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

Sander.v.Ginkel

In the past, user:Sander.v.Ginkel was the subject to many discussions on this page due to his substandard work. See here, here, here, here and here.

Sander.v.Ginkel got an offer from a user:MFriedman to protect/improve articles something that made people unhappy. See also here. Still, MFriedman went on with moving articles back to main space from draft space, effectively circumventing/ignoring the clean up operation. So far, so good. And the name stuck in my memory.

Recently, Sander.v.Ginkel placed an article on the Dutch Wikipedia nl:Ilse Kamps. And out of the blue, after a 4.5 year hiatus, MFriedman showed up to vote for keeping the article due to the article being properly sourced. But MFriedman added these sources, after his vote. At that moment my alarm bells went off!
I requested a sockpuppet investigation and it came back positive. The Checkuser confirmed that Sander.v.Ginkel and MFriedman were identical.

So now we are confronted with a lot of articles that were never checked for the substandard editing of Sander.v.Ginkel moved back into main space by what turned out to be a sockpuppet of Sander.v.Ginkel, MFriedman. This is clearly misusing a sockpuppet to protect articles against thorough scrutiny.

What to do next? The Banner talk 15:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser needed I don't know what's the community consensus regarding accepting CU results on another wiki. If one of our checkusers confirms then I'm looking at indeffing both accounts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Neil, the CU is stale as MFriedman has not edited on the English Wikipedia since February 2017. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. At the moment, I wouldn't support a block for it would be against policy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(moved from AN) No need for an investigation. You can just ask me, and yes I'm using both accounts Sander.v.Ginkel and MFriedman. When the account Sander.v.Ginkel was blocked I used MFriedman, including review my own articles I created with. See that there are no main issues in the articles I reviewed and added references where needed. See as example here, here, here, here, here, here etc.. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked Sander.v.Ginkel for six months and the puppet account indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

And how is Sander.v.Ginkel's block preventative in any way? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: It prevents them from quite flagrantly violating basic policies whenever they feel like it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, the latest violation was one year ago. I agree that the sock could be blocked, but Sander's block to me seems punitive since it is so long after the fact. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A year ago was when SvG also stopped editing before resuming this weekmonth. I do not believe he would have stopped socking had he not been caught last week on the Dutch Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Scores of his pages moved to Draft are coming up for WP:G13 after being tagged as promising drafts 6 months ago which lead to this discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Pierre_Le_Roux Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Back when this issue first came up there was pretty clear consensus to indef block this user. Unfortunately, that consensus was overruled in a pretty blatant supervote. If the views of the participants in that discussion had not been discarded and ignored on a whim, this ongoing disruption could have been avoided- as I said at the time. Reyk _YO! 16:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• No issue with me if editors want to change my six month block into an indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Already requested a User_talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#February_2018 block review. My review is to indef. There are a lot of page moves that need to be checked again Special:Contributions/MFriedman Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Some Wikipedians have already misjudged the likelihood that SvG would continue to be a problem editor. I think some editors have, in their misguided mercy, forgotten that WP:BLOCKDETERRENT is supposed to have deterrent value. If en-wiki is unwilling to halt the editing of problem editors, then it only encourages this sort of activity where crocodile-tears promises and the forgiveness of long-undetected misbehavior becomes the norm. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've just noticed that MFriedman commented in the thread linked by Reyk above that somewhat swayed a few following comments! SvG claims he "wasn't aware how bad it is to use another account." It should be obvious that you shouldn't use an alternative account to support yourself. With this in mind, I'd support upgrading the block to indefinite. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

MFriedman discussed SvG as another person here [2] which is deceitful and suggestive we can't believe the statements in the unblock request either. It is pretty clear that their promotions of SvG pages back to mainspace were problematic from the talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef- obviously. Reyk _YO! 19:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Having read through this past thread and noting SvG's assertion that he wasn't "aware how bad it is to use another account" [3] I believe more than ever that my six month block was justified. This isn't tripping over some Wikipedia policy, this is an indication of a lack of basic common sense and ethics. We cannot have an editor deficient in both areas editing freely here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Is Beatley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) likely to be another sock? Guy (Help!) 20:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  I though Beatley is a confirmed sock of Slowking4.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I just don't know Slowking4, I don't know if this could be one sockfarm. I guess not, though. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

As I said in that original ANI thread, I'm shocked that someone who is meant to be submitting a Master's thesis has such a poor grasp of copyright. The debacle is further evidence that they do not belong here. Using another account to mark their own work as "no problem", despite the extensive issues found, is akin to submitting an exam paper and giving it full marks themselves. Support indefinite ban Blackmane (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Permaban. Now. I checked the stats: Pages created 37,054 of which 22,482 since deleted, I don't think I have ever seen an editor with that many deleted creations before - and then add the blatantly deceptive sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• I think the consensus is clear; given the deceptive sockpuppetry after they were very lucky to get away without an indef ban last time, I have changed the block to an indefinite one. This is required in order to prevent further damage to the project by an individual who clearly does not see the need to follow our rules, and who cannot be trusted to conform to the expectations of the wider editing community. I haven't had time to consider the question of this user's articles yet, but I think that is a discussion that needs to be had separate to this block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC).
• Indef block - I am not impressed in the least by the Wikilawyering/WP:BUROish arguments presented above. WP:IAR is clear: when a rule is preventing you from improving Wikipedia, ignore the rule. Well, the rules cited above which supposedly prevent the indeffing of SvG are standing in the way of the project being improving by removing from its midst a blatantly problematic editor, problematic both in their behavior and in their content output. Wikipedia will be improved by not having SvG around, so let's stop gnashing our teeth and worrying about technicalities and get rid of him. Let WP:COMMONSENSE reign. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Are we considering Lankiveil's block a community imposed sanction? That will affect the nature of any future appeals. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• That is my view of it, although others may have alternative perspectives. Given that nobody has objected or done anything in the past few days since I made the block I think we could also consider it a de facto ban. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC).

• Cross-wiki activity - This user has been blocked on Commons per the above CU results, the user has uploaded on both accounts mentioned in an act of sockpuppetry, uploading dozens to hundreds of files as "own work" while attributing real Olympic photographers names as the author. His crosswiki activity supports the indef block as discussed above. These files are now being nuked. ~riley (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef ban lots of disruption, lots of deception.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef cban. User has been very lucky up to now IMO, has done an enormous amount of damage still to be fully assessed (and it may take a long time for it all to be found and fixed), and there is little reason to hope that they will behave any better in the future. For the protection of Wikipedia, we have no choice but to indef them, and move on. Andrewa (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef and ban. Our rules about socking are clear. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Permaban No other viable choice.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The articles

I started G5ing the article, but looking at it again, that may not be what's needed. Many were moved back while SvG was not actually blocked, though he undoubtedly would have been if this had been spotted. If they had remained in Draft, most would long ago have qualified for G13 as very few had any substantive edits at all other than the SvG sock (a few bots and formatting edits, and almost none with any edits in the last 6 months). The issues that led tot he move to Draft have undoubtedly not been fixed in more than a tiny proportion of cases, since there have been few if any edits to any of them.

Should I leave them nuked, or restore and move them back to Draft? Guy (Help!) 20:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I somehow thought that at some point I nuked all the articles which were left in the draft, there were around 5K of them. I am surprised that there are still any left. Is it clear what the origin of these drafts is? Were they moved out of the draft and then moved back? On an unrelated note, I do not see anything controversial with the deletions, but delinking the pages from Olympic-related pages might be not necessarily the best idea - all Olympians are notable, and redlinks are way more visible than black unlinked text. Also, if an article is created by a good faith user, it takes a bit of time to figure out where it should be linked from.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Created by SvG, moved to draft during cleanup, moved back by MFriedman with comments like "checked" or "no SvG issues". Guy (Help!) 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I see. I would say then indefblock and mass deletion. This is clearly evasion of sanctions imposed by community on SvG.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

They shouldn't be unlinked. There are several prolific creators of Olympian biographies, and this adds a time-consuming additional step if/when they create these ones. —Xezbeth (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

OK. will bear that in mind. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Suck's that a nuke had to happen and olympic medal winner's like Alec Potts end up deleted but i guess it had too happen, feel sorry for the poor soul who has to clean up the nuke's results. GuzzyG (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: - I'm happy to (re)create a stub for any nuked Olympians. If you (or anyone else) wants any doing, drop me a note on my talkpage, or list them at WT:OLY. I'll do this one later at some point. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• All to drafts I am absolutely not convinced, because I have dealt with a bunch of SvG articles and have not found a problem that cannot be corrected easily. SvG did a lot of gnomic legwork that helps the wikipedia project, mostly by creating stubs and basic information about subjects that are less exciting to most editors but notable enough to achieve WP:N. Below, I have gotten harangued by all number editors with generalized complaints, while when I deal with the specifics, I seem to be regarded as the problem. I was criticized for approving SvG articles (and subsequently improving upon his start up), because I have NOT deleted any SvG articles. That is backward logic, assuming there is a problem. You have a predetermined verdict and will not tolerate hearing opposition. If I can, and I have done so, make the article a viable subject for mainspace, what is the crime here? Admittedly, I've only dealt with a couple hundred SvG articles in my area of expertise. All useable. The above editors complain about the number of SvG articles that have been deleted. Those ARE THE SAME EDITORS WHO DELETED MANY OF THEM. They created their own excuse. At this point, I don't trust them. Bring all the previously deleted content to draft status. Let real editors, with knowledge in those subject areas, look at those articles and decide if it is useful or not. This will take time a lot of time. We do not need an artificial deadline. While in draft form, the public does not see this content. There are tens of thousands of articles. Each one needs attention from someone with a brain. Bulk deletion is mindless and destructive. Maybe, eventually, you will see the cumulative merit to SvG's work. Maybe I will eventually see something he did that was worthy of deletion. We aren't there yet. Trackinfo (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked at this article. The version SvG moved into article space had four sentences, one of which was an obvious BLP violation [4] (admins only). How can they have missed this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Between you and me, I don't think the sports fans necessarily look very hard - they are generally looking to have as many articles as possible, and any article that has superficial referenciness gets pretty much a free pass. Hence the massive problem with SvG. They mean well, but their inclusion standards are, IMO, well below the norm for Wikipedia. "Competed in X" suffices even if nobody wrote about the person in any way at all other than in the results table. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Pageant fans have the same or bigger issues. High school students blessed with classicly attractive genes get articles - often with zero references - while we regularly reject pages on business people that spend years building up companies, employing thousands, creating new innovative products and driving the economy forward. Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I posted a list of SvG drafts tagged as "Promising Drafts" on User_talk:Legacypac#SvG. They have the same issues that the others do, and should be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC) (now resolved). Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sander v. Garfinkel

-EEng

• Are we done now? EEng 07:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a list of Promising Drafts. Out of the thousands of articles deleted, none are promising? And EEng#s, that was an appropriate picture, right?

To the more important point above. Promising drafts, vs junk. You don't really know the difference, do you? I don't think the sports fans necessarily look very hard - they are generally looking to have as many articles as possible, and any article that has superficial referenciness gets pretty much a free pass. Hence the massive problem with SvG. They mean well, but their inclusion standards are, IMO, well below the norm for Wikipedia. "Competed in X" suffices even if nobody wrote about the person in any way at all other than in the results table. What that exhibits is a lack of respect for the content and thus the editors who created it. Just last night, I stumbled over one of those stub articles, not created by SvG, but a similar kind of "junk" stub. Its been around for over 5 years and looked like this. After I put a little effort in, it looks like this: Robert Poynter and transcludes in multiple places. This is what I refer to as the chain of knowledge. Nobody knows what lies behind each of these useless stubs until someone with a little knowledge about the subject applies themselves to editing it. It has to be there to be found. In our notability standards, we assume there is more of a backstory to all of the subjects achieving the standard. The above statement disrespects those standards. It is that same disrespect for our notability standards that leads to this thoughtless mass nuking of SvG content. Trackinfo (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you still not read the actual reasons these articles were drafted and then deleted? While some subjects were not notable, this was not the reason for this whole operation. The "mass nuking" was not thoughtless and not because of notability. The mass nuking was because the articles had very little content to start with, and half of it was wrong (sometimes very blatantly), plus a number of other problems like copyvio in the cases where the articles did have more content. Most editors agreed that it was better and safer to nuke them and to start on a solid basis, even if that meant that a number of notable subjects would be redlinks for a while (which is the case for many, many notable subjects which haven't ever been created as well, this is the nature of Wikipedia). You obviously disagree, and believe it would be better to keep poor articles with known problems than to have no articles at all. That's fine, but that doesn't give you the right to continue to misrepresent the reasons why this action was taken and to disregard the actual discussions that lead to this. Fram (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There were discussions, you've banned the user, he used a sock in violation. Certainly there are problems. I have not seen any evidence, I only have to trust your analysis. I've possibly looked at 1% of SvG's content. It was all valid. So of the other 99%, how much was worthless? 1 article, 1%, 50%? Do you know? How much are you nuking? By the perceived definition of nuking, it is thoughtless, mass deletion of content. And in the case below, valid content was blindly deleted. Its restoration was resisted by the same people for a week, based on assumptions of guilt. When the truth comes out, there was a cover up. How much of this nuked content is valid? You can't tell me. Without it being visible as drafts, we mere mortal editors have no idea, we can't fix it or convince you. Most importantly we have no say. Assume, assume assume. Good faith went out the window when I was lied to for a week. Prove it. Trackinfo (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Trackinfo:--I'll strongly advise you to drop the stick and move on to something which is more productive.The mass-nuking was an outcome of community-consensus at a widely discussed AN thread and was executed through a streamlined workflow.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

We are in a new discussion now about further actions beyond the damage done last year. Yes, you got a closer's decision, after 5 proposals and a WP:BLUD attack by at best <a couple dozen editors against opposition. Mostly it was the same, loud <dozen voices pounding the will out of the resistance. So I have to be loud back. I am required to accept the decision of the past but we don't need to do further damage a year later. You like it when the resistance goes away. I am getting advised to go away now. I was not involved then. At the time I was involved fighting another effort to blank content from wikipedia that has since survived. Why is it we have so many destructive forces coming from the upper echelon of wikipedia administrators? For almost 11 years on wikipedia, I feel like I have been in an endless battle against people who wish to whitewash content from public view. I digress. When athletics articles started disappearing following your decision, I found the project and got involved checking them, with obviously a few of my efforts disrespected and nuked. In the examples given in the original case, I note the one example article in my territory; Sapana Sapana. It was moved to draft by a BOT, moved back to mainspace by a respected athletics editor Raymarcbadz, moved to draft again moved to draft again inexplicably by Fram and returned to mainspace again by SFB where it survives today. That's just one article, new on my radar, but the same old story. The attacks are unnecessarily relentless. Legitimate editor's work to restore this content is dis-respected by some of the same group attacking SvG content a year ago and commenting here. Administrative editors who have tools and power. Again. I am trying to tell you, as a group, you have an attitude problem. And your system is, in the legitimate articles I have been involved with, making mistakes; needlessly nuking content. The mass nuking, before; at the "deadline"; and now the new wave of mass nuking, is thoughtless, virtually automated. The current discussion is on what to do about content checked by SvG's sock MFriedman. In regards to athletics articles, during the previous check phase, several editors were taking care, checking that content. The existence of MFriedman bypassed us too, but that doesn't mean the content deserves to be nuked. If MFriedman didn't have the rights to check content, revert his edits, take our Project Athletics related content back to draft status where we will again make an effort to rescue the content. Including the diversion by socks, we were 100% before. I expect nothing less now. And quit with the artificial "deadline." That deliberately overwhelms the limited capability of a few editors, with a designed goal of our failure. I have not seen the same attention to detail from other projects, but I don't spend time reviewing their work. This content was once categorized, so that should be easy to resurrect. I would expect there are other projects who might have an interest in saving their content, why don't you ask them? I'll answer that question: Because you have a predetermined result you wish to achieve. Predetermined before the first discussion and first proposal; to nuke all content. I think this content can be rescued if some thought were applied to it. You might realize that too, so you are doing everything to prevent it from being rescued. You obviously don't like to have opposition, so you keep trying to beat me down. Trackinfo (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for flying Godric, but personally I like opposition, as long as it is well-informed and reasoned. Shouting "BOT" as if that somehow is a horrible thing (if the decision is made to move 18,000 articles or so to Draft space, do you really think some poor human would do this when a bot can do you it just as well and a lot faster). You then claim that an article was "moved to draft again inexplicably by Fram", while the explanation is rather simple; different editors were involved with checking and moving the articles from draft back to mainspace. Some were diligent and only moved back correct or corrected articles. Some simply moved the SvG errors back to mainspace, and if too many of those happened, all moves by these editors were undone. This was discussed as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive286#SvG cleanup and deletions, not done sneakily or anything. But then again, you were already present in that discussion, so "I was not involved then." doesn't seem to be actually true. Fram (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I say about a BOT is that it executes the instructions of its master, by definition a thoughtless process. And the only portion of this process I was not involved in is this great decision where it was decided to nuke all this content. I've been fighting an uphill battle against that decision ever since, as I see content disappear. But its always "too late" because the decision to nuke was already closed. The sequencing of the history above shows no difference between the content at each of those specified movements to and from draft. You just didn't respect the opinion of the mover, @Raymarcbadz:. You did, apparently respect the same opinion when it came from @Sillyfolkboy:. This is about respect and the lack thereof. That was then. Here is what SFB is saying about this now:

Looks like some of the articles I (and others) helped review have suddenly been deleted a year on without warning. That outcome is profoundly unsatisfactory as it's not only a waste of editor time and will, but also represents removal of articles that were not problematic.

The point being, we've fought that battle. Theoretically on Athletics articles, we won, 100%. But that's not good enough and we have to find our content disappearing again a year later. That is what THIS discussion is about. And if Athletics articles were salvageable 100%, why should I think that other subjects are not similarly salvageable and this whole exercise was a waste of time? Trackinfo (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: I believe we've managed to salvage all the affected athletics articles. I agree this proves that the underlying cause for mass deletion was the lack of editor time/will to avoid that outcome. Sadly, sports like volleyball and wrestling don't have enough TrackInfos and SFBs editing. It's illuminating that notability and acceptable minimum standards for articles are brought up – the views raised are against the global consensus.

My general position is that I had a dog in this fight (we brought him home and he's doing fine), but I can understand why people couldn't tolerate the remaining loose strays. I can't look after every stray. Personally I think the copyvio and BLP concerns were loin cloths to get this matter closed. The Darius Dhlomo case proved that identifying copyvio text among bare stats edits is a technically simple task (and public stats and basic one liners cannot be subject to copyright). As for the BLP issue, this policy is to prevent the spread of harmful material about living people on Wikipedia. Nobody volleyballer has ever legally threatened Wikipedia for stating their birthday as 1981 instead of 1980, and I haven't seen errors from SvG that amounted to more than that. Again, similar issues were overcome in the Darius Dhlomo case without mass deletion. I'm not looking to fight this outcome as I've not much left to win, but I will call a spade a spade and say this was a case of us as a group deciding to delete a bunch of threadbare articles, by an unconscientious editor, about topics that we don't know or care much about, through a tenuous application of policy.

The main lesson to be learned here is that this trend towards nuking the edits of problematic editors can become toxic for the community if the time isn't taken to properly inform the groups of editors that will be affected. Recently it took extensive calls for help by a prolific (and insulting) sockpuppeteer to bring to my attention that an admin had deleted several hours of my work in error. I'm sure I'm not the only one affected. I've been here for almost a decade quietly and meticulously working at a niche. I'm generally laid back and most chats I have here are nice ones. I shouldn't find myself working with socks against admins or commenting on ANI so that valid content remains – it's an indication that we're not getting things right as a community. Good-faith editors should not be trampled on when the stakes are so low (i.e. no public or legal complaints in relation to SvG's work). SFB 17:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

"Nobody volleyballer has ever legally threatened Wikipedia for stating their birthday as 1981 instead of 1980, and I haven't seen errors from SvG that amounted to more than that." Then perhaps read the discussions leading to this again? He was claiming that people had lied about their age to be able to play and win youth soccer tournaments, he was claiming that people lied about their nationality, he was claiming that people had had doping offenses without sources backing this up. Less extreme than this, but a lot more serious than getting a wrong year of birth, was e.g. the issue I indicated about one of the articles he created during his brief return, where they claimed someone won a gold medal at a tournament they didn't even participate in (as they were too old for a youth championship at that time anyway). The standard on enwiki is luckily not yet "if no one sues us for it, it can stay", and such an attitude is rather worrying. As for the copyvios, these were not in the mass of very short articles by SvG, but in nearly every attempt by him to add some text to an article beyond those first lines. That you and Trackinfo haven't seen these doesn't mean that they didn't exist. People don't believe me on my word for such things, I linked numerous examples of all major problems in the discussions (and others provided plenty of other similar problems), and others looked at the articles and agreed with my assessment. His articles about athletes may have been better than his articles about e.g. soccer players (which were riddled with such errors), but the number of articles was so huge (and the distinction between "better" athlete articles and "worse" other sports was not made at the time by anyone anyway) that the time needed to check these individually became prohibitive and letting them linger in mainspace was deemed unacceptable. They were given a lot more time than the original discussion called for (many people advocating nuking them all, the closing admin giving them one week), but eventually they were deleted. The "efforts" by some people, including Raymarcbadz and of course MFriedman, in putting problematic articles back into the mainspace unchecked and unchanged, didn't help this rescue operation of course. Fram (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly this. These articles were full of errors and many of them contained libellous statements-- and I'm actually a bit surprised that none of the affected sportspeople have complained yet, though that is just a matter of time. Dealing with the BLP issues is a matter of urgency. Writing responsible and properly sourced stubs on these people can be done later and at a more reasonable pace. Reyk _YO! 08:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't often find myself agreeing with Fram, but they are 100% correct here. We shouldn't wait around for our BLP articles to cause harm. We need to be proactive in making sure that they are correct and of a good quality before someone feels a need to come and complain to us. I completely reject any notion that errors on BLP pages are no big deal if the subject isn't aware of them or doesn't come to us asking them to be corrected. In the case of SvG, although I only reviewed a small number of his articles they all had errors of one kind or another, some more serious than others. Given the large volume of the articles it is best to be safe and take action. Nobody is saying that these articles cannot be recreated by an editor in good standing, so I do not understand all of the angst. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC).

Political agenda editor

User:INDICATOR2018 is another user who is only here to push the viewpoint of the Chinese government, contrary to WP:NOT. Edit warring over Japanese, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao stuff; censorship of content referenced to reliable sources simply because it might not reflect well on China, THE USUAL. Admitted to being the same person as a slew of IPs that had been edit warring over the exact same content for weeks previously. Yet never any action against this sort of disruptive editing. The intent of these kinds of "patriotic editors", who are becoming an increasing problem, is completely incompatible with the spirit of a free encyclopedia created through consensus. Citobun (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I support this accusation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of your continuous accusations, I am only curious about how "the spirit of a free encyclopedia" is "created through consensus". --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Just out of interest, how would it not be? Britmax (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, the "free" here refers to free content, a technical term which is unlikely to be related to "a spirit".--INDICATOR2018 (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

for "spirit" read "aims" or "philosophy behind", nothing to do with things that go bump in the night. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It would assist the admins greatly if you could provide some unambiguous examples of pushing PRC propaganda onto articles in a manner that is disruptive. Otherwise this just looks like a content dispute. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC).

