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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Admin attention needed at Sciences Po / Sciences Po talk

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

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

Sanctions needed over personal attacks

It seems the personal attacks against me are continuing.

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

Copy/pasted quoting

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

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

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

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

Copy/pasted quoting

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

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

• According to MePhisto, I have "claimed that Pantheon-Sorbonne "has no campus" and deleted vast amounts of information on degrees and admissions at HEC Paris (These are just a few examples)", for Pantheon-Sorbonne with no campus, it was a mistake I clearly acknowledged right away long time ago [1], and for HEC, see for yourself what I did
• I just wanted to let people know that one of the users was at least formerly part of a SP project using Wikipedia, and they started to take on me.
• I was kindly informing XIIIfromTOKYO that he was misreading the French edit summary, he answered "You are clearly trying to cover paid contributions." ?!
• SashiRolls was saying that "university" should be used for SP as an "approximation", so I asked in the TeaHouse what was the Wikipedia policy on approximations and I got a useful answer from ColinFine. But XIIIfromTOKYO says I am "trying to attack contributors on their "Approximations"".
• On SP talk page, there was a section on Panthéon-Assas, so off-topic, so I said I moved it the the right talk page, and answered. XIIIfromTOKYO answered back in PA page, so he was aware of the move, but then he acted as if I simply deleted the message and attacked me by writing in a summary edit by writing "how dare you ? Erasing my message, and not even telling me so... and wrote in SP talk page "to make it clear Launebee has just tryed to remove my message. And of course, he/she didn't even bother to tell me about it. The same method has been used on the French Wikipedia.", even though he just answered the message in PA talk page ?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

For information here is a birds-eye picture of that user in action (being reverted by 3 different users: XIII from Tokyo, Jules78120, Olivier Tanguy) [2]. I've read Droas82's first warning (at the equivalent of ANI) at French Wikipedia (23 juin) and decided to stop there (since research indicates that there were problems every week: [3])

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

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

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

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

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

Please do something.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have accused 75.156.54.227 of sexism.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but you have also listed MePhisto and SashiRolls as contributors guilty of personnal attacks [4].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You didn't even check the references.

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

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

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

Can someone stop these insults toward me?

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

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

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

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

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

References

Break

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

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

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

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

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

Him ?

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

Just a comment at the "Once again a tentative to artificially associate Sciences Po with 'great' things!"[5]. That's clearly Launebee's strategy on the Panthéon-Assas University article. In the lead s/he introduced ""Heir of the faculty of law and economics of the University of Paris (La Sorbonne), it was established as its successor when the world's second oldest academic institution was divided into autonomous universities in 1970. It is a member of the alliance Sorbonne University."". The Sorbonne is only a building, and has never been used by the faculty of law. And the university of Paris was by no way a medieval university. It was founded in 1896. The medieval university was dibanded more than a centrury before that, in 1793.

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

Legal threats

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

Today, @Launebee: used the title "Reminder of what is libelous" to answer[6]. It was not the first time that s/he used this legal reference.

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

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

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

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

You are calmly threatening contributors away.

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

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

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

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

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

@Mr rnddude:You can see above he is refering to me copying, a long time ago, the Richard Descoings article mentioning his "controversial gay lifestyle". You can see I explained to him there is absolutely nothing homophobic saying this, on the contrary, and I gave him anti-homophobia article link about the fact that his homosexuality is taboo (a lot of articles deal with the fact his gay lifestyle was controversial and the possible link with his death has been underlined, eg [7][8][9][10][11]), but he continues to say anyway that I put homophobic content and that I wrote Jews are foreigners, even though both are obviously absolutely false:( (he is in general saying a lot of other things about me, as I stated above, but these are the most shocking). --Launebee (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Rjensen, Me and egregious violations of policy

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

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

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

@Rjensen: Let's be clear -- the quotes you give refer to the article space. Almost no one gives inline citations for talk page comments about other Wikipedians, and if we applied your standard then you and I would have been violating BLP when we referred to this guy as a sockpuppet. The only source that says that is the Wikipedia SPI, which is a self-published source and therefore unacceptable for BLP purposes. You need to drop this game right now. It's been almost two months since I explained this policy to you,[12] and I can't help but imagine that others have explained the same thing to you in the past. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content

