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://wiki.riteme.site/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)

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)

SuperCarnivore591 and trolling in RfA

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

---

SuperCarnivore591 (talk · contribs), despite a block for trolling in a RfA last year ([7]), takes a 3-month break, and returns to Wikipedia just to post a blatantly trolling oppose in the RfA of Godsy right here. This user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and all temporary blocks will do is to prolong the trolling, so I request an indefinite block for this troll. Esquivalience (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

1. It wasn't trolling. I gave a specific, policy-based reasons to oppose Godsy for adminship: questions with his temperament, a lack of any substantive content creation, as well as his combativeness, particularly during the Legacypac fiasco that other editors brought up (I was more concerned with his conduct in the Jenner article, though). I did give a long paragraph explaining why I did, yes. The reason I did that is because I didn't want to seem like some asshole by giving a small, one sentence oppose as other people do, which could drop his enthusiasm and make him reluctant to apply for adminship ever again, which isn't what I want. I have no problem with him applying for adminship again when he is ready. Yes, I used some wordy phrasing, it's what people do when trying to get their point across.

2. Your absurd accusation that I'm not here to build an encyclopedia is undermined by the thousand of edits I've racked up since joining roughly a year and a half ago, as well as the good number of articles that I have created; you can take a look if you want to. If you go to the talk page on Godsy's RFA, a good number of respectable editors did not consider my oppose to be trolling, and one of them rebuked the editor for striking my oppose. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I utterly fail to see the usefulness of the linked comment above, it looks like straight-up trolling to me. If I hadn't specifically set out tonight to recreate a George Thorogood song (it is Saturday night after all!) I'd block myself, but I'd like at least another admin to take a look at this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, why in the world would you block yourself? EEng 07:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Heh, I suppose I should have written out "carry out the block myself" (Twinkle gives you a really hilarious snarky message if you actually set it to block yourself, as does the blocking interface; I tested both a long time ago and successfully avoided actually blocking myself). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, please do try it again and tell us what the snarky message is. EEng 07:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

From which moment forward The Blade of the Northern Lights was never heard from again...

• SuperCarnivore591's RfA vote consists of several sentences selected from various places. From George Washington Quotes:
  • There is a Destiny which has the control of our actions, not to be resisted by the strongest efforts of Human Nature.
  • Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.
  • Labour to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire, called conscience.

  There is more, but that is enough to show that SuperCarnivore591 should be topic banned from RfA (if anyone can confirm their edits are useful), or indeffed (otherwise). The RfA vote, and the comments at RfA talk, are indistinguishable from trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a prohibition from quoting historical figures and others of importance to make an analogy or metaphor to drive your point home and get it across. RFAs are of very significant importance to so many in our community, and there's nothing wrong with showing that you're serious, rather than giving a dickish one sentence oppose without significant explanation, as too many editors nowadays do. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

That strikes me as remarkably disingenuous. As tempting as it is to engage in sarcastic quoting of someone to get my point across, I'll refrain and allow someone else to take care of this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Just like you to leave the sarcastic quoting to someone else. How about this: "A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought"? EEng 07:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I will not suggest a course of action because I've !voted in the RfA, but I will point out this section of the editor's user talk page, which clearly shows that he's trolling. There is no other way to take his comment there. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Another diff is here, where after trolling my and 78.26's RfAs he admits he was just having fun (his words) i.e. trolling RfA (my words). BethNaught (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

BethNaught's link is very interesting, especially in relation to the disingenuous defense the user has made above. I considered blocking for 72 hours or so, but on the other hand I also want to propose a community ban from RFA, and the user ought to be able to take part in that discussion. Reluctantly refraining from blocking at this time, and please record your opinion of a ban below. Pinging @Floquenbeam:, who placed the original 12-hour (!) block for RFA trolling. Bishonen | talk 09:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

I have a mixed reaction. Regarding the RFA comment that earned a block, it's an evocative statement; perhaps a picky English major will object to the awkward transition of metaphors, but in other circumstances, it might be viewed as well-crafted. Unfortunately, it purports to be an opposition vote, and for that purpose it fails miserably. I watched The Loobenfeld Decay last evening in which Sheldon Cooper responds to the question of how an actor should play genetic predisposition with a retort "subtextually of course!". There's a time and a place for delivering information subtextually, and an RFA is not the place. The process is difficult enough without having to interpret emanations of penumbras. We give wide latitude to contributors to oppose just about any grounds but "just about any grounds" ought to include "grounds". I don't think the casual reader knows what shortcomings were alleged to have occurred. (And I'm not asking for explanation now, the time has passed). That leads me to the conclusion that the opposition vote was a wastage of time but I didn't view it as rising to a blockable offense.

The present opposition vote evinces the contributors preference for a clever turn of phrase over transmission of information. The opening point is actually a step up from the prior opposition contribution as it actually includes rationales for opposition, and the rationales (if accurate) are not nonsense. That said, an opposition statement that includes strong language such as "gross intemperance", and "apparent left-wing views" is begging for diffs, which are wanting. The second point is, as before, a wastage of time, but I don't see this as blockable. Perhaps we should require that strong negative statements be supported by diffs, but that sounds like a can of worms and this isn't the place to make such a proposal. However, I don't see this as remotely block a ball and if anything the editor should be encouraged to add some light to the heat.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I was asked to review this since I blocked SC last year. I'm busy in real life, so forgive the lack of diffs, but just look at his contribs from December 2015 and you'll find them, he hasn't been that active lately. Or, if you're a true "diffs or it didn't happen" person, ignore me.
  • His comments last year were clearly trolling. Especially when his subsequent responses to people who asked him about it are taken into account. I assumed this was due to ingestion of something and blocked for 12 hours for it to wear off, but he assured me later on my talk page (after the block expired) that he had been sober but was just screwing around with people because he wanted to have a little bit of fun. At the time he claimed he wouldn't do it again.
  • His comment in paragraph 1 this year was mainstream. His comment in paragraph 2 was, taken in isolation, just garden variety sound-of-his-own-voice stupidity.
  • His comment in paragraph 2, knowing what we know after last year, was him having fun at another's expense (again), knowing in advance that it would stress people out (again), and doing it anyway so he could enjoy the reaction of Wikipedians who, as a rule, are completely incapable of ignoring stuff like this (again). Which, I think, is the Merriam Webster definition of trolling.
  • I do not care whether he is blocked, topic banned, or complimented on his trolling skills, because trolling (and our inability to recognize and deal with it) are fundamental characteristics of this site. I mean, obviously he should be blocked or topic banned, but I don't care that it won't happen.
  • We've moved on to Votes for Banning now, so probably no one will look up here to see this comment anyway.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: - if it makes you feel any better I read your comment and appreciated you taking the time to weigh in on this controversial proposition. Alicb (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ban from RFA proposed

Per the discussion above, I propose SuperCarnivore591 be indefinitely banned from taking part in any requests for adminship or related pages. Bishonen | talk 09:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

Tally (S/O/N): 12/20/4

Support

• Support As I noted above, SuperCarnivore591's RfA comments are indistinguishable from trolling. The "I wasn't aware..." reply above confirms that. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support- yeah, this is blatant trolling and needs to stop. But I'm uneasy about singling out one editor who writes trollish opposes when there are other RfA regulars who also write unfair opposes just to wind others up. Reyk _YO! 10:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  Support. There's a difference between holding an opinion which most people consider obnoxious and being permitted to state it—which should generally be allowed, regardless of whether other people consider it 'trolling'—and intentionally setting out to be an asshole and see how long it takes for people to react, which is what we clearly have here. ‑ Iridescent 11:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC) sorry, thought I'd already struck this—moved to oppose, see below. ‑ Iridescent 18:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - go and find a new hobby and stop wasting our time. Patient Zero^talk 11:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support RFAs decide a new admin, which will give him/her access to tools that can destroy the encyclopedia if used maliciously. "Just having some fun" is possibly the most ridiculous excuse I've heard for a troll RFA vote. This is serious, please stop wasting people's time. Period. WikiPancake 🥞 11:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support There are generally good faithed, but poor !votes at FRA. This is another level entirely and should be stopped. AIRcorn (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Defo agree with Patient Zero. Stop wasting our time! Class455 (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  Support User is clearly WP:NOTHERE. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  Support RfA is a most inappropriate place for such obvious trolling and fun and games. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC) (moving to oppose)

• Support, though Ivanvector's idea above would also work. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, there's no room for this silly behaviour at RfA. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 15:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. There needs to be a crackdown of RfA trolls, and this would be an important first step to send a message that trolls are not welcome at RFA. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support as per above - Ivanvector's proposal could work however I don't see why we should waste our time with this editor any longer, They're clealy trolling so therefore should be topic-banned from RFA. –Davey2010^Talk 16:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Iridescent's support rationale above, rather than his oppose rationale below. The fact that other strange votes exist shouldn't deter us from banning assholery from RfA. A page ban may have the effect of "pour encourager les autres" --RexxS (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Evaluating RfAs is difficult enough without trolling. Miniapolis 00:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  Support Note: I'm not uninvolved here, as opposed to most of the ANIs I comment on. In my opinion, this is a case of blatant trolling. I don't cast judgment on the user's character, but this behavior needs to stop, and a topic ban seems like the only way to do it. Just like the last time he was ANI'd and then blocked for his comments on RfAs, he doesn't appear to want to admit that this behavior is unacceptable and is sticking to the story that he has been unfairly singled out for his "mature" comments. What else can we do? AlexEng^(TALK) 01:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving to neutral per discussion with SuperCarnivore591 AlexEng^(TALK) 18:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strong Oppose My previous indiscretions were over a year ago, and I have already served time for that, and I wasn't trolling this RFA, I had genuine concerns about this users suitability to be an admin, as do dozens of other editors, which has lead to a large number of people opposing his nomination. Explaining your oppose in depth as well as giving legitimate reasons for it that have to do with temperament and maturity, which is what I did, is not trolling. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle: all users should be entitled to vote in admin elections, and we have never come to consensus on what constitutes a "valid" vote. However SuperCarnivore591's votes are clearly in bad faith. I propose instead that they be restricted to one bolded "support" "oppose" or "neutral" vote in an RfA, and banned from any follow-up commentary, similar to Eric Corbett's RfA tban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Ivanvector, also support his solution. The original ban proposal is heavy-handed and overkill. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I find the editor's !vote silly, but nothing much more than that. There's no personal attack involved. (Struck per my message below. Lourdes)Per Ivanvector, we can either limit the number of words the editor uses in his !votes or allow him to simply write support or oppose. The ban is actually heavy handed, especially for an editor who is creating articles like Paul Gentile, Mario Merola (lawyer), Robert T. Johnson (lawyer) and more. Give him a good warning and some restrictions; not a ban but. Lourdes 16:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

especially for an editor who is creating articles like Paul Gentile, Mario Merola (lawyer), Robert T. Johnson (lawyer) and more – whether an editor creates articles of similar quality to Marilyn Monroe or LinguistRats, RfA is a no-go for messing around. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 16:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, while I agree with you on the fact that Rfa is a no-go for messing around, I don't agree with your comparison. I would prefer treating editors, who have shown evidence of positive article creation contributions to Wikipedia, with a better perspective than I would editors who have nothing to show positive. Lourdes 16:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

