceX, first of all it is indirect (as you will find for many of these indirect links on many of the pages where iI removed them), second of all, Elon's Twitter feed does not tell us anything encylopedic about SpaceX (even worse, he hasn't said anything about SpaceX for over a month!). So if you are interested in that Britney Spears is tweeting that she is going to have cake with her father, then please, go to a tabloid wiki and have all the social networking sites there, here they are inappropriate, it does not say anything encyclopedic about Britney, except the WP:OR synthesis that she is a family person. A twitter feed does not tell anything encyclopedic about a subject beyond what our Wikipedia article on the subject (should) include and beyond what is on their personal websites (barring very, very few exceptions). And that goes for all of subject's social networking sites.

And that is exactly what is codified in our guidelines, and that is exactly what I did to those thousands of articles (and will continue doing, time allowing). Go write reliable content or go cleaning up the crap (there are still hundreds of defunct MySpace links to repair/wipe, e.g.), but stop including (encyclopedically speaking) utterly useless social networking sites (better, wipe them as much as possible). Maybe something for a lost hour during the festive days to come.

Merry Christmas, and I wish you all a prosperous and happy 2017 with a lot of happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and keep up the good work! Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You are again misquoting the guideline (which is a "guideline", not a "policy"; and which also cautions that it is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply"). Your claim that we "discourage social networking sites .. FULL STOP" is false. Your thousands of edits, made blindly by an automated process, failed to carry out any analysis whatsoever of the individual cases to see whether or not they complied with the guidelines you rely on. Such automated editing is disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Andy, please go read the guideline, you misinterpret it. You can keep repeating yourself but that doesn't change the fact that you are incorrect. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I have just replied to your near-identical bugs accusation, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Andy, if you want to change a guideline you disagree with then WP:ANI is not the correct place. This page is for stuff that requires administrator intervention. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

For the third time: ""This is not about whether or not the guidelines are correct. It is about the fact that the guidelines do not support mass removals, with no human intervention."". Please stop misrepresenting me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You can keep repeating yourself, but I don't think it is a very productive use of your time. You are wrong, people have explained why you are wrong, and if you do not understand the guideline then you can ask someone to explain it to you in more detail. If you disagree with the guideline then you can try to change it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines support removal, and in fact heavily (and explicitly) state that the burden is on inclusion. It makes no reference at all to mass removal or otherwise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

They do not support removal in every case. Please stop mis-representing them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

How can you tell if someone is misrepresenting a guideline you interpret incorrectly? Please ask someone (not me) to explain the guideline to you if it isn't clear to you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well make the case on the talkpage of the relevant articles to include them then as the guideline says. If your complaint is that in some rare exceptions it should be included, then go re-add them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

How does your automated script check whether such consensus has already been reached? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that I thanked editors who made reasoned re-insertions (which should ring a bell on those who did not get thank - you did not use a reason that is backed up by policy or guideline). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes; you edit-warred with me, even when I reverted your removal of a Twitter link that was fully in compliance with the guidelines which you cited in your edit sumamary. You're not checking before you edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You still seem to misunderstand the guideline, please ask someone to explain it to you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A brief explanation of WP:EL with some notes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:EL is the relevant guideline for including external links. As an article style guideline this should only be ignored in cases where there is a very good reason to. "There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.: Is the site content accessible to the reader? Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional?" Social media such as twitter is rarely going to be useful, informative or factual compared to a proper official website. And given some twitter accounts, tasteful is also going to be an issue. WP:ELNO clearly states "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:" - "10. Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists." - this establishes that the removals are in scope of ELNO. They should not be there in the first place. WP:ELOFFICIAL defines an 'official link' as "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria: 1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2.The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." - this establishes that almost all twitter feeds (and quite a lot of other social media) is not going to be considered an official link as they are not primarily covering the notability. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL states: "Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances. - Even if a twitter or facebook page was accepted as an official link per the above, if there is an official website, the social media links would *still* not be included. "Inappropriate and duplicative links may be deleted by any editor" - where the links are clearly inappropriate they can be summarily removed. It makes no comment on mass or any other means of removal. It just says 'may be deleted'. WP:ELBURDEN in full: This guideline describes the most common reasons for including and excluding links. However, the fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard. Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." So there we have it. A guideline that clearly says the links shouldnt be there. That anyone can remove them, and that they should be excluded with the burden on justifying inclusion. And thats just the guideline for including external links. I didnt even look at the template documentation which editors above have indicated concurs. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC) @Only in death: How does Beestra's automated script check whether consensus exists, for a given article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC) You still seem to misunderstand the guideline, please ask someone to explain it to you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC) The first point is that these are GUIDELINES, not hardcore policies, and mass-removal of something based on a guideline without a case-by-case analysis is disruptive and pointy. Montanabw(talk) 21:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Everything, including our pillars, guidelines ánd the templates for these say the same: Do NOT add them if there is an official website, and even more if the official website is also linking to them.". One thing I would say on this point; many musical artists (and others in creative media), especially smaller and medium-sized ones, have their FB page as their main hub these days. They will probably have an official website - purely for those searching for them on the web - but it will quite often have basic content and simply link to the social media pages. In these cases I don't think it's unreasonable to include the FB page as well - why send the reader on a longer journey to access their main page?. Twitter, however, is usually pointless, especially as it's often fed directly from the FB feed. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Black Kite, just as a note, I did my best not to remove ANY social networking sites if there was an official site listed, even if there were next to the official site 10 social networking sites listed. But even if the official site is just a shell, it often has at least the relevant social networking sites listed. And I would then consider the facebook the official site, not <subject.com>, and I think that Wikipedia should reflect that as well, Wikipedia should list what is regarded to be the most relevant official site (note that <subject>.com, the facebook, myspace, twitter, instagram are ALL official sites of the subject, we chose to list only one. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
    • " I did my best not to remove ANY social networking sites if there was an official site listed" Patently untrue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You still seem to misunderstand the guideline, please ask someone to explain it to you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Another struggle to the death for the heart and soul of Wikipedia. EEng 11:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• • Sad, but true. Montanabw^(talk) 21:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