Wow, I did not know that Rjensen was a Conservapedia admin working to conservatize wikipedia explicitly - that explains a lot.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Watch it, snunɐɯ·. The account that posted that was almost immediately blocked as a sock and was clearly trolling, and the Conservapedia account they claimed was Rjensen hadn't edited Wikipedia in like six years. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC) (A) Hijari88 says " other Wikipedia editors say things about him as a Wikipedian that he doesn't like," -- that did not happen. the Maunus statement about me and the Irish is NOT about me "as a Wikipedian" -- he referred to writings OUTSIDE Wikipedia by a BLP (an article I published in 2002 in a scholarly journal.) Maunus got it wrong and his false statement about a real person is unsourced =a statement about a BLP & Irish that in no way refers to an internal Wikipedia discussion. (B) What is very rare or unique here is that a Wiki editor (me) is using his real name AND has a Wiki article about him. Maunus made the Irish-allegation based on off-wiki misinformation about a BLP. That is, BLP is a central feature of this discussion. (C) I think that an attack on an anonymous pseudonym is not an attack on a BLP because the username masks the "personhood" and the real person under attack is unknown. it is only an attack on a Wiki editor. (D) Of course we have rules about attacking any editor falsely = wp:civility = quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them. I allege that Maunus did that re me & the Irish. (E) Another point: "unsourced" is a key factor. If editor X falsely states on a talk page that editor Y is ZZZ regarding the Irish, then that statement has to be sourced to something Y said on Wikipedia about the Irish or else it is a deliberate falsified personal attack by X and violates wp:civility; it is not protected speech. (F) And by the way, Maunus won't stop: he just now made another false statement about outside-Wiki statements that Rjensen is "working to conservatize wikipedia explicitly" That is false. I never said anything like that anywhere and you can look at my 124,000 edits here (and my speech at Wikimania 2012 and my Journal of Military History 2012 article about Wikipedia) here to verify that my goal is to bring in standard scholarly sources to support Wiki history articles. Rjensen (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC) I am a reliable source for my own opinion - which is that your conservative agenda is clearly visible in most of your article changes. I am also of the opinion that you routinely violate both WP:COI (by editing your own BLP) and abuse WP:BLP (by claiming it as a way to censor people you disagree with in discussions).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Our article on you quotes you as saying that there was "no significant discrimination against the Irish" in the job market. The so-called BLP-violation in question consisted of the claim that you are a "person who claim there was never any significant anti-Irish sentiment in the US". The only substantial difference between these is the difference between "anti-Irish sentiment" and "discrimination against the Irish". This is not a justification for deleting a comment about article content as a supposed BLP-violation, as it seems extremely likely that you would have done the same thing if he said that you are a "person who claim there was never any significant discrimination against the Irish in the US", based on the flimsy excuse that criticisms of your actions as a Wikipedian require inline citations because BLP applies to users whose user pages list their real name and who happen to have Wikipedia articles at the moment. All active Wikipedians are LPs, and so all crititicisms of Wikipedians and their views are criticisms of LPs and their views. There are different degrees of anonymity. Your username is not easily identifiable by itself as a real name, and one would have to check your user page to figure out who you are, but I know people who simply use the username "John Doe" and "John Doe" is their real name. My username is only very loosely linked to my real name, but I have posted enough on-wiki and allowed other stuff to be published about me off-wiki that it would not be difficult to find out who I am. Others have the privilege complete anonymity. Demanding that every criticism of you as a Wikipedian and your stance on what a certain article should stay include an inline citation to a reliable source because you happen to fall very closer to the "real name" end of the spectrum is highly disruptive. Trying to use BLP as an excuse to wikilawyer your opponents into not talking about you as a Wikipedian will not end well. If you have a problem with any particular portion of a comment, remove that, or report the user. In the diff I cited above, you removed several thousand bytes of discussion (mostly by me) from my user talk page because you found three words of another users comment offensive. Pointing out that you yourself have, on Wikipedia, stated that you have edited Conservapedia is not a personal attack (it's a simple statement of fact); if you try to bring BLP into it, then since no reliable sources have discussed your activity on Conservapedia we suddenly can't comment on it, even though you brought it up on Wikipedia. Demanding that BLP apply to comments about other users' Wikipedia activity is patently absurd. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC) A wikipedia article is NOT a reliable secondary source--everyone here knows that. My 2002 article looked at discrimination against the Irish in multiple areas and explicitly said YES there was anti-Irish discrimination based on religion and politics. Maunus said Jensen " claim there was never any significant anti-Irish sentiment in the US" and that is false. Maunus admits he was derogatory. The rule at WP:CIVIL is Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. --this rule explicitly covers talk pages & is not limited to BLP. Rjensen (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC) I freely admit that I have been less than civil to you. Your abuse of the BLP policy and routine violations of COI and refusal to recognize this when poointed out to you pisses me off - and frankly you are yourself also routinely uncivil to other editors in discussions. If you admit you misapplied BLP and that you meant to invoke NPA and that you refrain from using the BLP policy to protect yourself in disputes with other editors , I will be happy and may even choose to extend an apology.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Maunas post was a personal attack - as it was irrelevant, it also looks like battleground, so it's quite understandable that BLP protection is also claimed for that irrelevant attack on a living person. Removal was correct under TPO. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC) @Alanscottwalker: NPA is an entirely separate policy from BLP. Pointing out something about someone's off-wiki activity (which is discussed in their article, which they link on their user page) that seems kinda-sorta-maybe relevant to what they are arguing about article content is somewhat DICKish behaviour, and doesn't even really look relevant to me. But Rjensen apparently makes a habit of citing BLP in order to blank other users' (perhaps sometimes valid) comments because he considers NPA-violations when made against him (and apparently only him) to be BLP-violations because they are not supported by third-party reliable sources. Allowing for such blanking (with BLP, not NPA, as the justification) is not a good idea, since almost nothing that happens on Wikipedia talk pages and noticeboards is covered in reliable sources. Trying to apply BLP to our Wikipedia activity is extremely dangerous. Note that I'm not defending Maunus's comment (if it had been replaced with Template:RPA and the edit summary didn't mention BLP I would have been fine with it). But your above comment is only going to embolden Rjensen the next time he tries to demand a reliable source for "You said X [on-wiki] before -- your credibility in relation to Y is therefore questionable". This is not an isolated incident. In October, Rjensen removed a massive block of text from my talk page and when I asked him off-wiki what he thought qualified as a BLP-violation it was literally a single part of a sentence. Nowhere in the block of text was Rjensen's real name mentioned (if someone's real name is "John Doe", "Jdoe" is not their real name, and will not show up on a Google search of his real name). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC) They are separate policies (as I already said), they protect two different groups of people but there will be and is overlap between the two groups. There is nothing dangerous about deleting irrelevant personal attacks that battleground and that overlap with BLP, and there is nothing dangerous about deleting sock-puppet, pretend outing, personal attacks which is a lie, regarding a living person. Your argument is the dangerous one, as it leads PA and BLP violation, but more importantly attempted injury to living people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC) As is yours, as you're encouraging abuse of the BLP policy by the overly sensitive, like Rjensen. --Calton | Talk 13:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Not in the least. Your argument is encouraging BLP policy violations, so people can feel comfortable making personal attacks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Tripe. Jensen is indeed overly sensitive and has been gaming this for years.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC) You've already demonstrated your long-running inter-personal problem, it's not helping your position. As someone who has disagreed with RJensen, sometime strenuously in editing dispute - it is plain false that he always has any such problem. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC) @Alanscottwalker: it is plain false that he always has any such problem Please see the two diffs I provided, one from two months ago and one from four years ago, neither of which had anything to do with Maunus. See also [13], [14], [15], [16] and [17] (falsely claiming that another user, who also appears to edit under their real name, accused him of "illegal actions" by accusing him of violating Wikipedia's sock/meat policy). The fact that several of these were in relation to our article on him makes it a little murkier, but the "BLP violations" in question were clearly accusations of violating Wikipedia policy, not "illegal actions". This is a long-term, recurring problem where User:Rjensen uses the BLP policy to justify either (a) removing or otherwise refactoring other users' comments when they challenge his Wikipedia activity in a manner he doesn't like or (b) removing entire blocks of text, sometimes by several users, because one part of it may have qualified as a legitimate personal attack. Again, there should be no block or TBAN at this time if he promises to stop doing it, but your constant refusal to acknowledge that this is even an issue, apparently driven by your personal belief that Maunus had the false BLP accusation coming because he violated NPA and CIVIL, is disturbing. If you wanted, I would have supported a short block for Maunus for the off-topic personal attack (until he acknowledged that it was inappropriate and apologized), but the bigger issue (one that has been brought to Rjensen's attention numerous times over at least four years) is Rjensen's repeated and long-term abuse of the BLP policy to create a chilling effect and get away with removing comments that aren't uncivil or personal attacks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Maunus comment was not attacking Rjensen's on-wiki actions, as much as it was attacking a living person who had published off-wiki in a Journal. His comment was using that living person's identity in an irrelevant content dispute. Even assuming Rjensen would be found ultimately wrong that that BLP permits Maunas to do so -- it's "only" personal attack -- (should we arbitrate it?), Rjensen is permitted to raise BLP and have the matter decided, and he is permitted to be wrong. As for your other examples, the overall context is Rjensen has 124,639 edits, and when compared with that almost all of your relatively few examples deal with the biography of a living person, so raising BLP issues is going to happen, the "murkiness" you refer to means that some will be upheld and some not- those discussions run to pages and pages and noticeboards. I stand by my comment, and I am sure there is nothing that should disturb you, but I can't be held responsible for what disturbs you. Should Rjensen edit war, and be wrong, I am sure he knows the consequences, and even if he does not, that's the risk he will run.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Not relatively few examples. I did cherry-pick, in a manner of speaking, as I "Ctrl+F"ed his contribs to article talk and user talk namespaces for places where his edit summaries mentioned "BLP" or "living", but the diffs I linked represented something like a third of all the diffs I checked. The rest may or may not have been legitimate BLP violations against off-wiki individuals; I just ignored them because the LPs in question were not Wikipedians and the "BLP violations" in question were not made on a talk page in a direct message to the LP in question. I was once laughed off BLPN for saying that describing the author of a source I cited as not being an expert in his field or a reliable source for some claim might qualify as a BLP violation, which Rjensen has also done[18] -- if it weren't for my own prior experience I would be inclined to agree with him, but clearly the community's opinion can't be accepted when it disagrees with me and ignored when it agrees with me. "NPA" doesn't appear anywhere in his edit summaries to user talk page edits for the past five years, except in section titles on his own talk page, and for whatever reason he seems to only use the phrase "personal attacks" when addressing IPs, and even then very infrequently. "Civility" was only mentioned twice, once in December 2013 and once in September 2014. Again, I am getting these results basically at random by searching his contribs to particular namespaces for particular search-terms, but I don't really have a choice: I don't have enough time to go back and carefully read everything he has written. What results I am getting seem to indicate that in virtually all cases where he encounters a CIVIL- or NPA-violation, he mislabels it as a BLP-violation, and never the other way around. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I'm just not seeing it so far. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Maunus comment was not attacking Rjensen's on-wiki actions, as much as it was attacking a living person who had published off-wiki in a Journal If you read the whole discussion, the two of them were having a content dispute about what the article should say, and User:Maunus made an inappropriate snipe about something User:Rjensen published off-wiki and speculated about possible bias. This is something that happens virtually all the time whenever there are ever any disputes about anything that could be considered remotely political. I have been called a Korean nationalist, anti-Japanese POV-pusher and a Japanese nationalist, anti-Korean POV-pusher, a user with Christian sympathies who is biased in favour of believing Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical person and an atheist POV-pusher who gets his ideas of early Christianity from reading Dan Brown. As far as I am concerned, none of these epithets are remotely accurate, and of course none of them can be backed up by reference to reliable sources, and I am a living person. This does not mean the application of those epithets to me was a BLP-violation. They were inappropriate, off-topic personal attacks. His comment was using that living person's identity in an irrelevant content dispute. Again, the only difference between that and when someone claimed I get everything I know about early Christianity from The Da Vinci Code is that when they said that about me they were basing on nothing but their own desire to get a rise out of me, whereas at least Rjensen mentions on his user page that he is the same guy we have an article on. Rjensen is permitted to raise BLP and have the matter decided, and he is permitted to be wrong Then he should do that. In this case, you are the only third party out of four who has not said that he was wrong to cite BLP (one more said that it didn't matter if it was BLP as it was still an NPA-violation). And again, this has been going on for years, with him challenged several times by several independent users. If he wants to keep doing it, the burden should be on him to find someone other than you who agrees. As for your other examples, the overall context is Rjensen has 124,639 edits, and when compared with that almost all of your relatively few examples deal with the biography of a living person No, some of them happen to deal with biographies of living people, but all of them deal with his or others' activities as Wikipedia editors and his removing or refactoring their comments based on bogus accusations of BLP-violations. As for his total number of edits, 85.2% of those 124,639 edits are to the mainspace, and it can safely be assumed that if he blanks something from an article and says it is a BLP violation, whether or not he is right, the violation in question was not an attack on another Wikipedia editor for their Wikipedia activity. Edits to other namespaces that don't cite BLP and don't blank other users' comments are also completely irrelelvant to whether he is abusing BLP. Of the edits to talk and user talk namespaces (together 13.1% of the remainining 14.8% of his total edit count) where he blanked all or part of someone's comment and his edit summary mentioned BLP, 35.294% are claims that a criticism of another user for their Wikipedia activity is a violation of BLP. He has been corrected about this on his user talk page, in edit summaries of users reverting him, and now on ANI. I don't know how many times he has been corrected, but it's at least three. those discussions run to pages and pages and noticeboards Again, if you can point me to a previous discussion where this came up and where community or ArbCom consensus was on Rjensen's side that blanking other users' comments because they contain criticisms of other Wikipedians and their activities as Wikipedians was sanctioned by BLP specifically, or to a previous incident where Rjensen removed a BLP-violation and inaccurately/inadvertently labeled it a CIVIL- or NPA-violation, then I will bite my tongue, but otherwise I think someone should tell him firmly, here and now, that his repeated misuse of BLP in this manner is inappropriate. I stand by my comment and I am sure there is nothing that should disturb you, but I can't be held responsible for what disturbs you. Again, an entire section of my talk page was blanked because one of the parties had made an off-topic personal attack against Rjensen that I hadn't even noticed, and I received an email that seemed to be placing the blame on me for somehow "hosting" that attack on my talk page. That disturbs me. I hope my posting this will prevent further incidents of this kind. You are entitled to your opinion, but in this instance you appear to be in the minority, as Calton, Maunus, Black Kite and I (not to mention at least one other who pointed it out back in like 2013) all agree and the only one who has commented in this thread other than you and Rjensen who didn't explicitly state that they thought Rjensen's actions inappropriate was FreeKnowledgeCreator, who only commented on the difference between CIVIL and NPA. (Rjensen's later coming out of the blue and citing a passage that implied uncivil comments can be removed actually seems to imply they were arguing against this point, but I didn't notice that until now.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC) No. Maunus and Rjensen were not having a discussion at all. Maunus dropped his "snipe" as you call it in someone else's discussion. And again, almost all of your relatively few examples occurred in the context of a biography of a living person. If you are bothered that BLP applies to talk pages, and BLP issues are raised on talk pages than you have to change policy. But it is now permitted to people (including Rjensen) that they raise objections in removal or otherwise. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Maunus and Rjensen were not having a discussion at all. Maunus dropped his "snipe" as you call it in someone else's discussion. Point taken. But if you notice a recurring problem with a user, you are allowed (even encouraged) to bring it up when it happens again. As far as I am concerned, Rjensen was wrong on the article content question, so trying to say that his mislabeling someone's comment as a BLP violation was OK because that someone had "followed" him there is not a good idea. If you are bothered that BLP applies to talk pages, and BLP issues are raised on talk pages than you have to change policy. Nice try. You are not going to turn this discussion on its head that easily. Nowhere on the BLP policy page does it say anything about Wikipedians and their Wikipedia activity being covered. They can't be, because WP:BLPSPS explicitly bans all comments made on Wikipedia by anyone other than the living person in question as sources for claims about living people. This has nothing to do with whether BLP applies to talk pages. But it is now permitted to people (including Rjensen) that they raise objections in removal or otherwise. Your grammar is a little confusing, but I think you are saying that Rjensen is allowed object to things others write, by removing their comments or some other method. Plenty of users have been blocked or banned for less than what Rjensen did on my talk page and in this very thread. Repeatedly and unapologetically hiding behind BLP to justify removing or refactoring other users' comments when they aren't BLP violations is unacceptable. Once or twice could be called a good faith mistake, but in this case he has done so at least 24 times over the past six years, he has been told he was wrong at least twice before, he has done it twice in the space of less than two months, he had a whole big ANI mess opened over it, and has nevertheless repeatedly denied doing anything wrong. Again, I don't currently support a block, and if I was keen on a formal ban I would propose one, but your comments are clearly making the problem worse, not better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC) First. I recommend you read WP:Bludgeon because your comments are just going on and on. You do go on about "blocks", for someone who is not calling for a block, and I find that odd, especially in response to my comments, as I have never mentioned blocking. Second, BLP applies to all living persons, and yes per policy, removal is a way it is raised. Third, if you don't know that WASP is "sometimes disparaging"[19]] reference a WP:Reliable Source, like the one I just provided -- that's the way Wikipedians are suppose to do it, not making attacks on others, in what you call, "following" someone or otherwise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC) You should take your own advice on bludgeoning, since in this case your bludgeoning is serving to unilaterally filibuster an otherwise unanimous consensus that Rjensen's edits are disruptive. Mine is only correcting you and Rjensen on your numerous mistakes, non sequitur arguments, distortions of policy and distortions of what I and others have said in this thread. I admit I am kind of shooting myself in the foot since if I had posted all my evidence in my first comment and then not looked at the thread again, the thread would probably be closed by now with Rjensen receiving a final warning that the next time he did what he's been doing he would be block. But shooting myself in the foot is something I'm entitled to do, and the only one who suffers for it is me. As for blocking: I would not be opposed to a block, but I'm not proposing one either. If User:Arthur Rubin or some other admin blocked him for his attacks against me in this thread or for his violations of TPO, or both, I would probably thank them for it since if he received a block he might finally start to listen. If you think a source that says a term is "sometimes disparaging" justifies its being included in a list of "ethnic slurs" despite its being used by writers of articles on both the SDLC and ADL websites, as well as in quotations from white supremacists who were apparently not speaking ironically in those same articles, then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. ANI is not the place to hash out content disputes anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC) No. FYI slur means disparage.[20] Your comment shows misunderstanding bludgeoning too, which pile on your other misunderstandings. Look to your word count, and your comments' overweening fixation. Bludgeoning has nothing to do with me standing in the way of the pettiness and pettifoggery of your arguments. (In defense of personal attack, no less). Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC) @Alanscottwalker: You're wrong again (about me being the only one bludgeoning this discussion and about me defending personal attacks -- I don't care who's right about an article I've never edited), but that's not important. Please see the bottom of this thread, and clarify whether you would be okay with all of your responses to me (except the first one, which another user responded to) being collapsed to make this thread more readable/closable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Just noticed this has apparently been going on for years. "Ctrl+F"ing Rjensen's contribs for BLP brought up a few more that happened to mention BLP in the edit summaries, with the most obvious being this. I am sure a thorough search would bring up a lot more. Yes, Rjensen is allowed remove comments from his own talk page. But saying that "Your arguments are unreasonable and obtuse. [...] Really, if you were editing honestly, you should have immediately changed the sentence" needs to be removed as a "blp vio" is incredibly disturbing. Citing BLP violations against oneself has a chilling effect since part of the reason for BLP is to prevent libel and defamation lawsuits. Plenty of accounts have been WP:NLT-blocked for claiming that Wikipedia in the mainspace includes defamatory statements, but the reason for NLT is to protect editors from a chilling effect. Repeatedly and needlessly (and sometimes baselessly) citing BLP to justify blanking comments like "your arguments are unreasonable and obtuse" is unhelpful at best and at worst looks like a deliberate attempt to create a similar chilling effect without actually citing real-world laws and so violating NLT. Again, I am not saying any sanctions should be brought against him at this time, but he should be told firmly that criticisms of his on-wiki actions do not qualify as BLP-violations, and removing entire conversations between other users because one part of one comment by one of them was a personal attack against him is unacceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Hijiri88 overlooks the rules that apply to talk pages: Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. WP:CIVIL Rjensen (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Again, you're the one overlooking the fact that you specifically told me by email that it was one sentence of the already-blocked sockpuppet's comment that you found questionable, and yet you saw fit to remove my entire conversation with them (most of which, by word count, was mine, not the sock's). You are also overlooking the fact that that quotation doesn't come from WP:BLP. I did not deny that Maunus's remark was a violation of CIVIL and NPA, so your quoting WP:RUC at me is entirely irrelevant. My problem is with your repeatedly referring to uncivil remarks when directed toward you as a Wikipedian as "BLP violations". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC) I have also recognized myself that my comment was a borderline NPA violation. But Jensen did not cite NPA or WP:CIVIl but specifically cited BLP.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC) It was an attack, and you quibble that he removed it under the wrong section of policy - that is silly. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC) It was not a direct personal attack, but it was incivil (and Jensen is himself not generally a particularly civil editor in disputes, so he should be able to take that from others as well). And what I quibble with is the fact that he frequently and routinely use a misinterpretation of the BLP policy to delete other peoples statements and disregards the COI policy by editing extensively in relation to his own biography. For that reasons it is important that he understands the difference between NPA and BLP policy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC) It was very direct. The only mystery being, at the time, why you brought it up in an unrelated discussion, a discussion which should have centered on dictionary definitions of WASP (and most definitely not on an editor or characterizations concerning a real life person) - but now it is apparent you have an acrimonious history, which may explain but not excuse that. It's not a misinterpretation of BLP policy that it requires extremely careful and conservative discussions of living people and controversies concerning them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Utter nonsense. BLP is not about conversations between editors, and the fact that he is taking that interpretation should be a cause for immediate sanction. The fact that you have written a biography about yourself does not mean that all of a sudden you can silence everyone who contradicts you or makes a statement about you that you disagree with. All editors are equally "living people" the fact that some have biographical articles gives them no special rights whatsoever. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Maunus has trouble reading the BLP rule. So he invents his own new rules like his latest one 8 lines above: "BLP is not about conversations between editors" actually BLP does apply. it states "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." --talk pages i suggest generally consist of conversations between editors. Rjensen (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC) I've read both your positions and you have both presented them enough. As someone who has spent a long time discussing and drafting both BLP policy and the COI guideline, as well as discussing NPA, it is plain that RJenesen should not be sanctioned over the underlying attack posted by Maunus. And Maunus would do well to be either more careful and stick on topic, or as he said in the OP just stay away. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC) @Alanscottwalker: Please, stop trying to provide Rjensen with justification for his repeated abuse of the BLP policy. He routinely removes other users' comments because he believes one small part thereof qualifies as an "unsourced" personal attack against him, and that BLP therefore applies because he edits under his real name (in a manner of speaking). The rest of us who have been involuntarily outed apparently have to get by citing NPA while Rjensen gets to steamroll any discussion he doesn't agree with because he chose to edit under his real name? That simply isn't fair. I agree with you that in this specific instance Rjensen shouldn't be sanctioned, but he needs to change the way he interacts with other users, since this constant inappropriate citation of the BLP policy (with the implicit claim that such-and-such comment is defamatory/libelous) is clearly designed to create a chilling effect and is borderline NLT-violation, even without the unsanctioned deletion of other people's comments that don't qualify as either personal attacks or BLP-violations by any stretch of the imagination. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC) No. Wikipedia cannot buy into your extreme view of BLP that it means an accusation of defamation or libel - that would mean BLP could never work or even be discussed on wiki - defamation and libel are court judgments, BLP is not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Please. BLP as a policy exists to protect real people from unsourced and potentially defamatory claims made about them on Wikipedia, and to protect Wikipedia from people saying Wikipedia is making such defamatory claims. Constantly citing BLP for violations of NPA and CIVIL is inappropriate, and given Rjensen's activity in this discussion it has become increasingly clear that he deliberately does so to intimidate his opponents. The chilling effect of his citing BLP has allows him to remove massive chunks of text because five or six words may have constituted a personal attack against him and go unchallenged. BLP cannot apply to arguments made about us as Wikipedians because no reliable sources ever discuss such things Rjensen is the only user I have ever seen remove personal attacks against Wikipedians (and simple incivility that probably didn't constitute personal attacks) as "BLP violations", nd he has done so on numerous occasions. He has not apparently ever cited the correct policy to justify these removals. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Rjensen's claim that personal attacks against him are covered by WP:BLP purely because he has an article is are one of the most nonsensical misuses of a policy I have ever seen. WP:NPA perfectly adequately covers removal of personal attacks - we even have a template {{RPA}} for it. In absolutely no way should the more severe sanctions for BLP violations - including an ability for someone removing a clear BLP violation to break 3RR - apply here. Having said that, the whole issue wouldn't exist if the comments hadn't been made, and I am gratified that Maunus has accepted that he was over the line. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC) @Black Kite: Yes, but if he cited NPA, he would have to be careful what he removes; when he cites BLP, he can blank entire sections of other people's talk pages with impunity, because other users will suffer a chilling effect and not challenge him on it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC) That's exactly my point. Rjensen needs to be aware that he can't use BLP in that way. Misusing the policy like that will not end well. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Hijir88 complains that back in 2013 I deleted the statement "keeping your bigoted, imbecilic opinions off the Talk Pages" in a discussion on deGaulle. Yes I think that statement should have been deleted from a talk page. (the "your" refers to third editor not to me.) Hijir88's complaint is that I should not have mentioned BLP violation in my edit summary. That's true, that was not the correct tag to use in this case since no living person was involved. Note that no citing of any rule is required when deleting a violation of WP:civil. I suggest a "chilling effect" is called for when an editor talking to another editor uses words like "your bigoted, imbecilic opinions". We want that language to never be used. Rjensen (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC) If saying that someone's edits are inspired by bigotry and imbecility is a BLP violation, then what's the point of even having WP:NPA as a separate policy? If a Wikipedian's death has been confirmed, does BLP then no longer apply and the much lighter restriction of NPA take effect? Let alone that if BLP requires that we have reliable sources for the claim that this or that anonymous Wikipediam is bigoted or imbecilic, we would also need a source to say that they are ignorant of the article subject, or else we couldn't say that without a reliable source. I have edited articles on topics I don't know much about, and am fairly certain that from time to time I have argued with editors who knew more than me (I have apologized for being wrong when the users I was arguing with turned out to be right, anyway). I have been accused of being ignorant of the subject matter, too. These things are true of virtually all Wikipedia editors who have been here for a long time and edited a wide variety of articles. They are also true of you. I would never dream of removing comments about how I do not know as much about the subject as whoever I was arguing with as "BLP violations" against me. Additionally, your belittling my chilling effect point and saying directly that it is a good thing that your comments have a chilling effect seems to indicate that you don't care much for Wikipedia's NLT policy. Could you please clarify that your accusations of BLP violations in the seven instances that have thusfar been brought up were not meant to create a chilling effect? I don't want to continue interacting with you if you are comfortable causing your fellow Wikipedians to suffer a chilling effect over what were at worst some relatively minor NPA violations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) When you made any one of the above edits, and whether you would have been wrong to blank any of those comments if you had cited RPA or RUC, is completely irrelevant. I don't care if another user back in 2013 (or back in 2007) violated NPA and you reverted them. If you cite BLP, you should be able to defend your actions on BLP grounds. The fact that some of the comments you removed (though still a small minority of the ones already cited) actually deserved to be removed per RPA or RUC is not important to the question of whether you have been abusing BLP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC) But if we are going to talk about dates, then instead of discussing one of the diffs I gave above that dated from three years ago, we should focus on your recent behaviour. In October you removed these three posts by me on my own talk page because the user I was addressing had turned out to be a sockpuppet and so his comments, according to you, were "BLP violations by [a] blocked sockpuppet". When I reverted you and requested that you email me, you did so and clarified that it was 57 words in the sock's second post you found offensive, and you included an extra bit about how you were "disappointed" that I had not carefully analyzed the sock's post and decided independently to blank those 57 words. The 57 words were indeed offensive, and may even have been untrue, but they were clearly based on your activity on Wikipedia (and some off-wiki activity that you yourself have discussed on-wiki); calling them "BLP violations" was wrong. I had already decided to drop the issue, and then independently of that you instigated another similar incident where someone made an inappropriate personal attack against you as a Wikipedian in the context of something you were trying to add to an article and you said they were committing a BLP violation against you. That's twice that essentially the same thing has happened in under two months. It doesn't even matter that you were doing the same thing as early as 2012, since this is a recurring, current problem. You need to stop making BLP accusations like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC) These are always tricky cases. "...keeping your bigoted, imbecilic opinions off the Talk Pages" is purely a civility issue as it technically refers to content, not the person themselves. But one could make the case that it is implicitly calling the editor an imbecile, which is of course an NPA issue. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC) @Black Kite: I know it's tricky, but for the matter at hand it doesn't really matter whether it is a CIVIL issue, an NPA issue, or both, because the problem is that Rjensen said it was a BLP issue. All three have provisions allowing for blanking, so the blanking itself would only have been an issue if the comment was "none of the above"; the only issue is the labeling of it as a BLP issue when it wasn't. I think it would be interesting if someone could track down an instance where Rjensen blanked a comment and cited the right policy, or even blanked with an NPA or CIVIL rationale where the problem was in fact BLP and not NPA or CIVIL. The evidence I've come across (admittedly something of a confirmation bias, mind you) indicates that the user specifically abuses the BLP policy, rather than it just being a recurring good-faith mistake where he accidentally cites the wrong policy. Since the blanking itself has rarely been a problem, then citing the wrong policy in a string of good-faith mistakes would not be a concern. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC) I agree with Hijiri88 that in one edit three years ago I used a "BLP" tag on a talk page deletion when "CIVIL" was the right tag. However when dealing with an actual BLP biography then I suggest BLP rules apply as well as CIVIL. The way to "chill" the making of improper remarks is to erase them--which is what I did. The tag is not what does the "chilling" it's the erasure that gets attention. Tags are optional in these cases and using the wrong one in 2013 is not "abuses the BLP policy." The BLP policy calls on every editor to immediately and without discussion erase poorly sourced statements about actual living people--and that includes me!--and doing so is not an "abuse." Rjensen (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Again, why are you ignoring all the more recent diffs? My user talk page is not your "actual BLP biography", nor is the talk page on our ethnic slurs article. Criticisms of your activity on Wikipedia are not BLP violations, and even when they are influenced by your (self-confessed) activity off Wikipedia the only difference is the potential violation of WP:OUT, which is also separate from BLP. And again, your comment looks like you don't know what I mean by "chilling effect". Sometimes your erasures are blatantly disruptive (again, see my talk page), while at other times the erasures by themselves would be fine if you didn't inappropriately cite BLP and so implicitly claim that someone was committing libel against you. In one case you inappropriately claimed that someone was accusing you of "illegal actions" when all they did was speculate that you may have violated Wikipedia policy. By this standard, anyone who opens an SPI, or an ANI report, or anything on Wikipedia without having reliable sources would be violating BLP. Again, you would have violated BLP when you referred to User:Imboredsenseless (doubtless a living person) as a blocked sockpuppet, because no reliable sources could be found for such a claim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC) I did not call Imboredsenseless a blocked sockpuppet. Taking the lead from US libel law and BLP rule about corporations, I think a BLP violation is only possible against an identifiable person. That includes editors using their real name but not editors using a codename. Hijiri88 makes the same point. A law textbook says "The potential plaintiff always bears the burden of proving that the allegedly defamatory statements were reasonably understood to be 'of and concerning' him or her.Bruce W. Sanford (2004). Libel and Privacy. Aspen. p. 4. Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC) I did not call Imboredsenseless a blocked sockpuppet [21] BLP violations by blocked sockpuppet. You can be forgiven for forgetting the exact words you used, but I provided the diff in my first post here. If you were not calling Imboredsenseless a "blocked sockpuppet", were you referring to me? Not only is that claim unsourced, it's simply not true. At least if you were calling Imboredsenseless a blocked sockpuppet your claim would have been accurate and all you would have done was violate your own unique interpretation of BLP as applying to statements made about other Wikipedians and their Wikipedia activity without a reliable source. Taking the lead from US libel law So you admit you interpreting BLP in a legal manner and attempting to create a similar chilling effect to a legitimate legal effect without getting blocked for violating our no legal threats policy? You have never once inaccurately referred to a BLP violation as a personal attack or a civility violation, and yet you refer to personal attacks and civility violations as BLP violations on a regular basis. Why is this? If it were a good faith confusion of policies it would not be so consistently one-sided. What other explanation is there for this, for your sudden citation of US defamation law, and for your referring to violations of Wikipedia policy as "illegal actions"? You appear to be trying to violate the spirit of our no legal threats policy by creating a similar chilling effect, while carefully avoiding making direct legal threats. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC) @Rjensen: Please respond to the above. Your denial of having made the claim that Imboredsenseless is a blocked sockpuppet based on something you read on Wikipedia appears to indicate that you are just making a series of good-faith mistakes and you believe you yourself violated BLP policy with the above edit summary and are trying to deny that this happened. If this is the case, it actually makes you look better, since no one thinks you should be sanctioned for violating your own overly broad interpretation of BLP, and if you think you yourself violated it that means your misinterpretation is a good faith mistake rather than a deliberate attempt to game the system and intimidate other editors. If this is the case, I strongly urge you to say so so that we can close this discussion as a good-faith misunderstanding that has already been resolved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC) You're both violating policy: Maunus in making personal attacks, and Rjensen in incorrectly claiming WP:BLP and in removing material from talk pages which is at most uncivil, not credibly to be considered a BLP violation nor a personal attack. I think I'm an involved admin, but Rjensen should have been blocked for some of his remarks here, regardless of unjustified violations of WP:TPO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Maunus admits it was uncivil -- and it was an attack on a living person with no RS. that fits the BLP criteria exactly. Rjensen (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Again, what you are saying makes no sense -- all active Wikipedians are living people and no attacks on other Wikipedians ever have RSs. Your real name does not appear on any of the talk pages mentioned except the one for the article on you and will not show up on a Google search of your real name. "Rjensen" is not your real name and it looked like a pseudonym to me for about a year after I first interacted you, until I noticed your user page explained that "R" is your first initial and "Jensen" is your last name. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC) my full details of course are at user:rjensen and it takes one second to find it. The argument is that to say "user12345 is a #YTWQ%%#% is not a BLP because no one knows who that is, while "Jimmy Wales is a #YTWQ%%#%" is a BLP. that seems to be the same as " I just don't think BLP applies when no one but the editor himself (and probably people whom he told in real life) can possibly know who it was he was attacking. Hijiri 00:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)" Rjensen (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC) This isn't about how long it would take to find out your details. This is about whether a random talk page you comment on and someone responds to you in a way you wouldn't like would show up on a search of your name on a search engine. It wouldn't. It simply is not true that "no one but [me] (and probably people whom [I] told in real life)" know who I am -- there have been several dozen edits revealing my personal information including my real name, my parents' home address and so on rev-delled, and these were by a troll who followed my Wikipedia activity for about a month before figuring out who I was in real life, and possibly someone else he may or may not have told. My Wikipedia activity is loosely related to my real-world identity, and on-wiki attacks on me can and have been linked back to my real-world identity. There's a spectrum -- some users edit under their real name; you don't post on talk page using your real name as it appears anywhere off-wiki, but with a moniker based somewhat closely on your real name and give your real name on your user page; some users edit with monikers based closely on their real name, but don't specify that "Yes, this is my real name" anywhere on-wiki; I edit under a moniker very loosely based on my real name but have posted material on-wiki that has been used to figure out who I am in real life; other users maintain complete anonymity and have never revealed any personal information. For most of us, it is a choice whether we want to reveal personal information (although, apparently unlike you, I had someone dig through everything they could find about me online and post it all on-wiki without my consent). Your having chosen to reveal x amount more information about yourself on your user page does not suddenly mean you are allowed invoke BLP every time someone makes an off-topic attack against you on a talk page when I am not. Additionally, your explanation does not justify the instance(s) where you removed "BLP violations" against other Wikipedians who are anonymous. The simple fact is that three out of four uninvolved third parties here have said you are abusing the BLP policy by constantly invoking it in places where it does not apply, and you need to stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC) I used the blp tag by mistake three years when no blp was involved but the removal was proper. the other cases are blp-appropriate because an anonymous editor attacked a real person and that was in violation of blp.Rjensen (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC) BLP is meant to protect real people, primarily off-wiki, from Wikipedians making contentious factual or apparently factual claims about them without reliable sources. It is not meant to allow you to prevent any criticism of you and your views as they affect your activity on Wikipedia. BLP requires claims about living persons to have reliable sources, but the assumption should always be that no on-wiki activity will ever be covered in reliable sources. Citing BLP to justify blanking statements about Wikipedia activity that don't have reliable sources is inherently disruptive, since everyone who takes part in the Wikipedia community makes such statements and by definition they don't have reliable sources -- they only have primary sources published on a wiki. You have made such statements yourself (again, you called Imboredsenseless a "blocked sockpuppet"). These are not BLP violations when you do them, and they aren't BLP violations when others do them either. Nowhere on the WP:BLP policy page is there anything about users who choose to edit under their real names being covered under the policy while users who do not edit under their real names are not. You have been asked repeatedly to provide a link to a previous community discussion or ArbCom decision where your interpretation of BLP was determined to be correct, and you have failed to do so. Alanscottwalker, who above claimed to have drafted the BLP policy and so should be considered an expert on it, also failed to link to any such decision. So all we have is the present community discussion where Maunus, Calton, Black Kite, Arthur Rubin and I all agree that your interpretation is incorrect, and only you and Alanscottwalker think it is correct. (Actually Alanscottwalker avoided specifically claiming that your interpretation was correct: he just said that the sample size of diffs I collected was too small to say that it could be considered a chronic problem, whether or not your interpretation is correct.) Your suddenly citing US defamation law in the middle of this discussion, your bogus claim that another user accused you of "illegal actions", combined with your careful refusal to either admit or deny that you are trying to bypass normal procedure as outlined in WP:RUC and WP:RPA by creating a chilling effect on other editors and your apparently never having once cited RUC or RPA to justify blanking edits, appears to indicate very distinctly that you are trying to abide by the letter of WP:NLT while repeatedly going against its spirit. This behaviour is unacceptable, and you need to stop. Again, I don't think you should be blocked for any of the previous 8+ incidents I already cited, but I'm beginning to think you should be TBANned from mentioning the BLP policy in discussions (I still think you should be allowed edit BLP articles and talk pages, just not talk about the policy since you either don't understand it or are deliberately pretending not to understand it). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC) I thought you were referring to this page we're on now; yes I did call Imboredsenseless a "blocked sockpuppet" some time ago which is supported by the official Wikipedia statement on User:Imboredsenseless of his being blocked by sysop Bbb23. (Wiki official statements by a sysop are a RS regarding Wikipedia official actions--RS can be self published.) I believe I am following Wikipedia's very strong BLP policy when named people get attacked on talk pages. I suggest that I am a real person and therefore I am covered by the BLP rules -- do you deny that? In ordinary usage "chilling" means to hinder lawful statements but I think I have always tried to hinder/chill/remove unlawful statements. Your complaint is that I use BLP tags for removing bad text in internal Wiki debates among editors when I should use another tag. That's possible but you have found n=1 instance from 2013. The BLP removals I made were based on off-wiki sources, as in the Imboredsenseless case. How many of my removals do you think can not be justified by any of the Wikirules? The debate is not my removals but my use of the BLP tag, which a few times in recent years I may have done in a non-BLP case (as did happen in 2013). The cases you emphasize are all BLP violations--which removal do you say did not involve a BLP violation?It's true that I believe (following libel law) that BLP violations require an identifiable real-name victim -- and you seem to agree too. But that is irrelevant to this debate (it comes up only in the 2013 case where I agree I mistagged an appropriate removal when the target was a coded username.) Rjensen (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Wiki official statements by a sysop are a RS regarding Wikipedia official actions--RS can be self published. When sysops say something on Wikipedia they are reliable sources for BLP purposes? You should add that to the BLP policy page. WP:BLPSPS explicitly bans virtually all self-published sources, reliable or not. I suggest that I am a real person and therefore I am covered by the BLP rules -- do you deny that? I do not deny that you are a real person, but you as a Wikipedian are not covered under BLP. BLP bans virtually all claims based on self-published sources. Virtually everything on Wikipedia is self-published. Your proposal would prevent all discussion of your behaviour on Wikipedia if applied to you, and if the rest of us tried to apply it to ourselves then ... well, virtually everything ever posted on this page would need to be blanked as a BLP violation. In ordinary usage "chilling" means to hinder lawful statements but I think I have always tried to hinder/chill/remove unlawful statements No, if you wanted to remove "unlawful" statements, you could cite NPA or CIVIL. You never have. You have been choosing to remove personal attacks as "BLP violations". On several occasions (my talk page, the ethnic slurs talk page) you threw the metaphorical baby out with the bathwater. When you claim that other users are "defaming" you and violating "BLP" it serves to intimidate them and disccourage them from restoring the non-problematic text you removed. Why did you remove this non-problematic text in the first place, and why did you choose to cite BLP? The BLP removals I made were based on off-wiki sources, as in the Imboredsenseless case As I pointed out on my talk page, speculating that the "RJJensen" on Conservapedia was you (and not, say, a joe-job by someone who didn't like you) would be a violation of WP:OUT (but not BLP) if it weren't for the fact that you have said several times on English Wikipedia that you have edited Conservapedia, and specified which articles on Conservapedia you had written. Your complaint is that I use BLP tags for removing bad text in internal Wiki debates among editors when I should use another tag. [...] How many of my removals do you think can not be justified by any of the Wikirules? Removal of virtually any borderline attack could in theory be justified based on RUC or RPA. The problem is not whether your removals could in theory be justified by those other, unrelated policies. The problems as I see it are (1) your repeated citing of BLP in cases where BLP does not apply (at least twice in two months, and at least eight in four years, including three corrective notices from other users) and (2) your removing inoffensive material, sometimes by several users, because one part of one comment constituted a personal attack against you. Again, something like 80% of your blanking on my talk page in October could not be justified by any policy. The cases you emphasize are all BLP violations--which removal do you say did not involve a BLP violation? What part of these comments were BLP violations? I did not appreciate your email that cast aspersions on me simply for having another user post a personal attack against you on my page, and I don't appreciate your continuing to assert that my comments were BLP violations just because you don't want to admit you were wrong and apologize. It's true that I believe (following libel law) that BLP violations require an identifiable real-name victim -- and you seem to agree too. If it bothers you that much because other editors comment on you in a manner that you're uncomfortable with being associated with your real name, request a username change and speedy-delete your user page, or create a clean start account. But whether or not you choose to do that, you need to stop referring to perfectly innocuous and civil comments, comments that arguably fall below the acceptable level of civility, blatant CIVIL violations, borderline NPA violations, comments that might be taken as "outing" attempts and legitimate NPA violations as "BLP violations". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Hijiri88 is a very careless reader who is unable to accurately quote the rules here. 1) I said "Wiki official statements by a sysop are a RS regarding Wikipedia official actions--RS can be self published.}} " Hijiri88 mis-stated that as "When sysops say something on Wikipedia they are reliable sources for BLP purposes?" 2) Hijiri88 falsely states "[WP:BLPSPS]] explicitly bans virtually all self-published sources, reliable or not." That is refuted by WP:BLPSELFPUB 3) "but you as a Wikipedian are not covered under BLP." That is a false statement and is NOT in the BLP rules which cover living person at all times on all Wiki pages. WP:BLPSOURCES 4) "Your proposal would prevent all discussion of your behaviour on Wikipedia if applied to you" No my proposal applies to false statements about any named specific person. 99+% of the Wikipedians use code names and are unnamed. I specifically cited US libel law as a model where "The potential plaintiff always bears the burden of proving that the allegedly defamatory statements were reasonably understood to be 'of and concerning' him or her. 5) ", if you wanted to remove "unlawful" statements, you could cite NPA or CIVIL. You never have." There is no requirement to cite either one. I often revert illegal remarks and usually give no tag at all and often I also give the offender a vandalism warning. For example I reverted 20 offensive edits on White Trash alone for BLP attacks without giving any tag. 6) "When you claim that other users are "defaming" you and violating "BLP" it serves to intimidate them and disccourage them from restoring the non-problematic text you removed." The only example you provide is your dialog with User:Imboredsenseless -did that intimidate you? In fact you allowed him to make multiple defamatory claims on your own talk page. You facilitated him. 7) "speculating that the "RJJensen" on Conservapedia was you" No one speculated that. He said it was me and you agreed. In any case he made extremely nasty statements about RJJensen on your talk page and you facilitated it by continuing to egg him on, with your comments about me like this one If there is in fact someone actively editing Wikipedia who is also an admin on a competing Wiki whose whole reason for being essentially boils down "Wikipedia is biased and is operated by liberal scum" then I intend to monitor their edits closely from now on. You say that was "inoffensive" and I should not have removed it. I say your part of the dialog was offensive and false and should be removed. In all I have done thousands of reverts in recent years-and use the BLP tag in under ½ of 1% of those reverts Rjensen (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC). Hijiri88 is a very careless reader who is unable to accurately quote the rules here Thanks for the baseless and off-topic personal comment. I didn't 'quote' anything. Hijiri88 mis-stated that as "When sysops say something on Wikipedia they are reliable sources for BLP purposes?" You said BLP applies to Wikipedians and their on-wiki activity. This means reliable sources are needed. You said a statement from a sysop was reliable enough. Am I missing something? A sysop in this thread said you should be blocked -- was that sysop's statement a reliable source for BLP purposes too?. Hijiri88 falsely states "[WP:BLPSPS]] explicitly bans virtually all self-published sources, reliable or not." That is refuted by WP:BLPSELFPUB Ha! I am the one misquoting the rules, you say? The exact wording is Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only [under certain very limited circumstances] This exception is why I said virtually all self-published sources, and it clearly doesn't cover Bbb23's statement about Imboredsenseless. That is a false statement and is NOT in the BLP rules which cover living person at all times on all Wiki pages. WP:BLPSOURCES Stop trying to turn this discussion on its head. I am not trying to apply BLP to statements about Wikipedians and their Wikipedia activity. You are. The burden of finding passages in the policy that support your interpretation is on you, not me I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your long comment. Every sentence contains either an error or a deliberate distortion. It's just not worth trying to discuss this with you. You have already received more than the formal warning I suggested (an admin specifically said he was tempted to block you) and you still show no signs of improvement. I will not respond again, but I hope for the project's sake that this thread receives a proper close by an admin. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Hijiri 88 says "The burden of finding passages in the policy that support your interpretation is on you, not me". OK Here are 4 rules that I follow and he seems to reject or not know about: (1) "Very obvious errors [about me] can be fixed quickly, including by yourself." WP:BLPSELF (2) the main BLP rule "Contentious material about living persons (that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." that rule applies to everyone. [Hijiri 88 seems to think it does not apply to me.] (3) "In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism....Similarly, you should feel free to remove obviously mistaken facts about yourself" from WP:AUTO#IFEXIST (4) "If you believe reliable sources exist which will make the article more balanced ...if the problem is clear-cut and uncontroversial, you may wish to edit the page yourself." WP:AUTOPROB [I used rule (4) to add footnotes that were requested on Richard J. Jensen--that is the only writing I did about myself in an article. Apparently Hijiri 88 ignores (1), thinks I am not allowed to use (2) when I am the "living person"; and is simply unaware of (3) and (4). He also ignores my allegation that he deliberately facilitated really nasty statements about me by Imboredsenseless on the Hijiri talk page. ok I'll knock it off for now. Rjensen (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC) There is a longstanding best practice that parties at noticeboards and so forth should not be continuing mutual combat and policy-breaking sniping in discussions. Can you all knock it off for a while? The points were made, let uninvolved review. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC) And given the incredible length of this section, good luck in getting many uninvolved people to review. Maybe if some sort of summary were possible? John Carter (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC) I would be happy with all of my comments except for the first one and the one dated "12:45, 5 December" to be collapsed, but that wouldn't do much good with all the interspersed responses by Rjensen and and Alanscottwalker left still making the thread TLDR but without the context of my comments to which they were responding. If they both approve I guess everything I posted and everything both of them posted in response can be collapsed with a neutral heading like "Longer discussion". Care would need to be taken that Maunus's (brief) comments are not touched and that comments by Arthur Rubin and Black Kite (which fell between long exchanges between the three of us but which were not necessarily related) remain. The reason I want to keep my original response to Alanscottwalker (and his response to me) is that User:Calton also commented an expressed an original opinion, but his comment would get lost in a collapse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Interaction ban: Rjensen/Maunus