True, users who have made constructive contributions do deserve credit. Messing around in an oppose section at RfA isn't acceptable. I wouldn't support a site block or ban for Carnivore, but they've added "votes" to RfA three or more times, and continued even after being told to stop. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 16:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I've refined my position, suggesting further loosening up of the heat on him this time; given the subject's message below. Lourdes 02:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose My opposition is largely explained above. I considered signing on to Ivanvector proposal but I think that's a bit much. My opposition should not be construed as support for SuperCarnivore591's contribution, it was largely a wastage of time. To the extent it actually contained useful information at ought to be supported by diffs. This proposal appears to be headed toward support but if it fails I hope they will take this as a serious warning to change their approach to RFA contributions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - To be blunt; there is a plethora of vacuity at that RfA. Either weed the whole damned thing - meaning reform the process -, or accept it for what it is. Editor by editor restrictions will get us nowhere quickly. As I stated below, this isn't even the worst or most trolling oppose on the page. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously. If I were compiling a list from that RFA for "most egregious examples of votes which constitute either severe incompetence or obvious trolling", I doubt SuperCarnivore591 would even make the top ten. If we blocked people on the grounds of acting like self-important assholes at RFA, Wikipedia would have about three editors left. ‑ Iridescent 16:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• ... ? Is it a block you're opposing, Iridescent, or the proposed ban from RFA? Bishonen | talk 16:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

• Either, to be honest. By coincidence I've just been researching RFA topic bans in the last couple of days, and as best I can tell the only time anyone has ever been banned from commenting at RFA (as opposed to being banned from discussing at RFA) was this incident two years ago. Because something hasn't been done before isn't reason on its own not to do it, but it will be a very unusual step, not something at all routine, and I don't particularly like the idea of disenfranchising people unless there's really no alternative. Per my comment above, I wouldn't consider the comment in question anywhere near the most inappropriate in that particular debate, so it seems peculiar to single one person out for a punishment beating while allowing outright idiotic oppose rationales like five years is not enough for a new admin, candidate still has room for improvement, displays their user rights too prominently and of course I find the lack of image uploads weird to stand. ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Then you should probably strike your support vote, Iri, made 5.5 hours before your oppose.... :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oops, thought I had—the striking got lost in the edit conflicts. Fixed. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll bite, who is the third? :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Iridecent above - even if he strikes it! Leaky Caldron 18:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - moved from support after reading Ivanvector's proposal, with which I concur. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Let's be clear that I disaprove of SuperCarnivore591's obvious trolling last year, dislike their way to contribute in the current RfA, and can't share their opinions either. I am also certain that their past trollings were disruptive and energy-sapping for all of us. However, I believe that even this type of individuals should be allowed to vote. Ivanvector's proposal is one that I may support. Besides, the editor showed what could be construed as a convincing contrition for past mistakes. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 20:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a full topic ban but support Ivanvector's approach. I think it should be expanded to the RFA talk page too. Preventing troll votes on the RFA itself is one thing but it does leave a bit of a loop hole as it does not explicitly prevent trolling on the talk page. Blackmane (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Blackmane, my original proposal is already for a ban from "from taking part in any requests for adminship or related pages". Bishonen | talk 22:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

• Apologies, this is what happens when one reads ANI before morning coffee. Striking the latter part, but my preference for Ivanvector's proposal still stands. Blackmane (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban at this stage but support a straight Support or Oppose vote only (no commentary) per Ivanvector. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose fail to see how the comment was trolling - he's been hassled by admins who haven't created articles, so that's his main criteria. OK, let's AGF. Could trim out the noise, certainly, and it's possibly disruptive to add too much irrelevant commentary, but he needs more warning on that. II | (t - c)
• Oppose Quoting George Washington does not seem to be any kind of offense and so no action is required. Andrew D. (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Moved from support per SuperCarnivore591's comment below. I think he understands and won't do that in the future. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that his comments were hard to follow and overly abstract but it seems like something that could be handled by asking him to be more clear and more respectful in the future. He doesn't seem like a vandal and or a violation of WP:NOTHERE so I think banning him from the site or from RfA is pretty stringent. Alicb (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I like Ivanvector's proposal, but I would be more inclined to support a looser restriction against making RfA comments that are clearly not in good faith. If SuperCarnivore591 posts any such support or oppose !votes, they will be stricken pending a retraction on their part. After a number of such instances (maybe ~3), Ivanvector's proposal should then be enacted for a period of not less than six months. Thoughts? Kurtis ^(talk) 02:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, largely per User:Sphilbrick. The best way to deal with this sort of comments is simply not to feed the troll and to let the 'crats accord the comment the weight that it is due. There was no need to strike the comment, pick a fight, and cause a dramasplosion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose Calls that this is trolling based on the "quotes" ignore the actual rationale he also gave in his oppose. Some serious tunnel vision happening in the support section followed by nitpicking over sarcastic language such as "I wasn't aware..." when replying to someone's accusation that wasn't supported in policy. None of us are aware that there is suddenly a de facto rule against historical quotes - it is an accurate statement about a rule that someone just pulled out of their ass.--v/r - TP 18:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. After having campaigned so loud for years for a clean up of RfA, I would would obviously be expecting myself to strongly support a total topic ban from every Request for Adminship. I would want to put SuperCarnivore591 in the village stocks and make an example of him, not only an example of trolling, but as a retrospective example of how RfA is the one single place where users appear to be fundamentally allowed to behave in a manner that would get them blocked PDQ anywhere else. But no, let's see if the traditional Wikipedia leniency and tolerance for trolling is the better solution and give him one more chance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

• Per Iridescent. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• I'm a little involved here as I voted in the RFA in question. It seems we have an admitted troll who claims their latest !vote was not trolling. I'm not sure how often we successfully reform trolls, but perhaps SuperCarnivore will be sufficiently self aware in future to avoid comments that are likely to be perceived as trolling. As they claim youth I'm leaning towards one more chance, but would not object to a ban of two or three years from RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 12:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This is the most sensible course of action.--v/r - TP 18:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• No longer in support of a ban after discussion. It seems like he's aware of what he did and how it was perceived by others. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• While I do question the oppose in question as it offeres no help to the filer, the candidate and the bureaucrats and is not policy-based, I am not sure we can ban someone from simply opposing somebody. Maybe if the oppose was eloborated we might not be here. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - The first point of the oppose vote is quite obviously not trolling, if it was left at that originally we would not be having this discussion right now; I've been harangued by a few overzealous admins, but the ones who have been most understanding are the ones with sufficient article creation under their belts. The second point is where this contentiousness lies, the weird quoting of Washington. I've looked at the "troll" votes at BethNaught and 78.26 and they aren't the same as here. Even if point 2. is overt trolling, point 1. is legitimate or at the very least, meant to look legitimate. Personally, it's not even the worst vote registered on the page, that (dis)honour goes elsewhere. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment from subject of proposed ban - I realize that my opinion on the case has caused some controversy with people, but I just want to reiterate that my oppose was based on heartfelt concerns regarding Godys's nomination, not out of a desire to troll a well-meaning user looking to become an admin. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is more than a community – it is also a civic society between admins and non-admins, and I strongly feel we should have admins who are not overzealous and who are compassionate, not trigger-happy with the block button. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you also, then, understand that it's not the opinion itself but the wording that has caused contention? AlexEng^(TALK) 21:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand that as well, but I honestly was not doing it in bad faith; I just did it to drive the point home. However, I see how it could be seen by some as an elitist comment, and it may have been a poor choice of words. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Given SuperCarnivore's message above, I would further suggest loosening up even IvanVector's proposal and showing leniency to the subject this time. I think SuperCarnivore understands that the words used by him has caused much of this current issue. This time, let him be; he's understood. If it's repeated, that's it. Lourdes 02:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there going to be a user like you with this position the next time this comes to ANI? We've seen this issue once several times before. Why let it happen again? AlexEng^(TALK) 03:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Look at the time invested by so many editors, including me, on this topic, and all because of one editor's bad faith comments at an Rfa. Going by that, I've got to agree with you. Honestly speaking, if the community ends up banning him from the Rfa or putting any other restrictions, I'm not going to have any issues with that too (it'll save the time of so many editors on possible future indiscretions). It's just that the editor has shown some evidence of article contributions to Wikipedia. That is the only reason I'm on this side. Rest up to you all. No issues with what you all decide. Lourdes 03:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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 [8] 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 [9] 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."([10]). 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)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OccultZone/Archive#15 September 2016

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

---

When this SPI was done, I didn't scrutinize the evidence given by Vanamonde93 to the fullest extent.

Now, I will explain why the evidences presented by Vanamone93 were false. I always clicked his link number 79 in the evidence, which never opened. Vanamonde93's comment, Overlap with Bladesmulti is large: [79]. This is admittedly inflated by MSM's use of automated tools, but Blades used zero automation, so the overlap still strikes me as significant. Blades and MSM have a markedly similar, and unusual, history of timestamps: Blades, MSM; a fairly uniform distribution of edits through about 20 hours of the day, with the 20-24h (GMT) period being the only slack period.

As far as I can see, with Intersect Contribs tool, today I intersect in 51 pages. I was reverting whatever disruptive edit was shown automatically through Huggle and Stiki window. If today I intersect in 51 pages, then two months ago, when this SPi case was filed, the intersect was obviously much lower than 51. This less than 51 pages is large overlap for him.

Next day he states Folks, my apologies: I had intended to add more evidence earlier this evening, but was kept off wiki by some RL stuff that had popped up. The stuff I was going to add has mostly been mentioned: the undeletion request, the high level of automated editing from MSM, the accusations of POV at my RFA that sounded a lot like similar accusations that have been leveled by OZ socks. I didn't accuse his POV. I voted oppose (changed to support) after reading the comments made by other editors as Rsrikanth05, Arun Kumar SINGH and ƬheStrikeΣagle. My other comments in that RFA was not connected to Vanamonde93.

I don't care for Ekvastra, however as Vanamonde93 gave more false evidence in this SPI (and he can do it again against me), I need to mention that the pages which he proclaim as obscure Ekvastra has a remarkable overlap with the edits of Bladesmulti and AmritasyaPutra, both initially blocked as OZ socks. The overlap includes pages as obscure as All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen and Lakshmanananda Saraswati., are not obscure articles. People outside India might find them obscure.

Lakshmanananda Saraswati was a nobody before his murder in 2008, but Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda and the largescale riots that followed doesn't make this page an obscure page. The murder is still in the news in 2016

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen is nowhere close to being an obscure page. Indian media calls it as AIMIM or MIM in short form. NDTV, Hindustan times. Their leader Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi always takes part in debates about Indian Muslims on national news channels. In Aaj Tak google video results. On Times Now, Google video results.