sock puppet allegations

User:36hourblock has today posted false allegations in two places that I am a puppet master saying "about your continued operation of the sock puppets User:Display name 99 and User:PeacePeace." see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bank_War&diff=746655180&oldid=746361679 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjensen&diff=755920454&oldid=755780022 Rjensen (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99 explains to User talk:36hourblock why he's not Rjensen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:36hourblock&diff=755930724&oldid=755925277 Rjensen (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at your second dif, 36hourblock needs to read WP:OWN. No user owns an article. --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Darth Mike enters the sockpuppet dispute with a Troll-like comment on article "ownership" - nothing but a distraction - and totally consistent with the activities of Rjensen and Display name 99 when these usernames fool with the articles I edit. But thank you for you input. 36hourblock (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

36hourblock if you think you have enough evidence that Rjensen is a sock master the correct forum for presenting that evidence is WP:SPI. If you continue to make allegations of sockpuppetry any where else you will be blocked for personal attacks. - GB fan 21:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear GB - Would you agree that the level of suspicion was sufficient in 2007 to warn Rjensen about his activities? 36hourblock (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not know nor care what happened 10 years ago. If the evidence was there, then it should have been taken care of then. If you suspect there is sockpuppetry going on now, take it to the proper forum with evidence. - GB fan 21:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Aside from explaining why Rjensen and I are not the same, I would like to refute the connection that 36hourblock alleges exists between Rjensen and PeacePeace, an allegation which was made in the second link that Rjensen provided. They link to Talk:John C. Calhoun#Advocate of "Minority Rights"?. From the looks of it, PeacePeace asked a question, Rjensen responded, and the matter was resolved. How in the world is that supposed to indicate sockpuppetry? Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It would seem 36hourblock is trying to win a content dispute by intimidating/provoking anyone that disagrees. This conduct is unbecoming. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Check out his reverts of my edits to Missouri Compromise. Display name 99 (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the OP for 48 hours for disruptive editing and personal attacks add they have not retracted their sock puppet allegations nor started an investigation. - GB fan 21:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Being outed off-wiki by Acroterion,Tagishsimon,and Widr

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.

---

What should I do if I've been outed off-wiki? All 3 of them have ganged up on me at an online forum and they said it was in retaliation for my persistent edit-warring at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.129.164 (talk) 19:23, December 26, 2016

I have notified the three named editors of this discussion. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 19:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Unless a link can be provided to this "online forum" this thread should be closed. It should also be noted that there has been a spate of baseless accusations like this over the last couple months so it could also be removed as trolling. MarnetteD|Talk 20:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked, they keep trying this every couple of weeks. Acroterion (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Jennica cursing at me in edit summaries

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.

---

Sorry ANI, I didn't want to come here, but I have had a debate with Jennica (talk · contribs) on her talk page over whether it's okay for her to follow me around and edit articles I do, even if she isn't targeting me directly. That's not a problem I want to bring here, although I do think decent editors should respect reasonable requests. Jennica asked at the help desk page if it was okay for her to do, and was told by two users it could be interpreted as WP:Wikihounding, which I raised with her. The debate has still gone on, and she has told me to "fuck off" in an edit summary on her talk page. This is not okay to say to anybody, even if we're in a silly argument. Can an admin please tell her to lay off my edits (as I have done this at least 10 times and she has refused) and remain civil? Ss112 03:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm just so done with it. I'm sick of the debate. It is going nowhere. Now apparently, if we're on the same edit history, you get upset. I regret cursing in my edit summary. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not bringing a debate here. I'm asking for an administrator to tell you to please respect my request to not go through my contributions multiple times a day for things to edit when I don't like being followed. That's all I ever asked you to do. I know the reasons you put forward, and I still don't think it's okay. Ss112 03:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well okay. I'll just say to the admin who reviews this that I work on a lot of music articles, album pages specifically. So does Ss112. I've checked out his contribution history to see what else could be done to the pages -- not touching or impeding on any of his edits. It wasn't a personal vendetta thing at all, and it still isn't. He touches on a lot of album pages I may not otherwise know about or visit. I like to format articles to the MOSALBUM standards for consistency, no matter how pedantic this might seem. I don't do it to be rude to him. Wikipedia is a public domain and I can view other people's contribution histories whenever I please. Both of our edits are constructive and useful. I just feel like now I have to make sure Ss112 didn't edit recently so I don't make him mad or something. That's not how it should be. Everybody's contribs are open for view. I wouldn't be upset if someone went after me and saw things that needed fixing and fixed them. It's harmless. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have said to you I didn't ask you to not edit any pages I ever have. The issue is that you're going through my recent contributions and picking things to edit. I have taken issue with being monitored, and I initially kindly asked you to do it, then kept asking when things got heated. You have still refused. It doesn't matter that contributions pages are open for view; we all know this. The issue now is that you're refusing a simple request. "Don't be a jerk" definitely applies here. You might not think you are being one, but I think you are by refusing something that doesn't harm you to comply with. Ss112 03:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not think Jennica was editing with any malice by looking through your history to edit. I noticed she did something similar with me when we first started interacting and I couldn't care less. From what I can see, she mainly makes format changes so music articles have a unified design. I get cursing is no way to have a fruitful discussion but can we just let it go and move on?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

To make it clear, I can't recall ever looking through TheGracefulSlick's history -- it was a mere coincidence. And you are correct, there is no malice in the edits. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Truly, I don't want to debate this, but other editors not objecting doesn't mean others can't or won't have an issue with it. I do. I don't see why Jennica has to type in Special:Contributions/[User] to find things to edit all day. I know there's no malice. I still object to being followed by people. Now can we not bring the debate here and wait for an administrator's word? Ss112 04:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Oops. misread that you said you were bringing the debate here. Sorry.--Jennica✿ / ^talk 04:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

