Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Fram

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

---

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

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

As Sander v. Ginkel hasn't provided any diffs or links, let me help: [1]. 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[2] (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[3][4]

• 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[5][6], 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 [7] 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 [8]. 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[9]? 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, [10], 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[11][12][13], but forget to change it in the fourth, [14]. You then again start creating articles, which all have the very same error([15][16][17]. 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:[18] and [19], so again none of the problems you mentioned were caused by Cavarrone. Fram (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making from an exprienced and devoted editor a problem case

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

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

An additional small note: most of the articles he created, the content is copied from [20], 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 [21], 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[22], 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[23]) is the same as Véronica Nchama (born 10 July 1995[24]). 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.[25][26][27] 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)".[28] Meanwhile, Tobiloba Olanrewaju Windapo is on Twitter,[29] 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).[30] 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	[31]	List
2000	Lee Lai Kuan	2016-11-02	289	2016 AFF Women's Championship	[32]	List
3000	Batjargalyn Densmaa	2016-10-18	239	2014 Asian Games	[33]]	List
4000	Kuo Ping-chun	2016-09-27	273	2001 World Weightlifting Championships	[34]	List
5000	Kim Un-dok	2016-09-06	266	2011 World Weightlifting Championships	[35]	List
6000	Dylan Schmidt	2016-06-14	826	2015 Trampoline World Championships	[36] etc.	List	Multi-source, some personal data
7000	Gabriela Khvedelidze	2016-05-04	256	2014 World Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships	[37]	List
8000	Ginna Escobar Betancur	2016-04-13	268	2013 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships	[38]]	List	Data in list linked from cited page
9000	Cristiana Mironescu Iancu	2016-03-25	225	2010 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships	[39]	List
10000	Iryna Papezhuk	2016-02-27	183	2012 UCI Track Cycling World Championships	[40]	List
11000	Go Yerim	2016-02-12	216	South Korea women's national volleyball team	[41]	List
12000	Florian Landuyt	2016-01-28	192	2015 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships	[42]	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	[43]	List	Some data not in source
14000	Susan Kahure	2015-12-03	194	Kenya women's national volleyball team	[44]]	???	Dead link
15000	Gilmar Teixeira	2015-10-06	271	2000 Summer Olympics	[45]	List
16000	Sapana Sapana	2015-08-29	443	Athletics at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's 20 kilometres walk	[46] etc.	Bio etc.	Multi-source, some personal data

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

16

VASILOPOULOS-KOUFOS Michail

13.07.1992

GRE

68.43

B

116

150

266

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break and examples

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

While articles with major errors can be a good reason to get rid of all of them, the many tiny (and not so tiny) errors in other articles are also a good reason not to keep them around (the "they will eventually get corrected by someone" is not more convincing than "they will eventually be recreated by someone with more information and less errors in them). In late March, Sander.v.Ginkel created Katheleen Lindor. It has since then only been edited by a bot. It has one source, a 2007 entry list to a world championship.[47] 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[48] (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 [49]. 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[50]. Her name is Batjargal Densmaa. Why he created a redirect from her correct name to the invented name isn't clear. In the same period he created this article (October 2016), he also created Linda Curl. Two sources, neither mention her. This indicates that indeed, only getting rid of those with one source won't solve much. Jackie Slack, one source, doesn't mention her. I have been unable to confirm her date of birth anywhere, this site leaves the date open, even though they have dates for most other players. The remainder of the text seems hard to verify as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• For God's sake, why are we still screwing around with this? Delete them all. EEng 01:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• I agree, whatever the percentage of "good" stubs is, it's not worth the time and energy being expended here, and the importance of those "good" stubs is negligible at best. Nuke 'em from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• If anyone has been following this pointless discussion, please move to close, it's also fine if more than one person closes it. A simple dispute between 2 editors has evolved into this painful thing no one will bother to go through. --QEDK (愛) 04:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I expanded the list with the articles containing information that could clearly be damaging to the subject, see User:Sander.v.Ginkel/articles. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2

1. All articles in the category:living people created by Sander.v.Ginkel are speedily deleted.
2. Sander.v.Ginkel is restricted to create no more than 10 new articles per week.

It has been discussed above, with some support, but not in a structured fashion. The deletion of the BLPs is to get rid of all existing problems with them once and for all. Sander.v.Ginkel can not be trusted to identify problem articles himself (even above, he claims that the only potential problem articles would be some weightlifting ones, ignoring e.g. the Equatorial Guinean footballer articles). Many articles, despite being identified above as such, remain unsourced (technically, they have a source or sources, but none of them mentions the article subject at all). Others have clear errors (like the wrong award example above). The mass deletion will include many harmless stubs as well, but this can't be helped. There is no deadline, these can be recreated if and when someone wants to take the time to write decent stubs or articles.