I can give more evidence, but this is sufficient to prove that those two pages were not obscure as mentioned by Vanamonde93. As Dharmadhyaksha said in Vanamonde's RFA "Despite the nominee claiming in their reply to Q15 above that they would not intervene as admin where they are INVOLVED; like " South Asian political parties, ideological movements related to Islam in South Asia and Hinduism in general, communal violence in South Asia, post-World War II Guatemalan, Chilean, Nicaraguan, Cuban, and Salvadoran history, the Iraq war,...." and so on; it is a fact that admin's views/comments/votes do get more weightage in discussions than someone who is new/previously-blocked-for-whatever-reason and such. Admin tools come with this un-denied privilege and user's with claimed-bias towards such a large chunk of article should not be crowned as admins. (Using "crown" intentionally even if nominee doesn't consider it such as yes it is a crown in many respects.) In addition, allegations of stalking along with these allegations of biased editing do not add up to much a good candidature. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)"

They were aware that Bbb23, Mike V, DeltaQuad don't edit WP:INDIA articles. Vanamonde admittedly had email discussion about this with Joshua Jonathan and both planned to misinform check users with false evidence. Marvellous Spider-Man 06:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: what do you even want here? The SPI was closed: you were found innocent of socking. I accepted this finding, and moved on. Are you asking for sanctions against me for filing an SPI with not-quite-strong-enough evidence? Evaluating the evidence is a job for the clerks, and they found it convincing enough to perform a CU. I really don't see the point of this post. Vanamonde (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Evaluating the evidence is a job for the clerks, not in this case, as they trusted an administrator active in Indian articles. You are not able to explain how large was the overlap with Bladesmulti on that date. And where I questioned your POV in your RFA? --Marvellous Spider-Man 04:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - That SPI case is almost three months old. What is the point of this post? Vanamonde93 did not have any malicious intent during or after the case so this just seems too pointless to be here. I suggest you retract this as soon as possible.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - "Vanamonde admittedly had email discussion about this with Joshua Jonathan and both planned to misinform check users with false evidence" - yes, we had mail-contact, about a series of suspicious editors, including MSM. I've seen this before, a newbie who edits like an experienced editor, and his name coincidentally was Bladesmulti. See [11]: " I've also been wondering if Bladesmulti is a sock, given his sudden appearance and his high speed of editing at so many pages." Ironic, isn't it? yet, to suggest that "both planned to misinform check users with false evidence" is blatantly wrong, but may be due to a feeling of being attacked or so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Vanamonde93 says Evaluating the evidence is a job for the clerks, and they found it convincing enough to perform a CU. @Marvellous Spider-Man and TheGracefulSlick: but no clerk has edited there. CU was done without that, and block was made within 2h without putting a block notice or providing any opportunity to the accused person to defend. The report was made on OccultZone page and no evidence was presented to connect them. There was not even one instance of policy violation mentioned. AmritasyaPutra had declared transitioning to new user, Ekvastra admitted to being AmritasyaPutra. Ekvastra never voted or edited any content of former account and used reliable references for each edit. There was no concern with any edit. Unless there was a demonstration of any abusive edit or policy violation the decision to overturn previous ruling of BASC without any discussion whatsoever is malicious. --DonateToWikipedia (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

  That's an interestingly knowledgeable comment from someone who registered their account just one minute previously. Care to tell us who you are? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

  Yes Zebedee, your guess is reasonable. How else to bring up this matter for discussion? The first block was made when the user was on a declared 1 month wiki-break with no network connectivity which was conveyed over email to other user(s) (and they edited in the SPI, when we knew better in real life). User offered or actually sent the journey tickets to prove. User had attended wiki meets in person too, other admin(s) had vouched. It was a tedious process and then the unblock was done. The evidence presented was inaccurate then too. User had mentioned it later there. A second time the same action was done: no evidence of connectivity or abuse and CU without clerk comment, block before the person may defend and no notice on talk page. Now too, the most likely outcome is that these comments will be purged. It would have been reasonable to allow comments in defense to be made. Vanamonde93 had been regularly stalking, remaining abusive and vengeful towards the editor for months. If anyone would want to check, time permitting, response to any specific inquiry may be presented. --DonateToWikipedia (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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,[12] 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 [13], [14], [15], [16] and [17] (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[18] -- 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"[19]] 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.[20] 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 [21] 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

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)
• Oppose initial proposal of standard IBAN (which doesn't work at least on an indefinite basis); support Rubin's modified version below. This might save the rest of us the trouble of looking out for further violations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 11 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[22][23] 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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

Asylums (book) article plagiat

Hello,

I was reading this article https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Asylums_(book) and I see mutiple plagiat of this source http://www.orthomolecular.org/library/jom/1982/pdf/1982-v11n04-p267.pdf (yes it's linked in the references but it's still plagiat). Hope you will do something. I'm not an english wikipedian so I dont want to do changes like this here.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylzkhan (talk • contribs) 11:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I took a few jabs to find any copyright violations, but I failed to find any. Could you please point out some passages you think have been plagiarized? Kleuske (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"One of the first sociological examinations of the social situation of mental patients, the hospital", "no great respect for the agencies involved with psychiatric practice nor for the discipline of psychiatry", "to a dramatic change for the worse due to the debilitating atmosphere in all total institutions, regardless of how therapeutic or non-therapeutic a hospital is", "human needs are handled in an impersonal and bureaucratic mode", "distance between the staff and inmates is great, and each group tends to be unfriendly toward the other", basically all number 4 references. Sometimes they (don't know if the same person is behind all this edits) change two unimportant words or the orders of some words to bypass copyvio but it's still plagiat. No quotation marks, no name of the author in the article except a little link at the end. On the french wikipedia, this will be considered as a plagiat so I don't know here. Thanks for your help. Ylzkhan (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Tricky, but Duplication Detector. At least it does not feel good... The Banner talk 12:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Nice link. Thanks. Just for the info, sometimes they changed the orders of the words or some unimportant words so this website for example can't detect duplicates but doesn't mean it's not plagiat. Ylzkhan (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Some phrases were copied verbatim. Question is: does this rise to the point of WP:COPYVIO? Not all the results are quite convincing, but there's substantial number of them (36). Kleuske (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Plagiat? Wasn't he a character in a Poe story? EEng 16:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

A Swiss theoretician of child development? EEng 02:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• One rather important point: the source is invalid per WP:MEDRS. Orthomolecular psychiatry is an offshoot of orthomolecular medicine, and even less grounded in reality. Bluntly, it's woo. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 5 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: [24]. 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[25] (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[26][27]

• 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[28][29], 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 [30] 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 [31]. 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[32]? 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)

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

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 [43], 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)

• 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)

User:Disembodied Soul

Could someone please assess this edit and summary comment? Am I accused of (self-)promotion (of what?) or is there also an attempted WP:OUTING involved? Since this is a user with many years' history of being antagonistic toward me on svWP, I'd rather not communicate with h directly. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like poor grammar. I'm guessing they're saying "revert promotion of Lars Jacob" by you. Blackmane (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like neither of you have attempted to discuss the changes on the article's talk page, which is nearly always the first step. TimothyJosephWood 22:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears SergeWoodzing is interpreting the edit summary as speculating that he and Lars Jacob are the same person. This would be a violation of WP:OUT, even if his user page does state that Serge Woodzing is his real name. If what Serge wants to do is simply reinstate the image, then discussing on the talk page would be the way to go, but discussing a user's outing attempt on the article talk page would be inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. I will do that now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the image which was removed by User:Disembodied Soul and then reinstated by User:SergeWoodzing. The article in question is about actress and singer Wenche Myhre (right). Her husband Anders Eljas is to the left. In the center is Lars Jacob, close friend of User:SergeWoodzing.

It is well known that the person behind the account SergeWoodzing and the person in the center of the image in question, Lars Jacob, know each other well, and that they use the same computer for editing Wikipedia. This has been declared by SergeWoodzing, and is also known from his very much appreciated contributions to the Wikimedia Commons. Although perhaps not strictly a violation of WP:COI or other related guidelines it does not look very elegant (sorry for my lack of better English words) when SergeWoodzing insists that the image with his close friend in the center of it should be in a certain article. A humble suggestion would be more appropriate, and then letting others decide. SergeWoodzing was indefinitely blocked on the Swedish Wikipedia, in part for issues having very much to do with this kind of "promotion" (my wording). It is not directly relevant here, but you may find details on the block, in English, at sv:User talk:SergeWoodzing. I choose to write here rather than on the article talk page, as it concerns user behaviour more than the image itself. /NH (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to say, that is an impressive block log. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

and the reasons can be read here.Yger (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you've got that right!. SW has a looong history of violent attacks against other users, blatant self promotion och rude harassment. Everyone who dared to question his edits or his images of Lars Jacob Demitz was subjected to his personal attacks. Disembodied Soul (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Said the person originally in question here. "violent attacks" - "blatant self promotion" - "rude harassment" "Everyone who dared" - "personal attacks" - uy! That harang is just not true, and the reason for it is not constructive. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I have never "insisted", just contributed material that I think normally would be considered relevant . The reason for removing this image is to remove a director who gave her husband his first job in 1975. That contribution, relevant as I see it, as have hundreds of my other images been, has no relation whatsoever to the fact that I uploaded the image, no relation to whom I know or don't know, who is a "close friend" of mine or not (as if they knew), no relation to who took the photo, no relation to what computers I use, and no relation whatsoever to years of harassment and blocks at Swedish Wikipedia. If it's considered inappropriate that that director be in that photo in that article, the matter should be addressed on the article's talk page. I could bombard this page with difs showing how images have been cropped in the last few days, by editors working together on Swedish WP, Commons and now commenting here, to censor and obliterate two persons' appearance on Swedish Wikipedia, for no other apparent reasons than personal animosity as shown in extensive arguments about the crops on that project. I could also translate all the vicious personal attacks that have been made on me and those 2 (living!) persons on svWP since 2008, as well as quote long harangs from there yesterday and today about those crop motivations, whereas on Commons they have denied that and claimed today that these several crops were made to accentuate certain people, not to remove anyone. Here's the result of one such action, as compared to how that article looked before yesterdayand for years. Here's another one (second photo) and the article's previous look.. Neutral editors: you decide who's trying to provide relevant and good images, often of people and places and subject matters I know, and who's trying to pick nasty fights and keep them going, now on 3 projects, for years and years and years without end. We all makes mistakes. It is indeed my intention to be "humble" and let others decide, reasonably. When someone wants to remove material I've contributed, I usually expplain why I contributed it, and then let other neutral editors decide. If consensus says rm, I rm the material myself. When I discover more relevant free (note: free) images than the ones I've contributed, I always use thém. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

What does Lars Jacob have to do with Wenche Myhre? He may have given her husband a job, but did he give her a job? Do they work together on a regular basis? If not, then I fail to see what relevance a picture of him has to an article on her. If you can explain why Lars Jacob should be mentioned in an article about Wenche Myhre without mentioning Anders Eljas, then I could understand why a picture of him could be appropriate for the article. Otherwise, I agree that it is inappropriate. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that relevant question! It belongs on the article's talk page, I think. I will be addressing that after lunch. There are very few images available to illustrate such articles. Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Given the history involved, I would suggest that this would be an opportunity to avoid the appearance of impropriety, even if there is no ill intent originally. TimothyJosephWood 01:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, avoiding that is maximally important to me too. That's why, when put on the defensive, I try to explain rationally why an image is relevant, even if one of many more-or-less notable people, whom my acquaintances and I know, happens to be in it. This doesn't happen too often, thank Goodness, but when it does, sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail, in explaining adquately. Consensus is what counts, as we all know, and trying to avoid editing for strictly personal reasons, especially antagonistic such, as well as an excessive amount of slurs and personal attacks. Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Also relevant thread at COM:ANU. TimothyJosephWood 01:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Unreasonable harassment

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

---

Posting complaint of harassment

No Que No... edición especial and other pages

I posted to the users talk page as instructed.