And again, you're not being civil by being sarcastic, Jennica. It's not helping. Ss112 04:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ss112: It wasn't sarcasm. I misread your sentence above, and that's why I wrote that paragraph. I thought it said "I'm bringing the debate here". It was my mistake. You were sarcastic plenty on my talk page, btw. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 04:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• There are a couple of editors who often edit articles after I've edited them for the first time. Sometimes they fix little errors I made, or revise what I've done, or whatever. I'm not sure why they do this -- perhaps they've found we have shared taste in articles -- but there's nothing wrong with it as long as such editing is constructive. If it's not constructive, show us diffs; otherwise be flattered. And everyone only curse in moderation, as I do. EEng 04:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I have never said what Jennica is doing to these pages is not constructive. I object to her following me as a method of gaining more edits, because it's like I have someone over my shoulder watching everything I do. The thing here is that she has ignored a simple request to not do this, when I think it's WP:Wikihounding in a sense, even if she is not "harassing" me in the normal sense. Ss112 04:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should reread what I just wrote. EEng 04:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't need to; I just disagree. Ss112 04:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. What, exactly, do you just disagree with? --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I already explained above in my edit: I disagree that there's nothing wrong with it. I'm waiting for an admin; I'm not getting into this with other editors. I don't feel there's anything left to say. Ss112 04:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Then it must be our turn. Per EEng#s and TheGracefulSlick, it is not a problem if the edits are constructive. It's just a mode of approaching wikignombing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a problem when you've told a user you don't like them doing it, and they've basically said they don't care how you feel and will continue doing it regardless. Ss112 04:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Who died & made you king? You don't get to restrict her approach to wikipedia; she has the right to improve such articles as interest her. It goes with wikipedia being a completely open system. The problem - really - is that you need to get used to this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm acting like a king by asking not to be followed? That's a ridiculous assertion. I've been editing Wikipedia for over 10 years and have not had, to the best of my knowledge, someone continue monitoring me like this. Ss112 04:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's only 'monitoring' in your chosen frame of reference. it's 'improving wikipedia articles' to the rest of us. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Jennica is editing mainly to have a unified format across album/band articles. I'm sure she does not know every single album ever created with an article here, so she needs outlets to discover such pages. There is nothing wrong with it if it is constructive, nor is it hounding. If you're annoyed by that, honestly, it's just a personal problem.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I have asked her not to do something that she doesn't need to do, and she's just disregarding that when I've told her I don't like to be monitored. I consider it hounding. Ss112 04:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You asked, she declined. That is the end of it. If she were obstructing you, reverting you etc you would have a case but you have clearly said that she is not doing any such thing. Wikipedia is a "public space". Jbh^Talk 04:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I am more surprised a ten year veteran here is making such a big deal about someone taking an approach to improve the encyclopedia. What case did you possibly expect when Jennica did absolutely nothing wrong? Can you find a policy against editing that bothers specifically you?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

...because it hasn't happened to me before. Just because it doesn't bother you, TheGracefulSlick, does not mean it can't bother me. I already cited hounding, as I feel that's exactly what's being done to me. Those at the help desk disagreed with you here; they said it was tantamount to Jennica being a jerk by not respecting a simple request that there's no real reason to not agree with. I agree. She also essentially told me on her talk page I was indirectly responsible for pre-existing errors on pages by not fixing what she comes in and does. Ss112 05:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• Ss112, I see that at the very first article I randomly selected from your interactions, you edited after Jennica did [284]. Are you following her? (Here's the full interaction result [285].) EEng 05:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

EEng, I feel you try to derail and blow out sections here so administrators don't want to read them and just ignore them, but I told Jennica that I have looked at her edits before because she changed charts headings to chart positions, which I disagreed with and we resolved. That's why that happened. I'm not saying somebody can't look at contribs every once in a while. I'm saying I'm being monitored several times a day, for days on end. Ss112 05:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

That's what you feel, is it? You feel a lot of things about other editors, it appears. I guess it was just chance that the very first article I sampled, of those both of you have edited, was one in which you came in after Jennica. You really need to drop this. EEng 05:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

(EC)You are indirectly responsible. I know all my work could be done better, and is often improved by others. I try to raise my standards, but my constant experience is that other people come in and improve on what I've done. I could have done better; I'm indirectly responsible for them having to improve it. You could, of course, head her off at the pass by implementing whatever the improvements are that she makes, if they're systematic. Or else you could just resign yourself to her improving articles which you obviously care enough about to expend your time improving. It seems pretty win-win. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2016 (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.

Sockpuppet Investigation not showing up on SPI

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

---

The sockpuppet investigation I made for Jvolkblum -- a banned user infamous for editing New Rochelle articles and violating copyright, using hundreds of socks and it isn't showing up on SPI. Can anybody here help me? Here's a link to this sockpuppet report: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jvolkblum - - so that whatever's causing this can be fixed. 89.243.176.152 (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you create it through the "How to open an investigation:" box at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations? That ought to set everything up correctly. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I tried to, but I struggled with it and just copied/pasted the work I had made onto the Jvolkblum sockpuppet investigation's page, the page I linked to in my statement above. 89.243.176.152 (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2016 (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.