A few examples... IPs that follow are owned by the above user (already admitted by him/her). Here, this user removes the word "prominent" from a description of a jailed Chinese columnist, then edit wars over it for a few days. Here is an example of several edits where the user seeks to downplay Tibetan autonomy. Here, there is a long-term edit war where the same user keeps moving the "Censorship" section lower down the WeChat page. WeChat is a censored chat app in China, similar to WhatsApp – but WhatsApp is blocked because it's not censored. After this user got an account, he/she kept edit warring over the same thing. One of many edits where this user seeks to downplay any autonomy of Hong Kong, Macao, Tibet, or Taiwan – instead going around underlining PRC sovereignty. Here he/she has been edit warring for ages at "Battle of Toungoo", changing the result from "Japanese victory" to "Japanese tactical victory/Successful Chinese retreat". Downplaying ROC sovreignty. Stamping out any scent of HK autonomy. Going about advocating that the viewpoint of the Chinese government ought to be expanded, like here. Pushing pinyin, the Chinese government-approved system of romanisation, even on Hong Kong articles. Pinyin is not used in Hong Kong. Adding POV tag to coverage of sexual harassment in China with no explanation, and edit warring over it.

Etc etc... the usual low-level political agenda editing and a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. And the above comment by INDICATOR2018 lacks understanding of key Wikipedia policies, like WP:CENSOR. Citobun (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Resorting to ad hominem simply doesn't justify your politically-motivated accusations. (the usual low-level political agenda editing, lacks understanding of key Wikipedia policies)
2. In terms of the word "prominent", prior to the editing war(this version), there is no source cited to verify the rather assertive word "Prominent ". So I boldly removed it based on what MOS:PUFF states. Currently, due to this edit made by "Rolf h nelson", this word has been verified. Therefore, I wouldn't argue over it.
3. For your second accusation, it simply baffles me. Please elaborate to me how I ″downplay(ed) Tibetan autonomy″. I made this edit to both make this article in correspondence with Gyaincain Norbu which states Chökyi Gyalpo, also referred to by secular name Gyaincain Norbu, is the 11th Panchen Lama selected by the government of People's Republic of China and state necessary facts. Is that wrong?
4. As for Wechat, please check out my explanation at Talk:WeChat#Edit_explanation before making your accusation.
5. For the ″downplay any autonomy″, I was making these edits to do necessary corrections that Tibet, Macao, Hong Kong are all provincial-level administrations of China.(see Administrative divisions of China) which clearly don't have the same status as China, a sovereign state.
6. Concerning Battle of Toungoo, I would like you to reassess my edits where I restored the deleted content. Plus, the result of this battle also cannot be verified. So both versions are arguably acceptable.
7. For the Downplaying ROC sovreignty [sic], please tell me if I am wrong to say that ROC is a partially recognised state as what List of states with limited recognition states. How could a simple edit of stating facts become dowplaying sovereignty. I cannot understand.
8. In terms of what happens in Category:Hong Kong, please see a third opinion made by Zanhe (talk · contribs):

   "city state" generally refers to sovereign states, see http://www.dictionary.com/browse/city-state and other dictionaries.

   Based on your logic, isn't Zanhe also a political agenda editor?
9. Regarding the Talk:Baren Township riot, my rationales have been quite clear. Also, please check out what "Sassmouth" conveys

   I agree with with INDICATOR2018 At first glance i think paragraph 3 and 4 of of the uygher pov section should be deleted i would like to hear other editors opinions on the matter??? Thanks

   in this edit.
10. For my Pinyin edit, I totally know Pinyin is not used in Hong Kong. Yet we should know that this is English Wikipedia, not HKpedia. At present, Pinyin Guangdong is more prevalent Canton in English.

Finally, I strongly suggest that you verify these edits both personally and thoroughly before making extremely MISLEADING accusations. --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

"Low-level" means "not explicit". It's not an insult. In other words, while many of the edits are defensible on an individual basis, together they amount to a campaign of political agenda editing, contrary to the policy at WP:NOT. The WeChat edit warring illustrates well the overall intent of these editing patterns – your proposed change serves absolutely zero functional purpose except to downplay censorship of WeChat. As despite objections from several users, you rammed it through through blunt force edit warring (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, then the page got protected, then you made an account and reverted again). No consensus and no rationale rooted in any Wikipedia policy. It is clear you are WP:NOTHERE to help build a free and informative encyclopedia, but subtly push content to align with the viewpoint of the Chinese government. Citobun (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this user's actions have so far mainly been reverted by well-meaning editors, but could hurt peoples' ability to find damaging information about the Chinese government in the future. Not acting to stop this user now would only encourage further action by this user and others who wish to twist the encyclopedia for their own ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Citobun:

1. Since my editing wars can be well explained, why do you insist on making your own assertions that those wars are of "political agenda"? Apparently you are too assertive on this issue.
2. For the Wechat stuff, I would like to add that those so-called several users are very likely to belong to the same person given that those users (all of whom are IPs) are all SPAs whose very first edits were to undo mine. Also, my edits are definitely not of "absolutely zero functional purpose". Making such assertions can only demonstrate your non-objectivity. Lastly, not all the edits made on Wikipedia have to root in WP policies. My rationales have been quite clear that my edits on Wechat were based on the establishments set by other similar articles. You, however, have been accusing me with all kinds of labels that you could think of instead of discussing the actual content of the articles. --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Still edit warring at WeChat I see. That's eight or nine reverts now? This is blatant disruptive editing for political purposes, not sure why an admin hasn't taken any action. Citobun (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how moving criticism/controversy after features and descriptions indicates "political agenda". This is merely the standard format for articles of commercial products and services, see Google, Instagram, Snapchat, etc. The shifting IPs INDICATOR2018 was edit warring with are obviously a single person, possibly a sockpuppet using mobile IPs to avoid detection. And the article was previously protected because of this user. -Zanhe (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Onward&Upward

I created the page John Laurence. User:Onward&Upward who has been on Wikipedia since June 2008 claims to be related to John Laurence, see: [5] and therefore is not a neutral writer. Despite having been on Wikipedia since 2008, Onward&Upward is not familiar with the most basic policies and procedures, such as providing WP:RS (something which I pointed out to him/her on 1 February: [6] nor how to reference despite seeing numerous examples of how to do this on the page.

My primary source material was John Laurence's book, the Cat from Hue, which as I explained to him/her I enjoyed sufficiently to start the page about Laurence, see [7]. As the book focuses primarily on Laurence's Vietnam reporting that is what I included in the page. The page is about John Laurence's life and not about the Vietnam War generally or other unrelated matters, such as whether or not Sam Castan received a posthumous medal. I selected events in which Laurence played a key role such as his reporting of many battles including A Sau, Con Thien and Hue. In relation to Laurence's report on the interview with Lt Col House, following the Battle of A Sau (which Onward&Upward repeatedly tries to Americanize to the Battle of A Shau), the official Marines history states that the interview "caused some furor" and that Secretary of Defense McNamara requested an investigation into "unfavorable TV and press releases in the U.S.", which I abbreviated into saying this caused "outrage", User:Onward&Upward claims that this somehow denigrates Laurence or makes me an apologist for the US military. As Laurence was friends with many of the other somewhat famous young Vietnam War journalists such as Tim Page, I included a mention of "Frankie's House" (which itself has a Wikipedia page about the TV series), Laurence himself discusses the frequent marijuana use there, but Onward&Upward repeatedly tried to remove all reference to this: [8], [9], [10] on the basis that I was implying that Laurence was a drug addict. I referred Onward&Upward to Laurence's book and Tim Page's book that both speak to the frequent marijuana use here: [11], Onward&Upward has repeatedly deleted the reference to Tim Page's book: [12].

I asked Onward&Upward to focus on productive edits rather than edit warring with me over trivial points such as who actually lived at Frankie's House and to learn to reference properly: [13]. Onward&Upward has added additional information regarding Laurence's career outside of Vietnam, but in several cases has only provided references for the existence of certain events (e.g. DNC 1968 and the Chicago Seven trial [14]) and not Laurence's reporting of them which is inadequate. In all cases Onward&Upward has made no effort whatsoever to reference sources properly which has become completely frustrating for me tidying these up.

Yesterday Onward&Upward wrote the following on the John Laurence Talk Page [15]. I responded saying that I did not believe that I have initiated any "impolite criticism, sarcasm and insults", rather these started with Onward&Upward's initial comment on my Talk page on 21 February here: [16] and have continued up to and including the comments above questioning my knowledge and integrity. I will readily admit that my edit summaries have become more curt as I continue to revert Onward&Upward's edits which do not accord with WP policies and procedures. Onward&Upward cannot describe him/herself as a "newcomer" and is not entitled to rely on the indulgence that might be granted to a newbie, rather s/he has persistently ignored WP policies and procedures, does not adopt WP:NPOV and has done everything possible to sanitise any perceived criticism of John Laurence. I also pointed out that Wikipedia was different from WikiLeaks which s/he referred to in the original post and received this response: [17]. Onward&Upward then continued his/her insults by posting this: [18] on my Talk Page, starting with "So, Mztourist, you are English and living in England (or possibly Welsh or Scottish or Irish). Your diction and anti-American attitudes give you away." What possible relevance is my ethnicity or location? None of which is correct btw. I ignored that post and then noted this pseudo-apology: [19] which starts as an apology but then quickly becomes another attack on me.

Onward&Upward continues to revise the John Laurence page, providing some useful but poorly referenced information and some which is poorly written or irrelevant, e.g. what is the relevance to Laurence of Sam Castan being awarded an Army Commendation Medal which Onward&Upward has once again reinserted: [20]. As I have grown tired of Onward&Upward's failure to follow WP policies and procedures, edit-warring and insults, I request that an Admin imposes a Block or Topic Ban on him/her. Mztourist (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sam Castan was Laurence's best friend when he was killed. That his actions earned him a medal from Gen. William Westmoreland seems relevant. Onward&Upward (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You lost me at My primary source material was John Laurence's book, the Cat from Hue. How could you possibly think that the subject's own autobiography is appropriate as the source for a biographical article (and not just cited in passing for a quote from the subject, but cited twelve times)? ‑ Iridescent 09:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It was the starting point, I tried to add other WP:RS as I went along. Mztourist (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not particularly bothered by the use of a published autobiography, per se. It may be self written (and maybe not even so, could be a ghost writer), but that doesn't mean it is self published, and presuming it is a) published by a reputible publishing house with a repuation for good work and b) judiciously used and properly cited (such as explicit citation style like "according to his autobiography..."), it's fine as a starting point. --Jayron32 14:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Any good biography should include reference to content in the subject's autobiography. Peacock (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Laurence's book, "The Cat from Hue: a Vietnam War Story," is a memoir not an autobiography. Onward&Upward (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User Mztourist is attempting to have me blocked on Wikipedia for interfering with his/her attempt to publish a biography of the American journalist John Laurence that was a cleverly disguised attempt at character assassination. I will prove this and ask that Mztourist be blocked from any further editing on the Laurence biography. He/she was modifying scenes from Laurence's memoir of the Vietnam War, "The Cat from Hue: a Vietnam War Story," while adding his own inflammatory language to accomplish what was amounting to a mean, dishonest hatchet job on Laurence's reputation. I interfered by trying to edit Mztourist's nasty work at an early stage and he has replied by attempting here to get me banned. His excuse is that I was not familiar with the Wikipedia procedure of referencing edits via WP:RS and causing him to "edit war with me. ("As I have grown tired of Onward&Upward's failure to follow WP policies and procedures, edit-warring and insults, I request that an Admin imposes a Block or Topic Ban on him/her.")

The fact that I joined Wikipedia in 2008 does not mean I had to learn the intricacies of the editing procedure. Until this month, I have used Wikipedia regularly as a reference source (and been a generous donor to its foundation). That I am a member of the Laurence family does not make me unable to be fair, impartial and objective. It has taken a week or so for me to learn WP:RS and ref well enough to use correctly, and I am now confident of being able to maintain historical accuracy and objectivity in that way. So much for Mztourist's impolite criticism of this editing newbie.

Hatting wall o'text as description of content dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
John Laurence, who is 78 years old and very much alive, has been given the highest praise for his work over the past 50 years, especially in Vietnam during the war there, and has received countless awards for his journalism, authorship and documentary filmmaking. His book, "The Cat from Hue," received the Cornelius Ryan Award for "best non-fiction book on international affairs" by the Overseas Press Club of America, the only book award it makes annually. Reviews of the book were 100% positive and included most of the major newspapers in the United States as well as several magazines. That Mztourist is using Laurence's own book with which to attack his reputation as a journalist is less ironic than it is a clear indication of his ulterior motives. Here's how he did it: After creating the new John Laurence page on 22 January 2018 with basic information about where he was born, year of birth and education, on 24 January Mztourist added two incidents taken from "The Cat from Hue." In a post of only 12 lines to describe Laurence's first 10 months in Vietnam in 1965-66, a period which occupies 340 pages in the book, he wrote: "Through his friendship with correspondent Steve Northup he became a frequent visitor at 47 Bui Thi Xuan, Saigon, the home of Northup and fellow correspondents Simon Dring, Tim Page and Martin Stuart-Fox, known as "Frankie's House" after the resident Vietnamese houseboy. Frankie's House became a social club for a group correspondents between field assignments and their friends with large quantities of drugs being used there." Large quantities of drugs? What's that supposed to mean if not that Laurence socialized among a group of drug addicts? Later, when I discovered the new page, an edit war ensued over the reference to "large quantities of drugs" and the fact that Mztourist could not figure out who lived in the house and when. You would have to read the 340 pages of the book to understand that Laurence was NOT a frequent visitor to Frankie's House, only an occasional one (because he was not invited often), that only marijuana was smoked there and not "large quantities of drugs," and that the house was inhabited by several other well-known, accomplished journalists than those he mentioned. All are included in the book. One of them was Sam Castan, a senior editor at LOOK magazine and Laurence's close friend. He received a medal for his courage in saving the lives of three American soldiers at the cost of his own. That Castan was the only civilian journalist to receive a medal during the war (from General Westmoreland the overall commander), seemed to me to be worth including in a paragraph about Frankie's House. Especially if Mztourist insisted on disparaging everyone in the house for using "large quantities of drugs." But he struck out Castan's name every time I included it. The whole paragraph about Frankie's House should be deleted. The second incident Mztourist included in his 12 line summary of Laurence's tour of Vietnam in 1965-66 is this: "On 10 March 1966 following the Battle of A Sau, Laurence interviewed Marine Lt Col Charles House, commander of HMM-163, the unit which had evacuated the survivors of the battle and who had himself been shot down and rescued from the battlefield. House stated that panicking CIDG troops had overrun the evacuation helicopters and the crews and Special Forces troops had had to fire on them to establish order. The story caused outrage when broadcast leading to an investigation by Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) and III MAF.[2]" Mztourist used a book by a Marine Corps historian for this account rather than Laurence's first person description of what happened. I objected to the use of the phrase "the story caused outrage when broadcast" in such a general way. It is clear from Laurence's account that the incident did not cause outrage in the general public or in the rank and file in Vietnam. No disciplinary action was taken against him. The fact is that a few Marine and Army generals were upset because Lt. Col. House told the story on-camera and that it was broadcast on CBS News. A reading of the book shows that's what happened. Mztourist and I argued over edits because the way he portrayed the incident it looks like criticism of Laurence for reporting the story. But that was it. There is nothing more in Mztourist's biography about the often incredible events that Laurence saw and reported in 1965-66, including being wounded with his soundman in a battle. In all the reviews of "The Cat from Hue," I can find no mention of the two incidents Mztourist chooses to include. It gets worse. The next day, 25 January, he adds this to the original 12 lines: "Laurence was initially supportive of U.S. policy in Vietnam and willing to give favorable coverage for access and information, what was referred to as "being with the program".[1]:123-5 However as time went on, after witnessing the deaths of Vietnamese civilians, the mistaken bombing of a Cambodian village, coming under fire from friendly forces and seeing the corruption endemic in South Vietnam, he became more cynical as to the effects of the U.S. presence and what could actually be achieved there.[1]:293" "...he became more cynical." Cynical? More cyncial? There is not a word in the book to suggest that Laurence was cynical. The man is not a cynic. He is a warm and kind-hearted person. His writing shines with his humanitarian beliefs. His spiritual nature is on every page. The edit war between Mztourist and I began with the words "more cyncial" in this paragraph and continued when I tried to make clear that the deaths and wounding of American soldiers were part of the equation. Laurence has been described as "the best television reporter of the war" and also "the best war reporter of his generation." (Esquire magazine (October, 2003)). But nothing in Mztourist's biography reflects that. I started trying to make edits to Mztourist's work for the first time on 30 January and added over 3,000 bytes of new information. Neither of us made any edits between 2 and 13 February as I struggled to learn the methodology of using Wikipedia's software. Throughout the month of February, Mztourist has been belittling me for not using the correct editing methods with comments such as: "Stop making unreffed changes..." and "provide WP:RS for your changes, how many times do I have to say this?" (both on 21 February) During the month of February, the number of references has gone from two (both by Mztourist) to 19 (most of them by me). The size of the page has gone from 4,500 bytes with no edits by me, to more than 13,000, mostly added and correctly referenced by me. I have got the hang of it. I have added a dozen references to Laurence's distinguished reputation as an author, journalist and documentary filmmaker. If you check Mztourist's history of edit-warring with other users on his Talk page, you can see how disputatious and bullying he is, not only with me. It appears that Mztourist now wants to get rid of me so that he can delete my edits and get back to writing his cruelly critical biography. I beg the Administrators who will decide this case to block Mztourist from participating any longer in the creation of the John Laurence biography and trust the good nature and wisdom of other editors on Wikipedia to keep it honest and objective.

Onward&Upward (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:TLDR? @Onward&Upward: please summarize the issue in about one tenth of the amount of text, and please include some WP:DIFF so that people can confirm what you are talking about. Alternatively, you may prefer to abandon this case -- especially if it depends on convincing us as to who is and who is not a warm and kind-hearted person. MPS1992 (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm having trouble seeing why there is such extreme upset on the one hand, and what strikes me as somewhat excessive obstinacy on the other. Mangoe (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hatting "shorter" wall o'text
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SHORT VERSION OF ONWARD&UPWARD'S DEFENSE: User Mztourist is attempting to have me blocked on Wikipedia for interfering with his attempt to publish a biography of the American journalist John Laurence that is a cleverly disguised attempt at character assassination. Using Laurence's 850 page book, "The Cat from Hue: a Vietnam War Story", as his primary source, Mztourist has chosen a couple of negative incidents and one of his own critical observations to suggest that Laurence socialized with drug addicts in Saigon and whose reporting was "cynical" in Vietnam during the war. I have revised Mztourist's bio repeatedly to try to set the record straight, but he has resisted on each occasion with complaints about my failure to use the Wikipedia software correctly. I was learning it. An edit war has resulted. Here are examples of differences: 1) Mztourist posted on 28 January: "Laurence was initially supportive of U.S. policy in Vietnam and willing to give favorable coverage for access and information, what was referred to as "being with the program". However as time went on, after witnessing the deaths of Vietnamese civilians, the mistaken bombing of a village in neutral Cambodia, coming under fire from friendly forces and seeing the corruption endemic in South Vietnam, he became more cynical as to the effects of the U.S. presence and what could actually be achieved there." Onward&Upward posted this correction on 30 January: "Laurence was initially supportive of U.S. policy in Vietnam and gave favorable if neutral coverage in what was referred to by the U.S. Army public information officers as "being with the program". However, as he witnessed more and more of the war--seeing the deaths of Vietnamese civilians, the mistaken bombing of a village in neutral Cambodia, coming under fire from friendly forces, and seeing the corruption endemic in South Vietnam--he became more critical of the U.S. presence and what might actually be achieved there." NOTE: Onward&Upward changed "more cynical" to "more critical." 2) Mztourist posted on 28 January: "On 10 March 1966 following the Battle of A Sau, Laurence interviewed Marine Lt Col Charles House, commander of HMM-163, the unit which had evacuated the survivors of the battle and who had himself been shot down and rescued from the battlefield. House stated that panicking CIDG troops had overrun the evacuation helicopters and the crews and Special Forces troops had had to fire on them to establish order. The story caused outrage when broadcast leading to an investigation by Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) and III MAF." Onward&Upward posted this correction on 30 January: "On 10 March 1966 following the Battle of A Shau, Laurence interviewed Marine Lt. Col. Charles House, commander of HMM-163, the unit which had evacuated the survivors of the battle and who had himself been shot down and rescued from the battlefield. House stated that panicking CIDG troops had overrun the evacuation helicopters and the crews and Special Forces troops had had to fire on them to establish order. Many were killed. The story caused criticism when broadcast and led to an investigation by Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) and III MAF. Laurence and one other reporter were criticized for going with the story because it reflected poorly on the Marines." 3) Mztourist posted on 28 January: "Through his friendship with correspondent Steve Northup he became a frequent visitor at 47 Bui Thi Xuan, Saigon, the home of Northup and fellow correspondents Simon Dring, Tim Page and Martin Stuart-Fox, known as "Frankie's House" after the resident Vietnamese houseboy. Frankie's House became a social club for a group correspondents between field assignments and their friends with large quantities of drugs being used there." Onard&Upward posted this correction on 30 January: "Through his friendship with UPI photojournalist Steve Northup, Laurence became an occasional visitor at 47 Bui Thi Xuan, Saigon, the home of Northup and fellow correspondents Joseph Galloway, Tim Page, Martin Stuart-Fox, Simon Dring, Sean Flynn, and Dana Stone. It was known as "Frankie's House" after the resident Vietnamese houseboy. Frankie's House became a social club for a small group of young correspondents between field assignments where they listened to music and smoked marijuana instead of drinking alcohol." The editing has gone back and forth for weeks. Mztourist is trying to make the bio of Laurence as negative as possible while I have been trying to make it fair and objective. The version now on Wikipedia is the result of many additional references that I have added about Laurence's distinguished career as a journalist. He is still alive. Mztourist's claim above that he "tried to add other WP:RS as I went along" is not true. 95% of his effort has gone into edit warring with me. Recently, Laurence acted as a consultant for the Ken Burns/Lynn Novick documentary series on the Vietnam War and was one of the eye-witnesses interviewed for the broadcasts. Excerpts from "The Cat from Hue" were included in the book, "The Vietnam War," which accompanied the series. To now start a biography of Laurence which mentions prominently only that he was a visitor to a Saigon house where "large quantities of drugs" were consumed, that he caused "outrage" with a report on the murders of allied soldiers, and that he became "more cynical" as he witnessed more of the violence in the war--none of which is true historically--is more than biased or unfair. It is slanderous. May I suggest that Mztourist is the one who should be blocked from this page? Onward&Upward (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Onward&Upward has now added a reference to The Cat from Hue to Vietnam War here: [21], but still making no effort to properly cite refs despite seeing numerous examples of how this should be done. Mztourist (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC) A Shorter version usually means something like five or ten sentences, not the 971 words and 6871 characters you have just above. Granted, it's an improvement over your first attempt, which weighed in at 1,556 words and 9936 characters. Counting the characters was about the only salient thing I could extract from either. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC) User:Mztourist is at it again with the comment above: "...but still making no effort to properly cite refs..." No effort? Look at it, man! And tell me, what's wrong with my two refs cited on the Vietnam War page? Is it the fact that they're cited at all? Or that they offend you? References