The second restriction is to prevent the reoccurrence of the problem. The first proposal, discussed above, to move all his creations through AfC but without a limit to the number, will simply overburden AfC. With this new restriction he can, if he wants to, create less but a lot better articles, and/or improve existing articles. "Creating articles" should be read as "in any namespace, whether main, draft, user sandbox..." and includes turning redirects into articles and the like. Fram (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support both as proposer. Fram (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The stub creator has shown he cannot be trusted to clean up the mess. This is the only practical solution. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Aymatth2: Can you please explain why I cannot be trusted to clean up the mess?

• @Sander.v.Ginkel: because a) you continue to say the doping allegations are the only problem, and ignore unsourced allegations of fraud by footballers, etc., b) you were asked several days ago to provide lists of articles with specific issues and have yet to even give a date when such lists would be ready and c) you continue to add damaging assertions citing totally unreliable sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• As you could have seen I'm busy with it. I already made a long list. At the time I posted it here, I already saw I was incapable of doing things. Is it normal that everything is done within a day!?!? See in my history I'm spended serious time in getting the athletes. As I started doing it, of course I can't tell you a specific time. But in you opinion a day is already too long.. And I didn't continue to add damaging assertions. I only added an extra reference. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - There has been no net benefit to Wikipedia. I'd type something longer but this particular issue takes up enough space and time already. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Exemplo347: What do you mean with There has been no net benefit to Wikipedia?

I have no idea who added this comment and I can't be bothered to check. Sign your comments next time, whoever it was. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Umm...is it really necessary to explicitly drop all semblance of discretion? Some of these article have been created through AfC, and at least one speedy kept at AfD. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • We can change the proposal to "all articles created before 1 December 2016", it's just that the more complicated a proposal is, the more trouble it seems to cause afterwards. Fram (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Perhaps there is also some way to word it so "oppose" may be taken to mean "oppose – I volunteer to review and tag 4,000 of the stubs." Aymatth2 (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
      • No, that's not how Wikipedia works. "Oppose" doesn't mean "and I will clean up thee articles", "Support" doesn't mean "And I'll recreate these articles". A support or oppose should be based on the merits of the case, not on the consequences for the !voter personally. Fram (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
        • It somehow seems that "keep 'em and let someone else fix all the problems" is in line with the stub creator's philosophy. Never mind. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Is there any indication that SvG-articles created before are of a better quality than the ones created after or on 1 December 2016? Beside that, SvG (and others) still has WP:REFUND available. The Banner talk 14:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
      • The proposal is to delete the ones from before 1 December, so no, there is no indication that these are better, as that would be a reason to oppose this. Fram (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Note that we are mainly looking to the most recent articles I created of the footballers, we are not looking to all of my articles. And the second thing, of course if you ask to fix the problems withing a few days when I was almost not online I haven't done it.

In the proposal is written Sander.v.Ginkel can not be trusted to identify problem articles himself. However I started listing articles asked for. If Aymatth2 said he was in a hurry, I listed a category where most of the articles could be found. Did I say I'm not able to create such a list: no. Am I not willing to create a list: no. Today I started listing specific articles also including water polo players and volleyball players. As I have to go through 1000s of articles it takes time. I didn't point to the Equatorial Guinean footballer because you deleted them already previous week! I'm busy with it, also with my very limitted time in December. But I'm doing everything I possibly can.

I think this would be the largest deletion discussion in Wikipedia history ever! However, the proposal is based on some articles found by Fram. It's known that he screened 1000s of my articles and list some with problem. This causes it looks like everything I created is wrong. As seen by a proper pick of articles by Aymatth2 the problem can't be proven. When putting all of the 10,000s articles up for deletion, the reason given above is not enough.

As all the articles I created are years of fulltime work and with most of them is nothing wrong. It would be a shame to delete them by a few people saying support. I also think this page is not the best place to decide such a big thing. As this is about many many people, from different sports, the related WikiProjects must be getting involved in this proposal.

Most artices I created are proper sourced. (But of course they are never named. ) prove it I started listing how I created my articles. See this at User:Sander.v.Ginkel/articles. As can seen by the volleyball articles, the data is taken from the FIVB website and the articles countains a external link to their personal profile. The 1000s of weightlifters are created contains all their performances at World Championships. See for intance Mohamed Ihsan. It would be a shame to delete 1000s of these kind of articles.

All the articles that where put up for AfD with reasons given above were kept or speedy kept.

The article with the wrong award example is a verry poor reason to get an article deleted. The article will never be deleted in an AfD, so is no reason to get all of my articles deleted. So put some articles up for AfD, and see what happens. I can say, they won't be deleted there.

The problem is with the footballers I created, with the data I had I created articles that had wrong references. I said I'm going through all of them, and also fixed 100s of them, but didn't have time yet to fix them all, as also several other things were asked me to do above.

As the serious problems are in the football articles I created, why not only proposing the footballers?

Data that is in the articles I created without is source is not proven to be wrong or made up.