Psychopathy in the workplace

Some pesky trolling going on at Psychopathy in the workplace--Penbat (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Reverted, blocked, ignored. Why the hell do people feel the need to start ANI threads on every single thing? ‑ Iridescent 14:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe because it says "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors" right at the top of this page. Is there somewhere else this should be posted at? Please let the community know (in no-more than 1,500 words). Go! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:AIV, as it says in those same instructions. ‑ Iridescent 14:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just to reassert my longstanding proposal that every new ANI thread should require a "second". EEng 21:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Second" as in dueling or "second" as in Robert's Rules of Order? The first might be more interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I meant Robert's. While your other suggestion certainly would be more interesting, I still say some facility for transmitting painful electric shocks over the network would be more nuanced and less messy. EEng 04:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• But if every person starting an ANI thread must also start a second, the page will become infinitely long. It would be turtles all the way down.David in DC (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought of that, smartypants, and that's why "second" is in quotes. EEng 04:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Articles created by Sander.v.Ginkel

As part of his close at the top of this page, @Avraham: stipulated that all of @Sander.v.Ginkel:'s BLP articles were to be listed, and any not endorsed as acceptable within a week would then be deleted. I was concerned that this process would delete a large number of acceptable articles? I therefore asked Avraham on his talk page if he would be willing to allow the articles to be moved to draftspace instead so that myself and other interested editors could check them, or else undeleted into draft space in chunks, checked for BLP violations, and then checked for mainspace worthiness the same way. Avraham suggested that I bring the discussion to ANI. Does the community feel that moving the articles to draft space (either en masse or in chunks) so that they can be checked should be permitted? Tazerdadog (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am discussing the supervote close by Avi at WP:AN. The discussion above has been going on for more than two weeks, and not a single article has been checked by these concerned citizens or projects. But when a proposal to delete them all gets overwhelming consensus, we first have a closer ignoring that consensus, and then a proposal to weaken the unsupported proposal even further. The articles in general have so little added value that checking them will take about as much time as actually recreating them. This supervote and subsequent proposal to simply ignore the long discussion and consensus reached there is a rather sad state of affairs. There is no deadline, we survived without these articles for 15 years, we then had them for a few months (for the vast majority of them), it does no harm at all if we again not have them for some time, until someone comes along who wants to create decent articles about them. Fram (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose I don't know why you felt the need to re-open this issue. The issue is already closed. Please stop. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It would be good to at least see a complete list of these articles. I'd be happy to check any cyclists who've been at the Olympics, for example. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing this [286] (Draft space) and this [287] (Article space) will help, though I'm not sure it's everything. EEng 08:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Article ownership by User:Drdpw

User:Drdpw has consistently and constantly acted as if he owns articles related to U.S. politics, just take a look at how many times he's reverted edits for simply being "unnecessary" in his view or "trivial" in his view (see here and here and tap F3 to search for key words such as "unnecessary" and "obtain consensus", et cetera). A huge chunk of his edits consist of quite a number of reverts, and despite breaking WP:3RR at least once (actually he's been reported twice here and here in the last year without any consequences), it's almost impossible to make any bold edits without being plunged into a semi-reverting war with this user. In a simple nutshell, this user just reverts any edit he doesn't like in the name of "consensus". I've advised him to read WP:DONTREVERT numerous times, but that essay still hasn't enlightened him. I have tried to reasoning with the user in the past but this is a regular pattern, and it keeps going on and on without anyone else doing anything.--Nevé–selbert 17:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is going to sift through the list of contribs you posted to figure out which specific edits are evidence of the alleged problem. See HELP:DIFF and try studying the how-to-complain-at-ANI type stuff; that will give you an idea of how to present evidence to support your complaint. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: How many diffs? Ones involving me or others?--Nevé–selbert 17:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Since you've been at it so long already, suggest a few more weeks won't hurt. In that time, you can carefully work through the options for WP:Dispute resolution while reading threads on this board that you don't really care about, but you will learn what sorts of packaging works and what does not. Hopefully you will not need to make use of that learning, but that's the best way to figure it out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I recommend the best thing to do, is work out a consensus for changes to the article-in-question, at that article's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thing is, it isn't just one page. It's pretty much every single page in the vicinity of US politics, most specifically any article related to the presidency.--Nevé–selbert 17:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

These situations are quite frustrating. Reminds me of the articles Pedro I of Brazil & Pedro II of Brazil. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Isnt US politics under 1rr at the moment? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's only US politics after 1932. I am not sure. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

US politics after 1932 and DS applies. See WP:ARBAPDS NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Please note that Nevé has reinserted the information that I removed the other day from (and which directly led to his bringing this action against me) into the President-elect of the United States article. As any action on my part to change or remove his most recent edit would be used against me by the complaint, I would ask that his editorial behavior here be examined. I question whether this edit, or any other edits he may make in the coming days to articles where we both have had editorial disputes will be good faith edits or ones made in hopes of enciting me to make a knee-jerk decision to revert. Going forward, I will not revert any edits he may make, nor will I subsequently modify them without stating a clear and concise reason for doing so and inviting discussion about my edit on the appropriate talk page at the same time. Drdpw (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't reinsert the information, I adapted it. I excluded the list for one thing. Nobody else had a problem with the added text, so to act as if you're defending "consensus" is nonsense. I don't want to "provoke" you into doing anything. I would just feel more at ease if you digested WP:BRD and WP:DONTREVERT in your free time to understand why bold edits that you may baulk at aren't detrimental to the encyclopedia. I hope we can sort this out and I don't necessarily want you to get blocked or anything. I just would like you to take a break from reverting and instead start adapting any edits you dislike more frequently, changing and tweaking the changes you don't like instead of getting rid of them entirely. Doing otherwise discourages other editors from making any admirable bold edit in fear of you reverting them. Kind regards and I wish you a Merry Christmas.--Nevé–selbert 17:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Multiple edit requests

50.65.38.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is making multiple edit requests, editors are taking time to respond to the requests, which most need further information, like references or a X to Y format. The IP has not provided further information when needed. Not sure how to handle this, but they are wasting many editors time. Examples: Talk:Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, Talk:Olympic Games. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Altamel for your help. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I left the editor a more detailed explanation. Speaking as somebody who regularly patrols edit requests, I don't think a block of the IP is warranted. I have taken a brief look at their requests, and most would be useful additions to their respective articles if they are true (I haven't verified) and if the IP had stated where they should go specifically. Plus, the templated decline messages are opaque and do a poor job of guiding new users. Any edit request patroller is free to reuse my trove of more detailed warning messages. Altamel (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, nice, clear job of explaining things to the IP, and I like your templates. Thanks. Meters (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Poor decision and abuse by admin Toddst1

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.