Onward&Upward (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Cutting through the verbiage, this is entirely a content dispute: there is no behavioral problem for admins to handle that I can see. These two editors should attempt to reconcile their differences on the article's talk page, or seek WP:Dispute resolution if that fails. I have hatted the two TLDNR sections, and recommend that this thread be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No this is not entirely a content dispute, Onward&Upward due to his/her family relationship with the subject seeks to portray the subject in only the most flattering light as can be seen from his/her comments above. As s/he is unable to adopt NPOV and follow basic procedures of editing, in addition to insulting me repeatedly, s/he should be blocked or banned from the page. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It is indeed entirely a content dispute. Mztourist is trying to portray the subject and his work in as negative a light as possible, arguing over technical details about how I have been making edits. My efforts to make the page more scholarly and historically accurate rubs Mztourist the wrong way. He/she is a Vietnam War revisionist of the worst kind, a mean-spirited reactionary who is attacking someone who reported the war honestly and objectively (evidenced by the many, many journalism awards he received). Onward&Upward (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

user:Czalex

user:Czalex is repeatedly applying edits to Vladimir Peftiev article, full of alleged and unreliable information including accusations and defamatory statements, supporting them with multiple links to tabloid press only. Once he did it before, discussion took place at article's talk page and a consensus was achieved that edits of this user are violating WP:BLP and potentially WP:NPOV. Therefore Czalex's changes were reversed. Yet, Czalex applied his edits again and is accusing users of supporting subject's PR, indicating some sort of personal/political agenda behind his opinion (see talk page). Czalex ingores the fact that his edits are violating WP:BLP and ignores opinions of other users, feeling comfortable with starting an edit war. Issue must be addressed by an administrator. More info at Talk:Vladimir Peftiev. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.56.195.81 (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The Wikileaks stuff is (arguably) a WP:PRIMARY source, but I fail to see any tabloids referenced. Also I fail to see any obvious WP:BLP//WP:NPOV violations. Sourced negative info does not qualify as such. Perhaps 46.56.195.81 would like to point out tabloid references and BLP violations. The rest is a content dispute. I suggest you take it to WP:DRN. Kleuske (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Are there any links to tabloid press? Check References 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18 of the current article (if you can't understand half of it, it's ok, because it's not not in English). Check talk page of the article to see what Czalex refers to in his own opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.107.49 (talk • contribs)

Even if they are, and right now, i've only got your sayso for that, that's a content dispute, suited for reliable sources notice board, not ANI. You made some pretty stiff accusations (WP:NPOV/WP:BLP violations, even vandalism), so please back them up with appropriate links. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

There is not a single tabloid media outlet among the sources - unless you refer to official EU publications or to France24 as a tabloid.

The information is reliable, citing authoritative sources, namely:

• Official EU documents accusing Peftiev of being a sponsor of the Lukashenka regime (doesn't matter if the accusations were lifted later)
• Malta Today stating that Peftiev may have Maltese citizenship
• Wikileaks
• France24, one of France's top media
• Ogonyok, one of Russia's top magazines. The article quoted was written by Pavel Sheremet, one of the best-known and most authoritative journalists in modern Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine
• Charter97, Narodnaja Vola, major independent Belarusian publications

These are reliable sources, removing information citing them is a direct violation of Wikipedia principles. As these were made by anonymous users from Belarus and Poland, I have serious suspects that we're seeing Peftiev's PR at work - which is a serious violation of the rules as well.Vandalism is exactly what this gang of anonymous users is doing: deleting properly sourced information.

There is a lot of strange and unsourced information in the article about unknown Belarusian scientists and some irrelevant and unknown books written by Peftiev (which makes the parts of the article look like either an autobiography or a promotion article). However, for some reason this does not interest these otherwise non-indifferent anonymous users. I wonder, why. --Czalex 20:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Adding contentious information to a BLP is a tricky thing, no doubt. Wording needs to be done carefully, and the weight assigned to criticisms needs to be carefully judged. That being said, I've checked the sources in question and I agree with Czalex's response refuting the claim that he's relying on "tabloids". This complaint appears to be without merit. Swarm ♠ 03:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: @Czalex: Malta Today is arguably a tabloid, and article has I think 6 of those, for example one, two, three. Arguably tabloid info in BLP must be removed. Also there is this, this, this and this, which is not in English (mostly) and the sources aren't exactly trustworthy (no-name political publication is not something suited for BLP). France24, Wikileaks and EU documents are perfectly fine. 46.216.6.175 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

MT is a tabloid, not a tabloid. Perhaps that's the source of your confusion? It's clearly not a "tabloid" in the "unreliable sensationalism" sense. Swarm ♠ 23:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:他删之石 on Deaths in 2018

他删之石 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a regular contributor to the Deaths in 2018 page. This user has been told several times that he needs to include the headings of the articles that are used as reference, see User talk:他删之石. Still, the user continues to add references without headlines. This is getting very tiresome to have to correct all the time. The user doesn't seem to understand the issue at hand, and might need to be addressed in Chinese, which Alex Shih previously offered to do. --Marbe166 (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I live in China and some web I can't open. I have no VPN, so I can't see the title.--他删之石 (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

We can all sympathise with the problems accessing resources in China. But I don't quite understand how this stops you adding titles for pages. If you are able to access pages you should be able to see the titles. If you are not able to access the pages, then there is no way you should be using them as references, since you need to actual read references to confirm they actually say what you claim they are saying. If you don't have references then often, and particularly in cases of "Deaths in", you shouldn't be adding content. An unfortunate problem for sure, I suggest you propose the content on the talk page and if you think a reference confirms it, you can provide it and wait for someone else to confirm and add. Or are you saying the Great Firewall removes only the titles but still lets you see the text? Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not the user above, but The Great Firewall very well might do just that, as headlines are more often than not either a separate document or a graphic; this is an extremely common issue with special browsers designed for the blind. The user might not have any way of knowing that there is a headline! 24.76.103.169 (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You're missing my point. I never said that it's not possible. I simply asked the editor if this is what they are claiming happened. I asked because I knew that it was possible, but the fact that it's possible doesn't mean it is actually happening. The editor has said nothing to really suggest it is happening other than some vague mention of needing a VPN. However they proceeded that with "some web I can't open" which sort of suggests it's probably a simple case of the page being blocked. (As I said below, there's no point getting into detail about what is and isn't theoretically possible.) Also you're mistaken about what headlines are. They are not a seperate document. They are part of the same HTML file. (Well unless the page does some very weird shit likely embedding the content as a seperate page, but thankfully really few pages especially RS do that shit anymore.) Because of the way a the HTML file is structured, they may or may not cause problems with screen readers but that does not mean they are a seperate document. (Very often the headline will be somewhere in the HTML TITLE anyway.) If the headlines are graphical then they may be a separate graphic but except perhaps for uncommon language pages, most of which I presume the OP doesn't speak so are irrelevant, any normal webpage which uses graphics for their text is probably not an RS. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)04:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think you should seriously ease up on the criticisms of our fellow Chinese colleague. The Great firewall of china is a serious piece of software and hardware and meatware, which the government devotes no doubt hundreds of millions of dollars to, if not billions. You might not be realizing the scope of the control of information, and the possibility of pages being rewritten dynamically. The Chinese leader just decided to scrap democratic term limits. We're not talking about a normal situation where you can ream out an editor who is living on an equal playing field.104.163.148.25 (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If there is any concern about pages being re-written in a way beyond the removal of headlines then my point stands even more. The editor should not be editing these pages, but at most proposing them on the talk page. While we may have sympathy for the problems editor faces, we cannot compromise our standards because of them. If an editor is adding content, they should be resonably sure any sources they are using actually say what they are claiming. If the source may have been modified by a third party, then they cannot be sure. This has nothing to do with reaming anyone out, but remininding an editor they need to meet our standards. Worse comes to worse, we may have to enforce it but I think everyone here is hoping it doesn't come to that and the editor voluntarily restricts their edits so they meet our standards. Also as with the other editor, I think you're missing an important issue here. I'm sure many of us are aware that the firewall could do that. The question is, is it happening? The editor has said that they cannot add headlines because of censorship but has offered no explanation why. There is no point talking a great deal about what theoretically could happen. After all, if it's not HTTPS even those living in progressive democractic pages could still nominally be served a different page if it's specifically targeted. This doesn't actually require software that is particularly sophisticated, especially if they are using their ISP's DNS. The fact that it could happen doesn't mean it is happening. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• My opinion is that IP user, please note that the English Wikipedia is not a soap box, so please avoid political references; the Great Firewall of China, which can be easily bypassed from experience, is a red herring as we are talking about the user not adding references properly. If they are adding sources without being able to view the source, then that's a problem. Alex Shih (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The behaviour continues. 他删之石, you have to understand that this behaviour cannot continue! If you can't read the headline, then the Great Firewall must be blocking the whole article. In that case you can't use it if you can't read it. It's as simple as that. What the IP user says above is simply not true, I've never seen an article that has a headline as a graphic or a separate document. --Marbe166 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

User:MigenMemelli and 3RR on adding trivia to article

• MigenMemelli (talk · contribs)
• 185.191.204.139 (talk · contribs)
• 84.215.252.76 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:700:300:4104:a09b:7b36:6529:5a68 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:700:300:4104:4c0f:529b:15ba:5247 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:700:300:420d:9102:6236:a16b:3356 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:700:300:4000:ccdb:991b:6b35:36f5 (talk · contribs)
• 129.242.248.123 (talk · contribs) added to thread on 15:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Gabriel Batistuta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

---

• Kante4 (talk · contribs)

Ip user(s) and MigenMemelli keep on adding a trivial award / recognition "Heia fotball Glory Hall " which probably awarded by a Norwegian radio program, the first few edits were reverted directly for no source to verify , while today MigenMemelli (talk · contribs), finally added http://p3.no/heia-fotballs-glory-hall/ as source. However, still unable to prove/verify the notability of the award / recognition "Heia fotball Glory Hall ", so i reverted the edit and told him in his talk page , as well as the link to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. However, he still 3RR (the last revert was performed by logout as 185.191.204.139 (talk · contribs)). So, either block would make him understand, or someone with fluent Norwegian to tell him wikipedia is not a collection of every trivial information. Matthew_hk tc 13:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Correction, the ipv6 were from the same Norwegian isp, while the last two were from Norway and Israel (the last edited ip 185.191.xxx.xxx) respectively.

Correction 2, seem i also made the third revert. Matthew_hk tc 13:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I see Heia Fotball is a notable enough show in Norway to have an article in that language, but not in English. If you (MigenMemelli (talk · contribs) etc) feel you must add it somewhere, why not add it to his Norwegian article? It's only Norwegians who will care. To all others, it's a pointless promotional accolade awarded by an obscure radio show based in a country to which the person has no connection, and has no place in his Wikipedia article. Crowsus (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Add a registered user (and user that actively join the discussion in football project) that also revert those non-notable award to this thread. Matthew_hk tc 19:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Non notable award. Should not be added. User does not communicate, which does not help. Kante4 (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico requires attention.

There has been significant debate now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico regarding a matter of procedure, as far as I can tell the issue is as follows:

• Rusf10 created a bundled AfD containing a number of non-notable local-level politicians. So far, no one has persisted in recommending any of them are kept of their own merits. However several editors (Enos733 and Djflem) insist that one of the articles should not be in the bundle as it is for a county executive, and not a freeholder. I gather that the county executive is of a higher rank. I believe all the politicians are from the same area. The article in question is Thomas A. DeGise.

• There has been much debate, which I am heavily involved in, about whether there is any point having a new separate AfD just for Thomas A. DeGise given the likelihood that it would be deleted, the difficulty of debundling the article, and the fact three people (Myself, SportingFlyer, Bearcat) have already !voted to delete all the articles in the bundle, specifically including this one. I have stated that this fact prevents it's removal by WP:WDAFD, I believe this is accurate.

• I am under the impression that Rusf10 has been cleaning up numerous articles about politicians in a specific area of the USA, and has encountered problems with two prior bundled AfD's, here and here, the latter is still open. These seem to have some bearing on the current matter, and for that reason I am including Alansohn in my notifications about this report. I apologise if there are other involved people which I missed.

• Save perhaps this personal attack comment, the entire affair has been quite civil, I am only bringing this here to get a resolution by an adminstrator, not to get any editor told off as such.

It would be very useful if an administrator could decide what to do about the Thomas A. DeGise article and if applicable, the AfD as a whole. Since otherwise I fear the entire thing will become a trainwreck. It would seem at this point to be unwise for any non-admin to try and "fix" the issue using WP:IAR, which has been suggested as another option. Thanks. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• • The simplest solution would be to separate the article for DeGise out of this Afd. There is broad consensus that a county executive directly elected by the voters to oversee and administer a county of 670,000 people (more than any congressman) should be treated differently from a "mere" county legislator, known in New Jersey as a "freeholder". As Prince of Thieves ably points out, Rusf10 has made other problematic bulk nominations where the articles do not share the requisite common characteristics. Withdrawing DeGise from this bundle addresses that issue. Alansohn (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• There is, for the record, no consensus that a county executive is automatically more notable than a regular county freeholder — DeGise's includability still depends on exactly the same condition, being sourceable as the subject of enough coverage, and more than just purely local coverage at that, to demonstrate that he would pass WP:NPOL #2 as significantly more notable than most other people at that level of prominence. Being a county executive does not give him a free notability boost that would exempt him from having to have as much sourcing as it would take to keep any of the others, because it's not a role that Wikipedia accepts as handing automatic inclusion rights to every holder of it either. (And the comparison to mayors doesn't wash, either, because mayors aren't even accepted as all being automatically notable just because they were mayors, but still have to pass NPOL #2 as the subject of the same amount of coverage that county freeholders would have to show.)
  Unbundling him from the nomination wouldn't be unreasonable, but no Wikipedia policy requires him to be unbundled from the existing nomination — his grounds for inclusion aren't actually any different from anybody else's in the batch, and if people can show that there actually is a stronger case for including him, then "delete all except DeGise" is a perfectly valid vote option as well. But there's no reason why unbundling is required here, because at the county level of government the includability test isn't any different for executives than it is for the regular freeholders: either way, it requires quite a lot more sourcing than anybody in the batch, including DeGise, is actually showing. It doesn't matter whether they're identical roles or not — they're directly-related roles that don't have different inclusion standards from each other, so they're not different enough to require separation. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Bearcat, you are correct about NPOL. The problem is that every politician at every level of government in every nation at any point in world history also falls under the standard, and your argument would support bundling every politician who has ever lived into this nomination. Even Rusf10 hasn't gotten to that point yet. No one has ever implied that all county executives are inherently notable (though there are in fact different levels of notability at different levels of government, which is why a state legislator is inherently notable and an elected dog catcher isn't). Nor has anyone stated that there is any policy that requires DeGise to be unbundled from the existing nomination. The point is that if anyone has the genuine interests of Wikipedia at heart, and isn't merely trying to load up a pile of articles into one AfD to make a point, it would be the right thing to do. How about if it minimizes disruption, might that be enough? Heck, I might well agree to delete the rest of the articles if the nominator would show the barest evidence of good faith in this matter.
    Unlike your ludicrous strawman, no one suggests that its required. Maybe it's just the right thing to do as a human. Alansohn (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The right thing to do for what reason, if there's no actual divergence in the notability or sourceability standards that the person has to meet to become includable? Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• The whole point of this AN/I post is to get an uninvolved administrator to decide whether to unbundle the article or not. I didn't expect a meta-debate about the relative importance of different levels of government, or commentary about a ludicrous strawman or what the right thing to do as a human is. The whole point is that no-one is required, or even procedurally allowed (without recourse to WP:IAR) to unbundle it, yet several editors want this done. So we ask an admin to deal with it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

For the record, in the real world, which Wikipeida seeks to record, a county executive and a county freeholder are very different political offices. No amount of wiki-speak changes that.

So BEFORE editors start citing policy for why DeGise should/should not be deleted, they should understand none of the spare suggestions at Wikipedia:BUNDLE would qualify the inclusion in the nomination. Indeed advice given is to err on the side of caution. The nominator inappropriately took one person with a different political office and bundled him it with a large group with the same political office, thus contaminating the nomination. S/he has done this before and gotten a pass. S/he has been advised on personal talk page to take more consideration before making any nominations. It has been suggested that s/he withdraw DeGise from the nomination under discussion. As as been suggested, a procedural KEEP to withdraw DeGise from the bundle would be appropriate and fittingly respectful of proper procedure. (Thanks, by the way, Prince of Thieves, for your efforts here) Djflem (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Nobody ever said that the offices weren't any different. But the notability and sourceability standards that a holder of either office has to pass to qualify for a Wikipedia article are identical — neither office hands its holders an automatic inclusion guarantee just for existing, but rather both offices have to clear WP:NPOL #2 on the same volume and breadth and depth of sourceability as each other. So there's no substantive difference in the issues that AFD would have to consider in the respective deliberations. The question of whether the people clear our notability and sourceability standards or not is what an AFD discussion is about, so dismissing that as wikispeak isn't useful — those things are the main issue at AFD, not side distractions from the main issue. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Response to Bearcat. Limited guidance from Wikipedia:Bundle says:

Sometimes you will find a number of related articles, all of which you feel should be deleted together. To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination. However, for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group. Examples of when articles may be bundled into a single nomination: a) A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles. b) A group of hoax articles by the same editor. c)A group of spam articles by the same editor. d) A series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products. If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately. Inappropriately bundling articles can cause a confused process or "trainwreck". Or to put it more succinctly, if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, don't.

Clearly DeGise article does not fit into any of the above examples, so we are left with "feeling" from an editor. In a flurry of mass-nominating the important detail that DeGise is distinct was missed. (The nominator went back later to cover his tracks.) And should not have been included. One can cite policies such Wikipedia:GNG or Wikipedia:POLITICIAN here as a way of avoiding the subject, but the nomination is FLAWED. If indeed policy is so important, then they should ALL be followed. Neither GNG nor POLITICIAN is more important than Wikipedia:Bundle. I'm sorry, but the argument of any editor who would suggest they were is greatly diminished by doing so and would imply that disregard for proper procedure in such a delicate area as deletion noms is acceptable. Points about the subject articles can and have be made at that discussion page. The main issue here, as outlined above, the nomination itself.Djflem (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

They are also all county level politicians from the same area. Which I gather is partly why they were bundled to begin with. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm really sick of this. The objection to bundled nominations is nothing sort of WP:WIKILAWYERING by people who oppose the nominations to begin with. There is a strong resistance to getting rid of low-quality articles about non-notable politicians in New Jersey (which at this point probably has more of these type of articles than any other state). As others have pointed out, no policy was violated by nominating these articles together. WP:BUNDLE simply states "Sometimes you will find a number of related articles, all of which you feel should be deleted together. To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination." There no guidelines there about certain types of politicians can't be nominated together. Although different county freeholder and county executive are both county-level politicians and therefore related. I also made it clear in the nomination that DeGise was county executive. There is absolutely nothing wrong procedure with this nomination.