100s of articles have already been destubbed. Other editors putted hours of work in it. Just delete them all?

Articles have been at the front page of Wikipedia in the Did You Know section. Just delete them all?

The mass deletion will include many harmless stubs as well well it is actually The mass deletion will include mostly harmless stubs.

The harmfull content of the people I've written about is well referenced. See the articles at User:Sander.v.Ginkel/articles.

Wikipedia always says we're not in a hurry. So why hurry with delete all? Why not looking good? As the content is not harmfull, why such a hurry?

This proposal and replies are based upon opinions how bad it would be. But where are the facts? How many % of the articles are wrong?

Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support without prejudice to an outright indefinite block or ban. I've never seen such a complete waste of community time for no apparent purpose. Whether it's CIR or IDHT doesn't matter. EEng 17:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support in preference to Proposal 3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - per EEng. Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 19:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, emphasizing the statement that "these can be recreated if and when someone wants to take the time to write decent stubs or articles". These list-or-worse-sourced sub-stubs do no good to the project, and their demonstrated sloppiness could do actual harm. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support – I don't take a mass deletion like this lightly, particularly when some of the articles are on notable people. However, I'm not sure we have too many other options here. In an ideal world, I'd back handling this like we did the Darius Dhlomo case, by blanking all of the articles and letting others vet them before unblanking. Unfortunately, I don't think that's practical here; it took almost three years for the Dhlomo case to be closed, and I doubt we have enough interested users to review these articles quickly. The BLP violations could be anywhere, and many errors in many different articles have been pointed out, making it probable that more problems exist than have been identified. In this case, I think we're better off getting rid of the damage and allowing interested editors to create higher-quality versions of articles that are about notable people, as much as deleting pages on notable subjects pains the content creator in me. Also, I'm not impressed by the user's edits here, here, here and in several other places, which strike me as a pretty clear case of canvassing for opposition to this proposal. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Irresponsible behavior must be curbed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC).
• Request As all the major problems raised are in the footballers and I listed the articles containing harmfull content I request to change the proposal in only deleting the footballers. There are no clear reasons given why deleting all the other articles and I can prove they are different created from the footballers like I started doing for the volleyball articles. 62.72.193.116 (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC) sorry it was Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 11:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Literally the section just below this one is about a problem you created while this AN/I was ongoing on a page about someone who wasn't a footballer. CMD (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact is, SvG, even you don't know how many of your articles contain errors because you didn't check them before posting them. What do you suggest - someone individually goes through each article you have created to check everything? You've tried to take short-cuts using automated processes and it's gone spectacularly wrong. Personally, if I'd done that I'd be requesting a mass delete so I could start over, doing things properly. Whatever script or other process you're using, it doesn't work and nobody - not even yourself - knows how many problems you have created. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the footballers I would create the articles the same way, as these were made all from their original source. That's why I asked for only removed of the footballers. The other article is in the list I made with harmfull information. I didn't add content, I added a reference as the previous link gave a 404 error. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you know for sure that none of your other articles contain factual errors? The large quantity makes that knowledge unlikely. You've created so many articles in such a small space of time that you can't possibly have had time to check every single one for factual errors. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support- Flooding the encyclopedia with factual errors, particularly in BLPs, needs to stop. Reyk _YO! 07:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I am hesitant to support the community ban, but I do not oppose it. He did a lot of damage to himself with his "Proposal 4". He has made a spectacular mess of it and he has blown up his own credibility. It will take quite some time to restore that. His battleground mentality, finger pointing, WP:IDHT, revenge proposals, following around, lack of quality is now coming back to him as a boomerang. I will give him one last chance by voting for proposal 2 so he gets a chance to show the community that his attitude can change and that the quality of his work can improve. The Banner talk 11:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Opposed at the idea of delete its articles about cycling. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Note that this !vote was canvassed. SmartSE (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Even prior to this discussion I had doubts about the articles and this has strengthened those concerns. I am also not far from supporting a ban, particularly with edits like the one I linked to above. SmartSE (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Note on canvassing - SvG canvassed 8 wikiprojects regarding this proposal: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]. I have removed them. SmartSE (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Wow. What can I say? Olympian articles are deemed notable by the relevant Wikiproject. I oppose deletion of Olympian articles, but the others I am neutral about. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The articles are mainly of people who are notable due to participation in events such as the Olympics or World Championships. If the problem is the notability criteria for sportspeople then that should be addressed, not the activity of a single editor. --Racklever (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Note - @Sportsfan 1234:@Racklever: - The problem isn't the subjects of the articles, notability isn't in question. I suppose SvG forgot to tell you what the actual problem was when he canvassed you to come and post here. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - rather than mass delete everything, split out the cycling articles (cyclists, teams, races etc), I'm sure WP:CYC can trove through all the articles and either pass them or fix any issues/reservations. XyZAn (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Mainly point no. 1. Mass-delete helps nobody (read: nobody). I have given more context in my proposal below, if you care to read. I would also request Fram to give his take on my proposal, since he was one of those directly involved. --QEDK (愛) 21:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support in addition to the indefinite block. Might I suggest that, given the size of the article deletion being proposed here, that a broader cross section of the community be made aware of it? I think a much wider consensus be sought. A posting to WP:CENT might do the trick? Blackmane (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment No opinion on this proposal but concur that this issue needs a wider consensus as it is proposing a nuke of a very large number of articles in particular subject areas. Appable (talk | contributions) 02:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 3: community indef block