The most recent event occurred after I created an album page No Que No... edición especial and magiciandude deleted it without discussion or warning. I reverted his deletion and put my justification on the talk page os said page. He deleted it again without discussion.

Previous version https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=No_Que_No..._edici%C3%B3n_especial&oldid=753334037 Current version https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=No_Que_No..._edici%C3%B3n_especial&diff=753335237&oldid=753334037

Today, the next day I saw every page I have worked on now under attack, something seems to be wrong with all of them.

Here you can see what happened after I reverted his deletion of my page, almost every page I have created has come under attack by multiple people. I don't think it is coincidence, I think it is harassment and not the first time.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Watchlist

I went to magiciandude'S talk page and saw one of the users telling him I put the page back, she was also one who went to all my pages and resized my photos, again, no one is discussing this first, just waiving their mighty hand. Another user now is critiquing my articles for formatting, amazingly all came out of the woodwork in one day.

I am being harassed. I am seeking a solution. Are the pages so horrible I should delete all the work done, would it be better to not have volunteers here trying to do good work? What does the community want? The invitation to work on here seems to look for just what I am doing, I can quote your own pages of welcome and the niceties used when encourage us to create, yet I am left bewildered and were it not for wanting to promote the Latin artist field I would have quit some time ago.

Please help me go on with my work. Opinions are nice to have, but why is mine always wrong and the others always right?

This is the message I left on magiciandude's talk page when reporting I was coming here to seek assistance.

Thank you in advance SusanneSC (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)SusanneSC

I have done a lot of work and you and I started off badly but I learned how to ceeate and read the rules. Now you are back and delete without discussion first, my album page. I disagree, leave my reason on the talk page and rather than respond, you delete again and all of a sudden your editor friends show up and start attacking all my pages, even to the point of telling you I reverted the edit...thought you should know and you responding with an old argument we had as though you were the injured party. I am not standing by, based on Wikipedia principles for article creation and work I've done I won't have one person insist on attacking me and the work. It has become too obvious. There is no reason, the goal is to boost the knowledge of Latin artists but no one does it as well as you. So would you prefer no one help? You do not foster a community environment, remember we are all volunteers. SusanneSC (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)SusanneSC

We can't see your watchlist, linking to Special:Watchlist will only take other users to their own watchlists.

Looking at No Que No... edición especial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In the history, magiciandude did explain his actions: "Special editions don't warrant their own articles as they are the same album with extra songs" and [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=No_Que_No..._edici%C3%B3n_especial&type=revision&diff=753335237&oldid=753334037 "All the information on this page was merged on No Que No.... Four extra songs is not adequate to justify its own article." You have failed to address these issues. Those statements do not constitute harassment, and calling them that is a failure of WP:Assume good faith. Try to consider that if someone disagrees with you, they might actually have a reason for doing so, and that reason might be because they want to help the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw "almost every page I have created has come under attack by multiple people" -- the way this site works, if all the traffic is coming your way, you are probably driving in the wrong lane. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If anyone wants to know what happened, see this link. Background, when she joined Wikipedia I offered to help her with Wikipedia articles and encouraged her to work on the area she was interested. But also I informed her that guidelines and policies do exist in Wikipedia. You can clearly see in the link where I pointed out links to policies and she basically insulted me. Also, the other user she is referring to in question is Jennica. That's basically it. Erick (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Uhh. I am hardly involved in this. All I did was notify Magiciandude that his proposed deletion was removed by Susanne because it's not right to remove proposed deletions without discussing it first. I have not done any harassing of any kind. But PS: SusanneSC images were incorrectly sized, and whatever articles you work on are not explicitly yours. There was no vendetta against you.. I merely saw your oversized images and resized them per other album pages. There should be no need for me to discuss something so small with you.. the wiki is everyones --Jennica✿ / ^talk 00:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jennica: Huh, whoops. I didn't make any PRODs so I assumed that someone else did. My bad. This has been a very weird day today for me.... Erick (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Editing to add that album cover images should not be 300px. That's why I resized them. I have edited on over 10k album pages and have never seen an image 300px. so I resized it. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 01:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@SusanneSC: I saw your post at the Teahouse. Sometimes editing on Wikipedia can be a bit frustrating because there are quite a lot of policies and guidelines and even a manual of style that all editors are expected to do their best to try and adhere to. New editors, for obvious reasons, are usually unfamiliar with these things and often quickly get frustrated/angry when the see there edits be completely undone or reverted by another. As Ian.thomson posted above, it's very important to try and assume good faith when such a thing happens and understand why your edits might have been undone, etc. Article content is not owned by any particular editor and every time you click "Save changes" you are basically agreeing to freely give another editor permission to change your edits as they see fit. Wikipedia hopes that these changes will be improvements and be according to relevant policies/guidelines, and for the most part they usually are. Most experienced editors will leave an edit sum explaining their reasons for making an edit and these edits sums often contain links to relevant policy/guideline pages where you can find out more details, but you can also always ask for further clarification by posting on the article's talk page and attempting to discuss it with the editor who made it per WP:BRD. I think you need to be very careful about using words like "harassment" on Wikipedia because doing so can have serious implications as explained in Wikipedia:Harassment and you should be aware that false accusations can be seen as the community as a personal attack per Wikipedia:Harassment#What harassment is not. Wikipedia pages are all interconnected by links so the fact that different editors might suddenly seem to appear out of nowhere to edit an article, etc. does not mean some kind of "conspiracy" has been formed to act against an certain editor; it could just mean that the editor posted something somewhere that is on the watchlist of these editors. Looking at your user talk page, I see some editors have posted user warnings and messages offering help, etc., but I don't see anything that would be considered "harassment" as defined by Wikipedia; I also see there have been attempts made by others to explain various policies/guidelines to you on their user talk pages as well, but again nothing that looks like harassment. So, if you're referring to something else, perhaps something that I and others have missed, then perhaps you can provide a diff for the specific edit so that an administrator can properly review it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

So I will just leave it at that and try to be more understanding of others. I think I understand it better now, Thank you everyone for your input. SusanneSC (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)SusanneSC

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

Editor fighting the war of women

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

---

NOTE: I removed the first close-template box by another editor, since so much germane discussion continued below it. Softlavender (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) is engaged in an edit war at Haredi Judaism. The problem started with his restore of a picture that was marked out half a year ago. Soon enough he started accusing me of mysogyny,[44] refusing to strike that insult when I asked him to.[45] Now he is already resorting to the f-word.[46] Then the cat came out of the sack and he admitted his problem is with the difference in the amount of pictures of men and women.[47] I have nothing against pictures of women, as long as they are of good quality and representative of the article's subject (which the pictures we are edit warring about are not), but is do have a serious problem with pointy editing when it leads to disruptive behavior.

While admitting that it takes two to wag a war, I want to ask some admin to explain to Nomoskedasticity that 1. he must first obtain consensus, and not edit war when his bold edits are reverted (I reminded him of WP:BRD[48]). 2. That the full name of WP:POINT is "Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" and he is being disruptive. If he wants that all articles should have the same amount of pictures of men and women, let him open a broad discussion about that, without edit warring about it on a specific article. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You both know better. Roxy the dog. bark 18:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While he may not be expressing it particularly civilly, Nomoskedasticity certainly appears to have a valid point. Presumably 50% of Haredi Jews are female, but on the current version one sees 16 men (plus an apparently all-male crowd shot) before the first female is seen, and the "Styles of Haredi dress" collage doesn't show a single woman. ‑ Iridescent 18:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The article has two paragraphs on Haredi female dress and a six paragraph section on gender issues. I have to say that it is not unreasonable to request more images of women in the article, and that images of men alone would be at best dubiously "representative" of, for instance, female dress, although I think the rhetoric could be toned town a bit. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

yep. agree. The arguments Debresser is making at the talk page could apply equally well to images already in the article, and as for this filing, the OP deserves at minimum a trout. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Umm... While the above has nothing to do with the problem, I'm going to focus on the actual issue for a minute here. We have a disruptive editor here who has referred to one editor as a misognyist for apparently no good reason. So, that's an NPA and not incivility. If you want to talk about replacing images, take it to the talk page, this is not the place for a discussion about content. Further that same editor is edit-warring - and maybe socking just to avoid the appearance of edit-warring. So I'm going to hand down a warning and hope that a warning may get it through to them that their behaviour is not conducive to a collaborative environment and that they should try calm discussion rather than the frankly shit approach of EW and NPA they've decided upon. I'm not gonna lie, I'm a bit disappointed with the above, quite sad that an offensive label being handed down is no issue just carry on, but, the fact that an article doesn't currently have equal representation is an issue that supercedes civility and/or NPA. That said, frankly, this is a whole crock of shite and somebody should close away. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

As above, I have handed a short warning with links to dispute resolution and rfc for added bonus. Hopefully, we won't see a repetition of the labelling, and, perhaps exterior resolution to this image issue. Trouted as well per request. Carry on. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The word "misogynist" was not used, so you'll need to correct your understanding. "Misogyny" refers to the contribution, not the editor -- exactly as the policy requires. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, come on! What in the phrase "Your misogyny is showing" is not about me? Debresser (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty clearly a personal attack, Nomoskedasticity. The phrase was: your misogyny is showing. That specifically accuses Debresser of misogyny. There's no need to argue about it; just strike and move on. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Even if there was some technicality, which there isn't, where you could say it was his edits that were misogynist, it's just a clever way to level an attack and then wikilawyer innocence.--v/r - TP 23:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I added two pictures of Haredi women that are appropriate for the article. One issue is that it's inherently more difficult to get pictures of Haredi women than Haredi men. I am trying to get more appropriate pictures, but I don't think a picture of a couple is a net positive for the article, it doesn't do anything. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

There are reasons that here are indeed less pictures of women than of men, as I explained on the talkpage. In addition, the proposed pictures weren't all that good, to say the least about one of them. But most of all it is the personal agenda that I am not happy with: we don't need crusading editors on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I think we are definitely at the limit of how many pictures this article should have. Actually, I think we past it. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

And yet you only want to delete pictures of women. How interesting. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's worth providing some background information here. Most Haredi Jews don't want to encounter portrayals of women in public; Haredi newspapers would never include a photograph showing a woman. (There was a notorious incident where a photograph of national leaders was photoshopped to remove someone prominent who was in the group -- might have been Hillary Clinton, or Angela Merkel, can't remember.) There's also a prohibition on listening to a woman sing. What we likely have here, then, is something very similar to the Mohammed pictures/representations issue. Now, I don't know for sure about the editors in question -- but it's not hard to imagine that if certain editors were themselves Haredi they might object on religious grounds to an article on Haredi Jews that included photographs of women. It's possible that they know better than to express their objections in these terms. In any event, if this factor is coming into play (behind the scenes, as it were), it would help to understand the opposition and the fact that the arguments offered are so weak. Naturally the outcome we get to here should be the same as in the Mohammed instance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"editors in question?" I added three relevant photos of women or groups of women to the article. My problem with your pictures is just that it doesn't do anything to the article other than being a picture of women. Don't start putting labels of misogyny on my head now too. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for what I acknowledge would be an inaccurate insinuation. I had in mind more of the older history of this issue; it flared up a few years ago as well. But I definitely don't include you in the general stuff I wrote above.Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If, as is indicated above, there are perhaps some reasonable questions whether editors here might have some sort of direct or sympathetic POV problem regarding images of women on this topic, I very definitely think that an RfC involving outsiders would be useful. Especially if there is ever a reasonable chance of individual biographies of Haredi women or men with very close ties to individual women, which presumably might reasonably include pictures of those women. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