As for @Alansohn: who feels the need to chime in here. Why doesn't someone ask him as author of most of these articles, why are they copied and pasted from biographies on the official county website? Isn't that a WP:COPYVIO? Could that be why he might agree to delete some of the articles? (although I must point out that the DeGise article itself is copy and pasted) Furthermore, as he is now trying to act as Mr. Civility, he just leveled an extreme WP:PERSONALATTACK on me in another AfD, see [22]. He has been uncivil in the past, but calling me "truly fucked up" and "fundamentally fucked up" goes way too far and IMO he should be blocked.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Look, i'm sorry I didn't see the massive sinkhole full of simmering hostility under this issue, but since I have now noticed it, it could be an idea that Rusf10 and Alansohn come to some mutual arrangement to avoid stamping on each others feet. Maybe if Rusf10 leaves it to someone else to wipe out all the articles on local American politicians or pauses the pace of his crusade for a while, people could calm down! Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• As I've said above, I'd support the deletion of most of the articles listed in the AfD. Despite the fact that Rusf10 has been systematically stalking my edits for more than three months because of my vote at an AfD, responding "I think what is making you upset here is a conflict of interest WP:COI. I have now noticed that both you and the subject of the article live in the same town. And to be honest with you, the article List of people from Teaneck, New Jersey should not exist and neither should about half the articles on that list. Believe it or not, every mayor of Teaneck does not qualify for an article." (see here), I do acknowledge that some of the articles I created in my first few months on Wikipedia some 13 years ago were poorly formed and should be deleted.
  The problem is that the underlying pattern of harassment that followed from Rusf10's explicit threat started with (and this is only a subset of the examples I could provide, which have been trimmed for space):
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey - a list of mayors of Teaneck (withdrawn as an inappropriate bulk nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizette Parker - a mayor of Teaneck (no consensus; default to keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Kieliszek - a mayor of Teaneck (keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank W. Burr - mayor of Teaneck (delete)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William W. Bennett - mayor of Teaneck (keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey (2nd nomination) - a list of mayors of Teaneck (keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Weil - a rabbi from Teaneck (delete)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Jachter - another rabbi from Teaneck (keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallucci v. New Jersey On-Line LLC - a lawsuit involving a former Teaneck elected official
• This quieted things for a while, but the stalking / harassment continued, ramping up over the past several weeks
  • Adding details about me to the article for Teaneck, New Jersey
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn Adams (lottery winner) - following me to an AfD for an article that I had substantially expanded after it had been nominated for deletion
  • this edit - stalking me to an article about Urban enterprise zone to nominally fix an error
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico - the current AfD under discussion, where the majority of the articles bundled together in the nomination are ones I created, including Bill O'Dea, Jeffrey Dublin, Tilo Rivas, Thomas Liggio and Albert Cifelli, as well as the title article of the AFD for Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico and the article under question for Thomas A. DeGise.
• Per Wikipedia:Harassment, "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." I had refrained from getting involved in this AfD explicitly because of this pattern of abuse and harassment. I have tried to make it clear that to Rusf10 that the pattern of abuse is not appreciated, but the hint has never been taken, all that follows is further escalations of the abuse. I only responded here because Prince of Thieves had pinged me.
  No editor should be forced to endure this deliberate pattern of stalking and harassment. This is truly fucked up. Anything that can be done to get Rusf10 off my back would make a difference in my ability to edit without enduring the abuse. Alansohn (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The archived version of the county executive page for DeGise linked at the bottom of current article (and the current live version) has a copyright notice. I'm not sure if there is any copyright exclusion for something like this, but Earwig's copyvio detector comparing our article to the current page says 43.5% confidence, and looking at what is highlighted it's extremely obvious that a lot of text was flat copied with minimal changes. The first version of the page from October 2005 is a direct copy from the website (compared to Aug 2005 version). Ravensfire (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Alansohn loves to play the victim, but the fact is he opposes and attacks me for any nomination that involves New Jersey (whether or not he created the article). He clearly exhibits WP:OWNERSHIP behavior over all New Jersey related articles and its not just me, look at the numerous content disputes in his edit history and you will see he always insists on his versions of pages. Just look above, he references Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn Adams (lottery winner), did he write that article? No. In fact, he didn't even edit it until after it was nominated. But, its New Jersey related, so according to him my participation there must have something to do with him. (ie. it's one of "his articles") As I showed in a previous ANI [23] which was basically ignored, he was suggesting that I be banned after I had made only a few nominations. I didn't even know who the hell he was at that point. He routinely opposes nominations just because I made them. For example, here he blasts me for not considering a merge/redirect target and then goes on to propose a completely inappropriate target (its like he didn't even read before posting his response): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Black Sr.. Or how about the fact that created the composite biography article County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey in direct response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Levinson? Alansohn has been extremely uncivil since Day 1, yet he wants to play the victim now. And for the allegation of stalking, from an edit like this [24], it is quite clear he actually "stalks" my editing history, as I explain here:[25]. And let's not forget Alansohn was actually the origin of the false allegation of WP:OUTING made by Unscintillating: [26]--Rusf10 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Rusf10's first interaction ever with me was to dig through my edit history, determine my hometown and decide that I have a conflict of interest on that basis because someone lived in the same place I do at one point. While Rusf10 has perhaps skirted on the edge of WP:OUTING -- I had the content he dug through removed from my history -- the stalking and harassment continue from day one, and sadly Rusf10 doesn't deny or apologize for the stalking. As do the arguments of bad faith; there was no WP:COI at Bill Zanker and the preposterous argument that County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey was created in bad faith is complete and total bullshit; it was created to address concerns raised by Rusf10.
  Please get this guy off my back, which has not stopped since December with the Bill Zanker threat. Alansohn (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Actually I find this worrying, even the information posted directly above was sufficient for me to obtain Alansohn's contact details and job position (which I won't state here). Needless to say he is clearly well positioned to be very knowledgeable about these articles, whether he created them or not. And no, there isn't any obvious COI, being a member of a different public body close by to the one being edited is hardly a COI, or even vaguely close to one. And writing about the mayor of a nearby town is also not a COI. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's all reliably sourced publicly available information that anyone could have easily found, on or off of wikipedia. I simply updated information in an article that was out of date (something alansohn routinely does for every other town in NJ). You can't use your real name as your username and then claim you have some expectation of privacy, so I don't know why we're even talking about that. Three times Alansohn accused me of outing him [27] [28] & [29]. Alansohn is actually wrong about our first interaction, its actually this: [30] A suggestion that I be topic-banned. Immediately after he posted: [31], he alleged [32] that I have a "complete lack of understanding of WP:BEFORE" and was suggesting that I been topic-banned just because he didn't like the nomination. A nomination that actually resulted in "no consensus", so obviously not everyone else though there was a problem with the nomination. That's right from day 1, Alansohn assumed bad faith and attacked me and now he's here whining that I am harassing him. It is Alansohn's MO to attack me or insist on an extreme "nothing can be deleted" interpretation of WP:AFD, rather than actually provide other policy-based arguments why an article should be kept.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know who you are, I don't care who you are, I respect your privacy -- I don't even know if you're male or female -- and I have not followed you around from article to article to undermine your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia, I wouldn't even know what articles to follow you around to.
  On the other hand, it bizarrely means a lot to you that you know who I am (you made the effort to rummage deep into my edit history and claim that makes me in violation of WP:COI), to systematically delete articles related to my place of residence for politicians and rabbis (?!?!?!), to correct edits to articles you've never touched before (merely because I did), to "fix" content about me and to systematically rummage through articles I've created and target them for deletion, even treating efforts to address your concerns as being in bad faith. This is the very definition of WP:Harassment and you refuse to acknowledge that you've persisted for three months with this abuse, despite persistent pleas to just stop. Per WP:HARASS, "Wikipedia must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here. Edits constituting harassment will be reverted, deleted, or suppressed, as appropriate, and editors who engage in harassment are subject to blocking.", but that's not what I'm looking for, I just want this systematic harassment to stop and to be able to edit without worrying that Rusf10 is looking over my shoulder.
  Just acknowledge the stalking, say you're sorry, promise you'll stop, learn your lesson and we can both move on. If you can't or won't, maybe a block is appropriate after all, which would be the saddest way to resolve this matter. Alansohn (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I refuse to apologize when 1. I did nothing wrong and 2. to a person accusing me of WP:Harassment who has called me incompetent, "truly fucked up" and "fundamentally fucked up", among other things. If you are accusing me of harassment, what the hell do you call your statements? You vigorously attack me (from the beginning), use profanity, and now you're the victim? Do you really think anyone here is that stupid? Rather than me apologize, maybe we can start with an uninvolved admin giving you a final warning about using expletives to describe other editors and you can start following WP:CIVILITY--Rusf10 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

There have been an astonishing amount of controversy regarding New Jersey related topics recently at AfD; both Unscintillating and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) were heavily involved before sanctions. Perhaps ARBCOM needs to examine the issue, as this thread is going nowhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment My position is, and perhaps a discussion should start in a larger or different forum, that there should be more clarity on when an editor can WP:Bundle multiple nominations at AfD. In this particular case, I see a difference in scope and duties of a county executive (who has executive authority) than other subjects that have only legislative authority (this is a distinction made in the level of presumption given to strong mayors compared with councilmembers). With many of the bundled nominations I see, there is often one article that should not have been part of the bundle because there is a different circumstance - the bundled nomination of Terry Cady includes a state legislator (which was mentioned in the article at the time of the nomination. The nomination of Thomas Lynch included the information that Lynch Joseph Irwin served as a state legislator in the article at time of deletion. Since the suggestions at WP:BUNDLE state "any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately," I suggested a procedural keep for DeGise. (Note, I recognize that I would probably argue for deletion of DeGise, but the merits of evaluating his notability is distinct from the other freeholders. That said, in this case WP:IAR can apply in this circumstance.) --Enos733 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I, for one, would support the suggestion both at this AfD and in general. Bundling requires more than saying that the articles share a common characteristic, it requires making sure that they don't have features that make them sufficiently different from one another. Alansohn (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Just split out the county exec into a separate nom and skip the rest of the drama. Looking at the discussion it seems to divide into "delete all" and a procedural split off of the exec. So just do that. There is way too much fussing over an obvious solution that doesn't prevent anyone from responding as they evidently want to respond in the discussions. Oh, and a round of trout for belaboring this. Mangoe (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

As previously stated, a county executive, who has executive authority and elected at-large, is very distinct from other subjects, Freeholders, who have legislative authority and are elected by district. Inclusion in a bundled nomination is ill-conceived. It should be split:Procedural KEEP/WP:IAR?

Despite warnings in Wikipedia:Bundle to be very cautious in doing so, nominator has caused problems before with bundled nominations. One hopes that s/he will be realize that they can cause confusion, and unless a clear-cut case of an example given in the policy, refrain altogether from making them. As suggested by User:Enos733, Wikipedia:Bundle could be made clearer as to avoid depending on "feelings" of nominators, which can be untrustworthy.) As observed by power~enwiki (π, ν) there has an "astonishing amount of controversy" regarding state-related topics recently. I would support the idea that ARBCOM needs to examine the issue.Djflem (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether the roles of county executive vs. county freeholder are different in actual on the ground fact — because the Wikipedia inclusion tests for county executive vs. county freeholder are not any different from each other: either way, it's "sourceable to enough media coverage to satisfy NPOL #2". There is nothing about DeGise that AFD needs to evaluate any differently than anybody else in the bundle, no Wikipedia inclusion standard that makes DeGise any more "inherently" notable than anybody else in the bundle, and on and so forth. Is there a difference in what they do? Yes. Is there any difference in what we have to do about and with that difference? No, there isn't — a county executive is not any more "inherently" notable than a county freeholder is, but still has to pass exactly the same "sourceable to nationalized coverage that marks him out as significantly more notable than most other people at his level" test as any of the freeholders do. So arguing to "they have to be separated because they do different things" is an abstraction: they don't have to be separated, because the differences in their roles does not create any difference in the relevant includability standards. It would simply be a waste of time that wouldn't produce a different result, so the principle of WP:SNOW applies — there's no value in reversing a prior action just to put an article through another process that will still produce the same result anyway. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bearcat: You're putting the cart before the horse. As I said on the nom page: While it is convenient to use or ignore policy when it suits a preferred outcome it can be taken as a form of Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Active or tactic complicicy for the abuse of the policies, guidelines, procedures to which editors (to the best of their knowledge) adhere and upon which they rely is damaging to Wikipedia. A sense of propriety should prevail and not suffer for the sake of expediency.

Limited guidance from Wikipedia:Bundle says: Sometimes you will find a number of related articles, all of which you feel should be deleted together. To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination. However, for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group. Examples of when articles may be bundled into a single nomination: a) A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles. b) A group of hoax articles by the same editor. c)A group of spam articles by the same editor. d) A series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products. If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately. Inappropriately bundling articles can cause a confused process or "trainwreck". Or to put it more succinctly, if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, don't.

Clearly DeGise article does not fit into any of the above examples, so we are left with "feeling" from an editor. In a flurry of mass-nominating the important detail that DeGise is distinct was missed. (The nominator went back later to cover his tracks.) And should not have been included. One can cite policies such Wikipedia:GNG or Wikipedia:POLITICIAN here as a way of avoiding the subject, but the nomination is FLAWED. If indeed policy is so important, then they should ALL be followed. Neither GNG nor POLITICIAN is more important than Wikipedia:Bundle. I'm sorry, but the argument of any editor who would suggest they were is greatly diminished by doing so and would imply that disregard for proper procedure in such a delicate area as deletion noms is acceptable. So, indeed it does make very much of a difference that the two political positions are not he same. The outcome of the nom does not justify the means by which it is made. The main issue here, as outlined above, the nomination itself. Yes, there is a great value in doing things properly on Wikipedia.Djflem (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're 100% wrong here. There is absolutely no violation of WP:Bundle. The examples you cite are simply examples, nothing more. They do not cover every possible use of WP:BUNDLE. What the articles I nominated have in common is the following: 1. They are all articles about county-level politicians and therefore WP:POLITICIAN applies to all 2. They are all poorly sourced 3. The vast majority (including DeGise) are likely CopyVios. And please elaborate on "went back later to cover his tracks", I do not understand at all. I added the additional article shortly after the nomination was made as per WP:BUNDLE. What are you trying to say?--Rusf10 (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The question is: why did YOU find it necessary to amend the nomination and make a specific point clarifying the distinction that DeGise is the county executive and not a freeholder, as are on the others?Djflem (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

That was not an amendment to the nomination, that was part of the original nomination. And why would you oppose me giving an explanation? (as I did there) If you actually arguing for clarity, then that provides it. However, it seems like you're just trying to wikilawyer this.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for adding to the the original nomination the clarification that DeGise is a county executive and not a county freeholders, as are the others on the list.Djflem (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It really is quite wikilawyery to argue that since this situation isn't specifically covered by any of the examples named in BUNDLE, it's therefore an inherently invalid BUNDLE — the definition of the words "example" and "limited guidance" are that the list is not an exhaustive compilation of all the situations where it applies, but that there can be many other similar examples that have not been specifically named. There's simply no reason why DeGise is an inherently invalid bundling with the other people he's been bundled with — his job title may be different than the others, but the inclusion and sourcing standards that his job title has to meet to get him included in Wikipedia are not any different. It is not irrelevant or "avoiding the subject" to point out that the inclusion rules for "county executive" are the same as the inclusion standards for "county freeholder" — it goes directly to the heart of the matter, because the heart of the matter is whether DeGise can be bundled or not. But again, just because BUNDLE doesn't list an example that corresponds directly to that situation doesn't mean that BUNDLE is inapplicable, because BUNDLE is listing a few representative examples of where it applies and not every situation where it applies. Now, BUNDLE would certainly be violated if somebody tried to sneak Donald Trump into an AFD batch of non-notable county councillors in the hope that people just voted "delete all" without noticing that he was hidden in the batch — but batching a bunch of county councillors together is not a BUNDLE violation just because they don't all have the same job title, because they do all have the same notability standard that has to be passed to qualify for an article. The notability standards are not an irrelevant distraction from the matter at hand — they're the crux of whether the matter at hand is a policy violation or not. And it's simply not, because the notability standard that DeGise has to pass is not any different from the notability standard that anybody else in the batch has to pass. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll strike the mischaracterization,since this situation isn't specifically covered by any of the examples named in BUNDLE, it's therefore an inherently invalid. BUNDLE, for you. A nomination is not a deletion. You can keep repeating that the criteria for bundled nomination is the same as the criteria for deletion, but that won't make it true. You can repeating that all county political offices are the same, but that won't make it true. You can repeating it doesn't make a difference, but that won't make it true.Djflem (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Without intending to comment on the merits of the bundling, personally I would have suggested that the disputed nomination was just procedually closed. I don't see how the fact that a few people have !voted for delete all affects things. Their !vote to delete the other articles is not affected by the removal of this one article per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Their !vote to delete this one article is affected, but there's a fair chance it's just going to be closed as a no-consensus for that article anyway. So why continue to waste time on it? A new nomination can be opened for that one article, and they, and everyone else who has already participated in the bundled AFD can be invited. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Time for an IBAN?

Let me play Solomon here and offer the following solution to this festering problem. It is clear that Alansohn and Rusf10 cannot play well together, and this entire thread is evident of a long-standing fued between them which has been festering for quite a while. It's becoming disruptive. Let me propose the following solution which should prevent this from being a future time sink:

• User:Alansohn and User:Rusf10 are hereby banned from interacting with each other anywhere on Wikipedia. Along with the standard prohibitions on commenting on each other, contacting each other through user talk pages, the ping function, commenting in the same discussions, etc. this is also to include editing articles which have been created by or substantially edited by the other party, and nominating such articles for deletion (including CSD, PROD, or AFD).

What does everyone think of this? --Jayron32 00:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support - Whether or not Rusf10 is truly attempting to edit in good faith or is actually engaged in malicious stalking and harassment, it doesn't matter, because obviously no editor should have to feel that they're being harassed on-wiki, and I think there's enough of a pattern to justify Alan's feeling that way. We cannot allow a perceived stalker-victim dynamic to fester and repeatedly boil over like this—intended or not. This is not productive, and this is not healthy. Rusf10's work nominating these articles for deletion is not that important to the project. A firm IBAN is sorely needed and neither user should be objecting at this point. Swarm ♠ 03:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support I've been participating in a number of AfD discussions and the level of vitriol on these discussions is absolutely out of control. I'd like to believe the AfDs were brought in good faith but we're at a point where this cannot continue. This is a good answer. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment this might be necessary, but I can only support this if a TBAN on Rusf10 proposing deletion of New Jersey-related articles is also implemented. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose'- Such a ban would only validate Alansohn's uncivil behavior and would end up being a defacto ban on me editing any New Jersey related article (since he has edited pretty much all of them). I really do not see this having any negative impact on Alansohn at all (actually I think this is exactly what he wants), but it would punish me. Anyone who thinks Alansohn is a victim should review his edit history. I think the worst I've done is called him a clown and told said that he has a reading comprehension problem. Yes, I admit that was uncivil, but extremely tame compared to profanity and accusations of bad faith that he has directed at me since our first interaction.. He believes he has WP:OWNERSHIP over all New Jersey related articles (because he has edited virtually all of them) and this ban would only reinforce that. A vote of support here is a vote of support for uncivil behavior--Rusf10 (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  This directly addresses his uncivil behavior because now he is no longer able to be uncivil towards you at all, since he is banned from interacting with you. --Jayron32 12:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32:That may be your intention here, but that's not what this actually does. It in effect bans me from editing a large number of articles. Alansohn has edited virtually all articles related to New Jersey including any article about a person who has ever lived in New Jersey (even if only for a small portion of their life) He considers it "his area" of the encyclopedia and does not want other interfering with the article being the way he wants them. As you see from our first interaction, he wanted me banned at once because I dared to nominate one of "his articles" (meaning ones related to New Jersey, not just necessarily ones he edits). Actually, he never even edited the Henry Vaccaro article (which is usually not the case with NJ articles) either before or after the nomination, yet came out of nowhere to attack me. You can call this an IBAN, but the way it is worded is in effect a topic ban of me editing New Jersey articles. Alansohn has on other occasions accused other editor of harassing him. Either you have to believe there is some conspiracy to harass Alansohn or this is simply how he operates in order to get his way. That is he claims WP:OWNERSHIP of article and then attacks anyone who doesn't go along with what he wants. When is called out on his behavior, he then pretends that he has been victimized. But its always the same, it is his aggressive behavior that caused the problem to begin with. Alansohn's behavior is very similar in this ANI and others there also noted his WP:OWNERSHIP behavior [33] The result of that ANI was an mutually-agreed to IBAN that was less broad that what is being proposed here. I am not going to agree to something that would ban me indefinitely from editing a huge category of articles. Please look at these previous ANIs and you will see a clear pattern of his behavior, everything he has accused me of he has accused someone else of before: [34] [35] [36] [37] And there are even more than that, but I can't list everyone of them here. Given his pattern of behavior, I ask you to please reconsider your proposal.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose- overkill and excessively one-sided. This would benefit Alansohn exclusively, yet he's been as guilty or more of incivility as Rusf10. All that's necessary is a ban on either editor commenting on or replying to each other in AfDs. The reality is that most of these articles are junk; Rusf10 is improving the encyclopedia by nominating them for deletion and that work should not be impeded. The claims of "stalking" are not really credible. Alansohn has edited so many New Jersey related articles that it's actually impossible to edit anywhere in that area without getting his attention. Well, he does not own New Jersey and if you want to ban Rusf10 from editing New Jersey articles you should suggest that instead of dressing it up as an IBAN. What does need to stop is comments like "monumentally fucked up" and smiilar, from both sides. Reyk _YO! 08:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that sounds excessively one-sided benefit for Rusf10, which would coincidentally also serve your POV about NJ-related articles.Djflem (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Huh? How is a two-way IBAN "excessively one-sided"? The only way a two-way IBAN could be construed as one-sided would be when one user is trying to interact and the other isn't. And that should never be a dynamic that's going on unless a user actually needs to be monitored. This interaction is not necessary, period. Swarm ♠ 10:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It's one sided in that it effectively bans Rusf10 from any edits in an entire topic area, while imposing no real restrictions on Alansohn (who IMO is responsible for about 70% of the incivility). I believe I said exactly this in my original comment. Was I somehow unclear? Reyk _YO! 10:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Rusf10 has also edited widely in the topic area in question, which would mean this proposal would also ban Alansohn from a reasonable number of articles in the "politics of New Jersey" subject area. (And it seems, a number of Pennsylvania related articles). Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow; the ban does not single out any one topic area, nor does it single out the behavior of either user for particular attention. I can't find a single thing I wrote above which your supposed objection even mentions. It's a simple, bilateral interaction ban designed to keep two feuding users from taking up anymore of our time. --Jayron32 11:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Would this would benefit Rusf10 by allowing him make delete noms, the area of contention, but curtail Alansohn's opportunity to respond? That seems one-sided & unfair. Are we discussing an IBAN or TBAN?Djflem (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Neither user able to nominate for deletion any articles which the other has created or substantially edited, and the same in reverse. It would also prevent either user from seeking out the other's nominations to comment on specifically. This was already explicit in the language of the ban. Can you explain how the verbage in the proposal makes that unclear? Maybe we can make that more explicit, but I am not sure how... Any ideas? --Jayron32 11:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. (rarely involved this sort thing) Djflem (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer, but here goes. Alansohn has edited a huge number, perhaps most, of the articles on New Jersey. Banning Rusf10 from editing any article Alansohn has previously edited would effectively ban Rusf10 from editing anything to do with New Jersey. This doesn't seem like it should be hard to understand. I really don't know where the breakdown in comprehension is occurring, or how I can say it more simply. Reyk _YO! 12:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's true of any interaction ban. That's the point of them; it prevents each user from editing those articles which the other works on. Alansohn is also banned from editing whatever articles and topic areas that Rusf10 works in, because the ban is fully bilateral. Your note that Rusf10 is banned from working on articles that Alansohn has is true, but I don't see how that is relevent, because that's how interaction bans usually work; we've done this sort of thing hundreds of times at Wikipedia, and I don't see why there is an objection that this somehow is unbalanced, since it effects both people equally. Alansohn also cannot edit in Rusf10's particular areas of expertise. To only raise objection in one direction seems odd. --Jayron32 13:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment this might severe, but necessary. Consider a temporary TBAN on Rusf10 proposing deletion of New Jersey-related articles to slow this down and let it cool off? Rusf10's has indicated an intention to deplete Wikipedia of NJ-related articles not to his liking. He has on more than one occasion "jumped" on newly-created articles (literally within hours) and brought to AFD before allowing time/opportunity for those who actually contribute content to develop them, thus stifling imput, and raising questions about good faith. He has made several mass noms which have been flawed, leading to confusion at AfD. Whatever the outcome here, I would suggest s/he heed the advice given at Wikipedia:bundle, and make a self-imposed ban and refrain from making them. I would also remind Rusf10 to refrain from making comments along the lines: "what you should know", "you don't like", "because you think". (They are uninformed, unsolicited, uninteresting, and useless opinions which have no place on Wikipedia). I'm curious to see if there will a sudden spike in AFDs for those NJ-related topics of my interest/where I have been a contributor.Djflem (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• support Seems to me...well lets not rake over old fires, just that I have seen this kind of thing before and it never gets sorted.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support A less drastic option could be to simply ban Rusf10 from bundling articles at AfD, since this was the primary issue those concerned were fighting over to begin with. Nominating each article separately would still eventually deal with them all. However it has clearly reached the point where Alansohn and Rusf10 have irrevocable differences, which would only continue if they edit the same articles. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment support ban on bundled nominations. As can be seen from recent history Rusf10's use of bundling at (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Cemetery, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Lynch Jr., & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico) has created confusion and caused contention, which clearly could have avoided. He appears to be adamant in not accepting the invitation/suggestion here to use Wikipedia:IAR to settle the matter (which all involved parties would understand). That is disconcerting. Either he himself or another non-involved party person would be the appropriate person to do it. One hopes he or someone else will step up to the plate and do it.Djflem (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me set this straight here. No one, including yourself has proven that I violated any policy including WP:BUNDLE. You keep citing guidelines that do not exist. There are no specific instructions on which pages can be bundled together. And it's really ironic you telling me to follow WP:IAR now which is the vaguest of all policies. And by the way in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Cemetery, you opposed the nomination because it was bundled and demanded that I unbundle it. [38] I did exactly what you asked. I withdrew the nomination and closed the discussion (because no one else had voted delete). Then when I renominated it separately you opposed it because I renominated it [39] Then you actually had the nerve to tell me that you didn't ask me to unbundle the nominations [40]. My point here, is what you did was just bad-faith WP:WIKILAWYERING--Rusf10 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• SupportFrom above and background there's a lot of harm to the project; seems unresolvable.Djflem (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support, without venturing an opinion here as to which user is substantively correct. Their interactions are toxic, and have the effect of poisoning anything around them. There is little benefit to the project of allowing such a situation to continue. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC).
• Oppose, because as overkill. And someone should remind User:Alansohn that he doesn't own everything New Jersey related and can't do whatever he likes without reference to basic policies like GNG. --Calton | Talk 05:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Here's the thing. I don't see Alan or anyone else claiming that he owns anything New Jersey related. Nor do I see Alan claim he can ignore GNG. In fact, nor do I see any credible behavioral complaints against Alan whatsoever. By all appearances, Alan is a good faith editor in good standing who feels like he's being harassed. He himself acknowledges that some of his early article creations can justifiably be deleted. However nowhere do I see anyone claim that Rusf10 is the only editor capable of assessing such articles. The utter toxicity of their interactions seems enough to convince me that anyone other than Rusf10 would be better suited to perform such a task. However Rusf10, for some bizarre reason, positively refuses to bow out voluntarily. So I ask, what's your alternative solution? Why is this so important, that Rusf must be allowed to continue what a user feels is hounding? The results have been mixed, at best. Clearly many of these interactions are not supported by consensus. So why should we force Alan to continue to interact with Rusf, while he feels he's being harassed? Why should we allow that to continue? I'm honestly asking. Give me one good reason. Just one! Please! Just one! Swarm ♠ 06:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I know your response was directed at Calton, but I feel compelled to respond here because because you have grossly mischaracterized alansohn's behavior. Please look at previous ANIs (some of which I linked to above) involving AlanSohn (and not involving me) and you'll see his pattern of uncivil behavior and other editors have described described his behavior as WP:OWN. He attacked me first, so I do not understand why you are defending his behavior. I can't believe you are supporting a ban on the basis of how someone feels, rather than actual facts. And Alansohn is not backing down, I removed a clear personal attack he made about me, leaving the portion of his comments that were actually relevant to the discussion [41]. And what does he do? He restores the comments saying that they were "improperly deleted in a previous edit", see [42]. Then he arrogantly acts as if he cleaned up the personal attack by changing the word "fucked" to "f-ed", like that really makes a difference. If he was acting in good faith, why did he restore the comments?--Rusf10 (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see Alan or anyone else claiming that he owns anything New Jersey related.