I suggest an indefinite two-way interaction ban between Rjensen and Maunus, neither editor to comment on the other anywhere on Wikipedia. They may edit the same articles, as long as they have edited them in the past, but neither is to change in any way the other's edits, leaving it to other editors to make any necessary adjustments. Neither Rjensen or Maunus shall follow the other editor to a new page they havent edited before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• See below Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support and let's add Rjensen - Hijiri88 and we can all end this Rjensen (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Please use a separate section for that suggestion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Let me just add, that if your edits, or those of Maunus, actually do go against policy, this interaction ban is not carte blanche to continue doing them. Any other editor can still revert those kinds of edits, or ask for relief from AN/I or ArbCom, should it come to that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support Maunus-Rjensen IBAN, only because if the problem persists after an IBAN is put in place, that will conclusively prove that if there is a problem here it is not Maunus hounding Rjensen. I remain convinced that Rjensen is (and has been for a very long time) abusing our BLP policy. I therefore think a six-month IBAN would be better than an indefinite one, but would support the latter if if the former is not on the table. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Changed to Oppose in favour of alternate proposal. (see below). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

I make lots of reverts and fewer than 1% get a tag of any kind. I think all my reverts were proper: I was removing unacceptable language. The question is whether I used the BLP tag when it was not necessary. He claims that there were 24 cases since 2010, out of over 3000 reverts. He states "in virtually all cases where he encounters a CIVIL- or NPA-violation, he mislabels it as a BLP-violation" Well all three are somewhat different issues. BLP violations are contentious statements about a specific real person that lack a very strong RS. I can remove them without any tag: For example where I erased "Howard Zinn ruined countless lives. He turned the brains of Boston University Terriers into communist mush." with no tag at all. Rjensen (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Let's not get into this again. 35% of your talk page blankings that cite BLP are wrong to do so. Your reverts of other edits and ones that don't cite BLP are irrelevant to the question of whether you have been abusing the BLP policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC) But if you misquote me again, I will simply remove the portion of your post that misquotes me. I did not say there were 24 cases, and I was not talking about "reverts". While I agree that you do have a habit of edit-warring, and perhaps using BLP as an excuse to violate 3RR when BLP's applicability is questionable, that was not my concern. I checked 68 talk page blankings (not reverts) and of those 68 I found 24 that were clearly problematic. It's entirely possible you have blanked someone's talk page comment because of "BLP" and not said so in your edit summary, and since I ignored edits where there was a net increase in the size of the page, it's possible I missed some blankings where you also posted something of your own that was longer than the piece you blanked. This is why I said that there were at least 24 cases. It is against TPO for me to alter your comment to say something you didn't mean, but if you legitimately meant to misquote me then you are at fault; if you did not mean to misquote me, then you should change your above post yourself and I will remove this clarification. By the way -- "3000 reverts"!? In article talk and user talk namespaces? You've only made around 11,500 edits to those namespaces since 2010 -- were you reverting other users' edits in more than a quarter of those? What you are saying doesn't make sense unless you are deliberately distorting the figures with mainspace edits (which presumably don't have anything to do with "BLP violations" against Wikipedians and their Wikipedia activity). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC) I counted yesterday & made about 12 reverts per week in recent years on Wikipedia on all pages. That includes BLP violations in articles (which I seldom tagged as BLP) for example Rjensen (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC) "Almost no one gives inline citations for talk page comments about other Wikipedians" and "almost nothing that happens on Wikipedia talk pages and noticeboards is covered in reliable sources" is the base of Hijiri88 's claim and that is irrelevant or false. An editor who makes a contentious claim against a names person on a talk page is providing all the RS evidence needed--they have published it (on Wikipedia) and have signed it with 4 tildes ~ Hijiri88 and I agree that there is no BLP violation if the target is an anonymous coded username. However I argue that if the target is a known, named person then BLP applies. He repeatedly complains I erased a chunk of his own talk page. I did so because he was attacking me and facilitating and encouraging others to attack me there: Yes, I very quickly found that page, and I'm also fairly certain they are the same person [ie Rjensen]. If there is in fact someone actively editing Wikipedia who is also an admin on a competing Wiki whose whole reason for being essentially boils down "Wikipedia is biased and is operated by liberal scum" then I intend to monitor their edits closely from now on. Hijiri88 keeps that personal attack & threat of stalking alive right now on his talk page. Rjensen (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC) I counted yesterday & made about 12 reverts per week in recent years on Wikipedia on all pages. That includes BLP violations in articles (which I seldom tagged as BLP) That doesn't matter, since this is about your abuse of BLP policy by interpreting it as applying to Wikipedians and their editing activities, particularly you. "Almost no one gives inline citations for talk page comments about other Wikipedians" and "almost nothing that happens on Wikipedia talk pages and noticeboards is covered in reliable sources" is the base of Hijiri88 's claim and that is irrelevant or false. Again, almost nothing that is reported and discussed on ANI is based on external reliable sources. If your interpretation were correct, this would make virtually every ANI discussion a BLP violation. An editor who makes a contentious claim against a names person on a talk page is providing all the RS evidence needed--they have published it (on Wikipedia) and have signed it with 4 tildes Yes, that is true for NPA and CIVIL, but not for BLP. BLP requires reliable third-party sources and self-published sources by anyone other than the subject themselves are never permitted. I did so because he was attacking me and facilitating and encouraging others to attack me there: Yes, I very quickly found that page, and I'm also fairly certain they are the same person [ie Rjensen]. If there is in fact someone actively editing Wikipedia who is also an admin on a competing Wiki whose whole reason for being essentially boils down "Wikipedia is biased and is operated by liberal scum" then I intend to monitor their edits closely from now on. You have explicitly stated at least twice[22][23] that you have edited Conservapedia and explicitly named the articles you wrote there. This means that linking you to the account you used on Conservapedia is neither a BLP violation nor even an OUT violation. Hijiri88 keeps that personal attack & threat of stalking alive right now on his talk page. Monitoring the edits of someone you know is making problematic edits is not a violation of Wikipedia policy, and in fact is encouraged. However, I quickly thereafter realized you make far more edits than I care to keep track of, most of them apparently benign, so I don't have any intent of making good on that statement anyway. Accusing me of "stalking" is simply nonsense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC) A factual disagreement. Hijiri88 above says " BLP requires claims about living persons to have reliable sources, but the assumption should always be that no on-wiki activity will ever be covered in reliable sources. Citing BLP to justify blanking statements about Wikipedia activity that don't have reliable sources is inherently disruptive, since everyone who takes part in the Wikipedia community makes such statements and by definition they don't have reliable sources -- they only have primary sources published on a wiki." Well no--a primary source in this case is a RS. When an editor publishes a remark on Wikipedia --including on a talk page--and then uses the 4-~ signature, he has created a primary source that is a signed reliable source for his actions. WP:WPNOTRS says "Primary sources ... can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. there is no OR if everyone in the world can see the primary source for themselves. [[the WP:PRIMARY rule is A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. ] I think this factual dispute is a foundation for most of Hijiri88's complaints. In other words, if X is uncivil or NPA to Y on talk page, then Y has the RS needed to prove X is in the wrong & to delete the remark. Rjensen (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC) You are talking about primary sources, but the quotation you provide, and even moreso every other time I have made the same point in this thread, was clearly about self-published sources (hence "published on a wiki"). WP:BLPSPS explicitly bans all self-published sources except, in some rare cases, those by the living person him/herself. WP:PRIMARY applies to the article space, not discussion of Wikipedians and their edits. Furthermore, while it's a relatively minor point, could you format your posts a bit more consistently? It's very confusing with double and single square brackets, and double and single quotation marks all over the place with apparently no regard for wiki markup and no apparent purpose except to make your comments less readable. I recently discovered Template:tq, which I find very convenient for what you are apparently trying to do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Will you two please shut up? Even in your little echo chamber here it's annoying. Get a hotel room. Hijiri, I don't know who you are, but "Professor" Jensen, with every post you're getting closer and closer to Carl Hewitt territory. EEng 00:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. After reading through this monstrous thread, I have to agree with Black Kite in saying that citing BLP in the situation above is nonsensical. I don't think this is a symmetric situation, and treating it with a symmetric IBAN is not going to work. Maunus needs to moderate his language, something he has already acknowledged. Rjensen, on the other hand, needs to stop abusing BLP: and this is a potentially more serious problem, because such misuse compromise neutral editing, and I say this as somebody with experience in a different but hugely contentious area. There are a number of fringe sources in the area of south Asian politics and history, as there are with race-relations in the US. Dealing with these requires discussing their nature on talk pages, and since these sources are ignored by proper RS, these discussions cannot be cited. If we take Rjensen's argument to its logical conclusion, any fringe author of any fringe source that has been ignored by the mainstream media could register an account, and proceed to remove any criticism of their sources from talk pages. This is quite ridiculous. If we must have sanctions at all, I would give maunus a warning about civility, and Rjensen a ban from removing or refactoring talk-page posts of other editors.Note: I have had minor interactions with Rjensen, and somewhat more significant ones with maunus, so I'm not deeply involved here, but not completely uninvolved either. Vanamonde (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde brings up an interesting hypothetical situation about fringe sources. But it is irrelevant to this discussion. If some editor says "theory ABC is a fraud" then no problem. But is an editor writes about real person XYZ that "XYZ is a fraud" then anyone can call that a BLP and demand reliable sources. it does not have to be XYZ; XYZ does not need to set up a Wiki account under his real name. The BLP rule says that any time any editor makes a contentious statement about a named person then BLP comes into play. Rjensen (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose any i-ban or sanction. This is a storm in a teacup. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