• Sander.v.Ginkel is indefinitely blocked for continued violations of the BLP policy

Today, during all the discussions about his problematic BLP editing, he repeatedly edits Vanessa Hernandez, an article he created in January 2016. His edits today[59] have achieved the following:

• Add an incorrect year of birth (1982 added in three places, so not just a typo: all sources give 1983)
• Add a completely unreliable source to her supposed doping offense[60]
• Add a doping category

The doping edits were done while leaving the original source, which gives a 404 error in place. The doping case seems to be completely unverifiable at the moment (in the article, but also in general online). What also wasn't changed, and was there in his original creation, is the claim that she is a retired water polo player. Aged 33, she still plays at the highest level in France[61].

So during this case, and after all the BLP problems already listed above, he made an article actively worse instead of better. Whether he simply doesn't care about his subjects and about our BLP policies, or whether he lacks the competence required to deal with sensitive subjects here, is not clear and not really important. The end result is the same, he can't be let loose unsupervised on BLPs, and having prolific editors who need constant supervising is not tenable.

Therefor I support that we simply indefinitely community block him, delete his creations and be done with this. Fram (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You forgot to add "Merry Christmas" at the end of that. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support, as a supplement to Proposal 2. Bizarrely irresponsible behavior given the context. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Note: Please state why this website is unreliable. Are you going to delete her from List of doping cases in sport (H)? In that case you should remove all the swimmers/water polo players etc. from FINA sports from all these list, as FINA dicided to remove the doping cases from the internet. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to see how a site called "Olympic anecdotes" wouldn't be reliable. EEng 16:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note 2:She had already the doping allegation in the article. I improved it with an extra reference and she was already in a doping category. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Why do we indulge such people? EEng 17:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Proposal 4, formed by this user also shows a lack of CIR, and also after the evidence put forward. Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 17:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Note 3 Because the original source is now an 404 error, this is suddenly an violations of the BLP policy?!
• Oppose This matter all started with an ANi complaint by Sander.v.Ginkel against Fram. For it to end with Sander being blocked would be unfair and disproportionate. Proposal 2 is a better option in my opinion. Limiting him to 10 new articles a week might encourage the production of more worthwhile, properly referenced articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - per Fram. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Someone who's been here this long and still thinks a statement like Data that is in the articles I created without is source is not proven to be wrong or made up is helping his case, is never going to get it. Before Lugnuts starts shouting about double standards, I'll point out that I not only supported blocking Neelix but seriously proposed using a bot to remove all traces of his additions from Wikipedia, and as far as I can tell SvG's edits are more problematic than Neelix's (which were mainly just incompetent rather than actively damaging). ‑ Iridescent 19:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I considered opposing this in favor of a topic ban on BLPs, broadly construed, but the "broadly construed" part would end up covering most of Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support – I was initially hoping to find myself opposing this proposal, in the belief that the limits on article creation in proposal 2 might persuade Sander to take a more patient approach to building athlete biographies, which might in turn prevent quality issues. Then I noticed that earlier today Sander created Category:Maltese sportspeople in doping cases and added similar categories to several other articles, not just the Hernandez page that Fram mentioned. They also added doping info to several BLPs. Given the issues raised to this point, any edits involving athletes' doping are probably the last thing that Sander should be doing right now. A lot of us have said that this editor needed to be more careful and check for obvious mistakes in their work, and none of it seems to have sunk in. Iridescent has got it exactly right: I don't think this user is going to change. They've shown no indication of doing so yet, and their recent edits imply that they're going to continue down this path. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. BLPs are the most sensitive of articles and must not be created irresponsibly. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC).
• Support Reluctantly supporting this after seeing that other proposals aren't going to work. Could we not nuke the articles in similar vein to the Chinese stubs? JAGUAR  23:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Time to bring this Michael-Jackson-Popcorn-Eating trainwreck to the station. While I'm not an admin the behavior here is passed the CIR/IDHT level into willful disrespect of process. Making a tantrum proposal to subject your greatest critic to the same treatment you're about to be subjected to only demonstrates the lack of temperment and understanding to contribute here. No objections to other proposals, but I am strongly convinced that the Light > Heat ratio would take absolutely perfect editing for several years for this editor to return to net positive contribution status. Hasteur (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This doesn't at all seem like the least restrictive option necessary to address the issue. I would probably support a year or six month topic ban from BLPs along with something along the lines of the editing restrictions proposed above, of course, to be extended to indefinite if the user can't fix themselves in that time. It's also not necessary to theorize on "broadly construed" because the core issue here seems to be the creation of articles about individuals, who are for the most part, either alive or dead (apart from the occasional missing in action). TimothyJosephWood 00:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Making such edits while this discussion is going on shows a either a complete disregard or a lack of understanding of the BLP policy. Either way, it needs to stop, and given this discussion hasn't gotten that message through yet, perhaps a block will. Indef is not permanent, and I would support an unblock (or even no block at all if BLP article editing halts while unblocked, but that seems unlikely) if they note an understanding of their mistakes, and agree to a plan fixing them moving forward. In the interim however, it's ridiculous that this continues. CMD (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support indef. SvG has contributed a lot to the community, but we ate are a collaborative community. Continuing to make the kind of edits being discussed here while they are being discussed here shows a total disregard for the community's concerns. It seems strange that an editor with this much experience can show this much IDHT. Throw the ludicrous crap below into the mix, and the only thing coming out of that cocktail shaker is block. John from Idegon (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