... and PS just noticed that the Category:Haredi Judaism doesn't have the subcategories for "Haredi people" that we generally find, just a subcat on Haredi rabbis, but neither "Haredi men" nor "Haredi women." Just FWIW. John Carter (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Admins, he is doing it again! "editors in question?" I demand an apology for this insulting accusation of prejudice against women! I am insuloted both personally, as well as religiously. If there is any prejudice here, it is Nomoskedasticity having a prejudice against religious Jews! May I remind you that the whole idea of viewing women as the source of sin etc. is Christian. Women are respected in Judaism, as well as loved. Rabbis marry. Etc., etc. I for one have stated consistently that I have specific problems with the pictures he added and with his edit warring. And then he suddenly revealed that he has an agenda and is an equal rights fighter (which, apparently, he thinks translates into the number of pictures on a page). An now he reveals that he has prejudices against religious Jews. I want this editor to be topic banned for a while. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The Haredi burqa sect might not support all of the contentions above about Jews and women. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Which is a minor sect , and condemned by all mainstream haredi leaders and laymen alike. Why do you bring such a negligible minority up at all, John Carter? It's like bringing the Amish as an example of standard Christianity. A comment that had better not been made. Debresser (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Basically, because it is one of the Haredi groups, and it seems to me that "hiding" images of Haredi women is the substance of Nomasketasticity's complaint. John Carter (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I count five photos on the article currently which include women or girls, though that is really a matter for the associated talk page. Demanding apologies here isn't likely to be fruitful, and it would be good to dial back the pointless drama. Jonathunder (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Continued

After this inadequate close (see User talk:EEng#FirstLast-ever close), which did not give time for editors to address the underlying behavioral problems of Nomoskedasticity, he continues with his disruptive editing. Please see a copy of my post on the talkpage of Haredi Judaism. I would like to see some stronger warnings issued to Nomoskedasticity at this time. Debresser (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity made another pointy and disruptive edit,[49] adding yet another picture to this article which is already tagged for having too many pictures.[50] This time he added a picture of a few women in prayer to the "Military" section, and called it "Protest against conscription of yeshiva students". I think this picture is not at all representative of the subject, so tried to improve the caption and wrote "Women praying in protest against conscription of yeshiva students". In either case, I think this picture is still not representative of the subject, since nothing in the picture shows "protest" or seems to have any connection to "conscription of yeshiva students". I have, quite frankly, had it with edits from this editor, adding pictures of women for the sake of adding pictures of women, in blatant disregard of the pictures being of bad quality, or as in this case completely not fitting. I will copy this post to WP:ANI for further input, but I propose 1. to remove this picture 2. to remind Nomoskedasticity to refrain from pointy edits

I'm puzzled. There's nothing pointy about the edit -- it adds a picture, no more. I simply went with what was given in the caption at Commons: "Protest against conscription of yeshiva students". Continuation of content dispute, apparently (though Debresser is now at the limit of 3RR, so that's an issue that could be addressed). If there are "too many pictures", one could solve that problem by deleting some pictures of men; I find it quite telling that the editor instead continues to delete pictures of women. (Yes, he deleted one of men as well -- so then that would create scope for adding pictures of women, no? Well, apparently not...) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to recommend that all addition and removal of images at Haredi Judaism stop immediately. That the current images are reviewed, those not needed taken out or moved elsewhere in the article, and, any potential additions be discussed prior to inclusion. This course is clearly not going to end amicably for either party. There are 12 current images across the 110k byte sized article and I don't consider this to be excessive on it's own, however, the positioning of the images makes one part of the article cramped and another empty. The first half of the article contains all but one of the images and five images are literally clumped together across three sections of prose (Dress, Neighbourhoods and Gender Separation). Not a clean look for the article at all. Take it to the talk page, and leave it at the talk page. If an admin feels like it, page protect the article for a few days so that talk page discussion can happen. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Full protection requested here Mr rnddude (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Vanamode has fully protected the article for a period of one week. That should give both parties ample time to do three key things; 1. Nomoskedasticity, find yourself some good content appropriate images which you would like to see added to the article. 2. Debresser, take a look at all of the images currently in the article, idenfity images that are inappopriate and images that would be more appropriate in another section of the article. 3. Take your findings to the article's talk page and calmly, civilly, discuss with each other and the other interested parties (Anna Frodesiak and AlexEng seem to have joined in hopes of resolving the issue and I believe Sir Joseph will also be interested). After the protection expires do one of two things; 1. If you have reached an equitable satisfactory solution for both parties, implement the new changes into the article. 2. If you have not reached a consensus, WP:DR is the next appropriate venue to take the discussion. I - like most others - do not want to see any more labels thrown around or any more edit-warring over content. There are better solutions to the image dispute than this venue. More lighthearedly; The drama boards are for drama only, not content. I find this to be a drab and melancholy dispute, AN/I is typically reserved for David and Goliath epics of abuse, incivility, and other warfare. Begone with your pitiful dispute, leave this board, and never return. More generally; Thanks and hopefully more happy editing, Mr rnddude (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that what I said? EEng 17:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You mean in your close? yeah, more or less. I'm not entirely sure why SL removed your close, I didn't see anything I'd term germane - unless SL is referring to the page protection change - (or new at least), just more content dispute and a repeated request to go to talk. I don't know, if no new development comes up just do a new close If you're willing to try it again.. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. My closing days are over. EEng 18:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with your close. This is a content dispute, as you said. Jonathunder (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Off with her head!

• I want Softlavender desysopped for reverting my close. My feelings have been hurt and I feel BITTEN. EEng 23:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Blocked and desysopped. EEng 23:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender is not an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Like I didn't know that. I want her desysopped preemptively. EEng 03:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah! A predesysop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Brilliant idea, even if I do say so myself. Think of the trouble it would save if we predesysopped all editors right now. It would end all wheel-warring, obviate AN -- any number of benefits would flow.

But I'm not saying preop. That would be rude. EEng 05:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Blocked user editing by IP

Blocked user Hawkeye75 appears to be editing via 108.195.42.41. A comparison of their editing histories seems to indicate that they are the same editor. I'm not going to notify HE75 because their talk page access is revoked. If I am incorrect in assuming that contact isn't necessary here please correct me. --Adam in MO Talk 04:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Certainly appears to be some commonality in subject matter. I doubt there is much that can be done however, as Hawkeye75 has been blocked too long for check user to do any good. John from Idegon (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Adamfinmo: Did you see User talk:108.195.42.41#WP:EVADE? Perhaps SummerPhDv2.0 might be able to shed some light on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can add much light here. I had noted the IP's edits obscuring the distinction between Ross Bagdasarian Jr. and Ross Bagdasarian Sr. Based on that and their other edits, I had them pegged as either Harry_(singer)[51] or possibly Ritvik12. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is really sad, honestly. If that is him, I can't understand why he didn't just take the blocking admin's advice. The community was so unsure if it wanted to block him the first time that, even if he hadn't learned his lesson, it would have been so easy for him to convince us he had long enough to get unblocked.

By the way, unless something has changed, CU won't publicly identify an IP with a named account except in special cases (and I'm not even sure what those are). That said, Hawkeye75's last logged-in edit was on September 17, so CU can still catch socks in theory. I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with how long his account has been blocked.

Anyway, if behavioural evidence indicates that it is Hawkeye75, then the IP should be blocked for an appropriate finite length of time a note should be left on Hawkeye75's user page (where he can't remove it) that he was editing logged out to evade his block, just so no one unblocks him based on the assumption that he wasn't block-evading.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• I will say that it is  Unlikely that the IP is Hawkeye75, and that there are no accounts currently associated with that IP address. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I just found it extremely odd that they IP has a gap in editing at precisely the same time frame that HE75 was active. There was considerable editing to amusement park rides, which was an interest area of HE75. They both had several edits to The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror, this year but none at the same time. That seems bizarre to me. I don't know the technical details but the editing patterns seem similar. I guess this is a wait and see situation.--Adam in MO Talk 23:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Greg Lake

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

---

I have just semi-protected Greg Lake for 24 hours after several IPs changed his date of death from 6 to 7 December, as this is typical behaviour of the Cause of death vandal. As the CODV jumps IPs, I don't think a block would be appropriate at this stage. However, it's not beyond the boundary of possibilities that the BBC source I consulted is wrong, and numerous IPs have made many good-faith edits today, so a protection is overkill and frankly I'm probably WP:INVOLVED having just done a whole load of copyediting and sourcing on it. Can somebody else take a look? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• There's no correction but that article is now reporting "He died on Wednesday after 'a long and stubborn battle with cancer', said his manager." Semi-protection might still be a reasonable precaution for a high-traffic article, but I think this is probably just a case of evolving information and not vandalism. I took the precaution of getting an Archive.org snapshot: [52]. Mackensen (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I have unprotected as I am satisfied 7 December is what multiple sources are now supporting. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie. Karst (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Keri

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

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

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

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

Concerning the disputed source, having made no headway in my discussions with DynaGirl (Keri did not participate) I raised my concerns with the source at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. I was advised that the issue was related to NPOV rather than RS, as GQ is "considered a reliable source" (for how to match your shoes with your Armani suit maybe!). Accordingly I raised the issue at the NPOV noticeboard, and advised the users DynaGirl and Keri of it as required. Keri [53] responds with more snark and more bad faith accusations. No I'm not "asking the other parent", in fact the editors at RSN were helpful and for the most part agreed with my position, but advised that RSN was not the correct venue. Keri then makes a copypasta to both noticeboards [54] & ([55], clearly disruptive and hindering actual discussion of the issue involved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nasty messages and death wishes on User talk:174.56.16.116 page

Not sure how this can be rectified but on User talk:174.56.16.116 an IPV6 user has been continuously posting horrible messages. They all come from 2600:1010 but after that it's not the same so not sure if a block is possible. I'm not sure why the user is being targeted, they don't seem to be an active editor. I was going to ask for page protection but that would also lock out the IP editor, but if a block is not feasible then I think a protection is in order. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Page has been protected and edits have been revdelled. I wonder if deleting the page is appropriate, since that might throw-off the vandal in the future.🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

IP violating copyright violation

2602:306:C54D:88C0:E53D:818A:A4A8:C075 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has copying text from the Universal Music Latin Entertainment [website http://www.universalmusic.com/label/universal-music-latin-entertainment/] and adding to the article. I already warned the user, but the user reverted [my edit https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Universal_Music_Latin_Entertainment&diff=prev&oldid=753716219]. Erick (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have left another warning for the IP indicating that they will be blocked if they add the text again. Also, the IP was not notified of this report; I included a mention of the AN/I report in my warning. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 8 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)

Apparent attempts at censorship

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

---

The user Xtremedood (talk · contribs) seems to be engaged in a long-term agenda to censor valid information about the prophet Mohammad, and just deleted/redirected an entire page filled with references:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xtremedood