What about the six years of abuse of the BLP policy by someone who really should know better? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the interaction ban? Drmies (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Slimvirgin said she opposed "any ... sanction". I have changed my position on the proposed remedy a few times, but opposing all remedies because one has examined the one with the weakest (well, second-weakest) rationale doesn't seem like a good idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose all, per SarahSV. Come, now. The irrelevant parade of horribles above is fun and all but ultimately silly. Actually, it is regularly done and encouraged on talk pages that we quote and cite - that is a well accepted way to promote not only neutrality, but V, NOR, all our content polices -- and, here, it is easy to quote and cite Richard Jensen, should it be relevant to anything at all, as it's published in an Oxford Journal. Similarly, the only asymmetry in this case is Richard Jensen is a known living person. The only thing Maunus has to do (because he seems so bothered by Richard Jensen, in a kind of wp:battle fashion), is in Maunus's comments, make Richard Jensen irrelevant to the comment, which should be easy since we are not suppose to be focusing on the person (and we regularly don't know, who an account is). All Hijiri88 needs to do is not host WP:POLEMIC from banned sock-puppets that refer to people off-site. All Rjensen needs to do is not get blocked for edit warring, per BLPREMOVE. 'Tempest in a teacup' has it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Unless some specific policy is violated, or unless it has nothing to do with Wikipedia and someone finds it questionable, I will "host" whatever I please on my user talk page. Trying to turn this around on me because someone posted material on my talk page that you find questionable and that outed them as an obvious sockpuppet, but that was not in itself apparently polemical or unrelated to the project, is pretty disruptive. And the fact that 35% of Rjensen's "BLP" talk page blankings are discussion of Wikipedia editors is a serious cause for concern. Your continued refusal to recognize this baffles me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Modified I-Ban: Rjensen/Maunus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warning/Ban: Maunus and Rjensen

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

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

Extended content

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

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

I-Ban: Rjensen/Hijiri88

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

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

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

Extended content

Half this LONG discussion is Hijiri88 repeatedly attacking me for deleting remarks he at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hijiri88&diff=prev&oldid=744883814 made to User:Imboredsenseless on how to attack me for my siupposed political views as expressed on Conservapedia. He still refuses to admit that it was uncalled for and wrong. I did not say he made a BLP violation (I said User:Imboredsenseless did so). He promised to stalk me and that was equally wrong. Rjensen (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC) No attacks. Just posting evidence of the same abuse that everyone else here has acknowledged. You might as well ask for a TBAN with User:Vanamonde93, User:Arthur Rubin, or User:Calton. I have never once "refused to admit" that Imboredsenseless's attack on you was "uncalled for and wrong". I said it to him when he first posted. I have said numerous times in this thread that it was a personal attack that merited blanking, which is why I blanked it. I would like to see a diff of me "promising to stalk you". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC) I deleted the offensive remarks by User:Imboredsenseless and by Hijiri88 in encouraging him. Stalking? Yes: after explicitly discussing me by name you promised him: "If there is in fact someone actively editing Wikipedia who is also an admin on a competing Wiki whose whole reason for being essentially boils down "Wikipedia is biased and is operated by liberal scum" then I intend to monitor their edits closely from now on." I erased it and you put it back--your threat based on your opposition to what you mistakenly think are my political views is on your talk page now. Rjensen (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Okay, I was deliberately holding off on posting this material (which includes the full text of an email) as a courtesy, but since it has been repeatedly brought up: I had a very, very brief disagreement with Rjensen as to whether our History of the United States article should lump Jim Crow lynchings in with mob violence targeting immigrant groups like Chinese and eastern Europeans (or something, I don't even remember).[24][25] At roughly the same time I was posting on User:Curly Turkey's talk page, and another user who was active on that page, User:Chie one, apparently decided to do a bit of trolling and created a new account and an elaborate backstory to explain why they started posting on my talk page about Rjensen, a user with whom I had only interacted twice before. I naturally found this highly suspicious, and opened an SPI.[26] After the account was blocked, Rjensen removed the entire discussion from my talk page.[27] He had not commented once on the SPI or on anything before doing this, and had not asked my permission to blank a section of my talk page. He claimed "BLP violations", and we now all know how much stock to put in Rjensen's claims of such BLP violations in talk page discussions of Wikipedians. I reverted, but then got a notification that I had received an email and re-reverted pending my checking my mail.[28][29] The email read as follows: Email received from User:Rjensen 2016/10/18 (Tues), 10:42 here's what was off limits: Now I have no idea what he's been posting but I would be staggered if he veered away from his nutty skewed version of history. Anything Republican (politicians, parties etc.), Christian, right wing, American, he will skew to the heavens. He's right out of the Fox News book of white washing history, white being the appropriate term. I'm disappointed you didn't erase that yourself. I decided to reinsert the discussion, minus the material he had specifically told me was offensive to him.[30] None of it was a BLP violation, but much of what the sock wrote was definitely NPA-violation and worthy of blanking. I thought that was the end of it, but then about two months later an unrelated discussion of Rjensen's abuse of BLP to blank talk page discussions of him as a Wikipedia editor showed up on ANI, and I decided to post what I knew. I was then met with a long string of highly aggressive personal comments by Rjensen (see above), who still continues to deny that he did anything wrong in blanking my and others' talk page comments in this manner. Now he faces a sanction for this behaviour and is apparently trying to get me banned from reporting him for further violations. Either his behaviour on my and other talk pages was disruptive and he should be sanctioned, or not, but an IBAN between me and Rjensen would not accomplish anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC) By the way, my statement that I would monitor his activity for Conservapedia-esque edits was months ago, and I have not made any effort to carry through on it. Part of this was because I have better things to do with my time (like building an encyclopedia), but it was mostly because I didn't mean it to begin with. I was humouring an obvious sockpuppet to see if I could find a smoking gun; SPI has not historically been my friend (a few weeks later almost the exact same thing happened and Bbb23 denied my CU request as "fishing"), so I was trying to get as much evidence as I could. Now, though, I have even less incentive to carry through on my "threat": I would sleep better if Rjensen and I had no further interactions after this thread is closed, and the reason I am opposed to the IBAN is because IBANs are so easy to game, not because I have even the slightest hint of desire for further "interaction" with Rjensen. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC) well that is humorous indeed--except that the nasty uncivil threatening humor against me is still there on Hijiri88's talk page and the sockpuppet is long gone. --I think we're agreed never to interact again. Rjensen (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC) You've posted enough in this thread for me to ask for a one-way IBAN against you, and I'd probably be successful. Where on earth have I "threatened" you, or been "nasty" or "uncivil"? It's all on you. And immediately above you deliberately misrepresent my use the verb "to humour"; it's inconceivable that an American with a graduate degree could be legitimately unfamiliar with that word. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Hijiri88 "humoured" = facilitated a really nasty attack on me for no reason whatever. He added attack words of his own which I removed and he put back on his talk page where they remain today. He wrote: If there is in fact someone actively editing Wikipedia who is also an admin on a competing Wiki whose whole reason for being essentially boils down "Wikipedia is biased and is operated by liberal scum" then I intend to monitor their edits closely from now on. That equals a promise of stalking and a personal attack. Those are dirty hands. Rjensen (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC) I have explained the rules of English grammar to university professors before, but they were Japanese, and English was neither their first language nor their primary field of expertise. I never thought I would have to explain what an if-then sentence is to another native English speaker who holds a graduate degree from an American university. If there is a person violating English Wikipedia's content policies (NPOV, but I didn't name the specific policy), then I will monitor their edits. Please learn to assume good faith, and please stop abusing our BLP policy. I don't care if you start stalking me, but you don't appear to have done so up to this point, and I certainly haven't been stalking you, despite your somewhat unique interpretation of something I wrote on my talk page several months ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Hijiri88 "humoured" a person, as defined by Webster 3rd = HUMOR implies an unusual attention to or a voluntary yielding to what are regarded as another's whims or caprices, often suggesting a purposeful sometimes patronizing accommodation to another's moods. That is he admits he yielded to User:Imboredsenseless and supported and encouraged those personal attacks on me. Hijiri88 ridiculed falsely & promised to stalk a Wiki editor who identified as me in his previous sentence, ["I'm also fairly certain they are the same person" = rjensen]. Now instead of apologizing he denies he meant me--did he plan to stalk some other Wiki editor? Who? All dialog that was unknown & unprovoked by me. He has spent 11,000 words hounding me & attacking me on this thread (I spent 4300 words defending myself. Everyone else here added another 2800 words--I counted.) It's gone on long enough. Hijiri88 still has been unable to quote word-for-word any Wiki rule I violated; that's because I "violated" only his imaginary unwritten rules that he made up in the last week right here. He violated the NPA rules and unlike Maunus can't seem to understand that devoting his talk page to hate messages about me was uncivil. Rjensen (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Rjensen, you are one of the worst wikilawyers I have ever encountered on this board. Please stop twisting my words. I never once denied that I meant you, and even if I had, your claim that the previous sentence was meant to indicate about whom I was speaking would still be complete nonsense. The previous sentence was meant to indicate that I agreed with the sock that you were in fact the Conservapedia editor RJJensen. My reason for believing this was because you had specifically identified your Conservapedia account on Wikipedia. This is not a violation of any Wikipedia policy, BLP or otherwise. If you specifically identify yourself as Conservapedia editor and former admin RJJensen on Wikipedia it is not hounding or outing or a BLP violation to say that you look like you are the same person. Kindly drop it now. I posted material about my off-wiki activity once before (on my user page) and later regretted it; I asked for the page to be deleted, and it was quickly done. You could probably get a rev-del of those two times you connected your Wikipedia identity to your Conservapedia account if you wanted, but constantly drawing attention to it on ANI, and going so far as to request sanctions against other users merely for having had it brought up on their user talk pages and doing a minimal amount of research to verify it, is not the right way to go about this. Have you heard of the Streisand effect? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC) "worst wikilawyers"??? that sounds uncivil (WP:WL says it's "a pejorative term) . But you're nearly at 12,000 words on this thread and still have not quoted word for word any Wiki rule you think I have violated. By contrast I have repeatedly I quoted the rules I followed. Rjensen (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC) I don't think you yourself have violated BLP. I think you have violated TPO by removing entire sections on talk pages because you found three or four lines insulting, and I think you have abused BLP by constantly citing it in cases where it doesn't apply. No one here has claimed that your belief that BLP applies to our discussions of each other as Wikipedians is correct, and nowhere in WP:BLP is there any passage that even hints at supporting such an interpretation. It doesn't matter which irrelevant policies and guidelines you provide out-of-context quotes from, because all that matters is that you have been reading something into one policy that isn't there. 180.221.235.82 (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC) (Sorry, that was me. I don't know why my phone, iPad, and now apparently laptop keep logging me out automatically. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC) )

• Oppose this thread has gotten silly. I don't see the purpose of this I-ban. If you all both don't want to interact with the other, then don't, but I also don't see a reason to formalize that as a sanction. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Fram

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

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

As Sander v. Ginkel hasn't provided any diffs or links, let me help: [31]. As can be seen, "he said that everything I said was all a load of crap" is not true. I said it about three specific statements he made about my edits: "your claim that "important info was not copied", "you didn't copy all the information", "I had to put the information back manualy" was all a load of crap". The "important info I didn't copy" was a disclaimer which was already in the article, and an incorrect link. Fram (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Sander v. Ginkel

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

• Copyright violation: 2020 Summer Olympics opening ceremony[32] (revision deleted).

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

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

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

• Proxy editing and edit warring on my user talk page: he thought it a good idea to repeatedly readd a comment from a Kumioko sock to my user talk page[33][34]

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

• Creation of BLPs with a false source. Kristi Hausenberg, Evelin Harjakas, Berle Brant, Anželika Ahmetšina, ... were created with a link to an Estonian online sports encyclopedia. None of these had an entry for these persons. An article like Nike Winter first had two sources[35][36], both without any mention of her. A page like Mariann Mortensen Kvistnes has a similar problematic history with repeated additions of sources which don't mention her or don't worked. These problems have also been commented on by User:Manxruler and User:The Banner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you indicate wheer you defended yourself, as I don't see it. You haven't addressed e.g. the copyvio and so on. As for the fact that you are unwilling to change your approach, you have yet again, after this discussion has started, created a BLP with an incorrect source. Alexey Kamanin has as single source [37] which says "an error occurred while processing this directive. Search Results: Found 0 hits that match your search." Is it in this case an easy fix? Yes, the source you need is [38]. Is it normal that this happens once again and that you don't check this yourself? No, that is not normal. That's an unwillingness to change your appraoch evidenced right here, right now. Fram (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Sander v. Ginkel, why did you turn this subsection into a separate section[39]? The two discussions clearly belong together. In general, don't edit posts about you. Fram (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose and start talking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • Well, since you want me to review them... I notice that, despite all claims of improvements, listening to criticism, changes, and whatnot, you still make the very same basic error. Draft:Willi Kirschner has one source, [40], which gives no results. How bloody hard is it to use a reference to create an article, and to copy-paste that URL? If your method of creating articles through templates and programs makes this impossible or way too hard, then stop using that method. If you can't even make that effort at a time you know your edits are being scrutinized and possible sanctions or remedies are being discussed... Fram (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Note I was already aware of this thread before Sanders alerted WIR.. I agree with Fram on a lot of the articles and issues. I personally dislike short sportspeople stubs as they turn wikipedia into a database and nobody expands them in years, but I respect the outlook of people like Lugnuts and Sanders in wanting to make wikipedia a comprehensive resource. I think we can agree though that a lot of the subjects are worthy of coverage. The best thing for those I think would be careful bot preperation and use it to produce fleshier articles upon creation which are accurate. Banning Sander from creation isn't the way to go, and I think there's a way his abilities could be used to produce something a lot more productive (which Fram would be happier with) if he sacrifices quantity in places for better quality and accuracy. What I would suggest is start discussing a way to produce a bot or semi-automated tool which ransacks databases on sportspeople and produces fleshier stubs which are accurate. I do think for the generic sportspeople which use sports reference type sources that might be a more productive way to do it, but it's got to be carefully planned so everybody is happy with the quality of information, and efficient to produce without causing problems.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

You stopped using a template and don't use programs? Then how do you explain this? In your drafts just know, you make the same error (mathces instead of matches) in four articles in a row. You correct it in three[41][42][43], but forget to change it in the fourth, [44]. You then again start creating articles, which all have the very same error([45][46][47]. So you can't be trusted to correct your errors adequately once you are aware of them, and you can't be trusted to correct your program or template to avoid the error in the future. This happens with simple things like this typo, this happens with important things like your refs. Fram (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Sander.v.Ginkel, instead of taking a "quick look", you should actually check the page history before accusing people. The only edit of Cavarrone at Luigi Tosi wasthis, the problems you mention were added by others. With Glauco Mauri, he only made these two edits:[48] and [49], so again none of the problems you mentioned were caused by Cavarrone. Fram (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making from an exprienced and devoted editor a problem case