---

EDIT: I am so sorry, Toddst is not an admin, I owe him an apology. Sammy D III (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page, but someone might want to check to see if I got it right.

I believe that on 15 Dec 2016 between 1:33 and 02:34 admin User:Toddst1 gave me no AGF at all, was rude, and attacked me on the talk page in question. These are my contribs, this is the talk page history itself, and here is Todds1s talk page (I don't know how to link it before he selective archived it, the very act he reverted me on). This is the article's history (I can't make this one work either), just for background.

My thinking: I want to put this article in a cat, but the talk page is terrible. Personal (and embarrassing) stuff completely killed the talk page. Archive? I didn't get it right at M123, where is the help page? New page (Archive 1, clearly a vandal name), cut stuff per direction, save, no floppy disc flag, will this fix it? Save, edit conflict, what is that?

Did you notice that ONE MINUTE after I posted I had been found, investigated, condemned, and action was taken? ONE MINUTE!!!

Well, I have to go to his talk page and beg for my good faith edit back. And even then, although he clearly doesn't get it, he still edits my edit anyway. He deletes a discussion which matches a flag. Other people's opinions, which address a flag. I thought that it should stay. I guess not. But we will leave the flag up anyway. Since we understand the situation so clearly.

All he had to say was "oops, sorry, maybe this is the flag you are looking for" (that I had probably already found before the edit conflict). "Oops, sorry" was clearly too much for him to say. Instead, he started posting on the very page in question.

His first insult clearly showes that he is very ignorant of the subject. Maybe he should have a clue before he says a major contributor "asserts" something is "dubious" (flag on article itself). Or he could have checked the first reference link, TM 9-2800 Military Vehicles. US Dept. of the Army. 1947. p. 302. Retrieved 12 Apr 2016. The answer is on page 302. The next two links have it in the title on the front cover. THE TITLE ON THE FRONT COVER.

You have to give him the AGF he didn't give me. No, he didn't attack me, he didn't delete all that discussion to cover his actions, he didn't selectively archive his talk page (17:50 19 Dec 2016) to hide his actions from his talk page stalkers. But you have to be able to imagine what this looks like to me. Maybe someone who he considers a contemporary, someone he will talk to, instead of down at, might want to give this a glance.

Is this revenge? Sure, we would never have met again. But I am not slinking away, I am walking away with my head held high. If you would have acted like he did, congratulate him.

That's is all I have, thank you for your time. Sammy D III (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Toddst1 is not an administrator. Putting that aside, I can't follow what you're saying.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Sammy D III Your edit here looks like vandalism and you left no edit summary as to why you blanked the content, I would have reverted you as well. Also Toddst1 isn't an Admin.@Bbb23: this is what they were trying to link, took me a sec to figure it out too. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 18:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the edit indeed looked like vandalism. I've left suggestions (like using an edit summary) on the article my talk page once I realized Sammy D was trying to do something usefu. Toddst1 (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

When did you leave a suggestion on the article talk page? I don't see it, could you tell me the time? I am missing something, sorry. Sammy D III (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I mixed up the three places I've given you feedback. I'm sure you saw this since you replied to it, again going on the attack. Maybe it's time you start using edit summaries so you don't run into problems like this in the future. Toddst1 (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Right. After six years I do not deserve sixty seconds of good faith because I forgot an edit summary. Right. You didn't check even one history, did you? Right. One minute. Right. And we will forget all about that 4x2 stuff. Right. I'm so glad you explained that to me, I thought AGF was a real idea. Sorry for getting in your way by trying to edit in good faith. Sammy D III (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Your account has been active for a little over four years. Toddst1 is not an admin, as you previously assumed. It will be hard to give you the benefit of the doubt if you keep getting things wrong. And you need to take your own advice about assuming good faith. When you started this thread, you assumed that Toddst1 was acting in bad faith. Lepricavark (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Ive seen more than a few editors who have been here more than 6 yrs who have committed Vandalism and ended up blocked. How long you've been here means nothing. You've been here 6, Todd has been here 9 I believe. Take it as a lesson, if you're going to blank anything leave an edit summary as to why your doing it. Problem solved. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Sammy D III, (1) Do not attempt to archive if you don't know what you are doing. (2) The places to ask for instruction would be WP:HELPDESK, WP:TEAHOUSE, or the article's talk page, or by typing {{help}} on your own talk page and asking a question under it. (3) Always use an edit summary, particularly when making massive changes or deletions. (4) Do not assume an air of sarcasm or superiority, particularly not on other user's talk pages or here on ANI. (5) When you are or were in error, or don't know what you are doing, it's best to admit that rather than railing at others. All of that said, I recommend closing this thread before a WP:BOOMERANG ensues. Softlavender (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, I am not trying to fight. (1) I can never do anything that I am not absolutly sure of? I could never have done anything. (2) I was following a Help page word for word. It only took me a minute or two to probably get it right (I was edit-conflicted) I had missed M123 too, but when I learned I fixed that, too. (3) Yes, I am using sarcasm. I have no idea about superiority on to (5) I have been admitting error all along. I admit to not getting the archive right all the time. I admit that I missed it at M123 too. "because I forgot an edit summary". But he made a mistake too. One minute is just too short. If he had checked my contribs... If he had checked the article or talk page history... If he had done any kind of investigation... And then there was that 4x2 stuff. That is just spite. I have an idea about boomerang, but won't follow the link. I stand behing what I post. I admit to being an a..h..., I'm not likely to argue. But I absolutly believe that he should have checked any history, done any checking at all. I was minding my own business in a dull desert where nobody else ever comes and this fell out of the sky on me. "Oops, sorry" could have prevented this all, too. I absolutly believe he owes me an apology. And thank you for your time, a different POV. Sammy D III (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sammy, Todd has done absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong, nor have you even provided any evidence that he did. If you had never received a standardized notice on your talk page (which you have blanked after every conversation you don't like [288]), now you know what they look like -- everybody gets them. You however, by your own admission, have been and are continuing to be an asshole. You're also bringing this nonsense, which had been effectively resolved 10 days beforehand, to ANI for no justifiable reason. Please withdraw this thread before you get hit with a BOOMERANG block. Softlavender (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sammy AN/I is not, nor has it ever been, a place to force an apology. If anything, you owe everyone an apology for wasting their time. Just close the thread before it's too late.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2016 (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.