John from Idegon, please refrain from eating any more collaborative communities. Aside from the ethical issues involved, they may contain large indigestible masses, pointy edits, excessive bloat or flab, and long tangled threads which can stick in your craw. EEng 06:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support- Silly "Proposal 4" below has convinced me that this user is not interested or able to curb his disruptive behaviour. Reyk _YO! 07:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - For most of the above issues. I will say that that Doping sourced to Fina is not in itself a problem - FINA only keep currently active sanctions online - to satisfy its 'publishing' rules. So anything sourced to them *will* drop off at some point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it is not a good solution. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that this !vote was canvassed. SmartSE (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Sander does need to get it that wikipedia isn't just about number of articles, and that with BLPs you can't afford to be careless. But remember that Sander is a human being with real feelings. Obviously he arrived here to build content. He wants to see content flourish. Banning him from the site seems very extreme, and rather than teaching him a lesson we're in danger of losing an editor who if given some guidance could be very productive. I would suggest a six month ban on creating articles instead and encourage him to start focusing on quality. If his editing is sitll problematic then.. But he deserves one last chance..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Indefinite doesn't mean infinite. When he can coherently express an understanding of what he's been doing wrong, he should be able to return. EEng 16:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment While staying neutral for now on the block proposal, I'd like to second Dr. Blofeld's comment. SvG's articles have obvious problems but the personal beatdown that this thread has turned into isn't nice. (I may have contributed to it early on too). Dr. B, if you're willing to work with SvG on content issues for a while, that might help. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Dr. Blofeld's statement: "Obviously he arrived here to build content" so I would support a 6 month restriction to something such as Cwm's suggestion of: "Limiting him to 10 new articles a week". If after that period of time, there are no issues with his BLPs, I'd recommend re-assessing the restriction. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• So to be clear, given that very large numbers of his BLP articles have continuing issues, you would be OK with ten possible BLP violations a week? Black Kite (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support We cannot have editors creating BLP's with such a cavalier attitude about sourcing and factual errors. A ban on creating BLP's, or even one banning creation or editing of BLP's would address that problem, but the CIR/IDHT behavior on this thread has persuaded me that this editor is incorrigible. For that reason, I support a block. If indef is too long, perhaps making it a year is enough. If the behavior recurred after a year, per WP:ROPE moving on to indef would be a short step. David in DC (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Skimming through this thread from the top things seem to have escalated quickly with the general theme that Sander has continued disruptive behavior whilst under investigation and has made poorly thought through moves like proposal 4. However, I challenge anyone to act rationally when the thousands of edits that they have made, I believe in good faith if often misguided, are at threat of being deleted en masse. What we have here is a user who wants to put in the time and effort to be a valuable member of the community but perhaps lacks some of the skills needed to do so. Chasing such users away is counterproductive to this project in the long term even if some time and effort by others is needed in the short term to help fix the mistakes and provide some teaching on how things should be done. I'm in favour of some kind of limit on BLP article creation and for those articles to be reviewed by an experienced editor with the aim of providing constructive feedback on how Sander can make their articles better - Basement12 (T.C) 16:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support There is no messing about with BLP. Given the editor's recent antics on BLP articles (not to mention the ridiculous section below) I don't see why any more editor's time should be wasted on this. The only other option is a complete topic ban from BLP article creation (and, to be honest, editing). Black Kite (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