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

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

An additional small note: most of the articles he created, the content is copied from [50], but from a book of>750 page, a page number would be appriciated in the references.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was just looking at some older articles Sander.v.Ginkel created (late October 2016, so not that old), and noted the 26 articles in a row about Egyptian women footballers sourced to a page about Rwanda. But then I came across Oluwatobiloba Windapo. The article claims that she is the same as Susana Angono Ondo Oyana, and that she (or her federation) changed her year of birth to let her compete in an u-20 competition while she was actually already 29 years old (!!). This is a serious allegation (probably criminal, and certainly something that may get her banned from the sport for a very long time), so it needs very, very good sources. Sander.v.Ginkel sources it to [51], which you label "CAF - Competitions - WWC-Q U20 2016 - Team Details - Player Details (Oluwatobiloba Windapo, as Susana Angono Ondo Oyana)". Looking at the page, I see information about Susana Angomo Ondo Oyana, but no information about her naturalization, previous name, previous date of birth, ... In fact, not a single link between the two players. I looked online, and apart from other Wikipedia articles and one comment by a random passerby in a comments section on a website (a comment which may or may not have been based on Wikipedia in the first place), I could not find any reference to this controversy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As an admin, I should delete any BLP violation, involved or not. And I post it here (a non-indexed page, contrary to the main page) so that Sander.v.Ginkel at least has an idea what he is being accused of. Stating "you created a BLP violation which I deleted" without any details wouldn't be fair towards him or any non-admin participating here. I'm looking further into this, and while I note that Equatorial Guinea has had an age scandal in women's football[52], this was about a different player, not about the one above or Ruth Sunday, where he made the same unsourced allegations. I'm now going to continue searching for more articles with the same problem. Fram (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I have not deleted or edited it as it is less outrageous, but Christelle Nyepel has some of the same problems. It claims that Christelle Nyepel (born 16 January 1995[53]) is the same as Véronica Nchama (born 10 July 1995[54]). Why? No idea, the article gives no source for the claim, and I can't confirm it online. Fram (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Equatorial Guinea Football Federation board directors usually "Equatorial Guineanize" foreign footballers when they called-up for their different national team categories (for men's and women's, seniors and youths), that includes to give to the "new Equatoguineans" an Equatorial Guinean passport with a national identity. They did it for all their national teams, especially in women's football, which they have got a limited quantity of good native players - they don't usually call up to the players of Equatorial Guinean descent who develop their careers in Spanish lower leagues (Spain being the country they became independents). It's a long story from more than a decade. For example. this happened in men's national team around May 2014, when they called Cameroonian defender Franklin Bama for the African Cup qualification but later at the moment of the match he was already Francisco Ondo.[55][56][57] Although Facebook and Twitter are not reliable sources, these express-naturalized players have accounts there, and actually Ruth Sunday is on Facebook and if you go to her profile you could see: "Ruth Sunday (Lucia Andeme)".[58] Meanwhile, Tobiloba Olanrewaju Windapo is on Twitter,[59] and her last tweet includes an Instagram link that if you follow it, you will arrive to the account of "Susan. O.O. Enny" (O.O. meaning Ondo Oyana, the fake names from Equatorial Guinea).[60] Equatorial Guinea FA works that. They want immediate results for their national teams either way.--MonFrontieres (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your explanation. Clearly a totally unacceptable use of hearsay, unreliable sources, and connect-the-dots to put BLP violations (no matter if they are true or false) on Wikipedia. I have contacted you on your user talk page and removed a number of other similar violations from view. Fram (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Sander's explanation is irrelevant. Creating thousands of articles on living people from dubious sources with bogus citations is utterly unacceptable. Any editor who has done this should be banned. All these stubs should be wiped out at once. How many people's careers do we want to risk so we can salvage a few months of sloppy work? One? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extent of the problem

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

#	Article	Date	DYK Size	Event	Source	Source type	Comment
1000	Michail Vasilopoulos-Koufos	2016-11-12	240	2016 European Weightlifting Championships	[61]	List
2000	Lee Lai Kuan	2016-11-02	289	2016 AFF Women's Championship	[62]	List
3000	Batjargalyn Densmaa	2016-10-18	239	2014 Asian Games	[63]]	List
4000	Kuo Ping-chun	2016-09-27	273	2001 World Weightlifting Championships	[64]	List
5000	Kim Un-dok	2016-09-06	266	2011 World Weightlifting Championships	[65]	List
6000	Dylan Schmidt	2016-06-14	826	2015 Trampoline World Championships	[66] etc.	List	Multi-source, some personal data
7000	Gabriela Khvedelidze	2016-05-04	256	2014 World Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships	[67]	List
8000	Ginna Escobar Betancur	2016-04-13	268	2013 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships	[68]]	List	Data in list linked from cited page
9000	Cristiana Mironescu Iancu	2016-03-25	225	2010 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships	[69]	List
10000	Iryna Papezhuk	2016-02-27	183	2012 UCI Track Cycling World Championships	[70]	List
11000	Go Yerim	2016-02-12	216	South Korea women's national volleyball team	[71]	List
12000	Florian Landuyt	2016-01-28	192	2015 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships	[72]	List
13000	Francisco Fernández (water polo)	2016-01-12	329	2011 World Aquatics Championships 2014 Men's European Water Polo Championship 2016 Men's European Water Polo Championship	[73]	List	Some data not in source
14000	Susan Kahure	2015-12-03	194	Kenya women's national volleyball team	[74]]	???	Dead link
15000	Gilmar Teixeira	2015-10-06	271	2000 Summer Olympics	[75]	List
16000	Sapana Sapana	2015-08-29	443	Athletics at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's 20 kilometres walk	[76] etc.	Bio etc.	Multi-source, some personal data

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

16

VASILOPOULOS-KOUFOS Michail

13.07.1992

GRE

68.43

B

116

150

266

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break and examples

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

While articles with major errors can be a good reason to get rid of all of them, the many tiny (and not so tiny) errors in other articles are also a good reason not to keep them around (the "they will eventually get corrected by someone" is not more convincing than "they will eventually be recreated by someone with more information and less errors in them). In late March, Sander.v.Ginkel created Katheleen Lindor. It has since then only been edited by a bot. It has one source, a 2007 entry list to a world championship.[77] It uses this to source the claim that she competed at the 2008 Olympics (not in source), and that she was born 29 August 1989 (different date than in the source). The one thing that is sourced, that she competed at the 2007 World Championships, is not mentioned in the article. The infobox adds the information that she was part of the national team 2004-2008, no idea where that comes from. The next article that was created, Daniel Hypólito, turned out to be a misspelling for another gymnast who had had an article for years. Federica Macrì, Maryna Proskurina, ... all have the same sourcing problems as Lindor. Proskurina claims in the infobox that she was only on the national team in 2008, and has as only source evidence that she competed at the 2007 world championships... It seems she was active with the national team from 2003 on[78] (that source also gives a different date of birth, for what's it worth). Andrea Coppolino is a nice example of the creative use of sources. According to the article, he competed with the national team at championships from 1999 to 2008. According to the infobox, he competed for Italy in 2008 only. And according to the source, he competed in 2009...

One of his most recent edits was [79]. Nice, but neither when he created the article, nor now, did he seem to notice that Batjargalyn Densmaa doesn't seem to exist outside of Wikipedia[80]. Her name is Batjargal Densmaa. Why he created a redirect from her correct name to the invented name isn't clear. In the same period he created this article (October 2016), he also created Linda Curl. Two sources, neither mention her. This indicates that indeed, only getting rid of those with one source won't solve much. Jackie Slack, one source, doesn't mention her. I have been unable to confirm her date of birth anywhere, this site leaves the date open, even though they have dates for most other players. The remainder of the text seems hard to verify as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Keri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal attacks/battleground-like pattern by user Giorgi Balakhadze

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

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

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

• "(...) maybe before your shameless intrigues you first talk to me a?"[90]
• "(...) so please have more dignity"[91]
• "(...) he tries to show me from the negative side and he lies ".[92]
• "Be sure Aragon if you continue behaving like this (POV based intrigues) and "throwing" to me dirty I will ask admins to review this case, to make special efforts and to call down your appetite in attempts to block me."[93]

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

• "You are lying".[94]
• "THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT GEORGIA IN ITS INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS AND EVERYONE MUST ADMIT THIS."[95]
• "Sorry but you need more knowledge to understand what means imagined lines".[96]
• "You won't afraid no one with this cheap pathos about sanctions and my "POV".[97]

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

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

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

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

Adressing a few points;

• "Sorry but those bans are to prevent people repeating same mistake" -- Yeah, and one of the "mistakes" you're making over and over is losing your temper when talking to others, especially whenever its about Abkhazia/S. Ossetia.
• "No (there were no edit-wars again)" -- That's incorrect. We can clearly see that even after your 24hrs block due to edit-warring on the Georgia page dating to some months ago,[98] you were edit-warring again over the same content on 19 November 2016.[99]-[100]-[101].
• "he blamed something that I do not do" -- yeah, obviously we're all grasping at straws here, and all evidence is just actually fake (/end sarcasm).
• "Also that one day block was not because of POV or something else" -- wrong, again; it was exactly due to your "POV" (namely that the long-term sock abusers' content was "useful", and therfore had to be warred in) that resulted in the block. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

• Regarding conflict regions issue and Aragon's POV on them (that they are not part of Georgia anymore) I would like to suggest to read this new research [102] (I've found it today and share to interested parts)--g. balaxaZe★ 12:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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

  "No (there were no edit-wars again)" -- That's incorrect. We can clearly see that even after your 24hrs block due to edit-warring on the Georgia page dating to some months ago,[103] you were edit-warring again over the same content on 19 November 2016.[104]-[105]-[106].

• When he wants something he can clearly find it or say, but now he makes mistakes or lies? This [107] is not same content it was all my contribution, this [108] was re-adding of worthwhile material according to the discussion with admins where they clearly said ("As well as allowing an editor to revert the edits of a blocked editor, we also allow other editors to restore the material that had been reverted, if they feel the material is worthwhile, and they are prepared to take responsibility for it") and I wrote about this in summary. There was nothing wrong in doing this (especially edit-war) as you want to show to people. I will remind people that you reverted that sock's edits just because they were his edits not because of POV, violation of other rules or etc, he made a lot of good sourced contribution but you simply reverted and now the article is in worse condition with many and lack of information.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Springee hounding me AGAIN. Please stop him.

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

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

• Dennis seems to feel a lot of people are hounding him. Look at his recent edit summaries accusing others of hounding just today [[109]], [[110]], [[111]] . Anyway, Dennis and I were recently engaged in discussions oh the Chrysler talk page.[[112]] Based on those discussions and the fact that Dennis never replied to my comments and questions I looked at his edit history to see if he just hasn't edited since our last discussion. I saw his recent edits, got curious given the edit summaries and looked at the edits. So yes, I did find the discussion via his history. Given his previous accusations I probably should have known better than to comment. Anyway, I'm actually sympathetic with Dennis's POV in that case and think an RfC would be the correct way to deal with the map issue so I said so. I will state right here and now I don't intend any more involvement than my RfC suggestion. My apologies to Dennis. Ps, replying via my phone, sorry for any errors. Springee (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Dennis, I'm sorry you continue to make these accusations against myself and other editors. It really appears that any time things don't go your way you claim others are acting in bad faith. I've interacted with you on very few articles. Most recently you reverted changes I made to Chrysler, edit summary "Rvt pov pushing;" no talk page comments. I tried to discuss the changes and was accused of acting in bad faith. [[113]] ("typical bad faith"), [[114]]. When I finished the edits in what I hoped would be a mutually agreeable compromise there was no reply. Now we have this map issue where you are edit warring with at least 3 editors who don't agree with your changes and have reverted these editors 4 times on one page [[115]], [[116]], [[117]], [[118]] (plus the initial change [[119]]) and four more times on related pages [[120]], [[121]], [[122]], [[123]]. Rather than seek consensus you accuse them of hounding. TexasMan34 [[124]], PalmerTheGolfer [[125]]. Four involved editors and 3 don't agree with you. All I did was note that you are an experienced and generally good editor and that an RfC would be the correct way to handle the issue in question. Remember WP:HOUND isn't just because you looked at other articles editors were involved with. It states that "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." This isn't running around, reverting your edits with no intent of helping the articles (what you have accused me and others of). This was suggesting a RfC to avoid further edit warring (some of the above reverts are after my suggestion). In this particular case the overriding reason was to try to avoid an edit war. Springee (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

I have been hounded by @Springee: as well. Since August 14, 2016, the majority of Springee's edits have comprised following me and disagreeing with me. He has followed me to articles, talk pages, user talk pages and even a project page.[126] Every single edit he has made to articles within the Firearms Wikiproject has been in opposition to something I've done. Looking back over his edits since at least May 2016, almost all of his edits have been to further personal conflicts - I can't find any that have added new material to articles. It would appear that he participates on Wikipedia in order to pursue individual editors whom he tries to drive away. Example of his battleground behavior include accusing other editors of behavior he engages in too, such as calling reasonable edits "vandalism"[127] and hounding itself.[128] When I asked him to stop hounding me on November 23 he deleted the post without coment,[129] however he has not followed me to any fresh pages since then. If he is acting the same way towards @Dennis Bratland: then it looks like a pattern. Felsic2 (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Feksic2, I don't have huge amounts of time to devote to Wiki editing and yes, I typically focus on a few topics at a time. You had made a number of related edits that several editors questioned, some more than others[[130]]. I don't see that we have actually interacted on that many topics (The automotive RfC which included the F-650 and Caprice pages), the Mini-14 and Sig SCX pages and the Eddie Eagle topic. Am I missing any? Note that some of these discussions occurred on more than one page (the automotive RfC spanned was at least 5 when you include talk pages, subject vehicle pages, project page). You've edited countless articles over the past few months. Let's also be fair, I am more than willing to discuss changes and work with other editors. I've also been complementary of a number of your edits and opposed others (several of those related to RfC discussions). As for the IP editor, that page was semi-protected twice in a short period of time to deal with IP vandalism. The edits in question had already been tagged by the system as vandalism [[131]], [[132]]. Once you and I discussed that material I admitted I was wrong about some of the content and added it myself [[133]], [[134]] and I was very complementary of your edits once you addressed my concerns [[135]]. Legitimate editorial disagreements handled with reasonable debate isn't hounding. While I still think Dennis is a good editor, he seems to be single minded as it relates to the map issue and has trouble compromising (sounds like why we butted heads regarding the automotive discussions). Since I last posted above there has been another round of reverts [[136]], [[137]], [[138]], [[139]]], [[140]], changes to additional state maps [[141]] and an insistence that there is only one correct POV on the subject [[142]] regardless of the number of editors who object. This seems like a perfect case for an RfC to address the question and that was my suggestion. Springee (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Create"? Again, how many firearms related articles have you edited in the last three months? How many have we actually interacted on? Three? I disagreed with you on three. Several editors had the same objections I had two pages (MCX-found via a NPOVN and Mini-14) pages. Given your extensive editing in the firearms area it's not surprising that a few editors have taken noticed and thus got involved in several pages you edited. You made hounding accusations against other editors who didn't always agree with you[[143]] and your edits raised concerns [[144]]. At the same time I believe you followed me to the automotive space to argue about the F-650 discussion and add to the controversy. I'm OK with that and I don't see any reason why you shouldn't look at other articles I'm involved with if they are of interest to you. Springee (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terrible idea. Every one of these battles of yours drags on for weeks, months. The first act of unproductive posturing is followed by a second act, wherein one of your ugly RfCs is lodged, which goes on for several weeks in itself, filling with drive-by !votes and long rants that nobody reads. You canvass for sympathetic allies to pad the vote, creating more ugliness, more time-sucking sideshows. Nobody wants to close or resolve your horrible RfCs, but when a decision is forced, or demanded, nothing is resolved. You don't respect the outcome of your own RfCs, unless it is in your favor. The egregious thing you do is simply that you insert yourself and your poisonous style into any otherwise productive effort to build an encyclopedia. I, and most others, are here to create content. I try to keep at that [145][146][147][148] and not get drawn into your games. You are not here to create content. This is your debating club, and you are here to fight and draw others into fighting. Nobody can deal with you. Nobody wants to work with you. Your behavior is incorrigible and intolerable. Everybody you go after ends up complaining about you at AN/I and begging to have you off their backs. We want to build an encyclopedia. You don't. Leave us all alone. Get it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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

I know I should probably just let this drop but there was something about an accusation Dennis made above that bothered me because it just wasn't as I remembered it. He said, "you had no less than 40 "please comment on..." threads in front of you." but that wasn't how I remembered it. Then I figured out why. Dennis, for what ever reason, showed the 40 "please comments" on CuriousMind01's talk page as of (Nov 26th) but I posted on the Oso mudslide talk page on Oct 4th![[149]] Given the time stamp of my Oso post, I would have seen only six suggestions [[150]]. Furthermore, I was already talking with CM01 about the weight reciprocity question on his talk page (see my Sept 28th comment [[151]]). Based on my discussion with CM01 I added my opinion to both the Oso mudslide article [[152]] and the Mini-14 articles [[153]], (both Oct 4th about 20 minutes apart). As I said before I didn't follow Dennis to Oso nor did I follow Felsic to the Mini-14 article. Both were of the 6 (not 40) articles on CM01's "please comment" list at the time and both because they raised a similar weight related question, an issue I was already discussing with CM01 even before Dennis posted on the Oso talk page on Sept 29th. Springee (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Interaction ban between Springee & Dennis Bratland

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

• Support 2-way ban as proposer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Mild Object I see the value in the two way ban. Contrary to Dennis's statements I haven't sought out articles he's involved with. Rather he joined discussions I was already involved with in two of the four subjection interactions we've had (the large Chrysler RfC and the automotive crime RfC). In both cases he was quick to make accusations of bad faith[[154]], [[155]], [[156]] (as he did to other editors recently with the election maps by accusing editors who didn't agree of hounding). If Dennis is willing to drop accusations against me and avoid reverting my edits then I'm willing to avoid areas he's involved with as well. Conversely, if Dennis is willing to bury the hatchet and accept an olive branch I'm more than happy to go that route as well. Springee (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Springee has failed to acknowledge any problem with his behavior and failed to assure anyone that he will stop following them around. A formal interaction ban seems necessary as voluntary change appears to be unlikely. Felsic2 (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban against Dennis, Oppose (as an involved admin) on ban against Springee. Springee states he isn't folloing Dennis, and no credible evidence has been presented that she is following Dennis. Dennis, on the other hand, believes that any revert of his edits by Springee constitutes "harrassment". On the other hand, Springee was following a now-blocked editor (who, IMO, needed to be followed, but consenses was against us at the time), so it might rationally be assumed that she would follow an editor she considered disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I haven't done anything to deserve having my editing restricted. Diffs have been provided showing Springee's primary activity is hounding. Ironic that Arthur Rubin ignores that evidence, then proceeds to make a baseless accusation against me. Where's your diffs, Arthur? So sick of these games. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not seeing enough evidence that either is hounding the other. I am seeing evidence that edit-warring may be occurring, which should be halted via the usual methods: WP:WARN, WP:ANEW, WP:RfC or WP:DR. I'm also trying to fathom the Felsic issue but the evidence provided is pretty inconclusive there as well. Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • FYI, I'm not asking for any administrative relief, so I haven't presented a full case. Felsic2 (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Bot (?) mass-adding categories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Fram: Appears to be

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

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

Long term disruption on South Beach Diet

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

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

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

Their contribs to the Talk page include gems like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propose warning

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

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

TimothyJosephWood 01:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate Redirects from User:Dacheatcode

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

all im trying to do is redirect people who use common chicken finger slang to the proper wikipedia page, this exemplo character has it out for me because he didn't like my contributions to the pizzagate article. he might be john podesta so hide your kids. i come back with sourced content so the next time Mehmet Podesta over here stalks my contribution history he'll have to whine a little harder to get my hard earned edits deleted again Dacheatcode (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

User: Sk8erPrince and their attitude

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

---

User: Sk8erPrince has continued to be disruptive and treat AFD as a battleground and there are strong suggestions of bias as well as a complete disrespect for the community. Their behaviour has continued to be concerning and no improvements have been made.