[57] [58] [59]

[60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]

He has apparently also been blocked several times previously due to edit-warring. Help would be very appreciated. David A (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• I agree these are problematical edits -- driveby removals and re-removals made without the least bit of discussion and with inaccurate edit summaries. I also believe that Xtremedood is often a problem editor who is unable to edit collaboratively, particularly not on the subject of Islam, Mohammed, or related subjects. Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Xtremedood's editing behaviour clearly demonstrates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, making biased edits in favour of Islam and Pakistan. In just two recent scenarios, this user attempted to link a pornographic actress with Catholicism and attempted to state in an article that anyone else besides Muslims, such as Indian Hindus, use the term fakir erroneously. Digging through his contributions reveals more alarming edits. Does anyone oppose a topic ban for User:Xtremedood on articles related to religion in general, as well as articles covering India and Pakistan-related topics broadly construed? If not, he needs one, badly, as other editors are getting worn out with having to engage with this problematic editor. Jobas (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Resonating with what User:David_A mentioned above, User:Xtremedood just attempted to redirect a page about Muhammad to a distantly related article. Edits such as these are frustrating and harmful to the project. Jobas (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The criticism article is about other peoples perspectives on the issue, and has nothing to do with the objective analysis of Prophet Muhammad's teachings about slavery. Xtremedood (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• I Weakly support a topic ban. There is some pretty obvious POV pushing, and the user has a slightly troubling habit of quickly erasing their talk page (or the section) whenever they are given advice, a warning or have had sanctions placed against them. However, it's not entirely clear to me that they're unable or unwilling to learn to play by the rules. However, I'm open to having my mind hardened. Once I started looking through their talk page history, there's a lot of indications of a battleground mentality. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:MjolnirPants, I do not believe that I have demonstrated WP:BATTLE as demonstrated by my statements below. I think it is important to get both sides of the picture prior to making a decision. Xtremedood (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban on articles relating to religion and India-Pakistan broadly construed. Despite the issues raised by User:David A in his OP, User:Xtremedood continues to edit war on these topic areas, e.g. Example One, Example Two. If this user is topic banned, their very recent history of using sockpuppets to edit war in these topic areas (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Xtremedood) should be taken into account and monitored. Given these facts, to respond kindly to User:MjolnirPants, it should be "entirely clear to me that they're unable or unwilling to learn to play by the rules" and should be topic banned in order to prevent further damage from being caused to the project. Jobas (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment - In reality, user:Jobas has an extremely pro-Christian bias. He deleted referenced materials [70], [71], [72], [73] which apparently shows a strong pro-Christian bias and which according to a consensus at the time [74], between Jobas, myself, and User:Sturmgewehr88 was considered to be a legitimate entry in the article at the time. Jobas alongside similar pro-Christian editors are far numerous on Wikipedia and their POV should not take precedence, just because they have more people. There is a clear denial of facts by Jobas and his supporters [75]. Mia Khalifa still identifies as a Catholic [76], whereas the current article makes it look as if she might have left Catholicism with ambiguous words such as "although is no longer practicing" [77].

My edits are based on fair, source-centric, and authentic information. Jobas on the other hand has committed himself to censoring sourced materials on the article List of converts to Islam from Christianity, over here [78][79], while on the other hand introducing questionable, or incorrectly sourced materials (including blogspot references) on the List of converts to Christianity from Islam, [80], [81], [82].

• As far as the Early Muslim-Meccan Conflict, I am correct in my edits as it consists of misattributed references, take a look at the references, the sources do not indicate as the author (user:Misconceptions2 states, who has a strong history of sockpuppetry and deception [83]. Also, literally zero sources refer to it by the non-NPOV name he allotted for it "Caravan Raids". I have attempted to engage in the users like David A who opposed my edit in dialogue, here [84], however they refuse to even try and validate the references and have not responded to my inquiries. The entire article is made up of misattributed sources, which do not say as Misconceptions2 states.

• As far as the Al Kudr Invasion, the article was created by the same user (user:Misconceptions2), who has the extreme history of deception and sockpuppetry. He misattributes the source, stating that the Prophet Muhammad kept the one-fifth to himself, whereas the Mubarakpuri reference does not say that. In reality, the one-fifth is in regards to a Quranic commandment, and the money was used for freeing slaves and helping orphans.

• As far as the History of Sufism is concerned. This was a disagreement between user:MezzoMezzo and I. We discussed it over here [85] like civilized people and came to a conclusion. I disagreed with the source being so old (from 1930) and how it contradicted recent studies like those of Carl Ernst and William Chittick. For example, Carl Ernst has gone as far as saying that Orientalist sources during this period (1930) should not be trusted on page 2 of [86]. Titus Burkchardt has also contradicted such data during this period in his book, Introduction to Sufi Doctrine, on page 4 [87].

• As far as the Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi Article is concerned, it was a similar disagreement with user:MezzoMezzo, where we discussed [88] like civilized people the nature of the source and came to the conclusion that the source was not about criticism. Which neither David A or Jobas participated in. The source does not state any criticisms and therefore is a misattributed source and should be deleted. See our discussion for further information on the matter.

User:David_A and user:Jobas have no foot to stand on, as Jobas's biased edits on the Mia Khalifa, List of converts to Islam from Christianity, and List of converts to Christianity from Islam shows a strong bias. Wikipedia should not be a place in which the more numerous Christian editors have say over others. Xtremedood (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

user:Jobas also never informed me that this discussion was going on. This is clearly an example of unfair editing and trying to censor my perspective. Xtremedood (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Topic ban--Yeah, you're not supposed to write about your perspective on Wikipedia. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Xtremedood:Jobas also never informed me that this discussion was going on. This is clearly an example of unfair editing and trying to censor my perspective.

1. It was David A who opened this discussion.
2. He absolutely did notify you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. There is something wrong with my notifications, I have 21 of them and they are not going away. Xtremedood (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

So, in your defense against my statement that you show indications of a battleground mentality, you accused another user of being "unfair and trying to censor [your] perspective" based on zero evidence and zero effort to find said evidence? That's battleground behavior, right there. Indeed, your defense consists entirely of attacking another editor. If you're trying to convince me to change my weak support to a strong support, you're certainly on the right track. I'm not suggesting that Jobas' behavior is perfect (I haven't looked into their behavior yet), and it is possible that they may need to face sanctions as well, but that is an entirely separate issue from your own behavior.

By the way, there is a link at the top right of the notification drop-down that says "Mark all as read" which you can click on to dismiss your existing notifications. Furthermore (though it is sometimes buggy), clicking on an individual notification should mark it as read. Finally, if you have viewed all of your notifications (by opening the drop down), the icon will be grey, even as it shows the number of notifications, instead of red, which means you have new notifications. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe my record of attempting to engage in and engaging in dialogue for matters pertaining to misattributed sources shows that I am not operating upon such a mentality, but instead I am showing concern for the authenticity of the sources and the content in the sources. I have shown above that for all of the articles referenced by David A that I have a strong justification for the edits. I had invited David A to talk about the matters and for all of the links he has cited he was never a part of the dialogue.Xtremedood (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• I Support a ban, for much the same reasons as Jobas and MjolnirPants. The user appears completely unrepentant and relentless in pursuit of an agenda, with several past rule-violation incidents. David A (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have invited you to discuss the issue [89], however, you never (not even once) have engaged in dialogue about the issue. We also had discussions about the other articles you have referenced [90], [91] and you have not even once joined in the conversation. Xtremedood (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Note to admins: As any decision-making body or person, whether in courts or in the legal field takes in to consideration the mental health of both the complainant and defendant, it should be noted that David A self-identifies as autistic, OCD and ADD on his profile [92]. Attention to the details is critical to this issue and while I have demonstrated sound rationale for my edits, citing clear misattribution of sources as the primary cause, I have not heard from any of the other editors about actually verifying what the sources say. Xtremedood (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have not engaged in dialogue because I am not expertised regarding the subject matters, and am also technically on vacation at the moment. I have however, noticed repeated attempts to remove information, with highly similar patterns in terms of viewpoint-pushing.

As for the issues that you noted, they are not mental illnesses, just minor handicaps, and completely irrelevant to this case. They do not make me unstable or mentally defective. David A (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

To claim a user's ASD prevents them from making sound judgements is rather ridiculous. In fact, in most cases, the opposite is true (I too am autistic, and it is for me). Xtremedood is setting up a strawman's argument. Patient Zero^talk 12:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The OP presented 13 very clear instances of blatant censorship and POV-pushing: article blanking, section blanking, and repeated undiscussed removal of cited material. This sort of behavior has been going on ever since he started editing a year and a half ago. I support a topic ban on articles relating to either religion or India-Pakistan, broadly construed. If admins do not wish or see their way to implementing this at present, I suggest a sanction in the form of a warning that if this behavior crops up again in any way, an immediate topic-ban or indefinite block will ensue. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I have discussed those edits as being justified in accordance with WP policies, see my above comment. In your most recent edit, of Al Kudr Invasion you have utilized a misappropriation of source. I have set up a conversation here [93] to discuss it. You have readded the following statement: "He also kept a fifth of the spoils." This is not an accurate portrayal of the instance, as the one-fifth that was taken was used in accordance with the Quranic commandment 8:41, [94] which states: "And know that anything you obtain of war booty - then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the [stranded] traveler, if you have believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to Our Servant on the day of criterion - the day when the two armies met. And Allah , over all things, is competent." I find it strange that you want to include reference only to Prophet Muhammad but not Allah (God), relatives, orphans, needy, and a stranded traveller? Any reason for such an edit? The Mubarakpuri source clearly states "he had set aside the usual one-fifth". Why is it that you want to mention only Prophet Muhammad but not Allah (God), relatives, orphans, needy, and a stranded traveller of the one-fifth? Wikipedia should not be the place of such anti-Islamic bias. Xtremedood (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the issue here seems to be that you wish to remove any references that you consider to have a negative bias against Islam, and its prophet, but this is not how Wikipedia is intended to work. Wikipedia is strictly supposed to list accurately referenced facts, or statistics, regardless if these display a particular religion, ideology, opinion, or other concept in a positive or negative light. You cannot start to remove anything that you dislike, in order to deliberately try to slant public perception. David A (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

So with 5 editors in support of a ban or permanent topic ban, will it be carried out? David A (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

WP consensus is not based on votes. As of now I have not seen any solid policy related arguments for a ban. The ban seems like true censorship. My edits are based on solid rationale and do not violate WP policy. With the extreme sock-puppetry and mass mis-attribution of sources involved by the article's creator (Misconceptions2), admins should not base their decisions on votes. Also, I am the only editor who has actually tried to start and engage in discussions over here for the articles you have referenced, whereas none of the other editors here have so far even engaged in 1 single dialogue about the articles you have referenced. Xtremedood (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Regardless whether Misconceptions2 has inserted references or not, they should not be removed wholesale as long as they are accurate. And I sincerely doubt that he alone wrote all of the material that you have edited out during your time in Wikipedia. Not to mention, your block history is suspicious in itself, so you are not one in position to cast stones. David A (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Well that is exactly the point. They are not accurate, and you have made so far zero attempts to try and discuss it with me. The other materials I have removed, I have justified as being either outdated, a misrepresentation of the source(s), or WP:OR. Xtremedood (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

"No solid policy-related arguemnts" - How about WP:NPOV?:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

That seems like a solid policy-based argument to me.