need a blacklisted page created

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

---

User talk:Marteybaker$$$$$$$$$ can't be created because of a blacklist issue. Edits such as these [289] [290] have been reverted, but only admins can create the talk page, so no warnings as yet. Or someone can just assume WP:!HERE. Meters (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Gave them a third degree warning. If vandalism continues just post on WP:AIV. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Whoever it is has been quiet since they were reverted so hopefully we're done. Meters (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2016 (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.

multiple ip changing

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.

---

[[291]] [[292]]

keep makes edit warring on page Ruby Lin with multiple ip address. Please check [[293]].

Since september,this user makes countless unexplained removal of content on page. Sometimes use resisted id(Xdeluna) but almost time keep changing ip address(ip start with 2404)

its impossible use talk page to talk with this user because he keep multiple ip changing(didnt read talk page under other ip) and even clear up talk page without any feedback(Xdeluna).

dont know how to handle. Edit and deleted the contents without giving a valid under various ip address. plz give me the idea. User:110.47.128.174 (User talk:110.47.128.174) 01:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Normally the way to deal with IP-hopping article disruption is to request semi-protection of the article at WP:RFPP. This prevents IPs from editing the article. However, you yourself would not be able to edit the article either. Therefore, I suggest that you register an account (all it takes is a screenname and a password) beforehand. Softlavender (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There are several IPs that request protection knowing that they can't edit the page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:35, 25 December 2016 (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.

List of Thomas & Friends railway engines

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

---

User:69.113.198.84 is constantly making these changes to List of Thomas & Friends railway engines without citing any sources or even giving valid reason other than "This is my page". I made it clear to her that she does not own anything here, and that the only person who owns anything here is Jimbo Wales. I verbalized to her multiple times that she needs to stop claiming ownership over anything on Wikipedia and stop screaming in her edit summaries. She is continuing to claim ownership of the article and scream in her edit summaries. CLCStudent (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I've issued a block and I'm watching the article, and I'll block further and/or protect as necessary. (As an aside, Jimmy Wales doesn't own the content of Wikipedia either.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I've missed the good ol' insanity that crops up here from time to time. HalfShadow 05:03, 26 December 2016 (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.

Another page hijacking

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

---

I have run across another disambiguation page that has been hijacked by an editor. (See the previous incident I reported.)

In this case, the dab page Botanique was turned into an article and moved to SurvivalLife, of course taking the history of the page with it. The remaining redirect was then targeted to one of the articles that had been on the dab page, Le Botanique. Those pages and histories need to be sorted out, especially restoring the dab page at Botanique.

Most of my work is with dab pages, and this is about the fourth or fifth "hijacking" incident I have run across. Sometimes I can fix things myself, and sometimes it's the result of an editor who doesn't know any better. However, I suspect this is sometimes used as a technique to bypass WP:NPP, as might be the case here. Should I just keep bringing them here to AN/I, case by case? Or is there a better forum? I would be grateful for any advice that I might pass on to the participants in WP:WikiProject Disambiguation. — Gorthian (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2016 (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.

• Your concern re: malicious dab page moves was not specifically addressed but I believe this is a priority that can be fixed. I think an edit filter could be set up so that if a page that contains the {{dab}} template is moved then it will be flagged. If they remove the {{dab}} template before moving it, then maybe just removing the template could trigger an edit filter. You could also have a bot (if this task is possible) check for recently moved pages w/ the dab template, or something to the effect. Mainly just thinking outloud to give you some ideas. Rgrds. --64.85.216.152 (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

User keeps characterizing the Syrian rebels as "terrorists"

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

---

I just want to raise a concern on this board about Silicondale (talk · contribs). This user has been making some bizarre additions to the Syrian Civil Defense article with highly charged unencyclopedic language that consistently refers to the rebels as "terrorists". I warned him about it, but the user reverted me and said the following beneath my warning on their talk page:

In that case the Wikipedia "standards" are wrong. They are terrorists. Even the Pentagon recognises that there are no moderate rebels in Syria (how many? - "just 4 or 5"). Silicondale (talk) 10:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

+1. Note also the blatant POV-pushing on Bana Alabed:

• Serious BLP vio
• "There are no reliable sources to confirm that "Bana Alabed" and her "mother" are not actors being used in a propaganda project to smear the Syrian government and its allies and to sanitise the terrorists in east Aleppo."
• "...In my opinion all the evidence (necessarily circumstantial) points to the entire Bana Alabed story being a propaganda hoax, a stunt, in which Wikipedia risks being made an unwitting tool..."
• "It must be noted that "bellingcat" is far from being a reliable source. It is a collection of completely unqualified bloggers... who present themselves as 'citizen journalists' but are largely funded by Atlantic Council to broadcast pro-NATO propaganda through social media."
• "The fact that the intensely russophobic source Bellingcat... is quoted in a newspaper with similar intensely russophobic agenda cannot be taken as any support of its credibility. Indeed, the crux of the problem is that all of western mainstream media now follow the same russophobic agenda, with virtually none of the dissent which could be seen even at the height of the Cold War... removal of the reference to Barbara McKenzie's blog is in my view a reflection of political bias of the Wikipedia editors."
• "In fact most if not all of her tweets were most likely written by an adult such as her mother, or more probably a British or other western intelligence officer charged with creating this propaganda story."
• (Under a section titled, "More evidence that Bana Alabed is nothing more than a child being abused for jihadi propaganda"): "...The account was set up by western agencies (registered in UK) to generate propaganda on behalf of the jihadi terrorists funded by the west as part of a regime-change agenda."
• [294]

Enough of this feverish, conspiratorial nonsense. Please block to prevent ongoing disruption to Syrian Civil War articles. GAB^gab 18:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Notified user in question. GAB^gab 18:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately this kind of thing isn't unique. For another example, see this diff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for WP:Righting great wrongs, although we probably haven't heard the end of them. Miniapolis 23:45, 25 December 2016 (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.