And neither did I.

Nor do I see Alan claim he can ignore GNG.

Weirdly, I didn't say that either. Objecting to things I didn't say is quite a peculiar counter-argument.

I'm going by the things he DOES and HAS DONE; you know, observed behavior. And I'm going to go with the things I've observed rather than the things you haven't. --Calton | Talk 10:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Conditional Support I've been trying to find some way to end Rusf10's harassment during the unfortunate three months following this edit, where Rusf10 tracks down personal data and makes an explicit threat to start deleting articles related to me, and then starts going ahead with the attacks. Articles for mayors from the place where I live have been targeted for deletion and articles for rabbis (?!?!?!) from my place of residence have been targeted, in what appears to be some sort of demented revenge, based solely on the fact that they live where I do. Rusf10 has stalked me to articles I've edited (see here), the article about where I live (here), articles I've tried to rescue from deletion (here) and now is stalking articles that I've created (as in this AfD, which includes several articles I created a dozen years ago). Sure, I've made my share of typos and created some truly bad articles in my first months on Wikipedia some 13 years ago, but I do not need Rusf10 hovering over my every action; there are thousands upon thousands of knowledgeable editors without an axe to grind and trying to get some bizarre pound of flesh from me.
  Despite repeated warnings about WP:HARASS and repeated pleas to apologize and back off, we just get more of the same. I have no interest in who Rusf10 is, no interest in following this person around in retaliation, no interest in nominating articles Rusf10 has created to get some revenge and I have no interest in engaging my stalker-in-chief, even in some of the most recent bad faith nominations.
  My goal here is to find a way to work with this editor, which should start with a good faith effort by Rusf10 to recognize that AfD is being used as a tool of harassment and to head from there to a meaningful change in actions. But as Rusf10 is entirely unapologetic (see here at this ANI discussion) and refuses to back off some of Wikipedia's most blatant pattern of harassment, I see no alternative but an IBAN. I just want this guy off my back once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

More lies, you are not a victim, you have been very aggressive in attacking me. I am not going to repeat everything I said above about your behavior. However, let me respond to a few of the allegations. 1.see here Seriously, you are complaining because I corrected an obvious typo you made? Talk about being petty. 2. As I said above, you do not WP:OWN all NJ-related articles. Your attitude towards [here] only proves that point. 3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico contains some very poor quality articles. Notability concerns aside, they are WP:COPYVIOs, that is a serious problem. I could have just tagged them as copyvios, but if I did you would just remove the tag, so I thought the AfD was necessary. And furthermore they are clearly share similar characteristics with other articles I have proposed deleting that have absolutely nothing to do with you. And I have repeatedly warned you above civility at AfD, starting with the first time you suggested that I be topic-banned. It is astounding that you demand an apology from me, but don't even show the slightest semblance of guilt here, even going as far to repeatedly restore a personal attack [43] because you think it is justified. But WP:PERSONALATTACKs are never justified.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose banning a good faith editor from making a case for deletion on BLP articles, which is what this would amount to. The coverage of non-notable people has BLP implications even if they are public figures in that it raises their profile and could lead to unintentional invasions of privacy, etc. We should not prevent that via an IBAN. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  Two quick things 1) No one is stopping Rusf10 from making comments on BLPs at AFD discussions in general, or from nominating them. 2) No one is stopping other editors from doing this work either. It's just on the specific interaction between these two users. Have you looked just at the few times they've interacted in this thread alone? The nature of their interaction at Wikipedia is disruptive, not about their work outside that interaction. The proposal makes no mention of their doing any necessary work outside of avoiding each other. Please reconsider, since your objections don't actually seem to have any basis in the proposal itself; if the proposal had made those statements, I think your objection would be quite relevent, but you seem to bring up entirely unrelated things that this ban would not stop either user from doing, nor would it stop any other user at Wikipedia doing. Can you honestly find the interaction between these two users a net gain for Wikipedia? Please see just below and just above at how well they are working together. --Jayron32 20:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose w/ caveat The simple act of nominating non-notable articles is not harassment. It may be seen as such by the editor who is creating all of those non-notable articles but the problem lays in the creation of inappropriate content, not in its removal. I could support a TBAN on bundling the AfD's -I do not think bundling is appropriate for any but the most egregiously inappropriate groups of articles. If bundling is shown to be appropriate for articles created by Alansohn (If there has been mass creation of articles that clearly do not meet inclusion criteria) then I would support a TBAN preventing them from further article creation until their existing articles have been cleaned up. Jbh ^Talk 15:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

As often the case, the problem comes when an editor is targeting another editor. Even if many of these edits are legitimate, it's recognised that targeting another editor is often a problem. This doesn't mean it's never acceptable to target another editor, I'm sure many of us do it when we come across a vandal, troll, someone who posts copyvios or shows other behaviour of concern. But nor is it always acceptable especially when the editor targeted is in relatively good standing. Personally, if there was a very high success rate I would consider targeting in a case like this acceptable. But I mean very high, perhaps 85% of higher. I have no idea if this is being met here. And of course, even if the nominations are acceptable, it doesn't mean the commentary is. It's all very well to do good work by finding problem articles and nominating them for deletion. But if you can't resist insulting someone involved, perhaps the creator, in the process this is likely to be a problem. Even if the this person gives as good as they get, this doesn't make the nominators comments acceptable. If anything, it's evidence in support for the need for an iban. It would be unfortunate if the editors good work at nominating problem articles is restricted because of such a thing, but as with many things ultimately some people just aren't suited to work in certain areas because they help create too many problems. Note that I am not saying there is any targeting going on. I've seen it suggested above that it's simply a result of how many articles Alansohn edits in the area. I really have no idea. Partly why I've neither supported or opposed the proposal. I'm simply pointing out that it can be a problem is there is more to it than nominating non notable articles. I.E. You can just look at the situation and say well Rusf10 nominated a bunch of non-notable articles, so that means all they did was okay. From what I can tell, most people supporting the iban are suggesting one or more of these wider problems exist. Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion TBAN proposal for Rusf10

While there may be a "walled garden"-style set of articles about non-notable people from New Jersey, Rusf10's approach to the problem is tendentious and disruptive, and his comments show no sign that he appreciates that his actions are part of the problem. I propose an indef topic ban on deletion nominations on Rusf10 (AfD, PROD, and CSD), appealable after 6 months.

• Support as nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose- First of all, look at the extreme amount of wikilawyering involved with these AfDs. Whatever happened to editors just saying I think this should be deleted or I think this should be kept and here's why? The editors who want to keep these articles don't want to make valid arguments why the articles should be kept, rather they keep inventing new rules about why the nomination is procedurally wrong. Just look at the Clinton Cemetry nomination discussed above and you'll see what happens when I actually tried to address DJflem's concern, by doing what he asked. Did he drop the procedural objection after I renominated the article alone? No, he didn't, instead he began to argue that the article was kept (because I withdrew) and since it was kept it could not be renominated. These are bad faith objections. Rather then argueing why the article is notable, people would rather wikilawyer their way into gettign the article kept.
  Second, this proposal is a reward for Alansohn's unacceptable behavior. As I have outlined above, this is exactly what he wanted from day 1. Alansohn is generally opposed to deleting almost everything (with a few exceptions). If you're going to punish me and reward Alansohn, you might as well just crown him the king of Wikipedia (a position that he already thinks he has). I promise you he will do the exact same thing to the next person who wants to get some type of community input (because that's really what AfD is, I don't unilaterally delete the article) on New Jersey related topics. Believe it or not I actually had some articles that I created taken to AfD in the past, see [44]. Did I attack the person who nominated it? No. I just defended the article with reasons why I though it should be kept. I actually was annoyed with the person who nominated before the AfD because he was just trying to get rid of it without a discussion, but the AfD itself did not bother me and it really shouldn't bother anyone else if they really believe it is a good article. Because if I'm wrong and I had been wrong with some of my nomination, the community is supposed to come to the right decision.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Nope. But maybe the walled garden should be addressed by dealing with the behavior of the King of New Jersey instead of blocking someone standing in his way. --Calton | Talk 05:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support in addition to the above. Swarm ♠ 06:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose- The IBAN above is already too much. And since nobody has mentioned issues with Rusf10's behaviour outside of the New Jersey AfDs it's clear that banning him from all XfD processes is overreach, and purely punitive. Reyk _YO! 07:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose No evidence of problems outside of direct interactions with Alansohn. --Jayron32 14:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no consensus that the bundled nominations were improper by any but the most pedantic of standards. We do not require that editors have nuanced understanding of how American counties organize their elected officials. What I do find abusive is the attempt to use, by Wikipedia's notability standards, a meaningless distinction between titles of county level elected officials to sanction an editor one disagrees with. Jbh ^Talk 15:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Or maybe something less drastic such as the below. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Just an idea
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposal to indefinitely topic ban Rusf10 from bundling articles at AfD or nominating for deletion more than 10 articles per day by any method (CSD, AFD, PROD, etc). Additionally Rusf10 may not nominate for deletion any article created by Alansohn, but may comment on any AfD nominated by another. The ban may be appealed after six months. N.B this was really meant to be a possible softening of the proposal by power~enwiki rather than a new proposal all on it's own, please no-one vote on it, I am not an admin, this was just an idea. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Oppose I see no need for this. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Oppose ( Same as above but it bears repeating.) There is no consensus that the bundled nominations were improper by any but the most pedantic of standards. We do not require that editors have nuanced understanding of how American counties organize their elected officials. What I do find abusive is the attempt to use, by Wikipedia's notability standards, a meaningless distinction between titles of county level elected officials to sanction an editor one disagrees with. Jbh Talk 15:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Refusal by Alansohn to remove personal attack

In the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey discussion I removed a clear personal attack he made about me, leaving the portion of his comments that were actually relevant to the discussion [45]. And what does he do? He restores the comments saying that they were "improperly deleted in a previous edit", see [46]. Then he arrogantly acts as if he cleaned up the personal attack by changing the word "fucked" to "f-ed", like that really makes a difference. For the second time, he has restored the personal attack [47], commenting "restore comments; for someone who uses AfD as the preferred method of personal attack and harassment, should we just delete all of your AfDs and solve the problem? It's time to address these issues, not delete them". He is insistent that his personal attack is justified and both times he has removed unrelated comments made by myself and an other editor for no apparent reason. Since I don't want to engage in an edit war, can someone else please straighten this out.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:75.186.83.183

This user has continuously been changing headings in various articles from "Characters" to "Fighters", often needlessly. I have asked him several times to stop and he blatantly ignores me. His edits have been continually reverted and he won't stop. Please have words with him. 79.74.210.191 (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Injustice_2&diff=prev&oldid=828123811 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-Men_vs._Street_Fighter&diff=prev&oldid=823924118 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BlazBlue:_Cross_Tag_Battle&diff=prev&oldid=821273984

What difference does it make if these entities are called "characters" or "fighters" since they're both? How are these changes harmful? 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A video game has characters, since they're fictional. You They really need to read Wikipedia:Communication is required, since this question is the first time you've actually responded to any concerns. They have not responed at all. Kleuske (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kleuske: I'm not the user being reported. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies. Mistake corrected. Kleuske (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Senyung

This user has a bizarre editing pattern--immediately creates user/talk page with minimal text, then adds/removes spaces to arbitrary articles repeatedly to become autoconfirmed, and now his/her edits appear to be limited to favorable edits about a D-list actor. (Of note, he decreased the actor's age by 4 years back in 2010--this appears to have been his only substantive edit in the sea of space additions/removals--and has repeatedly restored this birth year. A mutual acquaintance who attended high school with Tochi says there is no way he is so young, which is what brought this article to my attention in the first place.) Could be a random tendentious editor, but strikes me as the editing pattern of a sock in a PR sock farm. Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the first time there's been a dispute about Tochi's age; see this LA Times article. It's not difficult to source an age for Tochi; it's too bad the LA Times reporters didn't have access to a modern search engine and 100 years of archived newspaper articles on the internet, eh? But, no, I don't recognize who this might be. The username could be a reference to Victor Sen Yung, a character actor. Could be someone with a COI, or might be a fan of Asian character actors. Regardless of whether there's a COI, I'd warn for adding unsourced content to a BLP. We can eventually block if it keeps up. I think it's sometimes better to go for the obvious issues than the more complex ones. Sock puppetry and COI editing are difficult to prove, but disruptive editing is obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate is correct, and the underlying story is hilarious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the sourced approximate age to the article, by the way. Odd to have gotten into this slow-motion edit war on something I care zero about. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

disruptive editing by 1256wiki

The user:1265wiki is engaged in disruptive editing for the past year on giraffe-related pages. The user has been notified on their talk page, but the activities continue. DerekELee (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

1256wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't see any bad faith editing there; there seems to be some dispute over the proper taxonomy of giraffe species (which seems, from my reading, to be something that is happening outside of Wikipedia), but I don't see anything beyond that. Can you elaborate on what the problem is? --Jayron32 12:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Evidence of canvassing at AfD/British Independence Day

I've found evidence of canvassing in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/British_Independence_Day where a Reddit user Wikipedia1234 has on four separate occasions tried to stuff the vote in favour of "Keep". The same Reddit user also canvassed for votes for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Debate_over_a_British_Independence_Day_observed_in_the_United_Kingdom_(2nd_nomination) 9 months ago. Only one "Keep" editor participated in both those debates, but of course that it not proof it is the same person. I also suspect some sockpuppetry in the latest AfD with some SPAs and editor accounts which are seldom active popping up. It's not just the AfD debate where I believe that abuse is going on, the creation of the British Independence Day article essentially recreated the older Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom under a different name, I believe to get around the AfD decision. Some eyeballs on this issue would be appreciated. Shritwod (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral admin needed

This is not exactly an incident but there is a talk about putting a possible quite-limited interaction ban at Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Promising_Drafts_of_Mathematical_Articles. It is a follow-up to the previous suggestion at [48]. I’m afraid that I formally making such a request on the ban can trigger a drama so it would be nice if someone (preferably admin) with less conflict of interest can coordinate the terms. —- Taku (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that in that discussion, you may have already violated your topic ban, although it's not the easiest topic ban to understand (imo).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I've recently been of the opinion that this topic ban gives an unfair advantage to TakuyaMurata's opponents, who it is not much of a stretch to say have been using MfD to harass him over his use of draft space. I think if an uninvolved editor has raised an issue regarding the draft namespace specifically regarding his drafts and has specifically asked for his input, he should be given a pass. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I am not talking about the draftspace, policies or usages, so I thought I was ok (it’s about the interaction that the topic ban doesn’t cover). I have mentioned the topic ban, mentioning the ban per se can’t be a violation of the ban, I believe. — Taku (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes that seems correct to me. Paul August ☎ 23:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the thread is evolving to an incident after all, which I don't want to be involved in. So it would be nice if someone with less conflict of interest is involved (I have too much COI). -- Taku (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There are no opponants of Taku, there are editors who don't like the drama he generates around draft space. Taku has created and abandoned a large number of math drafts ranging from three words to more extended content. He will not let anyone delete, redirect or even postpone them in the normal course (examples available from today and over the last year).Given the topics require extended math knowledge, the best solution for stale math drafts seems to be discussion at MfD where knowledgeable editors (some alerted by Taku) are deciding to delete, merge, redirect or improve and mainspace the old Drafts. There is no problem with this process unless someone wants to make it a problem. Taku also knows his drafts can stay G13 exempt and off the G13 eligible list if he just works on them occasionally. I'd rather not even discuss behaviour, just factually deal with what to do with the content. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Precisely "someone" (namely one user named Legacypac) wants to make it a problem. Without them, there is no problem: those draft pages are dealt just like any other. -- Taku (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC) (unnecessary comment)

• Wasn't there a very long and drawn out discussion on this topic over on WP:AN not too long ago that went on (seemingly) forever, primarily because TakuyaMurata kept extending it? Is that discussion not what resulted in the topic ban? Why are we here again? A painful discussion like that which results in a topic ban should mean that there is zero wiggle room for the banned editor, considering the pain he put the community through. My feeling is that the ban should be very strictly interpreted and enforced, and that the enforcement should be done before this thread turns into the Frankenstein's monster the last one was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  I don't believe I'm entirely to be blamed: if it is only of my fault, the discussion would have been much shorter. Anyway, can someone just close this thread. Apparently starting the thread itself was a bad idea. I wanted to ask someone to put out a fire and that request itself is fueling the fire. -- Taku (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I followed the entire discussion closely (even participated to a small extent) and, yes, indeed, you' are primarily to be blamed for the length of it by your constant WP:IDHT behavior which was, frankly, infuriating -- and I don't even have any real interest in the subject! I can't imagine how other editors put up with it. You need to look a bit more closely in the mirror. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Why don't we just move the stuff to subpages of Wikiproject Mathematics? Suggested in the thread and seems like would save a lot of trouble.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics members have not been interested in storing these notes and some are getting downright pointed in their comments [49] . Anything moved into the Wikiproject will never be looked at again until someone gets around to seeking deletion. Legacypac (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I repeat: I ask everyone here to stop talking and close the thread ASAP. I have made a mistake of starting this thread, which was not meant as reopening the old dispute (but mere request for an admin intervention). Appropriately or not, all the blames will fall on me and I don’t like that (and I’m not even allowed to claim the unfairness, see above.) —- Taku (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You've made the post, but you are not allowed to control the scope of the investigation. Your actions are on (if not over the border) of the topic ban. The investigation should continue. Hasteur (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral Non-Admin Comment I am not an administrator. I do consider myself neutral in this controversy, and have tried to research its history.

First, I think that the one-sided topic-ban on User:TakuyaMurata has proved to be unfair. In my opinion, it has created more drama, most recently on Valentine's Day, and has encouraged baiting, and doesn't really address either the issue of the math stubs or the question of whether the use of MFD on the stubs is prudent or efficient. I didn't come here to propose that the topic-ban be lifted, but will support a proposal to lift it.

Second, I think that the use of Miscellany for Deletion as a means of discussing the math stubs has been demonstrated to be sub-optimal. Do the stubs do anyone any harm? Just leave them alone.

Third, I agree that User:TakuyaMurata has generated more heat than light in this area, but so has User:Legacypac. If User:Legacypac is allergic to the dust from the mathematical cobwebs, stay out of the dustbin or take a pill.

Fourth, I don't really know what the problem is with the math stubs anyway, but maybe that is because I have forgotten more math than some of the editors here have learned. (I don't mean Taku, who I have confidence remembers the abstract math, and it is mostly analysis and advanced calculus that I have forgotten.)