don't see why any more editor's time should be wasted on this -- Amen. This one thread is now a full 2/3 of the entire ANI page, an unprecedented achievement largely traceable to SvG's bobbing, weaving, and bludgeoning. It's fantastic. EEng 17:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I've only had positive dealing with Sander going back a couple of years or so, granted everyone makes mistakes and some of those people may not handle the situation in the best way possible, but on balance I think this extreme, reading through all of the above I can see editors trying to keep personal dealings out of the situation but I get the feeling the discussion has become amorphous and opaque. XyZAn (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support BLP is not something to take lightly. Also the blatant canvassing should solidify the result. Valeince (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - As long as the first part of proposal 2 is also implemented. The BLP violations, canvassing, and sad excuse for a "proposal" below should make this rather easy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose We're making a mistake, read my proposal below for further context. --QEDK (愛) 20:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support re many of the above. Canvassing and revenge proposal doesn't help, but the very serious BLP violation are more than enough on their own. Manxruler (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support while I had made, what is now, proposal 1 in an attempt to address some of this, I vastly underestimated the scale of their article creation. 20/20 hindsight and all that. I'll say it again. For someone to have a masters degree and yet fail so abysmally in sourcing and source checking is unacceptable. Furthermore the fact that Jaguar, who has been on the receiving end of a nuke of their articles, to support this says volumes. The canvassing and retaliatory proposal seals the deal for me. Blackmane (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Proposal 4 tipped the balance, I'm afraid. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Normally, I would support something like proposal #5 below - a targeted remedy that attempts to rehabilitate an editor into a valued member of the project. (I recognize that the Blocking Policy states that blocks are equally intended to achieve the same end, but they have an inevitably punitive cast.) In this instance, however, the editor in question has made it clear that they are determined to not make any change to their behavior. Beyond the tit-for-tat "proposal" below and canvassing issues many other editors have mentioned here, I see a very basic refusal to understand the importance of BLP. The BLP policy is one of our most important policies. Jimbo set up "anyone can edit," as a principle, but not everyone should edit. Particularly, a person should not edit if they can't grasp, despite some vigorously applied cluex4's, why issues of verifiability ans accuracy are extremely sensitive in application to biographies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 4

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

---

• All articles of people created by Fram are speedily deleted.
• Most of his articles (see for instance Carlo Garbieri) is text copied from an old book. Under the article text is a note written that some text is incorporated from an book. However this is a note and the book is not actually used as a reference! So the article 1) lacks inline citation in most cased 2) lacks any citations and 3) it can't be found which part is copied!
• As seen above I did a check upon 40 consecutive articles of Fram. I noted 20 serious errors on 40 of these articles, that's 50% of his articles. These errors included no references of years of birth/death and another year of birth/death compared to the reference. Fram didn't fix the errors and only in the articles where I placed a note where changed. And also he didn't do them all. He didn't change the other things I listed.
• In 6(!) out of the 20 articles I listed with errors the year of birth/death had to be adjusted. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
• The wrong year of births/deaths corresponed obvious with the Spanish/Italian or Dutch Wikipedia. In one occasion Fram even said he used the content from the Italian Wikipedia (without proper references) and also didn't use the translate template.
• Support as proposer. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Nonsense, and this is just more evidence of the SvG's CIR/IDHT. EEng 17:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose- This proposal shows a lack of WP:CIR by this editor. Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 17:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Proposal 5

#Sander.v.Ginkel (talk · contribs · logs) is restricted from creating any article on living persons due to his failure of understanding the BLP policy, for a period of 1 year from the enforcement of the ban.

1. 1. After the ban duration expires, the editor may only submit articles through the AfC process and this restriction can only be removed with the approval of the community.
2. In addition, Sander.v.Ginkel is restricted to a 5 article/week limit and all of them must be submitted through the AfC process, for a period of 6 months from the enforcement of this ban. This ban operates exclusively from the BLP article creation ban.
   1. After the ban duration expires, the editor can at any time request a community discussion for the removal of this restriction.
3. Sander.v.Ginkel is made aware of the behavioral guidelines before going any further, and reminded that the community will not give any more leeway.
4. Sander.v.Ginkel is warned that upon violation of the community-enforced bans, any UNINVOLVED admin may impose sanctions up to a month and then indefinite, after which it can only be removed by the Arbitration Committee or the community.

I kinda regret how the community handled the situation. IDHT does not really equate to wild brazenness and refusal to cooperate. I think we should give the last bit of ROPE and get this over with. --QEDK (愛) 20:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