Rococo1700 being disruptive on Menachem Mendel Schneerson

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.

---

Please intervene at Menachem Mendel Schneerson where Rococo1700 is being disruptive with edit warring about a non-consensus edit and incompetent behavior on the talkpage, including personal attacks, as well as forum shopping. I propose 1. to revert to the consensus version, which means removal of the paragraph proposed by Rococo1700 2. to ban Rococo1700 from the article and its talkpage, or at least a last warning that he may not make any further edits to the article without establishing clear consensus first. For the record, the editor was extensively warned on his talkpage (including regarding another recent WP:ANI thread), even though he removed most warnings.[295][296][297][298] Debresser (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to warn both Debresser and Rococo1700 about their edit-warring, but I see that Debresser has begun this request instead. Please fully protect the article for a week or so, until the on-going talk page discussion reaches consensus. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Debresser's assessment above is pretty accurate. Rococo1700 has been engaging (unsuccessfully) in forum-shopping in an attempt to shoe-horn a mention of the Crown Heights riot into the biography of somebody who had no part in the riot, although the driver of a car behind him in his so-called "motorcade" lost control of his vehicle, causing a deadly traffic accident that was the spark that ignited long-simmering neighborhood resentments into a riot. (Yes, Schneerson's "involvement" in the riot was just that great, so it clearly warrants prominent mention in his Wikipedia biography!) Perhaps cooler heads can communicate WP:UNDUE to Rococo1700, to whom the word jihad seems to apply. Rococo1700's unwillingness to discuss and her/his absurd demands (that one editor produce sources for another editor's opinion, for example) are making some of us wonder about her/his competency. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked Rococo1700 for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2016 (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.

Carlos Danger

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.

---

• Carlos Danger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a user who makes a fair number of edits to climate change related topics, which edits consistently favour the fossil fuel agenda and downplay the problem of denialism. He also appears to stalk William M Connolley ([299], [300], [301], [302]). Example problem edits:

• [303] changing several sources, including The New York Times and The Independent, have described him as a climate change denier to just The New York Times and The Independent, have described him as a climate change denier. That frames a widespread accusation based on copious evidence as coming only from two newspapers.
• [304] which changes Tillerson has controversial ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin to Tillerson has ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin, with an edit summary of "non-factual". Really? Ties with Russia are not controversial now? CBS didn't get the memo.
• [305] this edit adding WP:UNDUE references to methane, a classic denialist trope.
• [306] changing ExxonMobil has a history of lobbying for climate change denial and against the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels to ExxonMobil has been accused by some of lobbying [...], which is WP:WEASEL and a flat denial of the documents references in ExxonMobil climate change controversy which unambiguously prove this activity.
• [307] which removes the well documented problem of methane leakage, which is generally accepted as offsetting a significant part of the reduction in greenhouse impact of switching from coal to gas - ironic given the insistence on adding methane to the lede of the CO₂ article.
• [308] removes the important context that Nils-Axel Mörner's claim that sea levels are not rising, ignores the satellite data which shows that actually they are.

As far as I can tell, most if not all his edits on topics related to fossil fuels, climate, and climate change, are tendentious and reverted by others. This is a time sink and I think the user should be topic banned form climate related articles. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support "Discuss" is not in this user's playbook. Except for a single quote from a third party he has not posted any talk page comments, A number of us have attempted to point out how this place works at his user talk. No response, nadda, zip.... but more edits of this sort. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Update - earlier today (Dec 23) Carlos made his second all-time talk page edit, by blanking his own talkpage, including tips from others, the DS WP:ARBCC warning, and notice of this ANI filing. His edit summary dismisses all of these prevention efforts with the edit summary "clean up". Of course, this is Carlos' prerogative under WP:OWNTALK, but the closing admin should be aware of his cavalier response.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support As much as I think topic bans don't work, the last thing Wikipedia needs is a climate change denier trying to edit articles on climate change. Any way we can stop such accounts from wasting good faith editors' time is something we should try. jps (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support for the greater good.--WaltCip (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support; the lack of D in his implementation of WP:BRD is very concerning. His rare edits outside that topic are somewhat pertinent, however. Let's start with a topic ban and see if he's WP:NOTHERE, or if his energies can be employed more productively. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support although I fear the problem may spread to other topic areas (I am a pessimist). The TB should include related topics, like fossil fuels, imho. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Discretionary-Sanctions tban. Editor was already warned about WP:ARBCC and continued to make the same/similar problematic edits. I and others have undone several of this editor's edits where sentences were removed with WP:ES "uncited" or "not supported" or such, but they indeed were. In every case, the removed content was contrary to this editor's apparent bias, so this is more evidence of bad-faith edits against neutrality. DMacks (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I'm fairly certain that CD is an old friend who has returned after something of a break. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sock of whom? Guy (Help!) 20:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know but I think Boris is right William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• I was looking for another ANI thread when this one caught my eye. I want to point out a possible (???) username issue. Please see here for an explanation. I honestly cannot make up my mind whether this is, or is not, a violation of the username policy, so I'm just pointing it out and leaving it to others. I apologize in advance if I have raised a non-issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban, user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2016 (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.