Fifth, User:Legacypac really should stop nominating math stubs for deletion, even if they need deleting.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

First, your positing that Legacypac is specifically going after Taku or Mathematics as retribution is erroneous. It is sampling bias that Taku and Mathematics drafts show up frequently because Taku and Mathematics drafts constitute the majority of pages in Draft namespace that are over 6 months unedited that are not part of Articles for Creation. Taku wants to keep copious reams of content that is at best draft work for an eventual (2 years or more) mainspace article. At worst it's WP:NOTWEBHOST/WP:DICTDEF content that doesn't need to be hosted on Wikipedia. Multiple attempts have been made to try and get Taku to store the content in their Userspace (as they seem to be the only one interested in it) only to have it rejected. Multiple attemptes have been made to get WikiProject Mathematics to try and clean up the page, only to have the discussion nitpicked into a no-consnsus to do anything. Fundamentally, these pages either need to live in Taku's userspace, be submitted irrevocably to Articles for Creation (and put on a timeline for improvement), or dealt with using regular WP editing process (redirecting, merging, deletion). Hasteur (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Okay, maybe User:Legacypac isn't going after User:TakuyaMurata as retribution. It certainly looks that way, and it certainly looks like a case of two editors who do not like each other. On the one hand, I strongly support Legacypac's basic objective of cleaning up draft space, most of which is worthless at best, and is mostly cruddy spam. On the other hand, the math stuff is a special case, and Legacypac is wasting a lot of community energy on a fight that is not worth fighting. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

*Robert McClenon, I've changed your header to bold as it doesn't make much sense as a discussion header where multiple people will be commenting. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Dealing with these specific stale drafts via MfD is the only option that has worked to get them deleted/mainspaced/redirected or whatever. I've tried G13, submitting to AfC, postponing them with a note, redirecting them etc and have been met with drama at every turn. MfD is a process that gives a week of review and can't be reverted out of like all the other paths. Facts are MfD has proven an excellent way to bring closure for abandoned math drafts. Now, to Taku's credit he created Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages after I told him to make a list and track his pages. Several users are working through the list now to get things out of Draft space. Focussing efforts on the list and ensuring pages don't go unedited 6 months will solve the problems and prevent pages from making the G13 or MfD lists. I sincerely hope that the new list resolves the drama. Legacypac (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to lift User:Legacypac's topic ban

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

---

Legacypac is effectively the only user who goes through stale drafts. His work there should be commended: he works through what is often promo spam, copyright violations, and linkspam. To be blunt, draftspace is a mess, and Legacy is one of the few users (if not the only user) who is trying to clean it up. All of this mess with Taku I think can be traced to the topic ban: Legacy is often portrayed as a deletionist, but many times I've been at MfD, he has suggested promoting articles I have suggested be deleted for draft concerns to mainspace pointing out that AfC reviewers had been too hard on them, and I've rethought it, and agreed with him. This relates to the current proposal in this way: Legacy now has to send something that is stale to MfD to get it promoted. This causes Taku stress, but there is no other real way for him to do it because his hands are tied. Taku does not own his drafts, and he is currently all but ignoring policy by storing his personal math notes in draft space and forever arguing over their deletion. He does not own these, and he should not be left to keep them there and survive G13 and MfD until the cows come home. I propose rescinding Legacypac's topic ban on page moves from draft space and AfC, I haven't seen any BLP concerns from him of late, and I think he understands the concerns the community had at the time. I think this will vastly cut down on the Taku-draft workload at MfD and also be beneficial to the project.

The ANI for Legacy's topic ban can be seen here. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Legacypac has, as noted above, been doing yeoman service clearing out the detritus that collects in Draft space. Being prevented from moving articles to Main space seems to be a counter-productive restriction at this time. Jbh ^Talk 00:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Philosophical Oppose as much as I completely agree with Tony on the merits of the case, I think that the request needs to come from Legacy; they often expressed great concern over the block but seemingly have no interest in getting it lifted. While I would much rather have Legacy contributing in a fuller/unchained capacity at AFC, their apparent need to hold a grudge is greatly concerning and I think the only way to resolve it is to have them make the argument for why they the tban should be lifted. Primefac (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
  • Primefac, I get that (and I normally oppose other people requesting restrictions be lifted), but it's becoming abundantly apparent that this topic ban is a net-negative for the encyclopedia. I'm fine with ignoring all rules or letting Legacy have a point of pride or whatever this is to help cleanup draftspace, bring good content into mainspace, free up space at MfD, and cut down on needless ANI threads, and don't think we should keep a sanction that is no longer useful just because we want to be asked. That creates needless work for everyone, and I'm quite frankly sick of dealing with the fallout of a topic ban that honestly was probably overkill, which is what most of this Taku stuff is. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    • This Taku stuff is an entirely different matter, and is a case of two editors refusing to go one step further than they absolutely have to (it's also irrelevant to this particular proposal). I honestly haven't looked at Legacy's TBAN (or at the least, not well enough to remember) so I don't know what evidence was presented, and I would appreciate AFC not being clogged with good things they find in the rubbish pile, so I've amended my !vote to be one of a philosophical disagreement; a user shouldn't be able to bitch about their prohibition until someone else asks to lift it for them. Primefac (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I disagree, re: the Taku mess. I think a lot of it could be solved (or, at least make it clearer who is actually at fault), if Legacypac was able to move the stale drafts that should be in mainspace instead of having to send them to MfD. That's why I proposed it. I'm sure Taku will try to move them back to draft (ironically, that was my first interaction with this whole issue), but I think that community is running low for patience on that, and given that he is open to mainspacing more of his drafts, it might actually work. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I want it lifted. I've said that before. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support I have examined the dispute over math drafts and Legacypac is doing excellent work in that area and in other cruft cleanup. The idea that anything in draft space should be regarded as precious and in need of preservation fails to accommodate reality: sticking stuff in the bottom drawer works for a while, but eventually it means that worthwhile items cannot be found as they are drowned in gunk. Cleaning up is very valuable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support We bend over backwards for people who are at least attempting to service Wikipedia's ideals. While I wish the request would have come directly from LP, I am still willing to the amicus request. Hasteur (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - While I closed the discussion that instituted the topic ban, closing isn't a statement of my opinion, but of the community's at that time, and I stand by my close, even while admitting I had misgivings about it at the time. Since then, I've been around Legacypac enough that I think he understands what he contributed to the initial problem and will be more careful. His work IS appreciated. People that work in the trenches often have to be forceful to get things done, but seeing him deal with other issues since then has given me faith that he will take a more cautious approach, and communicate better. This won't prevent him from crossing paths with Taku if Taku really has that many drafts open that haven't been edited in 6 months, but really, that is Taku's fault. Perhaps they should start fewer and finish more, so they don't have so many drafts that come up for examination. If I sound like I'm not very sympathetic, it is because I'm not. If your work (or lack of it) is clogging up the queue because the only time you work on something is when it is at risk, I have little sympathy for you. As far as whether MFD, G13 or whatever is best, I think Legacypac will be willing to listen to any better idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support lifting the topic-ban if it will permit User:Legacypac to move some of the math stubs into mainspace. For the stuff that is attested to by another mathematician such as User:D.Lazard, or even by Taku, as having value, moving it into mainspace makes far more sense than tagging it for MFD because it is promising. Tagging anything for MFD because it is promising is stupid. Support if that is the effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per above. No good reason to continue preventing Legacypac from vetting drafts. -FASTILY 04:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Thanks Tony for proposing this, and Legacypac, thank you again for your work in draftspace. I hope this thread helps show you how much your work is appreciated, because it really is. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - didn't read very far through the very long ANI discussion that TonyBallioni linked, but seems like a bizarre restriction to place on an editor who does so much work in drafts. I'm pretty sure I've asked Legacypac directly why he doesn't just move some drafts that end up at MfD into mainspace instead, not having been aware of this ban. If this proves to be problematic I'm sure it won't take long for us to revisit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per TonyB's convincing argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support -- The contributions have been positive so far, and further work in draftspace would improve it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support I recall thinking when it was imposed that this TBAN was not particularly timely. I do not think maintaining it would be a net positive to WP. VQuakr (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support' per TonyB--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support For goodness sake, yes. !dave 08:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support if it prevents the completely Kafkaesque situation of having to send usable stuff to Mfd just to get it mainspaced... ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 08:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Clearly a net-positive for the 'pedia. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support the topic ban looked a little hasty from what I saw in the ANI, would help with his useful work Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Not only would this reduce potential bad interactions, but to have to send something to MfD to get it to mainspace really is just stupid. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support- no reason not to. Reyk _YO! 13:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Indefinite community ban for TakuyaMurata

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

---

Observing that TakuMurata has caused disruption (see the parent thread), that TakuMurata has in Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Promising_Drafts_of_Mathematical_Articles conduct of potential violation of their topic ban, has disruptively asked for a permission that would enable continued disruption in namespace, has recently started reverting redirects that have stood for many months as less destructive soluitons (besides deletion) to the copious notes in Draft namespace, and for which TakuMurata is attempting to replay a previous disruption (move the pages to WikiProject Mathematics, then back to draft space) for which the topic ban was enacted, and for disruptively making a "If I'm sanctioned, I want others sanctioned too" argument:

TakuyaMurata is indefinitely community banned from English Wikipedia. Appeals of this ban shall be through the normal channels ({{unblock}},WP:UTRS, or WP:BASC) 6 months after enactment of this ban. Ban appeals should be brought to the Administrator's Noticeboard for community discussion and include a plan for how TakuyaMurata will resolve any remaining draft space creations of theirs (including a timeline for resolution) and how they will conduct themselves going forward from a successful appeal. Unsuccessful appeals shall reset the 6 month timer for appeals. Sockpuppetry shall reset the appeal timer 6 months from the time the most recent sockpuppet was detected.

I'm tired of this, Legacypac is tired of this, Administrator's Noticeboard is tierd of this, and the community at large (I suspect) is tired of this. Taku has been somewhat well behaved, but their actions in the past few weeks show a return to their previous modus operandi.

• Support as proposer. I really wish it hadn't come to this, but Taku has been testing the limits of the Topic ban repeatedly in multiple locations. Hasteur (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  Presented as further evidence: [50] Seeking administrator intercession to try and overturn the reversion of a redirect that has stood in place for ~6 months because "the redirect is wrong". All Taku has to do is redirect it to an appropriate target. Redirects are far less stressful/destructive than a deletion. Something I would have thought Taku would have appreciated. Hasteur (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Seems like there have been a lot of CBANs being thrown about lately. Are there really no better options than to ban an editor who has made and continues to make good contributions in an area where few others can? Jbh ^Talk 01:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Jbhunley: When a user is topic banned from certain parts of Wikipeida for disruption and they start disrupting in broadly construed areas, what sanction would you have the community apply when their recent contributions in mainspace consist almost entirely of gnoming activities that any editor can do and do not "need" TakuyaMurata's help with? Hasteur (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  Well I would start with Group-scheme action and maybe this and this. Maybe those are insignificant contributions to math editors but I bet not. Jbh ^Talk 01:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  So a page (Group-scheme action) that was created in mainspace and has one paper as the reference with no claims of notability, adding a definition from a graduate level mathematics text book, and broad copying in HTML commented out text that appears to have been lost in the next revision (can't make heads or tails of where the bytes from that Rev went). Definitely significant contributions. /sarcasam Hasteur (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  Well, speaking as an oh so lowly gnome myself, I say it is still a contribution. I get that you have an obvious grudge here but, really, denigrating and dismissing good faith contributions does absolutely nothing to advance your case and tends to make me think that you are likely a significant part of the problem. Possibly I am wrong but your attitude here does nothing to convince me I am. Jbh ^Talk 02:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Opposse Taku is a knowledgable mathmatics editor, who makes valuable contributions. Paul August ☎ 01:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Paul August: Please point at which contribution in their recent history is a "valuable contribution". Hasteur (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Are we looking at the same list? Most of these edits seem valuable to me. Certainly too many to list. Paul August ☎ 01:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so vague hand wave at the useless gnoming edits. Got it. Hasteur (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

In that list of edits you linked to I find he created Group-scheme action, Universal homeomorphism and Sheaf of algebras. He made major editions to GIT quotient. How many do you want me to point out? These are major contributions. There are many many more valuble contribution in that list. Paul August ☎ 02:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: "I'm tired of this, Legacypac is tired of this, Administrator's Noticeboard is tierd of this," I'm tired too. And it does feel that is the strategy: people lose patient and just ban the editor instead of working out the complicated arrangements. Maybe it's not enough but I promise to address old drafts once and all. It's not worth indef-ban. -- Taku (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  WHEN Where is the concrete roadmap with measurable objectives and milestones? We've been trying to work with you for over 2 years now only to have you delay and drag your feet on fixing the problem. You've played the "stall for time, until people are focused elsewhere" gambit far too many times for me to take this as anything but a wolf cry. Make the commitment and I'll be willing to reconsider. Hasteur (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  This time is different. I'm scared and I will change my behavior accordingly (e.g., I will finish up Draft:Level structure today or tomorrow.) -- Taku (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  I have just rushed to finish Draft:Level structure. Everyone happy now? -- Taku (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Honestly, I'm wondering if simply limiting Taku to a maximum of 12 drafts is the solution. 12 is more than enough to work on at one time, and they can't start another until they do SOMETHING with one of the 12 existing. This would mean they can not start any new draft until their current count is reduced to 11. This isn't a total solution, but it is a start. It would be a last ditch effort to prevent an indef block, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  Observing that Taku will loose a great many drafts if this were to take effect because I would expect they have over 1000 pages in Draft space currently. I do like the idea, but suspect we'll be back in a few seasons trying to compel Taku to clean up those. Hasteur (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Taku identified all his Draft creations and a bunch of others at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages I count 58 Drafts by all editors including Taku (but excluding the bios and misc at the bottom). A bunch of these 58 are at MfD already (they were 6 months stale) and will shortly be actioned. I also see notes being made and effort put in on the 58 now which is excellent. Legacypac (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know what to do. On the one hand, Taku's handling of the inordinately large number of MFDs of their drafts recently has been reasonable (they've stuck with the "vote only" clause of their TBAN) but on the other hand they just keep rising to the bait set out by Legacy and Hasteur and (whether by design or through stubbornness) keep drifting in and around the areas where their TBAN specifically told them not to go. I've offered countless amounts of advice, the main one being "walk away" but for whatever reason(s) it doesn't stick. Do I think Taku should be community banned? No. Do I think Dennis Brown's idea above is a good one? Yes. Do I think it will solve the issue? Maybe? Something needs to be done, as it's clear that this Legacy/Taku/Hasteur sandwich of unhappiness is not going away without it. As a minor note, there is nothing wrong with being a gnome, which if I'm reading Hasteur's comments above is what is implied. Primefac (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep quotient: Amount of beneficial work a user does divided by the sum of the amount of disruption the user causes and the amount of cleanup work other editors have to do to clean up. Taku is so far below a reasonable level that their "gnoming" edits could easily be done by annother editor, so there is no real reason to tollerate the disruption and janitorial effort that is being invested in him. Hasteur (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment the creation of the list of Drafts in Project Math is a big step in the right direction and is pretty much what I told him to do on my talk page. [51] so that should not be a strike against Taku. I noticed the reversal of a couple redirects but that seems related to cataloguing them for discussion/working on on his new list rather than to be disruptive. The request for get AFCH access troubled me but I'm retinking that. None of his own creations are in AfC (he's fought that hard) but while building the new list he did uncover some pages that should be promoted. I'm unaware of any history of inappropriate creation in or promotion to mainspace, so allowing him to use the AFCH tool on other people's drafts might be ok. It is also a good way to note up Draft pages with comments that can be stripped easily on promotion. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good editor, but needless drama about the drafts. I think all of this drama could easily be avoided too. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a ban of Taku. That is the wrong answer. This seems to be a case of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object, where Legacypac seeks to be the irresistible force clearing out draft space, and the math stuff is the immovable object, and we need some common sense compromise. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I would support lifting the topic-ban on Taku. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - At this point, this is getting to be such a mess that it really needs to be sent to the ArbCom. We have good-faith editors who have trying too many Gordian knots, and we need Alexander the Great with a sword, and maybe the ArbCom with the 'At wits end' principle to impose some draconian remedy. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly, and endorse passing to Arbcom. Taku is a subject matter expert, has created a mass of content on a niche topic in good faith, and has been harassed over some of that work being incomplete for more than a year now, probably much longer. That one of his serial harassers has the arrogance to propose this sort of nuclear solution is bullshit, to be blunt. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  Try 2.5 years ago when I first raised the issue with WP Mathematics to see if they could do something about the collection only to have Takuya nitpick it into no action. Hasteur (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose and I’d oppose sending to arbcom at least two arbs, possibly three, would likely need to recuse on this. We are finally getting progress here, and the possible removal of Legacypac’s TBAN combined with Taku’s actually being fine with mainspacing some of this stuff means that there are viable community options short of both a CBAN and ArbCom. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  It is a falsehood that I was not ok with mainspacing some drafts started by me. This time I have corrected the redirect to the wrong target: I have never insisted the so-called notes (and they are not even my notes) to be kept in the draftspace forever. That's a lie! -- Taku (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose community ban or arbcom. I very much agree with User:Paul August. I am very familiar with the topic area and many of the mathematical editors (e.g. [[User:R.e.b.]]). Although Taku's modus operandi is probably sub-optimal—to paraphrase User:Sławomir Biały—I do not agree with either the topic ban or the community ban. Mathsci (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Interaction ban with User:Hasteur

I had enough!! I think Legacypac and I can be able to work together on the drafts started by me. Hasteur'a confrontational approach has proved to be too unproductive, however. The above ban proposal itself is the lasted example and many other uncalled-upon unnecessary comments in this thread. See Level structure (algebraic geometry) for another example. See also [52]. [53] also appears more to be more personal than interest in content development. It's hard for me to believe this is not personal grudge.

• Support as a proposer. -- Taku (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Both of them are trying to cleanup draftspace. Taku, I’m very glad that you and Legacypac can work together now, but I think sanctions against anyone here will only make the problem worse. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose You don't get to ask for IBANs for people calling out your failures and your lack of cleaning them up. Hasteur (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - whatever your opinions are on the use of draft space or the usefulness of a stub draft that never sees editing or the use of any area of the encyclopedia to store content notes on a complex topic, you have to be able to see from discussions like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bivariant theory that TakuyaMurata has been willing to work with editors to pursue a proper disposition of their content to work it into the encyclopedia, but they have been doing so under a continuous barrage of aggression from Hasteur (e.g. [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]) and to a much lesser extent from Legacypac, both of whom absolutely do good and needed work in the draft space but that work does not justify this level of aggression. They have made Wikipedia toxic for an expert editor in a niche topic whose only obvious fault is perhaps poor organization. I picked Bivariant theory as an example because that discussion looked like this after I hatted Hasteur's abusive personal attack-laden tirades, which Hasteur insisted on restoring because apparently they feel the need to prove some kind of point about TakuyaMurata's character. It is very clear that this has become personal for Hasteur, and so I fully endorse the proposal for an interaction ban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Simply from his attitude and behavior (see the denigration and dismissal of TakuyaMurata's work and contributions in the section above) in this thread it is plain that he has completely lost perspective re TakuyaMurata and his work. There is absolutely no way Hasteur should be allowed to continue his grudge. Whatever legitimacy their goals had - and I do not doubt that he started out with the best of intentions - he has quite obviously lost his way. Jbh ^Talk 05:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as unwarranted and vindictive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Hasteur when Legacypac and Taku were blocked recently I suggested as an alternative to an IBAN (which would have been a disaster then just as I think this one will be if it passes) that he limit himself to one reply to Taku in a given conversation. He agreed to the idea generally and seems to have followed it and it seems to have been helpful. Might this be a good rule of thumb for you to follow as well? I’m aware of how complex this situation is, and don’t reallt like the idea of one party getting an IBAN from the other when they are the ones who would benefit in practice the most. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

With respect, but If I tell Taku "You need to fix XYZZY" and they say "No", am I just supposed to leave it? Am I supposed to walk away after I apply maintenance tags only to have them "resolved" before I get to post my explanation for why they need to be there on the talk page? Am I supposed to walk away when this editor thinks providing a single point of reference to a singular book (for which it is a very close paraphrasing of the book's text) counts as being "Reference Improved"? I would rather they get the lessons I'm trying to impart to them than the very unrelenting bat of zealous New Page Patrollers who would bust the page back to Draftspace or nominate for CSD or just go straight for AFD. Hasteur (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I’m opposing this IBAN for those (and several other) reasons. I think like the TBAN above and the previously mused on IBAN with Legacypac it would be a sanction that would be a net-negative, and one where one party clearly comes out on top (Taku wouldn’t have to worry about your valid critiques re: his drafts.) I think on talk pages of drafts and the like the back and forth may be helpful, but at noticeboards or Wikipedia talks they rarely are. In terms of the helping him learn bit, sometimes experience is the best teacher there. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• oppose net negative.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Definitely not. Also sensing an incoming WP:BOOMERANG -FASTILY 06:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, partly procedural as the proposal doesn't demonstrate the need, is not backed up with diffs, and appears to be a knee jerk reaction to the discussion above. While Ivanvector does provide some interesting diffs, given the full context of the discussions, at least the few I sampled, I would say Hasteur's frustration was well founded and his complains focused on Taku's lack of action rather than being purely personal. It might not be optimal, but one can hardly blame him. One example given [63] in fact show why an iban is a bad idea, as Hasteur is obviously trying to bend over backwards to accommodate Taku with a compromise. Another diff, [64], shows Hasteur making a reasonable argument but choosing not to !vote due to concerns expressed by others that he might have a bias. These are not the reasons you give two editors interaction bans. Some editors just rub each other the wrong way, but I can at least see Hasteur making real efforts to keep the discussion on the merits. Because of this, I would oppose any interaction ban, even a watered down one, as the evidence simply doesn't support that drastic of an action, nor does the iban solve the real problem here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Drafty area

Do any of you folks deeply involved with this Draft stuff, get along? If not, then Arbcom is right around the corner. It's not a place you want to end up. GoodDay (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Out of the 200+ AFC reviewers, having 1-2% of them bickering is probably expected. Primefac (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

SPA user Beluuga

• Beluuga (talk · contribs · count) Reverted by User:Ealdgyth, User:Sjö, User:Freshacconci, and myself. Likely a Holocaust denier. Removes all warnings and advice from his talk page (Freshacconci, myself, etc).[65] [66] Grossly offensive edit summaries. Bad faith editing in progress. See Treblinka extermination camp: Revision history for more of his recent edits, which are less than one minute apart. Poeticbent talk 20:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treblinka_extermination_camp&diff=prev&oldid=828307531
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treblinka_extermination_camp&diff=prev&oldid=828306119
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treblinka_extermination_camp&diff=prev&oldid=828249214
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treblinka_extermination_camp&diff=prev&oldid=828248402
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treblinka_extermination_camp&diff=prev&oldid=828248241

I actually blocked them for violating WP:3RR before I saw this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

And I reverted their last edits to the article before being blocked, then saw the block when I went to post a comment on their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk)

The user doesn't look like he has a future on Wikipedia. However, the OP needs to be aware that there is no rule against deleting stuff from one's own talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Poeticbent, which edits made you think of Holocaust denial? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Treblinka (as we all know it) was a pure extermination camp (not a labour camp, and not a transit camp). I might have overreacted about the denial, sorry, but his edit warring with everyone else about "a forced labour and extermination camp" which sounds like the forced labour at an extermination camp when you put these two side by side, or his changing "prisoners" to "passengers" out of the blue sounds really bad. Poeticbent talk 01:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There were two camps at Treblinka: a forced labour camp and an extermination camp, and the article is about both, so I agreed with his edits there. Our current first sentence is inaccurate. I didn't see anything that suggested Holocaust denial. I see he has been banned as a sock, so apologizing might feel like a pointless thing to do now, but I hope you'll consider it anyway. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Being familiar with this sock, further responses will probably only result in more profanity-laden abuse. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

SarahSV, please continue our discussion at the Treblinka extermination camp article. There was only one (!) extermination camp. The labour camp was 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) away. Poeticbent talk 01:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: thanks, I'm not familiar with him. My only point is that there was no sign of Holocaust denial or (that I noticed) bad-faith edits. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Unattributed reuse of Wikipedia text?