This first started at the end of September when he suddenly nominated 40 Japanese voice actor articles in 48 hours. As you would expect with such a number, some were appropriate and others were rather misguided as it would be difficult to check them all properly before listing. The situation and it's facets were discussed here. Given the number of articles and that it may have been their first attempt at deletions I think the view would be that they would be a learning experience. Indeed they started listing less articles at a time and doing basic WP:Before.

However since then there has been a clear attitude issue. He was brought to ANI over personnel attacks as well as attitude and a combative nature and promised to behave. However this has not led to a change in behaviour. A good example is the fallout from from when he was asked to leave edit summaries for deletions - a perfectly reasonable request for someone who makes lots of AFD's. They eventually conceded to making edit summaries when nominating for deletion (which I believe they have been doing) but they were clearly antagonistic about it when they could have made their own life easier as well as everyone elses by simply considering the very reasonable proposal. Instead they ranted and then agreed to do it but made sure to tell us it wasn't anything to do with anyone wanting them to do it.

There is a clear sign of an editor who chooses not to integrate into the community, instead to antagonise and pick fights with people at every opportunity. They are aggressive in their AFD's and quick to dismiss the views of other people when they are different to theirs. They quote policy and guidelines when it fits with his own view but then is equally quick to dismiss the use of them by other users, and in doing this talks down to people and criticises them for daring to disagree with him. They talk of facts and opinions while getting the two mixed up and appears to have both a superiority complex as well as a him versus the world mentality. They makes no concessions for reaching out to the community and trying to clear the air and is stubborn in their refusal to accept any responsibility. This is a long term issue that is harming the already overwhelmed community who is unable to assume good faith. I took a step back from their AFD's because I was concerned I was adding to the problem only to watch them bash heads with other users instead.

Recent examples from just the last few days:

• Criticising other people for not adding sources and the ease at which they can be found when being challenged, despite not finding any themselves [157]

• Using two previous AFD's that were deleted in his favour as justification to delete another when his reasoning is challenged. [158]

• When it was suggested an afd wasn't needed as the page could have just been redirected without discussion (i.e. per BRD) they claimed Redirects weren't their thing but deletions were [159]. That then lead to an argument other what speedy deletion is actually for. On the same article the threatened to speedy tag a page if it was hypothetically un-redirected. [160]. This hardly reflects someone being neutral and unbiased in nominations (you can believe a page is suitable for deletion without trying to block a different outcome)

• Yeah, except his points aren't valid. He has yet to prove his points, and I've already dismissed them due to lack of proof. Don't vote to keep an article if you can't be bothered to be objective about the subject himself. From someone who has demonstrated a lack of objectivity themselves and admits to being dismissive of other peoples comments. [161]

• The bottom section of this AFD, although this particular bit really takes the cake:[162]. Sk8terprince really is in no position to make this sort of comment, if someone else made it he'd post a diatribe in response.

• How is this an appropriate closing comment?

Many of the edits I could complain about might get a free pass individually as one offs. However these are just a handful of examples that when viewed collectively and across the period since late September show an editor who at every opportunity refuses to change and continues to disrupt and antagonise at every opportunity. Likewise by itself the list of articles "they've deleted" on their talk page isn't by itself an issue - there are several possible explanations. However when viewed alongside their behaviour in AFD, it's difficult to see their nominations in good faith and not some sort of victory list.

The behaviour was troubling enough to begin with, they've been given more than enough chance to change.

edit:User has been notified [163] as well as the primary project affected by the AFD's WikiProject Anime and manga. I will not be contacting involved individuals to avoid accusations of ganging up.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC) SephyTheThird (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• The closure of this AfD has piqued my interest - whereas I guess it could be seen as withdrawing the nomination, the nominator shouldn't really be closing the AfD. Some of these diffs show an extraordinary level of battleground-like behavior, and I would like to hear from Sk8erPrince as to how they think this is an appropriate way to act. Their AfD stats also leave something to be desired -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

They routinely self-close/withdraw their nominations if it's obviously a keep. Sometimes because the evidence is obviously there and others essentially as a WP:Snow keep when they see the way things are going.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it is also intriguing to see their user page lists all of their successful Afds as if they are accomplishments. It adds to the sense of a battleground behavior; instead of nominating articles because they are unnotable, he is doing it because it can be another "victory" for him. At least, when you combine it with his latest issues, that is how it can appear to look.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Sk8erPrince has been displaying a very uncooperative and antagonistic attitude in many AfDs. I agree with some of the noms they make, but when I disagree and present evidence supporting keeping the article, he immediately goes through everything and dismisses all of it, then makes comments which boil down to something along the lines of, "I can't believe you think that way. Are you a complete idiot? I already did all the research possible, so you should just accept what I say." Hardly a shining example of playing well with others. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

He is definitely editing with a battleground mentality here. After the previous ANI, the user toned his edits down to passive aggression, and as his recent edits shows, has become increasingly aggressive. After at least 3 warnings about his behavior, the common consensus seems to be that poor interaction with editors isn't worthy of a punishment as far as I know. So, what can be done? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Why wasn't the Afd creation ban implemented? If the source of his battleground behavior is Afds, wouldn't it be logical to ban him from creating one and editing in one for a long period of time?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sk8rprince is a harder core deletionist than many that are around. They even make it a point of pride that they've managed to get a number of articles deleted as if it was some sort of high score or whatever. Blackmane (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As for options? 1. AfD ban 2. Indef block. Blackmane (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I feel like I need to defend myself here, but after this, I will cease to reply:

1) I have a strong belief that poorly written and poorly sourced articles should not have a place on Wikipedia. Failure of WP:BIO is a valid reason for deletion. I also believe that it is the article creator and those that are interested in the subject's job to expand and improve the article so that it reaches Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. Better yet, I strongly believe that articles should be peer reviewed and improved enough to meet Wikipedia's standards in draft before it is to be published.

2) Whether or not I make a list of accomplishments on my userpage is not something you have a say in. It's like how I don't make any comments about your userpages. I don't see how it's offending anyone, so if I want to make such a list, then leave me be. Whether you'd like to believe me or not, the purpose of making such a list is to show how contributive I could be for the encyclopedia. I honestly don't expect everyone to agree with me in an AFD, but I do believe that personal disapproval in conflicting viewpoints is allowed (you're making it sound like as if it's not). You can't expect that I could delete every single article I nom. It's not possible. But as long as I maintain a list of what I did manage to delete, then you can't say that I'm being disruptive.

3) If you're factually wrong about something, then you are wrong. Facts are facts. You can't say a supporting role is a main role just because you say it is (see this AFD). A couple of participants have shown to jump on the keep bandwagon without having actually analyzed the subject themselves. Instead, they blindly believe in whomever posted the longest "analysis" from the keep camp, as far as I'm concerned.

4) It is a common practice to apply effective arguments that have worked in past AFDs in similar articles that are just as non-notable. Sure, the AFDs themselves are individual, but you cannot deny the similarity between them.

5) If my behavior is a problem, then what do you have to say with other users that are picking fights with me? It's not fair of you to expect me to act more "civilly" (in my perspective, I'm merely counterarguing besides criticizing methods and analyses that I don't agree with), when others can't do the same.

6) Contrary to popular belief, I have made several other contributions besides AFDing. Hence, I am not just a deletionist. See my list of contributions for proof.

7) Criticism and the questioning of others' analyses and methods are common in AFDs. If you can't handle being questioned or criticized, then the only thing I could suggest is get a thicker skin. I personally think a lot of people seem to be forgetting that AFDs are debates. The aforementioned elements are common in debates, for your information.

8) I choose to nom an article for deletion instead of boldly redirecting because I believe the consensus should decide whether or not an article gets to stay or be deleted/redirected. Many Wikipedians seem to be in agreement that this encyclopedia operates by consensus, so I don't see how this should be an exception.

9) I am not sure why I am referred to by the gender neutral pronoun "they" when both my usepage and preference settings are listed as male.

That is all. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I just wanted to put this out there:

• Open Cooper
• Sephy
• Calathan
• Kosh

In every one of those cases when an editor tried to give Prince some advice, he blanked the comments from his talkpage. There were also attempts from other editors (myself included) in the AfDs trying to help him but to no avail. If this is brought to ANI again then this should be considered. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban from deletion discussions

Looking at behavior at the deletion discussion that Sk8erPrince himself pointed out, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginzō Matsuo, it's clear he doesn't see the difference between attacking an argument and attacking the arguer. Here he implies an editor shouldn't comment at all; here he tells an editor he'd "better watch your mouth", and here he calls that editor a "sore loser" and says he's acting immaturely, when the opposite is true and Sk8erPrince is the one acting out.

Since he has plainly stated he sees nothing wrong with his own behavior, and as he has been brought to this board twice previously, I propose Sk8erPrince be banned from all deletion discussions for a period of no less than six months. Katie^talk 01:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Katie^talk 01:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose if I'm being real here, this proposal will have precisely one effect; driving the editor away. You take the one thing they contribute to (which is AfD) and remove it, they have no reason to stay.Strike reason; Editor has clarified that they do have interest in contributing beyond AfD, which is a good thing. The alternative in just leaving things the way they are is no better because we just allow other editors to be driven away. So that's not acceptable either. Their noms seem to have improved somewhat, they are still over keen on getting articles deleted without strong enough rationales to do so, but, as long as we're getting improvement in that specific capacity then it's not the act of "nominating" that is the problem. The only alternative then, that could in theory work and still keep all our editors happy is this; Sk8terprince may nominate an article for deletion, they must bring their rationale - as is required anyway - for deletion at the moment of nomination, and may not participate in the subsequent discussion regarding the article's deletion. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that alternate solution is any better and doubt that Prince would agree to it. Wikipedia is a big place, he could just as easily work on the articles he has in his draft space as that would be constructive/non disruptive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, at this stage, I would be willing to agree to any condition other than a TBan (I have suggested a peaceful solution at the bottom that I think would benefit everyone). It is not my intention to be aggressive, but I do wish that participants in an AFD could conduct more research instead of bandwagoning and clearly state the relevance in the sources they have presented on the table. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You cite WP:BATTLEGROUND in your vote below as the issue, not AfD itself, but, Battleground. So, what's the battleground? all of the above points to discussion at AfD. I don't think Prince has a choice in the matter, it's at AN/I's discretion. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

His battleground mentality at AfDs. Its okay to want to delete an article and make valid points, its not okay to take apart your "opponent" with borderline verbal abuse during these discussions when you are told you are wrong. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your clarification below and note above were things I already knew. Again, unless you have a problem with his nominations - which you could well do at 53% "success" rate - then the argument to me regarding TBAN from all AfD process and specifically nominating holds no water. Nominating does not require discussion, it does not require consensus, it requires a rationale and a template. It's quite difficult to battleground if you can't participate in the discussion. The way I see it, they see an article they think is non-notable, they nominate it for deletion and provide their rationale, everything from there is done without them being allowed any input. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't follow you there, yes I would agree to this as a possible amendment to the topic ban. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

All good, the distinction I was trying to draw is not a clear or inherently obvious one. I took the precendent that has been set for a couple of our editors at RfA - they can vote, but, no comments afterwards - and modified it to fit the AfD process. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I have doubts that this would ever work. The temptation would be too great and there are still some concerns over their nominations. I would rather they pass their suggested nominations to another editor for additional assessment. If they can't nominate articles then they can't be tempted to get involved with the AFD after. As they only really seem to comment in their own afd's this would solve both the problems as well as allow them the chance to learn without the temptation of diving back in. If they were to break your suggestion what would be the follow up? A topic ban? I see no reason to delay a full topic ban over such an easily breakable condition. Being able to nominate but not partake in the discussion doesn't make much sense and is unlikely to work.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support per WP:BATTLEGROUND (at his AfDs). Wikipedia is more than just deletions, it is about working together but I have not seen this editor give a damn when it comes to this. A topic ban is not forever and can be revisited by the community when Prince can show that he can work with others outside of deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Consider this as going easy on the user; the other option recommended was an indef block. You first need to learn how to effectively communicate with other editors before you can return to nominating articles. Afds are almost always about varying perspectives on an article. The fact that many of your Afds are almost unanimously kept means you need to gather more information on what is notable for the encyclopedia. This time off will help you do that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I don't consider your "achievements", as you call them, to outweigh the combative communication you have on Afds. Even one of your recent Afds, which you closed yourself, shows you hold grudges against other editors who vote keep [164]. "Winning" an Afd is not an accomplishment, it is part of a rooting out process. Creating meaningful pages or adding positively to existing pages are things to consider as accomplishments.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with the other support votes. It's basically either this or an indefinite block for continued incivility and treating Wikipedia like a battleground. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I could provide diff after diff of this user's battleground mentality and inability to edit in this area. As a direct rebuttal to Rndd above I would say that this user hasn't not demonstrated a sufficient understanding of souring and notability. When challenged he simply resorts to petty insults and petulant rhetoric. I do hope that Prince can learn to channel his clear passion for the project into another area. This project could use some of his passion, just not this way. FYI, I invite scrutiny of my interactions with him and I will provide riffs upon request. Prince would also do well to stay out of the contentious topic area for the duration of this discussion.--Adam in MO Talk 03:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  They also made this outrageously inappropriate personal attack while capitulating in the close of an erroneous AFD. --Adam in MO Talk 19:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support The user has only done a small amount of WP:BEFORE research on the AFDs and has battled against other editors over whether roles are considered notable using user-generated databases. He has put off a fair number of the regular editors over at Wikiproject Anime and manga. It gets very heated when the actor in question has about 2-3 major roles. And when other editors outside the project provide their analysis, he dismisses their opinion as "points aren't valid" because they don't follow his in-project template to determine notability. I have attempted to suggest more diplomatic ways to question notability on articles including constructive tagging combined with talk discussion but those have been largely ignored. I think he could use a time out from deleting stuff and help on some other parts of the project. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support This users behavior seems to be disruptive on the balance, and a topic ban from AFD would allow them to focus on building the encyclopedia through article writing. A win for all. --Jayron32 04:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I was previously involved with Prince through the first ANI. Yes, I was irritated at his snarky and frankly rude comments toward editors and myself. I was appalled that we allow such rude comments. I am stating this first and foremost because I don't want people interpreting my support as a personal agenda or engaging in battleground behaviour. I support this TBan because the user's behaviour is a problem. It all leads to AfD. Perhaps if they worked on editing and learned to effectively communicate with other users, this TBan may be revoked. Until then, I believe Prince should do something else for a little while and let other users nominate, tag or help expand articles. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I think Sk8erPrince wants to contribute productively. I think it is admirable to try to get non-notable content off Wikipedia. However, I think the way he goes about doing it is very disruptive (massive quantities of AfDs, many within one topic area; (borderline) attacking of anyone who disagrees with him, regardless of how sound their arguments are; snippy closing comments when closing his own AfDs; etc.) It is practically impossible to have a normal discussion with him because of how rude he tends to be with practically everyone. I think some time (a month or two, at a minimum) away from anything to do with deletion would do him good. Perhaps he could focus on finding needy articles and improving them to at least Start or C class. His tactics and interactions are what need to be changed, and this should give him time to work on improving in that area. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Question By all deletion discussions, does the proposal mean banning them from the AFD discussion itself but not banning them explicitly from nominating? Blackmane (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  A deletion discussion begins with the nomination. If he is barred from deletion discussions across the board, he can't start one. Katie^talk 13:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Given the most recent example of their continuing attitude, support the proposal. Blackmane (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Firstly, what I'm seeing is an intense battleground attitude around what Sk8erPrince thinks Wikipedia's inclusion criteria should be, not what they actually are, and an apparently irresistible impulse to be obnoxious to others who disagree and actually try to stick to policy as it is currently agreed. Even in the AFD's that Sk8erPrince reckons are good ones, we're seeing unacceptable personal attacks! This has to stop, and if Sk8erPrince won't stop voluntarily then the rest of us have to step in. Ban of either a minimum of six months, or an indefinite one that can be appealed after six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support AFD is clearly the main area of concern here and they have received what must be a dozen requests/suggestions from different users to consider their behaviour or face a possible Tban yet they continued. If they want to contribute to the encyclopaedia as a whole a ban from AFD would allow them to do so without putting themselves into situations they clearly cannot deal with. If a suitable person volunteers themselves, they could always provide possible AFD topics to be assessed and nominated by another user. If the editor is driven away by a Tban on AFD then all that would do would be to prove the point that they are too involved with them. Take away the problem area and see if the user can improve their reputation.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I suggested a topic ban here last month for reasons similar those given above. Honestly this should have been done from the start at the same time as the edit summary requirement. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Sk8erPrince's aims are laudable, but unfortunately he's really not terribly competent at pre-screening articles before nominating them for deletion, and then displays his infallibility complex at the resulting deletion discussion. We don't expect perfection when nominating articles for deletion, but we do expect a good level of competency and moreover, a willingness to undertake research first to determine if the article really should be deleted. We also expect civil, fair and reasonable behaviour at AfD, if someone opposes deletion, they're usually placed in opposition to the nominator, so not unreasonably, we expect the nominator to behave calmly and do nothing which would dissuade people from taking part in a deletion discussion. If we have deletion discussions where the nominator discourages people from taking part, we run the very real risk of articles being deleted without due diligence being undertaken by the community, and that's not acceptable. It's therefore sensible that we prevent Sk8erPrince from continuing their toxic behaviour at AfD. Nick (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Obviously. As Nick said, he is being disruptive at AfD, and this is probably the best way to keep that from happening. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I supported an AfD ban in the prior thread here and still do. I am however very happy to see that Sk8erPrince has learned not to bludgeon the ANI thread as he did the last time around. To me this says that he can learn and can show restraint. We do need people to weed out the dross articles but to do that properly one must be able to distinguish between articles which are inappropriate for inclusion and those which are merely poorly sourced and/or written. Also, deletion discussions are inherently contentious so one should, barring the slips we all make, be polite to those whom one disagrees with - sometimes they are right or may have a perspective you have not previously thought of. Jbh^Talk 15:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support My thoughts have been very eloquently put by pretty much everyone above. A break from deletion discussions and time spent in content creation might (hopefully) temper his apparent over-eagerness to delete. PGWG (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from PROD, SPEEDY, and AfD. The user has proved time and time again (including in previous recent ANI discussions) that his attitude is WP:BATTLEGROUND and that his aim is to wipe out as many articles as possible. This is not someone who is here to build an encyclopedia. His disruptive behavior needs to stop, and if he is barred from these areas (as was proposed and widely supported in the last ANI), he can demonstrate whether he can edit collaboratively and whether he is here to build an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Alternative solution