And it just doesn't end here, we'll need troves of people to dig up SvG's history and check each article for discrepancies and have a central page to actually coordinate and fix all of it ASAP. --QEDK (愛) 21:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --QEDK (愛) 20:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support and let's put this hopefully behind us. TimothyJosephWood 20:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is getting ridiculous, how many proposals does this community need? Why should leeway be given when the subject in question only added to their problems during this discussion with canvassing and a bogus proposal.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only solution is site ban and nuke of all creations. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose per support for other proposals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is a risk that SvG would start mass changes to articles on living athletes in which he asserts that they are guilty of fraud, doping or other offenses. This proposal does not address that very real possibility. I am more concerned with the people affected than the stubs. If an athlete is truly notable, and there is enough public material to support a decent-sized article, it is reasonable to record violations that were proven and reported by the press. But a minor athlete should not be stuck for the rest of their life with an article that says only that they competed in a sporting event, failed a urine test and were banned for a couple of years. So, they had a lousy coach. I see nothing good in stubs like that. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Really? There's also a risk he might start spamming pictures of genitalia on talks, but I'm not sure that's a legitimate rationale. TimothyJosephWood 23:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The reason to consider this is a risk is that he added a doping allegation from Olympic Anecdotes to a stub only yesterday. That site and others have lots of lists of athletes, and he has certainly shown that he likes working through lists. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a diff of that addition? Thanks. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Enough with dragging this on with more unnecessary proposals. This is already taking up more on ANI than (hyperbole alert) the other requests combined.Valeince (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Not hyperbole. As pointed out elsewhere, this thread is already twice the size of all other threads on the page combined. EEng 00:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'd also like to request that someone copies & pastes this to all the future Nonsense proposals that keep popping up for this. It reminds me of a Filibuster - hopefully an Admin will see through all of this nebulous, way-too-long post and follow both suggestions in Proposal 2. Please please stop with the mindless "proposals" Exemplo347 (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Apologies to those above, but WP:IMQUITETIRED and WP:IVELOSTPATIENCE are both, I believe, still redlinks and not a legitimate rationale for issuing a block. TimothyJosephWood 01:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless QEDK is volunteering to deal with every last one of SvG's contributions in AfC space within 1 day of them being created, this is a non-starter from me both as a regular editor ans as an AfC volunteer. AFC already has more than enough crap to sort through and cannot afford to spend more than a minute consideratin on this user's efforts. Remember, BLP policy is not suspended in AFC space, it's just not as stridently enforced because users are expected to be improving their competence. Hasteur (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• I second Avi's close, for taking level-headed affirmative action. --QEDK (愛) 10:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Of course you do, his close more resembles your clearly opposed proposal than the two which actually had clear support. Fram (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I understand SvG caused you some real bit of distress but that's no reason to have such mentality. If you're dissatisfied, you're more than welcome to drag this to the AC or move for a closure review, which will of course need a consensus to overturn. No one's stopping you. --QEDK (愛) 18:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Springee hounding me AGAIN. Please stop him.

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

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

• Dennis seems to feel a lot of people are hounding him. Look at his recent edit summaries accusing others of hounding just today [[62]], [[63]], [[64]] . Anyway, Dennis and I were recently engaged in discussions oh the Chrysler talk page.[[65]] 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. [[66]] ("typical bad faith"), [[67]]. 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 [[68]], [[69]], [[70]], [[71]] (plus the initial change [[72]]) and four more times on related pages [[73]], [[74]], [[75]], [[76]]. Rather than seek consensus you accuse them of hounding. TexasMan34 [[77]], PalmerTheGolfer [[78]]. 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.[79] 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"[80] and hounding itself.[81] When I asked him to stop hounding me on November 23 he deleted the post without coment,[82] 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[[83]]. 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 [[84]], [[85]]. Once you and I discussed that material I admitted I was wrong about some of the content and added it myself [[86]], [[87]] and I was very complementary of your edits once you addressed my concerns [[88]]. 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 [[89]], [[90]], [[91]], [[92]]], [[93]], changes to additional state maps [[94]] and an insistence that there is only one correct POV on the subject [[95]] 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[[96]] and your edits raised concerns [[97]]. 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 [98][99][100][101] 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![[102]] Given the time stamp of my Oso post, I would have seen only six suggestions [[103]]. Furthermore, I was already talking with CM01 about the weight reciprocity question on his talk page (see my Sept 28th comment [[104]]). Based on my discussion with CM01 I added my opinion to both the Oso mudslide article [[105]] and the Mini-14 articles [[106]], (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[[107]], [[108]], [[109]] (as he did to other editors recently with the election maps by accusing editors who didn't agree of hounding). If Dennis is willing to drop accusations against me and avoid reverting my edits then I'm willing to avoid areas he's involved with as well. Conversely, if Dennis is willing to bury the hatchet and accept an olive branch I'm more than happy to go that route as well. Springee (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Springee has failed to acknowledge any problem with his behavior and failed to assure anyone that he will stop following them around. A formal interaction ban seems necessary as voluntary change appears to be unlikely. Felsic2 (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban against Dennis, Oppose (as an involved admin) on ban against Springee. Springee states he isn't folloing Dennis, and no credible evidence has been presented that she is following Dennis. Dennis, on the other hand, believes that any revert of his edits by Springee constitutes "harrassment". On the other hand, Springee was following a now-blocked editor (who, IMO, needed to be followed, but consenses was against us at the time), so it might rationally be assumed that she would follow an editor she considered disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued stalking and personal attack by IP user

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Anonymous IP 38.88.33.114 made changes to this article, "Clean Air Act (United States)", that were inaccurate and I reverted [110] for the reason stated in the edit history. Then this IP added a paragraph which appears to be WP:OR because no source was provided and no sources seem to indicate this is factual - which I reverted [111]. The IP restored the paragraph and began calling the 1970 Clean Air Act an amendment again in the text [112] (please scroll down to see restored paragraph). I reverted these edits one more time [113] with the Twinkle Vandalism tool.