(Posting this here because I recall a similar thread some years back.)

Details here.

I'm pretty sure GoodReads has been discussed on RSN before, with consensus generally being that they shouldn't be used as a reliable source, but I don't think copying text from Wikipedia without attribution came up. I'm not really bothered by not being credited for my work, but the problem with no attribution is that in the particular context of GoodReads.com it looks like the content comes from whatever book is being discussed. It also leads to the conclusion that Wikipedia is plagiarizing text from elsewhere, rather than the other way round: theoretically, if I had been too distracted to respond on that GA review, the article would have failed based on a misunderstanding that wouldn't have happened if GoodReads attributed text appropriately.

What's the normal operating procedure here?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks - section "non-compliance" 87.115.246.245 (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've seen my photography on the cover of the phone book here and in other places, with no attribution. One image that I put in PD gets used a lot, but that is fine. I don't sweat it so much. I expect those that can't create will steal, so the bar is pretty low as far as expectations are concerned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Blanking of article section Dana Loesch#Personal life

Ping to user's talkpage here Talk page discussion here

User believes material in section deleted is in article elsewhere. But, this claim fails substantiation.

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff .--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin with this editor. From the repeated BLP vios to the constant low-level edit warring to the assumptions of bad faith, there's a CIR problem here. They couldn't even get the ANI notice right. There are also some seriously suspiciously timed talk page comments that raise socking concerns. I'd ask for a boomerang and provide links, but ugh, I have better things to do with my time, including productive editing. Maybe some temporary arbitration restrictions would be helpful, I don't know. FWIW they have already received the appropriate DS warnings. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Where's the beef? ... In my complaint about a fellow editor in good faith to the community, I do what's considered normal hereabouts and provide diffs!!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hodgdon's secret garden, why are you duplicating material already present in "Early life"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Take time to check things out at Dana Loesch#Personal life before you chime in, please. I.e., the current version is the one I restored. There is absolutely zero repeat zero duplication in the article.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Text in "Early Life": "She grew up as a Democrat, a point of contention early in her marriage to Chris, a Republican. However, she began drifting rightward after Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. After the September 11 attacks, she fully embraced conservatism."
• Text you added in "Personal Life": "Loesch grew up as a Democrat, a point of contention early in her marriage to her husband, a registered Republican. However, she began drifting rightward after Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. After the September 11 attacks, she fully embraced conservatism.[3]"

That's "absolutely zero repeat zero duplication" to you? nwatra (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

OK. Contributor of the section is User:AmorPatiturMoras, btw. In any case, editing protocol isn't to blank the entire section, including all its sourcing. Pretty heavy handed. no?

Thanks, I'll address that issue.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think I can safely say that the latest dispute has been resolved. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Unnecesary attacks and rude language

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

---

User Wilford Nusser has some incredibly hostile and agressive attacks against me on my talk page and in the talk page of Costa Rican general election, 2018, among others:

• Go ahead and request a sockpuppet investigation. I dare you. That ISP is in Panama; I am in Washington DC. So if you want to embarrass yourself, feel free.
• This looks more like political support than any attempt at reasoning on your part.
• NEVER. Do you know what that word means?

When I ask politely that please refrain from attacks or I will report him, but I won't if he apologizes he says Go ahead and file your report, because no apology is forthcoming. and then gloats about revenge filing; :I filed one in response. We can both play this game, but you are clearly the one in the wrong here, on all accounts.

He then proceeds to make the revert again without consensus. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

In my defense: I have been an editor here for more than 10 years, with zero history of these kinds of disputes and zero warnings for my conduct here. The edit in question was made following the policy of being bold, and there is an accompanying discussion on the article's talk page, along with links to sources that confirmed my position.

Dereck Camacho escalated this by reverting the edit with an accusation of vandalism, despite the clear explanation on the article talk page. When another user reverted his reversion, he immediately reverted again with an accusation of sockpuppetry. I suspect that the only reason that it hasn't been reverted yet again is to avoid violation of the three-revert rule, as I see in his history that he has been disciplined for edit warring in the past.

I refrained from reporting him in response, although an investigation will clearly reveal that I had strong grounds to do so. I look forward to input from outside of this dispute. --Wilford Nusser (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Some tempers flaring but I don't see anything that needs admin intervention. Add: Dereck Camacho, don't call good-faith edits vandalism. That will attract admin attention. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

An observation: Wilford Nusser made the reverts long before a consensus was reached or even other users were heard. Users with much longer time participating in the edit of the artilce. His accusation that I didn't do it for fear or the 3 revert rule is part of the same tendency he has to violated good faith policy. And about my previous sanction, worth noticing that the other user was proven to be a vandal with many sockpuppets that were all expell from WP. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Your reply seems to suggest you have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:AGF and WP:Consensus. Wilford is operating under WP:BEBOLD--v/r - TP 02:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with NeilN. Calling good faith edits vandalism will earn a response. Wilford's response seems adequate and appropriate. I don't see any wrong-doing on Wilford's part except for a bit of snark and heat. Dereck's only mistake is calling good faith edits vandalism and I think this thread will serve the need, there. Wilford doesn't need to wait for consensus, the policy is WP:BEBOLD but don't get into an edit war.--v/r - TP 02:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's OK, I accept Wilford Nusser's effort to ammend stuffs in my talk page, I'll take that as an apology. Thank you for the mediation in any case. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Issue of WP:OWN and WP:IDHT

Rhatsa26X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rhatsa26X seems to think that school articles in Southern Indiana are his alone to edit and has just told me quite directly to stop editing them here.

This stems from this diff. The dispute is the school colors and his assertion is that his personal observations trump the definitive secondary source, the Indiana High School Athletic Association's yearbook. This isn't just a simple content dispute and after this from a couple months ago, I don't see how dialogue will be fruitful.

Rhatsa26X has a long history of adding poorly (usually non) sourced material on high school sports in Indiana and indeed brags of creating most of the article's in Category:Indiana high school athletic conferences. A quick perusal of that catagory will indicate the depth of the problem.

I'm here to ask the community to clearly show Rhatsa26X that he cannot order an editor off an article and that WP:V is really a thing. John from Idegon (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking the community to ask John from Idegon to stop reverting the page. He's being rather rude about it too. Rhatsa26X (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There are wikipedians in the area that have had their edits removed by this John from Idegon too. He seems to think he knows EVERYTHING about all the schools in the area, even those he's most likely never seen. He seems to think that any school article is HIS personal fiefdom.

From his talk page, I KNOW he's been rude with other editors in other parts of the country too, even coming across to them like they are not worthy.

Bottom line; just because you're with wikiproject schools, you are not an all knowing god.

There ARE those who know more than you do. And if you want to simply allow content about rural schools that is WP:V, you won't have any page at all. Do you honestly think I haven't tried? Rhatsa26X (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rhatsa26X: WP:V is policy and it doesn't say, "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors (unless there is no previously published information in which case adding personal knowledge is okay)." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Personal Beliefs seem to be at the heart of the issue here. He has already stated the I "have a long history of adding poorly (usually non) sourced material on high school sports in Indiana". If this is truly the case, why then did WikiProject Illinois adopt the same format on their sports as well a couple of years later and others in WikiProject Indiana have long since took the mantle of keeping the project up to date since I finished it in 2010. That's right. I have made very few edits to those pages in almost 8 years, others have. Unfortunately as I just said, most information about rural schools in Indiana, or any other state for that matter is usually not compliant with WP:V but that does nor mean it's not true either. That's where outside of general information, it should be left to locals to fill in the blanks.

That being said, I DO NOT mean creating trivia or anything like that, but every single school, be they Elementary, Middle, or High School has something about it that only a local or an alumnus might know. and to remove that content, even, and especially in this case, if there is a legitimate picture to prove it, is not acceptable. There is a saying; A picture is worth a thousand facts and I took that picture of Gibson Southern's softball team myself. Rhatsa26X (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think "A picture is worth a thousand words" is the more common version, but maybe "a thousand facts" is a variation. I think there are WP:V and WP:OR issue with pictures, and any picture taken by you would technically be user-generated or self-published: things which are not typically considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. It would be better to find another source which discusses the school's colors. My high shcool had a handbook which explained things like school colors, mascots, logos ,etc., but that was way before the Internet age. I'd imagine most schools have official websites now, which perhaps contains such information, not only for current students and their parents, but also for future students and their parents. Or, maybe there's a local newspaper or something which can be used; even a school newpspaper might be OK. These are things which you can and should hash out through discusison on the article's talk page. Now, if you really believe your picture is a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, you should post at WP:RSN and see if you can establish a consensus that it is. What you shouldn't really be doing is just expecting others to accept it as reliable because you took the picture and you are an alumnus of the school. Two people can look at the same painting and interpret it differently and both interpretations may be correct in some way. Is it possible that you're mistaking someone questioning the reliablitly of a source for Wikipedia's purposes as them questioning you're reliability as a person. When someone says that a source is not reliable, they are not necessarily saying that the article content is not true; they are just saying a better source is needeed. My high school has an article written about it on Wikipedia. I know lots of true things about my high school, but I don't add them to the article because of WP:VNT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• While this discussion takes place, Rhatsa26X has continued to edit war in order to restore unsourced content and non notable persons. I've reverted and issued a level four warning. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• You guys are totally impossible! You guys are warring against me! I am the one who is BEING BULLIED and Harassed over content. I am about tempted to ask for a complete deletion and start over from scratch AGAIN! Rhatsa26X (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Rhatsa26X: Stop reverting back in unsourced content, especially about living people. Full stop. Do so again and you're looking at a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• @Rhatsa26X: I've also removed some material from your user page per WP:BLP. I'll leave it to other editors to decide if the "My View on Issues" section violates WP:POLEMIC or WP:UP#GOALS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• The problem isn't limited to Gibson Southern; Pocket Athletic Conference is an example of an article that's been weighted with an accretion of unsourced content over a period of years. There may be more such articles. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've had it with all this. This situation has become as dumb as national politics. John from Indegon has been bullying me and others for a while now and needs to be stopped and yet you guys seem to be willing to bully and even blacklist ME instead over this rather pointless issue. His behavior is one of the most trollish I've seen in a decade. He doesn't listen. He doesn't collaborate. He only mindlessly reverts, then when someone tells him to stop, he becomes extremely defensive and Administration has to get involved. So rather than continue with this never-ending stupidity, I have added the page to WikiProject Indiana's list of articles needing attention. Maybe someone else in Indiana will have better success in creating a page that meets the critiques of John from Indegon and those who seem to still think there's a website for everything. I have seen THOUSANDS of articles with such issues and have tried to clean them up.

I am taking a sabbatical from the cesspool of stupidity Wikipedia has become. I USED to actually be proud to be myself a Wikipedian but trolls like John that have clearly taken to acting hatefully towards me have stolen that pride from me. Rhatsa26X (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Nobody owns an article per WP:OWN, which means nobody can decide who should or shouldn't edit an article. Moreover, editors come from all over the world so there's no geographical restrictions placed on who may edit an article. Someone living in Europe can edit an article about an American high school just like someone living in Asia can edit an article about a European high school. All that matters is whether the edits are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. If they are, there shouldn't be any major issues; if they are not, they there are likely going to create problems. Being an alumnus of a particular school does not mean an final say or ultimate editorial control over article content. What to leave in and what to take out is still determined by consensus and when there are disagreements it WP:DR, not WP:EW, which should be followed. Everything I just posted are things that the Wikipedia Community might expect a new inexperienced editor to not really understand, but more is certainly to be expected from someone who has been (regularly) editing since 2007.

My suggestion to you (=Rhatsa26X) would be to take a step back and let things cool down for a bit because if you continue to post things and cast aspersions like you're doing above , then you're likely going to find your account blocked for quite a long time. It's pretty much never a good idea to post when you're angry because there's a tendency to lash out, which only makes things worse. If you're involved in a content dispute, find the reliable sources you need, get your arguments ready, and post them on the article's talk page when things have setteled down. Telling someone to come see things with their own eyes is not going to help because even if I went to school in question and saw things with my own eyes, it would still be WP:OR. If you're truly interested in being WP:HERE you will figure out a civil way to resolve things and find common ground where all sides can agree. If you insist on being WP:NOTHERE, well you probably won't be "not here" for much longer. If you want total control over articles about Indiana high schools where you can post all of your personal knowledge, and decide who can or cannot post, then you should create your own website or try something like Wikia. If you want to edit on Wikipedia, you're going to need to play by Wikipedia's rules, which includes WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think that (a sabbatical) is a good idea--there's a willful and long term disregard for a basic premise of constructive editing here--supporting all content with reliable sources. I'm sorry that trying to put the brakes on this--after apparently a decade--is perceived as trolling. To insist that unsourced trivia belongs here, over a rapidly formed consensus, and call other editors bullies and trolls partaking of stupidity is nearly a WP:COMPETENCE issue. And WP:BOOMERANG. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I have rarely seen such a flagrant and overt rejection of our core content policy verifiability as Rhatsa26X displayed above. This person cannot be allowed to edit unless they recommit to our core content policies. Please do so, Rhatsa26X. I think that John from Idegon deserves some kind of medallion or certificate of appreciation for trying to clean up non-compliant garbage from our school articles. Indiana enjoys no special exemption from our policies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Template:Naac I removed the message on your talk page, but the diff is still there.  Anchorvale ^{T@lk | Contributions}  09:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This report can be widened in scope. The concerns involve more accounts that are interested in Indiana high schools, adding unsourced and promotional content, original research and charts--oh so many charts--of dubious value. One of dozens of examples of poor sourcing and aforementioned chart porn: Southern Indiana Athletic Conference. See edit histories for Mtndrums (talk · contribs) and Jmajor2013 (talk · contribs). I've only begun to peruse these, and have tagged several articles for lack of sources. Have a look at PAC Spring Titles--can anyone determine the credibility of its only source, or offer thoughts as to whether this is notable to begin with? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You know, I just noticed (two months later) that on the talk page conference referenced from my archive above, Rhatsa changed my signature to his in an edit doing only that here. John from Idegon (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

We suffer these kinds of editors far too much. People come here with their regional, ideological, and cultural bias' and then try to run us over. I propose that Rhatsa26X is indefinitely topic banned from all Indiana related articles broadly construed. It seems that this topic area is stressful for us and stressful enough for them that they need to take a break. If such time that they want to abide by wp:v then they can appeal to the community to have their ban lifted. --Adamfinmo (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to distract, but why are all topic bans reflexively "broadly construed"? Surely a "ban from Indiana-related articles" is clear enough. Can we save the construing for when it's really needed? EEng 19:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Surely a "ban from Indiana-related articles" is clear enough. I take it you're new around here. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Now, now, Boris, don't bite the newbies! (Although how a newbie can accumulate a talk page large enough to see from space in such a short period of time I'll never know!) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Can either of you give me an example of an article which would not clearly fall under this topic ban without "broadly construed", but would with it? Because if no, then I'm with EEng on this one. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

In this case, I think a ban from articles related to schools in Indiana would be sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose in favor of Block and let him explain in an unblock request. I know that seems harsh, but look at what we've got here. He edit wars over the exact same issue in late December, when faced with complete opposition, he simply stops editing. Until this. It's my feeling this qualifies as ongoing disruption. His behavior here, and in both instances on my talk, indicate WP:CIR. Please let's get an assurance that he's going to accept obvious community standards such as V prior to letting him loose on the community again. John from Idegon (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I fall in with John from Idegon on this. After more than a decade of being given free rein, when finally called out on these edits he attacks several of us, throwing around the troll word and playing the victim. The damage, as I indicated above, is widespread. There are dozens of Indiana high school articles, some of dubious import and many with few or no sources, that have been created and maintained by a few accounts. After a decision is made re: this editor, attention to a laundry list of related articles will be inevitable. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I left notes two days ago with two other editors, Mtndrums (talk · contribs) and Jmajor2013 (talk · contribs), who have been deeply involved in constructing these articles, again, often sans sources, inviting them to comment here. Would very much like to hear from them. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Rhatsa26X has 30k edits, but this appears to be his first trip to ANI. He started contributing a decade ago when WP:V was not as important as it is today. I'm willing to give Rhatsa26X the benefit of the doubt that he was unaware of this gradual change. I think a final warning is appropriate, with further sanctions if there are subsequent violations. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

TP-access.needs revoking

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

---

User talk:Broken Dick (blocked as vandal). Claims to be a French sock). Kleuske (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

What have they done that needs to have their access to the talk page revoked. They have removed things from their talk page that they are allowed to remove and you have readded them. ~ GB fan 12:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking WP:BLANKING, but block notices are not included. Sorry. Kleuske (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Cyberpower678 what did they do on their talk page that makes removal of their access appropriate? ~ GB fan 12:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

They have repeatedly blanked their block notice. With that being said, the username and the behavior makes it really hard to AGF.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

They are allowed to blank the block notice. Kleuske was wrong to restore it. If Kleuske had not incorrectly restored the content then they wouldn't have had to remove it again. ~ GB fan 12:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, a username violation is not a reason to remove talk page access. ~ GB fan 12:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Block notices and unblock requests of active blocks are not to be blanked. That was my justification of revoking TPA. I never used the username as justification, I just pointed out that it makes it hard to AGF in the first place.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING does not prohibit the removal of block notices. It does prohibit the removal of declined unblock requests of active blocks but there were no declined unblock requests removed. ~ GB fan 13:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

(EC) As already mentioned by others before your reply, you're mistaken. Unblock requests of active blocks are excluded from the things editors can remove from their own talk page. Block notices are not excluded so can be. If you've removed talk page access because the editor is removing stuff they're allowed to remove, I suggest you restore it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Oops I guess I goofed there, but what about the bit calling Anna Frodesiak a pig and swine? I would consider that an inappropriate use of their talk page while blocked.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I just noticed that. It's probably sufficient to revoke talk page access especially given the low chance the editor is actually going to ever use the talk page for the purpose intended. Although I suspect if we removed talk page access for everyone who left an insult or two for the person who blocked them, even rudely, we'd probably be removing it a lot more regularly. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

(EC)They said it twice in back to back edits and didn't repeat it when they edited after that. That is a rev-del possibility but not enough to remove talk page access. If they hadn't been blocked we wouldn't even block them for that. ~ GB fan 13:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. UPOL vio + French Sock + Attacks + Disruptive editing = A clear WP:NOTHERE. Why even allow them to talk? We'd just give them unnecessary rope.—CYBERPOWER (Chat)

You can try to justify your use of the tools since your reason for removing talk page access was innapropriate. ~ GB fan 13:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I've restored it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Got one French Wikipedia admin Thibaut120094 said that this user is a LTA WP:WIKINGER, and request a global lock at here. SA 13 Bro (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it's Wikinger pretending to be a French LTA, he has been doing this since 2010. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Now globally locked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Mashrud

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

---

I have contacted this editor 5 times over the last month about creating over 100 unreferenced articles. They continue to edit, including still creating unreferenced articles, but won't respond.

Please see User talk:Mashrud#Sources. I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but they just won't communicate. They don't seem to have ever edited their talk page, in 4 years of editing. Boleyn (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Bach2804

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

---

I have been messaged this editor four times in the last three months, asking them to communicate re creating unreferenced articles (see User talk:Bach2804#Sources. You can see above my messages three other editors sending similar messages, and multiple pages they have created needing to be deleted.

I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but they refuse to answer or address the issues. They have been editing for 2 years but don't appear to have ever responded to anyone. Boleyn (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Peter Thiel and User:MaxBrowne

Last June I blocked MaxBrowne for various BLP violations on the Peter Thiel article - stuff like the edit summary here. He then "retired" after complaining about his treatment by admins (mostly me). Now he's back annd edit warring on the article again; I did engage him on his talkpage about this, and for a while did actually manage to start a discussion on the article talk. However, we now have this. An uninvolved admin may want to consider what action to take, if any. Black Kite (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

He repeatedly personalised it. "You" is never a good word to use on talk pages, and repeatedly bringing up past incidents is never going to lead to good results. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The alleged BLP violations did not relate to article content. I actually stand by the edits themselves. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

So? Your previous comments make it very hard to trust you around any BLPs, but particular that BLP. If you'd shown some good editing on BLPs since then, maybe your previous problems could be put aside but it's difficult to do that here where you basically disappeared until now. The fact that you're now using the same sort of attacks you used before albeit as personal attacks against editors rather than against article subjects doesn't exactly inspire confidence either. But in any case, it seems clear that the discussion has reached an impasse. If you do want to demonstrate that we should trust you around BLPs, try engaging some form of WP:Dispute resolution to solve it since one of you has to. Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I consider that a slur. I'm actually quite careful about BLP's e.g. [67], [68]. Where have I introduced bad material into BLP's? MaxBrowne (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne: Review your June 2017 block. BLP applies everywhere, not just with article content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

He implied that I am a frequent violator of BLP's, without providing any evidence. The claim is false and I take offence at it. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Crystalline 29

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

---

I have been messaging this editor since July - 8 months - about creating unreferenced or poorly referenced blps, such as Piotr Ligienza, which has an empty references section and an external links section containing a link to the unreliable source, imdb. Please see User talk:Crystalline 29. They have been editing for over a year, but have never responded to a message. They have also been contacted by at least one other editor, but haven't responded.