I have decided to stop nominating articles for deletion and participating in AFD discussions until the new year (Jan 1, 2017). With all this drama that has occurred as of late, I feel like it is for the best that I contribute in other areas other that article deletion for the time being, as everyone (including myself) seems to be very on edge recently. It is very likely that I'll take a break from AFDs longer than 2 weeks at this rate. It is never my intention to be aggressive. I simply wish that AFD participants could be more expressive in their POVs instead of bandwagoning, that’s all. Several users have pointed out that my only way of contribution to the encyclopedia is article deletion, which, I would like to point out, is not entirely true. I don't think a TBan is necessary in this case. If I have shown proof to be able to contribute in other areas besides than AFDs for a considerable period of time (I think 2-4 weeks is a reasonable period of time; but I am open for discussion regarding this), then I think it is no longer a concern. Hence I kindly request to resolve the incident peacefully. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Your request sounds sincere, but I am still skeptical. If you are really sincere then show it with the T-ban in place, your request of 2-4 weeks can be revisited at the right time in the proper venue. In a nutshell you are asking the community to trust you which can be hard to get here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, where was this cooperation on your past ANI discussion and your Afds? I am skeptical because your proposal puts the blame on others for being "on edge". This is a discussion about your recent activity, not how you perceive others. The TBan should still be put in place, but can be revisited at a later time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that "everyone" means others and I. It includes myself. There are ways that I could have expressed myself better, and I shall prove that I can by staying away from AFDs altogether from the time being. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The last ANI, concerning edit summaries, was closed with some good faith shown as Sk8rprince decided to use edit summaries and no restrictions or sanctions gained consensus. I concur that Sk8rprince is laying the fault on others without really understanding that it is their attitude which is the root cause. Blackmane (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. A couple of weeks off from AFD is nowhere near sufficient. This has clearly been a problem for a long time, and the stubborn insistence in the previous section that Sk8erPrince is right and everyone else is wrong gives me no confidence that a short break will make any difference. Additionally, this suggestion is still putting the blame partly on others, when the blame for Sk8erPrince's chronic personal attacks lies 100% with Sk8erPrince. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Opposse A voluntary self ban for two weeks isn't a big solution. Especially considering it is the end of the year. It took the very real threat of a topic ban for this unusual moment of concession but it seems ANI is the only way to get you to consider yourself. It's time to accept responsibility and stop blaming others for your misfortune. Two weeks is a minimal period that you could safely ride out only to make up for it after. I also have doubts you would learn your lesson if you take a voluntary leave from AFD rather than it being imposed. This is a long term issue that needs a solution in keeping with it.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - This T-ban will ensure that you follow through with your promise. Lets be honest, it is the end of the year so more than likely you wouldn't be here anyways but with your family for the holidays. Editors here want to see results, hopefully the new year will mean a new leaf. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose We are back here again only a couple of weeks after the previous ANI. These very issues were brought up there although no sanction was placed regarding them. Sk8terPrince had the chance to change his behavior based on that feedback yet here we are again. Jbh^Talk 15:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This very much seems like a last ditch effort to avoid the longer sanction above. I'm trying to assume good faith and accept his comments at face value, but they just don't seem genuine, especially as we're not that far removed from the last trip to this board over the same behaviour. PGWG (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose My main concern is that this discussion will end like last time. Prince is under scrutiny, opposes everybody who questions their edits, opposes any proposals that involve removing some rights and then concending by either saying he'll accept it or create a new one. It's the same pattern. To me, it shows that he doesn't fully acknowledge his actions but only doing this after plenty of supports come in. It's just odd. On another note, AfD is clearly an issue for him. 2-4 weeks is way too short. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Part of prince's problem is they they fundamentally don't understand how sourcing works. Here he tells me I'm paranoid because I told him twitter and facebook posts are not adequate sources. When told they weren't trustworthy by me and another editor he blew it off. AFD and BLP are not places to edit if you don't understand how sources work. The fact that Prince isn't going to be editing AFD in the near future is a done deal at this point, he has no choice in the matter but the length of time will be at the community's terms not his. ----Adam in MO Talk 19:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm, that is concerning. Social media should never be considered reliable for anything, let alone for an encyclopaedic entry. It bothers me that they would be willing to argue about the verifiability of a facebook or twitter post as a source for a BLP no less. It may seem trivial since it's not an extraordinary claim being cited, but, a) it looks unprofessional and b) it could cause a whole heap of trouble. Imagine if we cited a Trump twitter post as a source for Obama or Rosie O'Donnel. We'd have a lawsuit on our hands. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Exactly, this is way deeper than an attitude problem. The attitude problem is workable but the lack of competence with sourcing combined with an attitude issue is a huge problem.--Adam in MO Talk 19:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Well to be fair they can be used as perennial websites but it would have to be official (verified), notable (in context of the person or thing), and used as a primary source. (Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites). Adam is right though to say that they are not adequate sources in terms of saving an article from AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• AFD wasn't the context of the exchange. My understanding is that social media should only be used on bio articles as a primary source about themselves never about third parties as mr rnddude illustrates, colorfully, above. This is really way off topic for this forum anywho. The twitter guideline is applicable to that situation, especially point 2.--Adam in MO Talk 22:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It is also worth noting that Sk8erPrince has continued to edit in this topic space while this issue is ongoing, despite claiming that he woulld not do so. I think that edit pretty much renders this proposal as moot, since Prince clearly has no intention of abiding by thier own words--Adam in MO Talk 00:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Adamfinmo: So what are you proposing? The only alternative thing to do would be an indef block per WP:NOTHERE. I see a clear consensus above for a topic ban but it has not gone into effect yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

(ec)I can't say I'm surprised. If he cant go 24 hours, he certainly can't go two weeks. It also shows that it's unlikely he would be able to not comment if he was to be allowed to nominate and not comment like was suggested before. Clearly no one believes his proposal is a valid option and that edit pretty much puts the last nail into it. Propose closing this proposed "solution".SephyTheThird (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, they've withdrawn it themselves. Clearly they are beyond helping themselves so need us to do it for them.SephyTheThird (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sk8erPrince, we gave you plenty of chances to change your behavior for the better, and while improvements have been seen, it's far too little, far too late, and your attitude at AfD discussions remains fundamentally the same. Frankly, it's time you take a break from AfDs and contribute to the encyclopedia through other means. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and the best way to do so is to write and improve articles. You do not need to be able to write GA or FA-quality articles immediately; that takes years of skill. You can start with more simple tasks such as typo fixes, simple updates to articles, sourcing unsourced statements, etc. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment At this point I wouldn't oppose an idef block per WP:NOTHERE. Prince has shown this by disregarding this discussion, and editing more pages related to AfD. [165] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Before that gets proposed, I think Prince should have a fair warning that indef is a possibility.--Adam in MO Talk 02:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have notified them here--Adam in MO Talk 02:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Is it possible to add the condition that if he breaks this topic ban an indef block is in order? I just feel an outright block without implementing the ban first is a little extreme. If he slips even once before the ban expires or it is reviewed, then block him.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Given how it's beginning to snow over here, I think the topic ban should be implemented ASAP. In fact, I'm starting to think that, given his battleground behavior has also occassionally gone outside of AfD (see the previous ANI on personal attacks) a (temporary) total siteban might be more appropriate: perhaps something like a temporary (six month?) total site ban, and an indefinite topic ban from any deletion-related edits (not just AfD but also PROD and SPEEDY), all of which of course are appealable. He should also be warned further (as Adam has already done) that any further disruption will result in a block. We have given him so many chances but sadly it has become clear that he is not here to build an encyclopedia: he is here to demolish, not to construct. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't support something like that, at this juncture. Prince has no block log and they are pretty new to this kind of process. I don't think jumping right into a ban would be good. I think that there is a great editor inside of Prince and giving them the chance to do the right thing should come before jumping right into a block. He is certainly following this conversation as it progresses, even if he won't participate. He knows now that any further editing in deletion related discussions before this closes will surly result in a siteban. He probably don't know how hard those are to overturn. I think we should just let this wrap up. Impose the tban, and let Prince impress us all with his growth.--Adam in MO Talk 03:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Adamfinmo. Prince's decision to continue involving himself in deletion is up to him. The ban hasn't been imposed yet, so there's no reason he should stop unless gets truly problematic. A siteban is redundantly this early. I think he can collaborate and edit once the ban is in place. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Someone should just come along and close this now, I do not think it needs to be drawn out. Topic ban Prince, and see what happens from there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Arbitrary Section Break

• @TomStar81: there are a few things which concern me about this close. First, you have explicitly given non-admins the power to modify the sanction on their own call and second you have instituted a penalty for making an unsuccessful appeal. Sk8terPrince has not show any sign for making bad faith appeals and this is an unreasonable restriction to place on any editor who has not made disruptive appeals and, in my very strong opinion, beyond your discression as a closing admin. Third, you closed with a topic ban on all deletion processes - that was not the sanction proposed and !voted on which was a ban on deletion discussions i.e. nominating and commenting on AfD. Jbh^Talk 05:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 05:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I too have some reservations about the close. While the topic ban was clarified to be on all deletion discussions per KrakatoaKatie above, there are some stipulations which are outside the scope of the ban discussion. The close needs to be reworded. Blackmane (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I left an AGF loophole int he event it was needed, that was true. In the event the editor misuses that editors in good standing will complain about the disruptive behavior, such complaints would make their way here in some way shape or form, and admins are editors in good standing as well, so I don't think that should be much of a problem. On the second point, given the user's history of rapid firing afd's, I wanted to forestall a situation in which an editor would appeal, be turned down, then re-appeal in two weeks, then be turned, down, then re-appeal in a week, then be turned down, etc. Therefore, the provision is for one appeal - if Sk8terPrince wants to appeal - after 6 months but before the 12 months is up. After 12 months this has to be revisited anyway, if he doesn't want to appeal, then we are going to discuss the matter of the topic ban in 12 months and whatever is decided then will supersede what is currently in place here now. On the third point, AFD is most associated with deletion discussion, but CSD appeals are discussed on talk pages, as are prods, and Deletion Review is a discussion process as well. Fundamentally, we discuss deletion, its what we do. Shoving him off deletion in its entirety allows for growth in other areas, and as noted above a few do think there is a useful contributor under the disruptive editing. If you remove any chance to participate in deletion then perhaps our man will spread his wings somewhere else - and in so doing, prove to us that he does have what it takes to be a constructive contributor here. There were a lot of issues raised here and previously, and I tried my best to take as many into account when imposing the ban.

On a related note, if you are going to bring this up, perhaps a new independent header is warranted, and I would be tempted to bring the other contributors in to voice their opinion on the matter just to see if there is consensus for a reword. I would hate to think that this gets reworded and then most of the people here complain because it loses the teeth it currently has. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• @SephyTheThird, TheGracefulSlick, Nihonjoe, DragonZero, Blackmane, KrakatoaKatie, Mr rnddude, Knowledgekid87, NinjaRobotPirate, Adamfinmo, AngusWOOF, Jayron32, Callmemirela, Boing! said Zebedee, Narutolovehinata5, Nick, ThePlatypusofDoom, Jbhunley, PGWG, and Softlavender: In the matter of Everyone v. Sk8terPrince, the topic ban I implemented is alleged to be in inconsistent with the findings of the original proposal and subject to 3rd party amendment. I am seeking input from each of you as to whether the given topic ban is sufficient for the case at hand, or if it should be amend as proposed above. What say you, participants in the topic ban discussion? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

An adjustment to the unsuccessful appeal should probably be done. Otherwise, I don't see a problem with everything else. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with how the discussion was closed, and the remedies provided. I only suggest that the "however this courtesy may be revoked without warning by any editor in good standing" part be changed and instead of any editor being able to revoke the courtesy, only a sysop should do so, and only after a discussion takes place. I am fine with a broad ban on deletion-related processes as while AFD is the main area of concern here, I am concerned that he could move on to PRODs and CSDs in order to continue his deletionism. I would also suggest that he could be mentored in some way in which he can be guided with contributing to the encyclopedia through other means, such as editing articles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It should come as no surprise that I agree with the closure and the proposed Tban of six months minimum. I have no issue with extending it to all deletion content rather than simply AFD - it's clearly the same topic area. I'm undecided on the allowance for a hypothetical vote if any of their own articles are nominated for deletion but I've no objection to the clause. Any violation of the Tban as proposed should be brought back here rather than sanctioned by an individual non-sysop. As for the period and appeal, just leave it at six months. If he violates the ban or continues with poor behaviour in other areas then it can be reassessed then. If, having persuaded us he can be trusted he reverts to type, then a further ban could be discussed with whatever evidence there is from after this initial ban period begins.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Other than the penalty for appeal, I'm fine with the close. The penalty was proposed by one of the final commenters and I don't think it had consensus. Besides, we usually don't penalize people like this for appealing other kinds of bans, including Arbcom bans – we simply reset the clock. As Sephy says, if he violates it or continues to act out, it can be reassessed then. Katie^talk 12:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Jayron32 12:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Since when do we reset the clock on finite term bans if an appeal fails? As I understand it if, for example an editor has a 6 month ban and appeals it after three months and fails the ban will expire three months after the failed appeal and not 'reset' to expiring six months after the failed appeal. Am I wrong in this or did I misunderstand your statement? Jbh^Talk 13:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right - I'm thinking of indefinites. I need more coffee. Katie^talk 13:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Mmmm.... coffeee.... morinings are rough for me too. Jbh^Talk 13:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Narutolovehinata5's view that the statement should be modified to be a restriction that can only be placed by an admin. The only other thing I might suggest is that an appeal be allowed at the end of the initial 6 month time frame. Should the appeal be unsuccessful, then they are limited to one appeal every 6 months. Apart from that, I agree with the broad deletion ban. Blackmane (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• For purposes of consensus, I have no objection to the ban being on all deletion processes so long as there is an actual consensus for such. The appeal penalty still needs to be removed, particularly as the actual ban is phrased as "at least six months and no more than one year". The plain reading of this is that it is appealable after 6 months and expires after one year. Adding a penalty by converting a one year ban into an indef ban simply for failing an appeal without further disruption seems both ill considered and draconian. Also, as mentioned by others, if the AfD exception for their own articles is to be removed it should be either removed by an uninvolved admin or via an ANI thread. To the best of my knowledge we never have non-admins impose restrictions on each other - that is one of the points behind RfA, to demonstrate to the community that the editor has the judgement and trust of the community to impose sanctions on other editors. Jbh^Talk 12:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• That would apply where an administrator is applying a sanction based on their own judgement. In this case the community is imposing the sanction, the closer is merely assessing the consensus. For what its worth, I was intending to close it the following day with the same end result (assuming no late opposers) albeit with different wording (indef topic banned from deletion discussions appealable after 6 months). The closer appears to have needlessly complicated it. If you actually read all the support votes, the consensus is clear that a)they should be topic banned, b)they need to demonstrate changed behaviour before they regain the privilege of working in the area again. This means the definition (and intent) of an 'indef' ban - and other supporters explicitly wanted that 6 month period to demonstrate change. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, however the 'any editor may revoke if...' is a discressionary act not a community act. I have no objection to the exception for their own articles at AfD nor for the limitations placed on that exception nor for it being revocable if it is misused. I do object to "any editor" being able to revoke the exception. That is a ban modification and subject to admin discretion not to, in the extreme case, some one edit sock (which, of course, someone will say AGF that it is not a sock) that shows up at an AfD and does a ban modification based on this close. Jbh^Talk 13:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

See my comment below - I doubt most NAC's, self included, or admins would have put that in there. You either limit the interaction (User is entitled to one response and no threaded discussion) or you use the standard 'any administrator can' wording. If they are the article creator the limited response/no discussion is actually unhelpful as they may be able to address sourcing issues etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. My objection re that part of the close rests solely on giving 'any editor' discression to perform a ban modification outside of ANI. Jbh^Talk 13:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see any consensus for either of these two detailed conditions:
  1. "The sole exception to this topic ban shall be in cases in which an article, list, category, etc, created by Sk8erPrince is listed for deletion, in which case Sk8erPrince will be permitted to cast a single !vote for keep or delete, however this courtesy may be revoked without warning by any editor in good standing if Sk8erPrince makes more than 1 edit to the deletion discussion in question within a 24-hour period, or uses this edit to engage in disruptive editing".
  2. "If during this time Sk8erPrince appeals this topic ban and loses, then this is topic ban shall be understood to be an indefinite topic ban"

As an aside, my personal opinion is that 1 is mostly reasonable (Is it a standard approach to a topic ban?), though it should be down to admins to deal with any disruption through usual processes and we need to drop the "this courtesy may be revoked without warning by any editor in good standing..." part. Point 2 is not reasonable - I see no justification for escalating a ban to indefinite based on a failed appeal, and certainly not unilaterally imposed by the ANI closer without consensus. Anyway, whatever I think, we need either standard practice or consensus to impose these two, and I don't see that we have that at the moment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• 1. is an exception sometimes used in advance. Generally where an editor has been more formally sanctioned (AE/Arbcom etc). Its considered 'fair' to allow an article creator to respond even when they otherwise would be disallowed due to sanctions. More often its after-the-fact. An editor will be notified an article they created is going to be deleted, and they end up here or another noticeboard asking if they are allowed to respond - the usual response amongst uninvolved editors is yes they can as a limited exception. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I'm generally happy with 1 then, but I still think the "this courtesy may be revoked..." clause needs to be dropped. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• The only part that seriously concerns me is that any editor (as opposed to specifically an administrator) can modify the ban conditions. We're not so short of active administrators that, should an editor notice a problem, they can't go to AN/I and get an admin to pull the trigger, if needs be. I'm also somewhat concerned by the unsuccessful appear making it an indefinite ban as I haven't seen evidence of any tenatious wikilawyering - but a) indefinite does not necessarily mean permanent, and b) it might help deal with his rather problematic attitude. Other than that, I think this is a good summation of the consensus with a well thought-out implementation. PGWG (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• I would have preferred the TBan be indefinite and appealable in no less than six months (the standard of all indefs). That would give him six months or more to show us he is here to build an encyclopedia and can edit correctly, within policy and guidelines, and can work constructively and collaboratively with others. Since there's never been a case of anyone (successfully) re-appealing within another six months when their appeal is denied, in my opinion there's no need for that extra complication in the wording. I certainly do not think that the Tban should be automatically removed in one year -- if that's the case all he has to do is disappear for a year and then come back and start right back to his nonsense (we've seen that happen). Repeal of the ban should only be on the condition of at least six months of thoroughly demonstrating that he has improved and is WP:HERE. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Boing! said Zebedee in that the "this courtesy may be revoked..." part needs to be dropped. I'm fine with the rest. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, drop the "this courtesy may be revoked..." bit, the topic ban should be handled by admin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• The topic ban from all deletion-related areas seems like a reasonable reading of consensus. Maybe remove the "this courtesy may be revoked" clause. That could lead to unnecessary drama. I think maybe the door shouldn't be prematurely shut on a second appeal, but we can deal with that issue when it comes up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with the outline, except for the "no longer than a year" clause. For all we know Prince will just retire for a year and come back learning nothing. I have seen it happen already and it just causes more problems.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Gentlecollapse6 edit warring via IP at Maxinquaye

Gentlecollapse6, through that account and the Ip 108.50.151.13, is starting another edit war at the article Maxinquaye. These edits, as in the past, involve the editor muscling stylistic preferences into an article I am the main contributor at, without any discussion at the talk page, dismissing my reasoning in response to their changes and reverting to their preferred layout/structure. I am reporting this because my reports of our conflicts in the past were largely left unaddressed and neglected--reports involving personal attacks, deriding "my writing" and development of the article into what is now a featured article, and edit warring at the same article (archive 924, archive 926). I have reverted twice in this hour, but other reverting between me and Gentle goes back just a few days ago, in a similar manner. These are the recent revisions involving me and the IP at Maxinquaye: Dan56 (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• 02:22, 15 December 2016 (IP)
• 02:34, 15 December 2016 (Dan56)
• 02:41, 15 December 2016 (IP)
• 02:44, 15 December 2016 (Dan56)

Here is a similar back-and-forth in another article--Channel Orange--where I am a major contributor to and where the same layout and restructuring changes Gentle made above (via the IP) were made by Gentle and reverted by another editor, TheAmazingPeanuts: Dan56 (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• 00:29, 24 September 2016
• 01:37, 25 September 2016
• 13:29, 25 September 2016

This report is being made as another record; whether some action results from it or not, I dont care. The more records I create of this nonsense, the better if Gentle shall pop up once again elsewhere to pull the same nonsense. Dan56 (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Vishalmahato108