Support topic ban Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from both religion & India/Pakistan broadly construed - due to evidence presented above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent Topic Ban - I do not see how the recent topic ban [95] by User:JzG, is justified according to WP policy. None of the above issues have anything to do with Pakistan and India topics, nor did anyone, except me, even attempt to engage in dialogue on the matters referenced. Wikipedia should not be the place in which clear biased, incorrect and discriminatory materials take precedence over objective facts and data. The recent topic ban shows that Wikipedia has become such a place. I would recommend other admins to consider taking another approach. Xtremedood (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Asilah1981 personal attacks and abuse

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

Recent personal attacks: [96],[97],[98],[99],[100],[101]

Asilah1981 was already blocked by EdJohnston for making personal attacks [102], 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 [103] 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 [104] yesterday, to which he responded with more of the same [105],[106]. 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, [107], [108], [109]). 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[110] 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[111] is a slight tweaking of another. One[112] 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: [113][114][115][116][117][118][119]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 [120] 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 [121] says to stop "POV pushing" in an edit summary which, while combative, doesn't strike me as a "personal attack."
3. In this diff [122] 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 [123] 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 [124] is a 71-word quote from spainun.org without any commentary by Asilah1981. Was this included by accident?
6. In this diff [125] 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)

Edit warring on Coney Island Hot dog article

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

---

An edit war regarding the Coney Island hot dog article was started by User talk:Spshu. Please monitor that article. I understand that a 3RR violation locks the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the content to the pre-dispute state of 2 November, and locked the page for a week for them to discuss it. While this article is being mentioned here on a public page, I'll note to any passing readers that the article could use more eyes; the bottom 3/4 of that page looks like a gigantic spam-fest, a veritable "here's where Wikipedia thinks you should go to get a hot dog when you're in Indiana" type directory, masquerading as an article.

Also, due to the hypocricy of all three editors (God I hate it when people revert other people and then say "don't edit war!"), I will also block any of them for a week if they question the motivation of any of the others, or if (even when protection expires) they make similar edits that do not have consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I see your break has left you really mellow. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC).

Maybe Flo would like some suggestions on where to get a snack. Mmmm, hot dogs. Jonathunder (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Only weenies edit-war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I've used that "argument" too; I plead guilty. I think you should block me until after Christmas. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Harassment-only account

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

---

Hi, Could an uninvolved admin please look into the editing of new account 1brnn (talk · contribs). Their only edits other than a couple to their user page have been to post abuse on my talk page [126], [127] and revert one of my changes for no reason [128]. Judging from the abuse, they may have some connection to indef-blocked Communicat (talk · contribs). Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked them as being WP:NOTHERE. First edits after creating an account is to immediately attack another editor? Yeah, this is definitely someone's dirty laundry, and they aren't here to work on the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Sagecandors by Crossswords

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

---

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

He goes after all my significant edits recently just to make edit wars and harass me, he doesnt want to debate and find consensus by opening a Talk section, he engages in edit wars on subject he isnt even interested in the first place. And then he constantly tried to smear my image by telling others that my behavior is that of a Kremlin mouth piece, probably for me being half Russian. But meanwhile its him who edits the entire day from 0:00 to 8:00 and then from 15:00 to 0:00 and so on. Its highly unlikely someone has that much freetime, and it should be considered and pointed out as he accuses (or suggest by the way of his posts) that anyone else who disagrees is by being paid by the Kremlin.

• complains

-This and the other day when he mass flagged my pictures on Wikimedia is clear harassment. He was warned by @Ankry

-More proof how other users feel harassed. As can be seen in the conversation between @LavaBaron @SashiRolls

- He doesnt go into debate and even deletes messages and complaining from other people who disagree in his Talk page without replying, Proof: My reply, 2, 3, 4. This user uses Talk pages frequently to tell others about their misbehaviors (in his eyes), threatening them that they get blocked for every edit they make without actually having this authority. Yet he is the one not wanting to have any debate about his behavior.

- He also deletes messages and replies from other users in noticeboards like here, and he even tries then to change and overwrite my reply without telling it so no one can notice it, like here. This is clearly unacceptable behavior.

- And hes constantly engaged in this Fake News Article and everything related to it like the so called 'Russian paid bots' etc. Yet hes the one whos now constantly on this site editing permanently, 17 hours a day. How is that normal for a user? He should be highly invistaged and asked about his motives.--Crossswords (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• There's a lot of different complaints going on here. But I will say I've gotten some great feedback lately from admins including Ian.thomson and Neutrality.
• Unfortunately there were a couple problematic users recently in articles I was trying to improve upon on topics related to Russian propaganda. After much attempts at talk page discussion over article content issues, it was determined unfortunately there were behavioral conduct concerns as well. And so users Maslowsneeds [129] and Solntsa90 [130] were reported to the Arbitration Enforcement page and dealt with separately, the first by JzG and the second by EdJohnston.
• I hope to be able to respectfully work out differences with Crossswords over any specific content issues on article talk pages, but there has been some troubling behavior lately. This includes: tagging a disambiguation page with citation needed [131] which was reverted by Clpo13, page blanking whole sections of major conflicts from the page Military history of the Soviet Union [132] which was reverted by BB-PB, and adding an unreliable source by Joseph Stalin to the article Great Depression [133] which was reverted by North Shoreman. Sagecandor (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• And what is your point Sagecandor? All these issues were resolved quickly for you without edit wars. They only show the example what i mean that you went and edit on things i edited before, you werent interrested in the Great Depression until i edited there. This is another misbehavior that is a general problem on Wikipedia which is stalking other peoples edits.--Crossswords (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• After getting good advice on the other website Wikimedia Commons I certainly did listen to that, which was over one week ago. As for edits by Crossswords (talk · contribs) at article Great Depression [134] [135] [136] -- unfortunately these appear to be WP:LINKSPAM. I started a talk page discussion about it, but Crossswords never showed up to respond. Instead, North Shoreman helpfully pointed out the edits were disruptive [137], and Rjensen educated me that Joseph Stalin plain made-up faked statistics and lies [138] so this really failed as a reliable source to begin with. Sagecandor (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Crossswords: I had that much free time when I was in college (in part because I'd edit during class), and especially whenever I was between jobs. Plus, some people have jobs that largely consist of waiting for something to happen (off the top of my head, among my friends and relatives with comparable free time: nightshift IT workers for intentionally static systems, acquisitions in the Air Force, on-call manager for a hotel...). User are allowed to delete messages on their own talk pages, so I don't see what the complaint is there. Do you have any links to threatening messages that are not standard template messages?

@Sagecandor: this removal was indeed questionable. That said, @Crossswords: Sagecandor does the proper thing by providing plenty of WP:DIFFs to demonstrate misbehavior. Show, don't tell. Also, where does he specifically accuse you of being paid by the Kremlin? Unevidenced accusations (including unevidenced accusations of accusations) are considered personal attacks.

Overall, based on what I'm seeing so far, I strongly recommend that Crossswords withdraw and let everyone just say "eh, content dispute," as further investigation may come back to haunt him. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Ian.thomson, I accept you're right that this wasn't the best behavior on my part. I do edit while watching videos and reading and doing other things and I admit the focus on how I spend my time in my life both here in the original poster's filing and at WT:MILHIST [139] felt like a personal attack to me, and hurtful. I let it get to me and that was wrong on my part. Sagecandor (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I became aware of this discussion as a result of a notification made by Crossswords on my talk page. I spent a little time working on the page Fake news website, until User:Sagecandor cast aspersions on me at the NPOV noticeboard and left a warning on my talk page. I have edited in spaces that some of the same editors (particularly Neutrality) have been heavily invested in before., and as such, I have taken screenshots of some of the diffs at AE, which, in my humble outsider's opinion, has been fully living up to its reputation as being a "drama board": plays that come to mind would include, say, Danton, The Crucible, and most recently the morality plays of Medieval times (with characters such as "Sagecandor" and "Neutrality" on center stage: see especially this diff whose author I have thanked for the chuckle). I have mentioned some of these trials on Jimbo's page (here), as many of you are most likely aware. One of the several straightforward responses I got was that Wikipedia was indeed very hard for newbies, who tend to come to high-profile political pages first, where their edits are generally quickly thrown out, as they don't formally respect WP procedures in one way or many. I am therefore an involved editor (having myself experienced these growing pains and having even been tbanned for them), though I've certainly kept myself away from any edit warring. After all, Neutrality has his eye on me as much as I have my eye on him. I was sad to see an edit of mine written into two vignettes/scenes on the dramaboards (Maslowsneeds, Hidden Tempo) I still maintain this was a reasonable "bold" proposal, though Neutrality has stated no reasonable rational person could maintain such a thing. I won't fight him on that (but will agree to disagree). I will however cite him on that in discussions of behavior.

This is my attempt at transparency. @Sagecandor: , I was recently asked on my talk page if I had ever edited Wikipedia before. I answered the question and left that answer on my talk page for all to see. You have archived all of the questioning messages that you have received. I'm surprised how quickly you learned to archive, to use extended footnotes, template an article as "busy" for extended edits, cite at least a dozen Wikipedia rules (with relevance), master the template at AE, write denunciations on blocking administrator's talk pages, etc., etc. It is for these behavioral reasons that I am asking you if you have ever edited Wikipedia under a different name, if you have taken advantage of a clean start rehabilitation program, if you are just an astonishingly adept newbie. I'm also curious if you generally edit pages off-line or in a sandbox prior to adding them to articles paragraph by paragraph? Your editing speed really does surprise me. Thank you for answering this question about your Wikipedian editing history, Sagecandor. SashiRolls (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Another SashiRolls grievance-fest. Sagecandor did not "cast aspersions" -- how about some diffs? -- but questioned your attempt to use Russia Today in Fake news website as if it were some reliable source. And then there's your thwarted attempt to jam in a bit of off-topic political spin against an iedological enemy.