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.

---

Close please

The behaviour continues, a review of edits (especially the focus on William Connolley) strongly suggests a Scibaby sock, and this is now boring. Can someone action this please? Guy (Help!) 09:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC) Carlos continues to revert, continues to make false assertions of WP:TRUTH, and to date has only made one talk page post ever. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd put the likelihood of Scibaby as 80-90% in this case. It could be another of our dear friends whose username slips my mind. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Carlos Danger (2)

• Carlos Danger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was topic-banned from climate change due to disruptive edits on a small number of articles including [[:]] (edit | [[Talk:|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Part of the problem is constant reversions with POV edit summaries and zero (as in only one comment, ever) Talk page involvement. Today he repeated an edit tot he Tillerson article that has been reverted numerous times. I have blocked the accoutn indefinitely as not only is this a violation of the topic ba, but it's also very likely that this is a sock of Scibaby or (less likely) another banned user. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Everyone except Carlos agrees that this is a good block, so this section can be closed and archived imho. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:TroySchulz showing repeated disregard for warnings/policies guidelines

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.

---

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

As evidenced from their Talk page, TroySchulz (talk · contribs) has shown repeated difficulties either understanding or following Wikipedia guidelines despite multiple warnings, nor have they shown a willingness to discuss the concerns editors have expressed.

Warnings for adding unsourced information/original research (2016): [310], [311], [312], [313], [314], [315], [316].

Beyond their issues with adding unsourced material, the editor has shown a tendency to rely on IMDb as a reference despite being referred to WP:RS/IMDb, and bloats ploat summaries in violation of WP:FILMPLOT despite similar advisories. I'm happy to provide additional links as desired.

Given their evident lack of interest in changing their editing habits, I feel a block is warranted until such time as they recognize that they need to change their behavior. DonIago (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I was alerted to this discussion, so take my comments with a grain of salt, I guess. Anyway, TroySchulz had a bit of a rough start; I and several other editors warned him for apparent vandalism because it looked like he was intentionally adding incorrect information to articles. It could be that he was using copying information from the IMDb, which is infamously subject to incorrect rumors and hoaxes (much like Wikipedia itself). For an explanation of why the IMDb is not a reliable source, see this source and this hoax cleanup (much of the sourcing depended on the IMDb). After this behavior stopped, TroySchulz mostly started adding unsourced puffery and citations to the IMDb. It would be nice if he stopped. There are a number of diffs on his talk page where I addressed individual problematic edits. I eventually stopped giving him warnings because it didn't seem to be accomplishing anything. As far as I can tell from the x tools, he's only made two edits to talk pages ever. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that no admins have chimed in thus far, even to say that they don't feel any action should be taken. I think it's fair to say that both NRP and I have expressed valid concerns, and while Troy hasn't edited for the past couple of days, their pattern of poor editing despite multiple warnings, and failure to engage with their fellow editors suggests to me that no amount of Talk page messaging (at least by non-admins) will be effective at curbing their disruptive behavior. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I was asked by DonIago to comment on this thread, because I too had warned TroySchulz in the past for problematic behavior. The reference is to this edit of mine to his talkpage. In view of the large number of warnings that many experienced editor have had to send this editor, and the complete lack of a reaction from his side, coupled with the fact that his editing pattern does not seem to have improved much, I am of the opinion that only a block can either force this editor to rethink his edits or stop the disruption caused by his edits. I'd recommend a week-long block not including his talkpage, or even a block till such time as talkpage discussion will show that he understands the issues which have been brought to his attention. Debresser (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

On the off-chance that I haven't made my feelings clear already, I'd be fine with either of those options. Troy's lack of communication is at least as much, if not more, of an issue as their problematic editing behaviors in general. DonIago (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I think Troy created a sock puppet to evade scrutiny, and I filed an SPI case here. If an admin could take a look at it, that would be helpful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Both TroySchulz and his sock were indefinitely blocked by Bbb23. I guess we're done here – until the next sock shows up, at least. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ninja, both for the update and for catching the sockpuppetry in the first place. DonIago (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:92.20.163.200

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.

---

Just look at his contributions...speaks for themselves. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

You need to study your policies a little harder and also look at the guide to ANI. 92.20.163.200 (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Good God. Now I've got you trying to prevent me blanking my own talkpage. You really need to study Wikipedia's fine print before pretending to be a policeman. 92.20.163.200 (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the user who created this Incident also attempted to delete my comments here with no reason given. [317] 92.20.163.200 (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

From a comment he left on someone else's talkpage, it seems Vjmlhds has created this incident in an attempt to gain revenge on me for telling him to "fuck off" on my own talkpage. Apparently I "picked the wrong cowboy to cuss at"... 92.20.163.200 (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

No comment on anything else, but anyone can remove ANI notices from their talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, anyone can remove warning notices from their talk page - removing them is seen as confirmation they've been seen and understood. And telling someone to "fuck off" is not a personal attack, just an impolite request to be left alone. And ANI is typically the place for complex disagreements/abuse, not a butthurt kid trying to get revenge on an IP editor who they feel has challenged their manhood (or what passes for it). 92.20.163.200 (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

But IP how do you explain your hostile behavior over a user's editing? Disagreeing is allowed, but insulting editors for a disagreement is not.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

My explanation for my initial behaviour is that I got angry when I saw how badly DantODB had been editing and the countless warnings he'd received. 92.20.163.200 (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries like this one and talk page posts calling editors "cretins" and calling an editor a "butthurt kid" are not conducive to collaborative editing; the occasional expletive is one thing, treating other editors with outright contempt is another. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I have outright contempt for both editors. One of them seems to be incapable of editing and the other opened an incident at ANI because "I picked the wrong cowboy to cuss at". 92.20.163.200 (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I insist you redact your comments soon IP. There is no place for your childish insults and contempt for other users. A block will most likely result if you do not.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked for 24h for personal attacks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2016 (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.