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

---

User:Vishalmahato108 appears to be trying to promote Vidya Bharati schools, by creating "new" articles from vast copypastes from other schools articles, often repeated several times.
Saraswati Vidya Mandir Bhuli Nagar Dhanabd, created this morning, is a good example - 4 infoboxes, "See also" and "external links" sections, multiple other duplicated sections. Sometimes these are prefaced by minutes of a meeting in Hindi - as seen here.
As can be seen at User talk:Vishalmahato108 several of these articles have already been deleted, but more are being created daily.
Editor has also created Category:Vidya_Bharti_Akhil_Bhartiya_Siksha_Sansthan which was originally another copypaste - as seen here and Template:Zonal Branch which is just similar copypastes.
Clearly this is not helping the encyclopedia - whether it is deemed promotional, or a WP:CIR issue - Arjayay (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm headed out the door, but note that I just revdeleted two such chunks. I don't know if the editor should be given one more chance or not--but certainly this is not positive. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Since informing the user of this discussion, they have continued in the same vein - Saraswati Vidya Mandir Bhulinagar, Dhanbad was created, requiring rev-deletion until it was made into a redirect, a large readdition made to Saraswati Vidya Mandir Bhulinagar requiring rev-deletion again, and Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Bhuli Nagar 10+2 School Dhanbad has just been created - which will also need rev-deletion. Whether it is WP:CIR or WP:IDHT, the editor clearly intends continuing, Could someone please intervene - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked, as we're seeing continuing copyvio and no response whatsoever on talk pages. I've also examined more of Vishalmahato108's contributions, and just about everything I've seen so far has been copied from elsewhere - either from other Wikipedia articles or from external sources. I've deleted the copyvios I've found, but I haven't checked everything. It seems likely that Vishalmahato108 is not capable of writing original text in English, and there's a high probability that everything they have added is copyvio. I think serious consideration should be given to just nuking the lot of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

  I've just deleted another one, which consisted of little more than an extensively populated infobox. The trouble is, it was clearly copied from elsewhere and bore little relation to the school it was supposed to be about (when compared to the school's own site). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay, Drmies, and Boing! said Zebedee: Are we done here? If so, can be closed. Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've checked everything that's left and I think we're OK to close now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Concur - Arjayay (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Persistent breakage of Iraqi Kurdistan by 82.46.133.28

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

---

Regarding: 82.46.133.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

It seems that this user occasionally and repeatedly returns to the page Iraqi Kurdistan and attempts to make an edit to push the idea that Iraqi Kurdistan is a territory and/or possession of Iraq. Unfortunately, the result of the user's edits is that s/he always breaks the template used for the infobox. Example diffs: [166], [167], [168], [169] (part of a long chain of edits). Both I and others have warned the user about this before—at the time it looked like intentional blanking—but to no avail. It's possible that this may be a WP:COMPETENCE issue, but I couldn't say for sure. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've provided a more personal/specific warning to the IP editor. No further action is needed at this time, in my opinion. If this persists after my specific explanation of what issues are being caused and how to avoid them, then a block would be necessary. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding improper categories

VikingWarlord is adding Led Zeppelin pages to various Viking categories. They have been [170], [171] asked to stop, this is their latest response. Posting here to resolve this issue. - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand that sometimes it gets frustrating dealing with what you think is disruption, but this looks like a content dispute to me. It's not vandalism (vikings are mentioned in the article), there's no personal attacks or legal threats, and nobody has yet breached 3RR. It could be resolved with much less drama via an RFC on the article's talk page. If you don't want to wait a month, you could try WP:DRN or ask for input from uninvolved editors at a relevant WikiProject. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Kurt Eichenwald article

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

---

Kurt Eichenwald article. Need some quick admin action. Protection and rev del.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It's been protected by DMacks, and I've rev-deleted lots of IP edits - I might have hidden more than strictly necessary, but they're all vandalism and I'm not going to scrutinize every individual edit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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

LesVegas

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

---

LesVegas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is essentially a WP:SPA devoted to promoting acupuncture. He was blocked for a week in August 2015 for disruptive editing (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive896 § User:LesVegas), went on hiatus for most of 2016, and has just returned with exactly the same disruptive edit-warring to tag the article ([172], []https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=755004403). Per [173], this user is a Warrior for Truth™ and I think by now that we are entitled to conclude that this won't change. I propose an indefinite topic ban from Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 12:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from Acupuncture and related pages. I was especially interested in User:Johnuniq's count here, showing that LesVegas has put a POV tag on Acupuncture 12 times in the past couple of years. It has never stuck, and no attempt to remove "pseudoscience" as a statement or a category has succeeded, but has wasted editors' time and energies each time. The time and energies of our volunteers are indeed our most precious resources and should not be squandered by never-ending crusades. Bishonen | talk 15:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC).
• Support tireless POV-warrior who is a time sink on an article with a Talk page which is quite hard work at the best of times. I'm fairly sure it would be better for LesVegas and the Project generally if their efforts were directed elsewhere (their early edit history suggests a range of interests before they became magnetized to the topic of acupuncture). [Add: this "pee and poo" comment[174] rather confirms my view] Alexbrn (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC); amended 15:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support ending what has become a pointless timesink. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Reject What is my crime? Acting as a counterweight? Placing a NPOV tag on a lede where, obviously, its neutrality is contested? I follow the procedure when I place a tag on. I go to the talk page, outline a dispute, list reasons for the tag. Editors who don't like it, then remove the tag before the dispute is resolved. In fact, my very first edit on Acupuncture was placing a NPOV tag on the article. I stumbled across the article and noticed disputes galore amongst many editors on the page, tagged it, saw it disruptively removed minutes later, then sorta got pissed off at the obvious games being played and stuck around. Tags aren't supposed to be removed until the disputes are resolved. I'd also like to point out, Guy has a long history of calling for TBans on editors he disagrees with. If I were an aggressive person who wanted to escalate a battleground, I would call for him to be topic banned. I just think he's probably having a bad day and then saw I was editing again and saw red. I mean, the sole purpose of tags is to alert editors of a dispute on talk, hoping it can be resolved. I didn't edit war the tag back on, even though it was removed while discussion was clearly ongoing, and I would be within reason to correct a clearly disruptive edit.. And a quick look at my history will show that I have far, far more edits to the Acupuncture talk page than I do the article itself. I have always desired to try resolving disputes on talk, not actively editing the article. So in addition to being against editors peacefully trying to get third parties to look at an article, are we against editors giving their opinion on talk pages? LesVegas (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure why the fuss about a NPOV tag. It illustrates there is contention. Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can edit means there is bound to be contention. The second paragraph of that article right now reads like gobbledygook and could use some help; time might be better spent there. If we want to convince readers there is an issue with the research on acupuncture we'll fail. All the reader has to do is look at the second paragraph and they'll probably walk away with the idea that no one knows what the heck they are talking about. I have no position on acupuncture but sure wish those who do could stop with personal attacks. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC))

• I agree about the personal attacks, Littleolive oil. LesVegas' slime and pee and poo attack on Alexbrn here deserves an immediate block in my opinion. I'd do it if it wasn't that I want LesVegas to be able to take part here. But they should realize that Jimbo's page isn't a free area for throwing turds around. Bishonen | talk 17:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC).
• Repeatedly tagging an article with tags that have been continuously rejected is an example of disruptive editing. It wastes time on the part of other editors who have to engage in the same arguments over and over again with the same outcome. There really is no contention on Acupuncture being pseudoscience amongst people without a conflict. Scientists and those who are not gullible idiots agree it is rubbish. Acupuncturists and its associated promoters understandably disagree. Policy dictates we do not let the latter skew articles away from the former. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope you don't see this as a "crime," LesVegas. Neither blocks nor bans are punitive. The hope is that you will contribute to Wikipedia constructively in other topics, since this one seems to be such a source of conflict. I'm afraid that your views are not supported by consensus, and this has to stop. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

User:AlexEng, thank you for your polite statements and civility, and your reasoned response. Now, I must respectfully disagree with the idea that topic banning an editor for holding certain views is a good idea...in my opinion, it quickly becomes a slippery slope. I have also made the argument that consensus statements on acupuncture indicating scientific efficacy for certain conditions by organizations like the NHS, NIH, WHO, Cochrane and others might put acupuncture in the category of "questionable science" opposed to "pseudoscience" by Wikipedia's definition. There are, undoubtedly, scientists who believe acupuncture is pseudoscience, and I have always believed their view should be properly attributed and given due weight. I have made no attempts to silence that skeptical view from the article, only to encourage editors to also highlight the views from some highly respected organizations, as well as reviews and meta-analyses from respected scientific publications and give those their due weight. If holding and promoting that view becomes worthy of a topic ban, then Wikipedia will become nothing but a hit piece for topics a certain group of organized editors doesn't like. Anyway, while I disagree I do thank you for your opinion nonetheless. LesVegas (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"I have also made the argument ..." ⟵ this is just the point. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not arguments constructed by Wikipedia editors. Alexbrn (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

LesVegas the problem is not tha you hold certain views, that is not why the sanction is proposed. The problem is that you are unwilling to accept an article that reflects a scientific consensus which is at odds with your views, and to a lesser extent also your tendency to portray this as a war between "evil skeptics" and The Truth™. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. LesVegas' most recent tagging appears to be part of a long-running history of mostly-civil POV-pushing in this area. Attempting to maintain persistent POV tags (in the face of established consensus) to undermine the apparent credibility of articles is disruptive. LesVegas' comment explaining his tag in the most recent instance – "I have placed a tag on the lede....I am tempted to place a POV tag on the entire article, but in the spirit of good will and good faith, let's just start here with this" [175] – very much has a Nice article, it would be a shame if something happened to it tone of implied threat of further disruption of he doesn't get his way.
  Note that this topic area is covered by WP:ARBPSCI, and for the sake of simplifying management and enforcement of the ban, it would probably be a good idea to make this a standard "discretionary sanctions" action. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh come on, did I place a full tag on the article? No. Knowing how contested that article has been throughout its history, I wanted to start small, placing a tag to attract third party editors to look at just the lede. I wasn't wanting to inflame everyone. The quote you posted above was simply me trying to say "this article is a mess, and it'd be nice if the rest of the community could take a look at the whole thing, but for now, why don't we just focus on the lede?" My intent is the entire opposite of what you're accusing me of, and the proof is that I never actually put on a broad tag.LesVegas (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with starting small, but if your tag of just a section was roundly rejected not placing a broad tag isn't just goodwill and good faith, it's essential behaviour. Also if you should have known even the lesser tag would be rejected, placing it anyway isn't goodwill and goodfaith either. It's better than placing a wider tag, but that isn't saying much. And if you'd been there before, it may very well be the case you should have known. Sure consensus can change, but that generally requires either it was always close or there has been a substanial change in the sources or in policy. For the later case, it's often better to let someone less involved start it, since they are better able to assess whether there is some reason to think consensus has changed. (For the former case, it's less clear cut although you still need to take great care not to be disruptive by continually re-asking.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

What? I came onto the article after being away for a year, noticed massive changes I and others felt we're unsubstantiated and placed a tag on the article. Tags, by the way, aren't supposed to be removed hours after being placed on the article if one meets the requirements, i.e., listing the reasons on talk. You can go there and see plenty of other editors supporting my position. Even when it was prematurely removed, against our policies, I didn't get into a long edit war to put it back on. My behavior has been nothing but great here, despite efforts from some editors who disagree with my position and are willing to smear me or make a mountain out of a molehill in order to see opposing viewpoints gone. LesVegas (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support (as an involved admin). I'd taken a vacation from ANI; when invited because of actions of a now-banned editor I was interacting with, only a few weeks later, this editor comes up again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• support WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia per the policies and guidelines but rather to promote acupuncture. Especially pernicious as they took this all the way to attacking MEDRS with claims of systematic bias in order to do so and wasted a huge amount of our time in the process. I would broaden this to all health topics if I had my druthers. contribs to WT:MEDRS and contribs to WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support LesVegas means well but is too attached to acupuncture (see diff) to accept that WP:NPOV means the article should report the obvious and well-sourced fact that the topic is pseudoscience. Tagging the article twelve times in two years is an indication that the user will never voluntarily disengage. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I completely agree with Johnuniq here. It looks like LesVegas has their heart in the right place, but it doesn't look like they will be able to contribute constructively in this subject area. The view that acupuncture is pseudoscience has overwhelming consensus both on the project and in the scientific community; this issue has to be dropped by hook or by crook. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support A civil pov pusher, Les is a 'True Believer' in acu, " Their medicine is legit, it saved my butt on more than one occasion. " (diff) who has not yet appreciated the difference between anecdote and evidence. Roxy the dog. bark 09:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support as per the comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Admin attention regarding the article IAPTI and, say, my identity (I am the long-time user:Fadesga)

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

---

Good morning, administrators. Thank you for allowing for this space. I will try to explain my situation as good as I can. I am experiencing something related to WP:NOBAN.

This is the most strange and embarrassing thing that has happened to me during my long 8 years at Wikipedia.

First of all: if you look back at my Wiki-activity, you will probably see an efficient, reasonable, active editor with over 100,000 editions in English. So far, so good.

I have experienced, from time to time, some "edit wars", not many. But during the last days I have experienced a really strange, unpleasant edit war with the article IAPTI.

I have always used my User:Fadesga for all purposes. And my real name is Fabio Descalzi. You can even see my picture on the user page.

But these last days some strange new users popped up: User:Fadasge (as you see, a very similar username!) and User:Fabio_Descalzi (which is also "somebody else trying to make believe that it is me"!). This is really grave, and I have already told an administrator about this irregular situation. These "strange users" have made only a couple of edits each, and... all of them in the article IAPTI.

I swear I don't have control of User:Fadasge or User:Fabio_Descalzi - if I try to log in, it is impossible, as I do not have my email address linked to them, so I cannot log in as such. Then, yes, I acknowledge, it was maybe an awkard decision (and, at the same time, a "message to the strangers"), I wrote redirects on the user pages of User:Fadasge and User:Fabio_Descalzi. And I posted warnings on the talk pages User_talk:Fadasge or User_talk:Fabio_Descalzi.

Whichever editions you see here or here, are clearly performed by "other" people, as I cannot log in with these users.

Thanks for reading this, hope you understand. My last edit in the article IAPTI from User:Fadesga was this, yesterday evening.

In case you can do something, I will be very grateful.

Best regards from a veteran user, --Fadesga (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked both accounts for impersonation. Katie^talk 13:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Admin attention regarding the article IAPTI, one last detail

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

---

@KrakatoaKatie: may I also point out Special:Contributions/Jose Carras, a WP:SPA whose first edit to IAPTI preceded the appearance of the two sock accounts you've just blocked, and whose most recent edit was a revert of some of Fadesga's changes, with an edit summary accusing User:Fadesga of sockpuppetry: "WARNING: The Wikipedia user Fabio Descalzi operates under multiple names (e.g. Fadasge, Fadesga etc.) to prevent other users from updating this page. New entries that have been systematically deleted are now recovered". If this is a matter for a SPI, I'm happy to open one. Wikishovel (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

CheckUser shows the three accounts are  Confirmed. Jose Carras is the sockmaster. If more disruption occurs, let me know and I'll take another look, but I think that's all of the accounts. :-) Katie^talk 16:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've no idea what the correct version of the article should be, but I've reverted to the last version by User:Fadesga before the most recent socks/impersonators showed up. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock request for 208.114.164.2*

Since September ([176]) the range 208.114.164.232 - 208.114.164.242 has been quite disruptive and accumulated a number of warnings on various IP talk pages. The disruption is targeted to TV related articles. They've made 462 total edits as of this filing. Is it possible to do a small range block like that? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Sorted 8 IPv4 addresses:

208.114.164.232 – 208.114.164.239

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

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

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

Isis (disambiguation)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is a true stalker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:ProgGR

User:ProgGR is systematically editing articles related to the The Young Turks and its hosts in order to maintain a positive bias in the articles. The edits are disruptive and biased. The user has been warned of numerous times on their talk page. I ask that this user be suspended from editing The Young Turks and Cenk Uygur. Examples: [177] [178] [179] [180]. (Update) Let me add that my edits may be flawed and I welcome any feedback or corrections. However, my flaws should not distract from what is likely an agenda-driven account.

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

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

Multiple others have brought this up on the user's talk page, with no response. There is an active discussion about the connection between the two Young Turks organizations on the article talk page [181] [182]. Previous mentions have been removed from the article by this user and others. I think at least one sentence is warranted. Analogstats (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Administrator abuse

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

---

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

G'day, from what I can tell, this relates to this [183]. I note that it does not seem that 174 clearly stated what their concerns were with their edit summaries (i.e. specifically what was wrong with ViperSnake's copy editing) when reverting. Frankly, without clear communication what the concerns were, I can see how it would seem 174's were disruptive and hence why administrator action was taken. This now appears to have sparked a thread on the article's talk page, which is the best way to deal with it. As such, in future, I would suggest that you take the initiative and start a post on the talk page yourself after you revert. Beyond that, as far as I can tell ViperSnake's edits were referenced. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please check this discussion

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

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

Notified [184] [185]. -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It is here because of wrong venue, as was noted in top here and before [186]. And now you come here changing your nominating rationale? (A CfD discussion at ANI?) You could have solved this by making that edit where it belongs: at the CfD. -DePiep (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Kuala Namu International Airport

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Affected articles

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

• Without doing anything on the sources, the following had been changed:
  • "In Korea, pure blood theory is a common belief justified as 'defensive nationalism'." to -> "Throughout the Korean Peninsula, the 'pure blood theory' is widely accepted as legitimate, and is a commonly held belief among the populace, often being justified as 'defensive nationalism'" (under "reception"; note like the source is not saying anything like this and also is speaking of the past and not of today's Korea [187])
  • (same diff): "Racism is an ongoing issue and there has been a great deal of awareness in South Korea." to -> "Racism is heavily prevalent in South Korea and is thus an ongoing issue in the country, with a great deal of awareness." (no source given at all)
  • (same diff): "Borrowing from the Japanese theory of nation and race [...]" to -> "Borrowing from the Imperial Japanese theory of nationalism and racism [...]"

(the original source says: "Borrowing from the Japanese notion of minzoku (nation), Sin located the martial roots of the Korean minjok in the ancient Kingdom of Koguryo, which he depicted as militarist and even expansionist" [188])

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

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

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

• Sammy Lee (diver) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [189][190]
• File:Sammy Lee in You Bet Your Life 1950s.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [191][192]
• You Bet Your Life (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) [193][194]
• File:You Bet Your Life (title card - 1955-60).jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [195][196][197][198]

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

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

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

User:Springchickensoup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued stalking and personal attack by IP user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Dunsinan is a word-salad-generator

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:drchriswilliams Now being confrontational and warring.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You made several edits to that article that day. One of these edits added a wikilink that was already included in the lead section of the article and I felt this was WP:OVERLINKING so I reverted the addition of that single duplicate link, describing the basis for this change in my edit summary. [199] Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boab: InfoWars is reliable, Snopes isn't

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Habitual addition of unsourced content to rap-related articles

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

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

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

Examples since returning from block

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

(These are just a few examples)

Warnings since returning from block

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

Why this is a problem

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

User:Yogesh D Churi disruption and swearing

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

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

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

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

Steelpillow

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

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

So now what Ban me for saying truth a new low for the Group of editors ganging against counter views or opinion. So much for freedom of speech, equality and expression No freedom of speech or counter view or Images, really starts to feel like demands of a banned State in middle east. They say off with our heads This gang say Block Ban continuously threatening. They Quote Holy Book This gang quote consensus. Instead just justify your opposition to Images Pictures of aircraft on logical grounds. So much for truth prevails.