Oh, and User:Crossswords really shouldn't be canvassing users to drum up support. --Calton | Talk 14:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Sir. The diffs are provided above. Please click on NPOV noticeboard above in my statement, or in the statement made by Crossswords above (the line where he pings me and LavaBaron. Your claim that I tried to insert an article from Russia Today into the article is demonstrably false. My criticized edit was sourced to The Daily Beast and The New York Times. Facts are best. Not made-up charges. I've provided the diffs you asked for, will you do the same? Will Sagecandor answer my question? Time will tell. SashiRolls (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone ever been topic banned from noticeboards? TimothyJosephWood 15:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. User:Everyking, for continued sniping while failing to familiarize himself with the facts before commenting. Is there a reason for asking? --Calton | Talk 15:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

_{oh...no reason...}TimothyJosephWood 15:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems clear that Sagecandor is not a brand new user, jumping right into talk pages, reverts, etc. That said, the only reason it's a problem is if this account is to circumvent a block/sanction, or if he/she is editing in some other illegitimate fashion outlined in WP:SOCK. Sagecandor is sort of an SPA, with an emphasis on fake news website, absolutely dominating the article and talk page. I can see how someone making hundreds of edits in a small period of time could be frustrating on an actively edited article, but as far as I can tell, the content of Sagecandor's edits are not (from what I've seen) problematic, and in fact I've seen many attempts at encouraging discussion. I don't think it makes any sense to criticize someone for spending a lot of time improving Wikipedia. I've talked to many people who are, as far as I know, not e.g. government agents who did so while off from school, while out of work, while sick, or just out of a sense of mission/dedication. There are many reasons. And he/she was certainly in the right to remove the irrelevant personal attacks. Similarly, one can remove notices from one's own talk page. That activity spread to Commons is a little concerning, since it suggests possible targeting (or at least perceived), and Sagecandor would do well to consider letting others deal with problems when it's with someone you're engaged in other disagreements with. Unless there's compelling evidence for an SPI, I haven't seen any evidence for any admin intervention at this point, though (either presented by OP or personally). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

So if s/he were JayJasper that would be a problem, but if he were just a power-user's 2nd account, that would be OK as long as the power-user didn't themselves vote in the same RfCs? Truly perplexing. :) SashiRolls (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites:Thank you for saying, "the content of Sagecandor's edits are not (from what I've seen) problematic, and in fact I've seen many attempts at encouraging discussion. I don't think it makes any sense to criticize someone for spending a lot of time improving Wikipedia." Unfortunately I agree with you about my edits to Commons last week, and after the guidance from users there I've not had a similar issue from that time one week ago. Sagecandor (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why is it perplexing? I don't know JayJasper and don't intend to catch myself up just to reply, but if someone has not lost editing privileges there are legitimate reasons for a sock; if they have lost editing privileges, it's a problem. Don't have to be a power user, and has nothing to do with RfCs. See WP:SOCK (that talk page or the teahouse would be a better place for questions about how it works). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, but given the clear personal attacks mentioned above (please note I did not bring this action here, but am commenting on it now that it *is* here), I believe I am within my rights to ask Sagecandor about his/her previous editorship / main account. Everyone can draw their own conclusions from his/her response (or lack of response) to the question asked. That's all. This page is not on my watchlist, so if you would like my attention here, please ping me. SashiRolls (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

If the user was being disruptive (especially if more disruptive than productive), it would be appropriate to ask about previous accounts. However, no good-faith evidence has been provided as far as experienced editors can tell. If there was evidence of block evasion, it would be appropriate to investigate it. However, none has been provided. It's not at all perplexing that if a more-or-less experienced user retired and comes back under a new account that they not be harassed for doing so -- see Wikipedia:Clean start. So, unless you have any evidence, drop the issue before this thread becomes about you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Calton, Ian.thomson, and Rhododendrites. I see no improper conduct by Sagecandor — I don't always agree with him re: article content, but he productively edits, discusses at talk when issues arise, and is generally a very good user. On the other hand, I see plenty of bad-faith assumptions, battleground mentality, grievance-mongering, and so forth by those who are hounding him here. Neutrality^talk 17:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support 72-Hour Block of Sagecandor for TPO Violation and NOTHERE I didn't follow this whole drama so can't speak to it beyond a very limited incident I experienced. On 2DEC2016 Sagecandor went to the NPOV noticeboard and declared he was concerned about "Russian propaganda accounts" [sic], linking to diffs [140] by SashiRolls and Crosswords without pinging them. I alerted Sagecandor [141] that it was recommended he ping an editor when accusing them of being a "Russian propaganda account" (which he'd implicitly done by linking to their edits as examples of "Russian propaganda"), as per WP:NOTIFY. Observing the unusual editor history behind this seemingly new account (Sagecandor), I also asked Sagecandor if he'd previously had a different account. At that point, Sagecandor deleted the entire thread, including my comments, [142] in violation of WP:TPO. I restored the thread. Based on this incident alone (again, I haven't followed everything else), and his apparent James Bond-esque obsession with "Russian" infiltration, it seems that Sagecandor is WP:NOTHERE; I believe a short block would be appropriate accompanied by a SPA investigation. TPO is a red line; once we can start editing/deleting others comments the whole WP system breaks down. LavaBaron (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment As noted by Calton, Ian.thomson, Rhododentrites, and Neutrality, I am here to build an encyclopedia. I have responded to talk page advice. In fact, everything cited by LavaBaron is from over one week ago. Sagecandor (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

A whole week ago? We don't edit/delete others Talk comments. You're obviously an experienced editor and know that. Editing others comments is usually cause for an indefinite block. I think I'm being generous by only suggesting 72 hours. LavaBaron (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Already discussed at top of thread above, in reply to Ian.thomson. Sagecandor (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't care whom you've previously discussed it with, honestly. That doesn't get you off-the-hook. Actually, apparently no you didn't - that case seems to have involved different deletions. This is the first instance brought up of you editing others Talk comments. You crossed a red line on which this entire project is built upon; integrity of the comment record. LavaBaron (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been following the current thread, but please block for 72 hours for something that happened a week ago, on the Administrator Noticeboard which neither I nor anyone else felt the need to report or block for at the time. Come now. Here, let me show you this. TimothyJosephWood 19:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with your comment; I guess I could just delete it since that's apparently okay now, but I still believe in WP:TPO so won't. LavaBaron (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Blocking over a good-faith misapplication of WP:NPA from over a week ago that he's since been warned about would be a stupid block. Altering others' comments in itself is not immediate cause for an indefinite block -- that would have to be an obvious troll or vandalism only account. Also, there's this cornerstone of the website that someone who has been here almost two years should know about: WP:Assume good faith. While it's not a suicide pact, it should be maturely applied even when one clearly has some sort of grudge against another editor. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggest this be closed before those involved embarrass themselves further. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggest warning for SBHB. I was trying to figure out a clever way to link to wikt:world's smallest violin, and they have to go and spoil everything. TimothyJosephWood 20:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, but if we keep it open, we'll have enough WP:ROPE to block users who don't understand WP:AGF. Just kidding, obviously. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Soekarno-Hatta International Airport

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

---

Hello. I tried to remove a destination in the article which does not exist, but an anonymous user tried to put it back. What concerned me is that he called me something very vulgar in Indonesian which means (sorry) "son of a prostitute". I need the administrators to help me in this issue. Please check the revision history of the article for the evidence. Cheers. Calvin Wisanto (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, that IP has a history and it's not good. APK whisper in my ear 10:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for the usual time. A longer block or range block can be performed if this behavior persists. -- The Anome (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

On review of the IP's editing history, I've now upped this to a month. -- The Anome (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Patroller1 (talk · contribs) aka Cymonah2 (talk · contribs)

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

---

Can someone take care of this? APK whisper in my ear 11:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be a relatively clearcut case of WP:NOTHERE. Notified the editor for you. Kleuske (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Offensive and unwarranted conduct

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

---

I do not know if this behavior is common or not for the person but some sanction should be meted out for the response to my question yesterday at the reference desk. The post is here. I was told it is not the type of question appropriate for answer there. Fine. But I was also told "We don't offer advice on tax evasion.DOR (HK) (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)" This is unwarranted, unprofessional and offensive. My question asked nothing of the sort; I was seeking nothing of the sort; I would do nothing of the sort; and a person who would answer my question like that has no business giving advice in an advice forum. I am not looking for an apology. I learned probably before many of you were born that when not friends or family, forcing people to apologize to a stranger is a waste of everyone's time. The root of this is incompatibility with this person continuing in the role they have been assigned or assigned themselves given their action, if it's typical, and if not, a wake up call and gut check on how they continue in that role. I will follow the day-glo instructions about notifying the person.--67.244.114.239 (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the thread in question for anyone else who is interested - now I'm no economist so I won't make any comment on if your question was or was not "tax evasion" but I will say that perhaps DOR (HK) could have worded their response in a more professional manner. .239, what is it exactly you'd like to see as a result of this complaint? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Per SPI [143] 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. [144]. Clearly abusing dynamic IP but just following the isntructions. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats by user Duqsene

NO ACTION NEEDED:

Not a legal threat, a harmless warning, that's all. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 20:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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

---

I don't know what (if anything) should be done about this, so just raising it here. User:Duqsene is suggesting to sue Wikipedia in this revision: [145]. User says: "The Tigre people for example do not want to be called Abyssinian, this can bring a potential lawsuit by members of that community against wikipedia for misrepresentation.". I don't know if user is speaking on behalf of the people but somehow he is suggesting lawsuit against Wikipedia. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, you are required to notify an editor when you open a discussion about them here, and you have not done so. I am going to do so for you now. MPS1992 (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I was late but I see that user is notified. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Keyword "example" I am not a member of that community, what i meant is that it can be viewed as defamation. Duqsene (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Not a lawyer, but my best guess is that there are no grounds in American law for such a lawsuit, and any such lawsuit filed would fail. We have this thing in the U.S. called "Freedom of Speech". Don't go around talking about lawsuits, it's likely to get you into trouble, especially when you don't seem to have a clue about what you're talking about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the advice, I guess it was a very bad analogy. Duqsene (talk) 19:59, 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)

Dbrodbeck

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

---

I am concerned about this editor's conduct. Initially he warned be about an edit war I was involved in[146]. So far so good. After all, I am on three. However, I believe it is highly inappropriate to deliver these warnings when his avowed intention was to get involved. And what else? Only one editor before him was involved in the same edit war, Synthwave94, but Dbrodbeck refused totally to warn HIM. He said he didn't want to template the regulars but I think this is a weak excuse when someone has become involved. Who said it had to be a template? Just a simple note that Drodbeck had noted this user was also making reverts. Yes Dbrodbeck opened a discussion AFTER reverting me, but I believe he could have done this without reverting me, and so I invited him to either self-revert or notify Synthwave[147]. Dbrodbeck refused so it is clear that this is WP:TE masked behind "policies". Dumfounded watsD (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't tend to template regulars, this is true. I also first ran into the OP when he clearly violated WP:CIVIL with an edit summary after removing referenced content. [148]. There is a discussion going on at Seek & Destroy currently that seems productive. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I strongly urge Dumfounded watsD to WP:DROP the stick. His first edits were uncivil, okay that passed, but Dbrodbeck does edit in good faith and is unlikely to continue at this point. --Osterrich (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

No prob. And thanks. I'm happy to conclude here with no action needed. Dumfounded watsD (talk) 00:20, 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/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?"[149]
• "(...) so please have more dignity"[150]
• "(...) he tries to show me from the negative side and he lies ".[151]
• "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."[152]

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

• "You are lying".[153]
• "THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT GEORGIA IN ITS INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS AND EVERYONE MUST ADMIT THIS."[154]

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)

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)

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 ([155][156][157]) and makes numerous edits like this ([158], [159], [160]) 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.[161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169]

He is warned twice for edit warring[170][171] and at Talk:WWE#edit regarding brands I warn him that I would report him if this continued.

November:This continued[172][173][174][175]

In late November WWE introduced 205 Live, creating additional edit warring over its status as a potential brand:[176][177][178][179]. Another edit war poured out into List of current champions in WWE:[180][181][182][183][184]

This month:After a series of edits like this ([185], [186]), I warn him that continued disruption would lead me to report him.[187] He subsequently starts another edit war on WWE Cruiserweight Championship.[188][189][190][191] Today he continued edit warring on WWE ([192], [193]), 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. Vjmlhds (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)