I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but they won't respond or address the issue. Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

User Malayedit - use of unreliable sources in BLPs

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

---

• Malayedit (talk · contribs)

Posting it here rather than at AIV, because the editing from this account don't appear to be spam or vandalism. Regardless, the use of poor and unreliable sources from this account hasn't waned despite warnings going back to May of last year. I think the editor's talk page makes it clear. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Wow. Given the insane number of warnings for this issue, it's high time for an indef. Swarm ♠ 15:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

SquigzNix

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

---

• SquigzNix (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Another user where the majority of his/her contributions are on this user page, with about 3720 revisions in total. Please delete and block this user for not being here to build an encyclopedia. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of their contributions have been deleted (that'd be their sandbox). 47 edits to the mainspace, 7 to talk. But 6,857 edits when including deleted... I agree with NOTHERE. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Contested move and suspicious response

A fairly new editor (just over 500 edits, most recent, most associated with the subject I'm raising here) moved Family Force 5 twice yesterday for the sole reason that the band has changed its name and so the article should be moved to the new one. I contested and started an actual move discussion. A new editor arrived to support the first editor. That editor's first and only edits have been to the talk page of that article under the move discussion. It would be good to have an editor comment. If I'm misreading WP:COMMONNAME, I'd like to know, and I'd like the discussion to be public: in that article's move discussion. I'll gladly acknowledge my error. If I'm not wrong, I'd like to know that there too, and have these two editors know that as well. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Definitley sounds like canvassing, so I second this incident report. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Page has been protected against moves for a month. It would be useful to have someone other than me offer an opinion on what COMMONNAME is about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

As a new editor, I appreciate the quest for accuracy and clarification on WP:COMMONNAME. However, I do not agree that assumptions should be made about the disposition of a new editor merely due to a difference of interpretation and opinion in a particular discussion. What is concerning to me is Walter Görlitz and WP:CONDUCT. His personal attack against another editor "When you stop having your friends and fans create accounts so that a discussion between experienced editors can happen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)" was at the very least improper. Dareblock (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I made no claim that I was right and you were wrong. That's not an attack though. That's drawing a line. Others have also found it suspicious. Shall I open up a formal sockpuppet investigation for you and the other two new accounts who have gone straight to that page or would that be problematic? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reiterating my point regarding what is now your repeated violation of WP:CONDUCT - now you are making a threat. Last time I checked, ALL are welcome to join the Wikipedia editing world and contribute productively with proper conduct which I have followed. Whether I chose this page or another page to contribute to first should be of no concern to you. Despite your deplorable conduct, I look forward to continuing a long-term collective effort to improve and maintain Wikipedia content, and to call out abusive editors such as yourself. Your apparent and unfounded discrimination against me as a new editor is shameful. I will no longer respond to your attacks or threats not this thread, but I look forward to cordial discussions on future topics with you and any other editor.Dareblock (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

When brand-new editors show up and go directly to participate in Wikipedia policy and consensus discussions, it is not at all unreasonable for experienced editors to be concerned about meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing. It is not "abusive" or "discrimination" to express such concerns. Your editing history is entirely relevant and subject to scrutiny here; vanishingly few good-faith editors begin their Wikipedia careers by making their first edit on one side or the other of a particular policy dispute. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your candid and polite contribution NorthBySouthBaranof. Your points are delivered in a manner compliant with WP:CONDUCT. As a new editor, I'm happy to have this type of discussion with editors such as yourself. Thank you.Dareblock (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Walter Görlitz: FYI I've filed an SPI just to make sure this isn't outright socking, if the accounts come back as unrelated I will protect the talk page to prevent SPA derailment because it's still either meatpuppetry or simply fans who are coming in without objective, policy-based viewpoints. Now, regarding the underlying content issue, the rule states that if sources start using the new name, then they should be weighted over pre-name change sources that would otherwise establish a WP:COMMONNAME. The previously-established name should only be retained if post-name change sources continue using the old name. So basically, the page should only be moved if sources reflect the name change; conversely, the page move should only be opposed if there is evidence that post-name change sources are continuing to use the old name. Any rationales for or against the move that don't specifically address the issue of post-name change sources are wasted breath. Swarm ♠ 15:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on WP:COMMONNAME Swarm. I look forward to using this clarity if disagreements such as this come up in the future. Dareblock (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User:BuildermanRx

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

---

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

This seems to be a vandalism-only account. They recently created Underground Surface of the Universe:Monster's and that stuff, with no references; it's unlikely to be true as the supposed creator was recently fired by Nickelodeon. Previous edits have also been unsourced, often adding that characters are 12-year-olds or 7th graders. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Olsen24 resuming disruptive edit behavior

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

---

Olsen24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user’s block just expired and has already started editing MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet. He help taking the list out of chonological order and keeps adding information that it too trivial. Can somebody please do something about this user, like block him indefinetly? SportsFan007 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

• For reference, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive972#User:Olsen24 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive971#Persistent_edit_warring_and_WP:OWN_behavior (and others at WP:ANEW). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because you don't like my edits dont make them disruptive. Olsen24 (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Immediately after his block expires, he returns to make the same kind of disruptive edits that got him blocked in the first place. That includes adding individual bus numbers with no citations, an action that he has been repeatedly warned against. He also has refused to acknowledge his obvious socking while blocked, and repeatedly removed block messages from his talk page while blocked. This is a user who is unapologetically disruptive. Time for an indef. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because you don't like my edits, doesn't make them disruptive. If you have an issue, message me on my talk page, which nobody has yet to do. Olsen24 (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Biografer "correcting" others' talk page comments

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

---

Biografer was advised not to edit the talk page posts of other editors to correct spelling errors, etc. here and here. Biograher was further advised not to do this by an administrator Nihonjoe both here and more forcefully here. Biografer's response was to these "warnings" and continue to make such corrections here. Biografer has been exhibiting WP:IDHT behavior throughout the discussion at WT:JAPAN, but editing other editor's talk page posts is something which should stop. Perhaps another admin can explain this to Biografer here in this thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I provided it in edit summary wasn't that what people wanted me to do if I will edit somebody else's comment?--Biografer (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Biografer: Stop editing other people's comments or you will be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK. Let me explain why I do it. I use voice recognition software, therefore when the machine tell me the comment (and that comment is full of errors I can't make it up.--Biografer (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Biografer: Given the amount of wikispeak appearing in posts that no voice recognition software will recognize I doubt you are forced by the software to make corrections. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours by Alex Shih --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I ran into edit conflict. I have blocked the account for 48 hours, the rationale is provided here. Alex Shih (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, an editor being blocked feels a bit uncomfortable even when it is done in order to prevent disruption. My goal here was to try and make it clearer to Biografer that editing others talk page posts is not going to be considered acceptable except under certain conditions; however, even in this thread, Biografer continued to "tweak" my edits like this and this. The comment Biografer made about being asked to leave edits sums when making such "corrections" leaves out the very important part that such edits should only be when it's really necessary, like in the examples given in TPO, and not just when its based upon personal preferences.

As for using voice recognition software, this is the first time this has been mentioned and I don't exactly know what that entails. Assuming good faith here, if this has to do with MOS:ACCESS, then perhaps someone can make a suggestion that's more constructive than for me to "get the bloody spellchecker", which makes it seem like more of a personal issue than an MOS:ACCESS issue.

Biografer has requested an unblock and seems sincere. I have no objections to that as long as Biografer fully understands that any repeat of this behavior (even editing the spaces in section headings or other parts of a post) is most likely going to lead to a much longer block per WP:IDHT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Roxy the dog: WP:PA

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

---

• Suzukake Nanchara

User Roxy the dog is being uncivil towards me. And this is a pure insult and a personal attack: [69]. Can anything be done about this please?

The discussions took place here:

• User talk:Moscow_Connection#Speedy deletion nomination of Suzukake no Ki no Michi de "Kimi no Hohoemi o Yume ni Miru" to Itte Shimattara Bokutachi no Kankei wa Dō Kawatte Shimau no ka, Bokunari ni Nannichi ka Kangaeta Ue de no Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono
• Talk:Suzukake no Ki no Michi de "Kimi no Hohoemi o Yume ni Miru" to Itte Shimattara Bokutachi no Kankei wa Dō Kawatte Shimau no ka, Bokunari ni Nannichi ka Kangaeta Ue de no Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono#Contested deletion

--Moscow Connection (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Although Roxy the dog really could have been more polite, their snark was nowhere near bad enough to justify a block or any other administrative action. On the other hand, I suggest that you move that monstrously long title to "Suzukake Nanchara". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I have been WP:BOLD and made that move. The long title was obviously untenable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm moving it back. There has been a move discussion already and the page wasn't moved. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not see the RM until after the move -- in fact, never even considered that the move of such an unwieldy title could be controversial in any way, especially since the article itself points out that there's a shortened title -- but I did read it afterwards. I did not believe that the close of the RM accurately characterized the consensus of the discussion, so I chose to invoke WP:IAR and leave the move in place. Of course, I have no intention of reverting you if you move it back, but I will comment that doing so is not an improvement to Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

May I say that having looked around the premises a little more, Moscow Connection, who created the article, appears to perhaps have something of an WP:OWNership issue regarding it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Bad dog! I'm not likely to block over this one instance of incivility, but Roxy, you do need to pull back and put forth a bit more assumption of good faith. A pattern of incivility IS something that I (and any other admin) will block for. Let's just not do this anymore, please. And "Meaningless drivel with no encyclopeadic value" isn't really a good CSD rationale. You know this, you aren't new. I don't want to make this bigger than it is.

I noticed you failed to notify Roxy on their talk page. This is required. I assume it was an oversight, so I simply did it myself, but the template for notification is at the top of the page. Please do so in the future if it is needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I've notified him, but I accidentally did it on his user page: [70]. I'm sorry, but I'm busy with something else right now and all this was sudden and unexpected. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh good Lord. Did anyone read the whole thread? User:Moscow Connection persistently misrepresented what Roxy wrote. He did this in a couple of different ways, suggesting it perhaps was not entirely accidental. Yes, we should remain civil even in the face of (real or perceived) provocation, both because it's the right thing to do and because it makes the other party's misconduct stand in sharper relief. But editors are human after all. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Where exactly did I misrepresent what Roxy wrote? --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I consider the massively excessive length of that title to be bizarre almost to the point of insanity, and I highly recommend that it be moved to "Suzukake Nanchara" immediately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we need an RFC on that bizarre title, so that uninvolved and reasonable editors can explain why the current 42 word title is untenable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"Suzukake Nanchara" is not an official title. I've simplified the sentence mentioning it when Roxy the dog tagged the page for speedy deletion (cause I wanted to make the article more accessive), but I will add the details back now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We do not use only "official" titles. Please read WP:COMMONNAME. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not a common name. The Japanese media is very scrupulous about writing everything correctly, in the exact way it is supposed to be written. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We are not the Japanese media. We are English Wikipedia, and we have our own standards for names. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

And we have a consensus system to determine those names. Someone just needs to start a WP:RM if they haven't already and let a discussion take place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

As you have noticed already [71], "there was an RM 5 months ago that left it as a long name". (Not five months, but rather 4 years. But there was a thorough discussion.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The name you suggest isn't the common name in English. Spotify uses the long title: [72]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Spotify may or may not be a reliable source, but it's certainly not a definitive one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I have converted the discussion begun by Cullen into a formal RM discussion here, and have warned Moscow Connection in advance not to WP:BLUDGEON it, since he has already shown signs of doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I have posted more or less the same number of comments as you, so it isn't me who should be warned not to WP:BLUDGEON. And in your initial comment on the article's talk page you acted like I didn't tell you anytbing (here and in my edit summaries). So I have to repeat all my points all over again. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The WP:BLUDGEONing editor responds to every editor, or almost every editor, who disagrees with him, thus inhibiting other editors from participating, since they may not want to be subjected to the BLUDGEONers incessant commentary and repeating of the same points over and over again. I, on the other hand, have only responded to you in the discussion in question, and only to counter specific arguments that you raised. That is called "a discussion", and it is how we reach a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge Dennis' admonishment above, perhaps I could have been more polite. I sincerely hope that the original Japanese article, which our article appears to be translated from, carries a great deal more clarity and meaning than does our meaningless obfuscatory version. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you and Beyond My Ken for showing the dark side of Wikipedia to me. Yes, I've noticed that it's more or less normal for "defenders of the Wiki" to bully people, to talk with templates and shortcuts to guidelines and to see "provocations" everywhere. But I don't think it is the way it should be. There also people who feel intimidated when you jump at them all of a sudden and don't assume good faith. (By the way, you even added a warning sign to your message here [73].)
I'm sorry that I misunderstood you though. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion has just been closed but can I still post it here please? Revert me if you think I can't. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Bhavesh Nial's user page

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

---

Bhavesh Nial has moved the user page at the previous username of "Bhaavesh Niall" to the talk namespace (Talk:Bhavesh Nial), resulting in the latter being deleted per WP:CSD#G8. Also, the same user moved Category talk:Redirects from moves to become the user page at the current username. These moves can't be right, however, so an administrator will need to do the following:

1. Undo the blanking of Bhavesh Nial's user page and move it back to the Category talk namespace (no redirect).
2. Undelete "Talk:Bhavesh Nial" and move it to "User:Bhavesh Nial" (no redirect).

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Fix looks good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Sly attempt to evade title blacklist for Pavan Kumar NR

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

---

For months now a number of accounts have tried to push an article on this actor, to the point the title was blacklisted/salted. Then they made new accounts at ABC, tried title variants, etc.

By sheer chance, my watch list caught a weird piped link in which the editor was adding said actor to lists, but with the target page of Pawan. This [unpleasant person] blanked a page to hijack it to host their article: diff

Presumably a sock, but I don't know how to report it at SPI, since the title is blacklisted I can't see the History tab to know who's tried to create it. In any case, PressJayasurya appears to be an SPA and likely sock, who made a number of very minor edits at other articles, presumably to look less-SPA. Can we block them, and is there some way to set things up so someone is pinged if they try to hijack and blank another page for their article (like an RSS)? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sock blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN, and now I know where Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N R Pavan Kumar/Archive is. And holy heck, this person has at least 21 listed socks, and I'm aware of others that were simply blocked but not SPIed since I saw them try to get it through AFC multiple times. I suppose it's not hard for them to re-submit since it's really quick to make a new name, and they probably have the article content on MS Word to just paste in, but that's still a lot of persistence to try to force an article through. I really hope they don't get into the habit of blanking extant valid articles to hijack the space... MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof

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

---

User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof is attacking members of the English Wikipedia by calling them "snowflakes" and by saying "are you triggered?" Multiple users have discussed their distaste with this user on his talk page is two separate instances. The user continues to attack others using degrading terms and refuses to acknowledge what he has done.

Direct quote from users talk page: "Did I trigger you? Can't handle it when someone calls you what you are? Sad! Maybe don't make racist-apologia edits on the encyclopedia and then start ridiculous ANI threads when people call you on your bullshit. I don't apologize to white supremacists and if you have a problem with that, feel free to take it up on ANI. Oh wait <snerk>. Have a nice day."

See sections on user talk page titled (please stop insulting me) and (Simple Request). Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jamesharrison2014: I went ahead and notified them of this discussion. Please remember to notify in the future.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

He did ([74]), NorthBySouthBaranof is very quick to acknowledge it by reverting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

<ec>:LOL. never mind. I see the same thing happened to me as happened to you. User is aware of this thread.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, please not that in response to User:Dlohcierekim reposting the tag by mistake the user removed it again and posted in the note to the Wikipedia administrator to GTFO (get the f*ck out). Clearly showing once more that he has violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy.Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, as a new user, you seem not to understand Wikipedia very well. The edit with the summary "gtfo" had nothing whatsoever to do with Dlohcierekim. Try again. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It absoultely does as it was his edit that you put the note on. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Uh, no. It wasn't. Again, competence is required and you're demonstrating that you don't have the competence to successfully read edit summaries and diffs. This edit has nothing whatsoever to do with Dlohcierekim. Perhaps you should study it more carefully. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

competence is required is not Wikipedia policy. Go read please. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

A user with fewer than 500 edits and no interactions with me in the last month (when he attempted to remove reliably-sourced information about a political candidate without consensus and was then rejected on the article talk page) returns after an editing hiatus of more than a week to start an ANI thread complaining about my snarky reply to an editor with white supremacist sympathies who had their hand slapped for also starting a ridiculous ANI thread against User:Beyond My Ken. Pardon me if I smell a rat here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your baseless accusations are simply that not backed in fact. Administratiors I encourage you to preform a checkuser and or any other relevant checks you can to prove that I am not releated to the Beyond My Ken situation. I have nothing to hide as I only came accross this when revewing an article. I am an independent 3rd party and only noticed the behavior. Feel free to do whatever is required to show that the claims are false.Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"I only came across this when reviewing an article" and "am an independent 3rd party." What part of "reviewing an article" involves starting ANI threads about two-week-old talk page posts made by someone you haven't interacted with in a month? Remember, when you start an ANI thread, you open yourself and your own conduct to scrutiny as well. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I will also ping User:Spartaz who has expressed well-founded beliefs that this is not the user's first account. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I was reviewing the Kelli Ward article and looking at the history. Saw your user page clicked on it and saw the abusive behavior where you said ""Did I trigger you? Can't handle it when someone calls you what you are? Sad! Maybe don't make racist-apologia edits on the encyclopedia and then start ridiculous ANI threads when people call you on your bullshit. I don't apologize to white supremacists and if you have a problem with that, feel free to take it up on ANI. Oh wait <snerk>. Have a nice day" and realized it was a patern of abusive behavior as an unrealted 3rd party I decided to request ANI the fact that you are still deflecting and not realizing your comments were abusive, belittling, disrespectful, and more is sad. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Number of edits is not relevant to following wikipedia policy. You clearly are not following the . To try and flip this on me is again not aknowleging that you are not following policy. I don't edit all the time and I have made mistakes but again I have been following policy. You however have clearly violated policy. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Once again, when you start an ANI thread, you don't get to control the thread and where it goes. Your conduct and your editing history, including what might be your motivations for starting this dramafest thread about a two-week-old user talk post directed at a third party, is just as open to scrutiny as anything I have done. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, admins feel free to run checkuser or any other tests. Not same user this person is trying to defer from the fact that he has been called out for abusive behavior. I have nothing to hide.Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, to your point about the edit on Kelli Ward I was warned and have not made such edits since. You were asked and warned multiple times and continued your abusive behavior. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• I do not see diffs of any edits in which NbySBaranof insulted Jamesharrison2014. Have I missed something? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

As previously stated, I am an independent 3rd party. Here is the behavior for your note. Also, closing admin I will start a different request if needed but I smell a sockpuppet prior relationship of User:Beyond My Ken and User:NorthBySouthBaranof. See User:NorthBySouthBaranof's comments above about their previous relationships. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=826614533 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=826616861 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=826766583 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=828703362

LOL. Now I'm BMK's sockpuppet? I suspect we have a competence is required situation here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

First, competence is required is not policy as it states "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." I think its ironic you tag the Beyond my ken stuff above and suddenly he or she starts talking. Its alomst as if you are interacting with them outside this fourm. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

WHOOSH!! That's the sound of the point going right over your head. When someone writes "I suspect we have a competence is required situation here", they are not claiming the we have a policy requiring competence. They are saying that they suspect that you lack competence and that in their opinion competence is required - a view that is held by many Wikipedia editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

When a person is tagged in a Wikipedia edit, they receive a notification of that mention. Again, these are all things you would know if you had a reasonable understanding of how Wikipedia works. That you do not is evident. That is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. But when you make wild accusations based upon nothing more than your failure to understand simple Wikipedia editing features, it evinces your inability or disinterest in learning how the encyclopedia works before charging into dramaboards and launching threads about third parties. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Jamesharrison2014: Indeed, I came here because of a notification I received just after I had finished editing Irvington, New York,which I did at probably about the same time NbSB was posting some of his remarks here. Before you choose to cast an aspersion again, you might want to do some basic research on the editors you're suggesting are sockpuppets - such as comparing their contributions to see if they were posting edits at the same time. Suffice it to say that your suggestion is a pretty ridiculous one. Beyond My Ken (talk)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof I have one question.. Do you honestly think that this is not a personal attack. "Did I trigger you? Can't handle it when someone calls you what you are? Sad! Maybe don't make racist-apologia edits on the encyclopedia and then start ridiculous ANI threads when people call you on your bullshit. I don't apologize to white supremacists and if you have a problem with that, feel free to take it up on ANI. Oh wait <snerk>. Have a nice day."Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I make no apologies for describing an editor who removed the impeccably-sourced description of "white supremacist" from the article about well-known racist anti-Semitic shitbags Identity Evropa" as someone who is making "racist-apologia edits on the encyclopedia." It is merely a provable statement of fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You didn't describe you attacked. "Are you triggered?" "Snowflake" these are not descriptions they are attacks. No one deserves to be disrespected or belittled. Also, attacking someone for having views that are not the same as yours is against the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Jamesharrison2014 appears to be on a crusade against Baranof, likely due to their long-running dispute at Kelli Ward. He's doing a very bad job of it, and is probably risking WP:BOOMERANG sanctions if he keeps this up much longer. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that would certainly explain why they would pick up on a couple of old beefs on NbSB's talk page and re-package them into a new complaint on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Based on Jamesharrison2014's persistent IDHT behavior, it is likely that his consistent dispruption will continue until he is either indefinitely blocked or topic banned from areas of American politics. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment For the sake of clarity, NBSB did not revert my notification with "GTFO".--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment Correction. I applogize you are right he removed the personal attacks tag bringing back this comment "Did I trigger you? Can't handle it when someone calls you what you are? Sad! Maybe don't make racist-apologia edits on the encyclopedia and then start ridiculous ANI threads when people call you on your bullshit. I don't apologize to white supremacists and if you have a problem with that, feel free to take it up on ANI. Oh wait <snerk>. Have a nice day."Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

So, really, you have nothing beyond the two "insults" you reported initially, is that right? Do you plan to repeat them, over and over until you get NbSB blocked? Such a strategy is unlikely to succeed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Both of you, stop with the color text and bolding. It's obnoxious. --Tarage (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I detect a lack of creativity and variety in the insults described here. I have a page that may help: [ http://www.guymacon.com/flame.html ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock - Laredo AM power vandal

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

---

I was reading another LTA/AIV report and learned that /64 rangeblocks are feasible and passable for administrators.

I'd like to suggest a (new) rangeblock of 2605:6000:cc06:2200::/64, which is the IPv6 home of the Laredo AM power vandal. This editor has been at it since late November 2016 — there is also an IPv4 IP, 70.124.106.182, which has been blocked three times now and is currently in the back half of a six-month block. No other contributions have come from this range ever besides those tied to the vandal.

The IPv6 range has returned to life after a three-month block assessed in November 2017, which was the second to this IP range. Is it possible to do a longer-term block on this /64? Raymie (t • c) 06:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Raymie: Blocked one year this time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

User:AdamDeanHall misusing warning templates

AdamDeanHall (talk · contribs · logs) AdamDeanHall has started to misuse a warning templates and reverting good-faith edits. This user is known to adding useless information into articles.

Misuse of warning template diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aoi&diff=prev&oldid=827815670

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kailash29792&diff=prev&oldid=827815185

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A72.86.38.133&type=revision&diff=828667595&oldid=778583896

Good-faith edits reverts diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=828668868&oldid=828642470&title=Proposed_acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fox_by_Disney

Also, this user did adding useless information, as seen in diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AT%26T&diff=prev&oldid=828178016

Given the history of misusing of Level 3/4 and self-made warning templates and putting information that not part of article, a block could be helpful but i don't know. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:704B:CC11:484A:BF3 (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• The last two diffs are nothing actionable, but the misused warning templates for vandalism are truly puzzling. @AdamDeanHall: what's going on with this? Swarm ♠ 12:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This user is at 4th and last warning. AdamDeanHall is going to get blocked soon. This user is also known to upload non-free images and wasted it. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:704B:CC11:484A:BF3 (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

AdamDeanHall falsely removed some good-faith edits as "vandalism" and misusing warning templates. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:704B:CC11:484A:BF3 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Another atempt to invade the blacklist

I Was reading ANI when I clicked on a link mentioned in the post "Sly attempt to evade title blacklist for Pavan Kumar NR" i would have posted in this post but it was closed so i have to make a new post the user name of the new person who did the same thing PressJayasurya did is 72.73.103.205 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.135.214 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked 72.73.103.205 for block evasion by User:PressJayasurya. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)