I also left two messages on their talk page [114].

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

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

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

Strange close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harris Schachter

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

---

Harris Schachter was created by SPA User:HRA5967 and nominated for deletion by User:KDS4444 . The article creator then closed the AFD as having been withdrawn by the nominator [115] and removed the notification from the article [116] [117]. I see no evidence of a withdrawal of the nomination in the AFD or in KDS4444's edit history. If there was a discussion it was not done on Wikipedia. I asked both editors what was going on [118] [119] and, after a brief wait to see if the nominator was online or the article creator would respond, undid the closure. Did I miss something or is this just a blatant attempt to circumvent an AFD? Meters (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you handled it appropriately. I assume HRA saw such a close somewhere and tried to copy it - I doubt he even knows what it means. As long as he knows not to repeat it, I think all should be well. You know, even in the event that KDS really did want to withdraw, that would be controversial at this point, since an uninvolved editor has come in to support the deletion. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Someguy. You handled it properly and there is an uninvolved editor advocating deletion, so it should run its course at this point regardless. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. There is a sudden surge of editors looking at the AFD and agreeing with the nomination. There's probably a moral of the story to be drawn there. Meters (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I didn't mean to imply that KDS4444 had anything to do with this closure attempt. Meters (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back— no, I did not withdraw the nomination: someone is messing with the system by claiming this. (And to Meters: no worries, never thought otherwise but thank you for making sure I didn't misunderstand!) KDS4444 (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Pkbwcgs

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Wazir Khan

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

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

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

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

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

User:Rulletsure

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

---

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

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

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

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

Automated vandalism

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

---

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

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

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

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

Earflaps - accusations of being an undisclosed paid editor and a sock puppet

Nobody has disputed the allegations and Earflaps has been blocked as a sock, so I am hatting this part. A huge clean up is still required though (I am OP) SmartSE (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have dual concerns about Earflaps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) being an undisclosed paid editor and a sockpuppet of MusicLover650 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked in 2012. They have created > 400 articles and expanded an undetermined number, racking up 45k edits in total. They deny both accusations [120] [121] and have countered accusing me of wikihounding and turning the question of paid editing back on User:Alexbrn [122]. Since these are both behavioural issues where there will never be certainty, I'm coming here to to present the evidence and gather wider opinions, both as to where you lie on the accusations and the course of action. Paid editing I came across Earflaps at Daniel Amen which has had a problem with paid/COI editors of various forms trying to whitewash it, for at least 6 years since I first edited it. Most recently, in July 27century made edits after disclosing their COI but they were swiftly reverted. Earflaps arrived at the article and began edit warring to tag it as un-neutral, followed by posting an extensive draft on the talk page, giving considerable weight to a single source and using Amen's website extensively: see this section on the TP. So far nothing especially untoward, but something didn't seem quite right to me, and given the history of COI at the article, I wondered what else they write about. Nick Lovegrove really set off alarm bells - there's nothing overtly promotional about it, but I doubt that the subject is notable, they have just published their first book and the article relies extensively on primary sources. James Quincey is notable, but again the article uses primary sources very extensively and as can be seen from the edit I made, contained considerable puff. I asked Brianhe (talk · contribs) for a second opinion, which led to us to collating a (incomplete) list of articles that fit patterns we repeatedly in COI editing, namely creating articles about obscure companies and barely-notable or non-notable business people. Particular highlights include OrthoAccel Technologies and Cardiac Dimensions where new medical devices where given glowing reviews using the companies' press releases as sources. I find the use of primary sources particularly strange, since at the Amen article they were adamant that "liberal tabloid" sources critical of the subject were not reliable: [123] [124]. What could make an editor have such double standards about sourcing? (Note that the first two articles were created in the last month, so it's not that they have changed over time). This might not be 100 % convincing yet, but then I examined their very first edits and I think I found very convincing evidence of sockpuppetry: Sock puppetry MusicLover650 was blocked for sockpuppetry on 7 April 2012, just 2 days before Earflaps registered. Unfortunately there wasn't an SPI and I haven't been able to find any discussions that led to the CU by User:MuZemike, who is now not very active. This version of Sledge Leather was written by MusicLover650 and G5d when they were blocked. In June 2012, Earflaps recreated the article at a different title, using almost exactly the same content. They claim to have found it on the web somewhere, although I cannot find any evidence that this would have been possible. There are other crossovers as well e.g. ML creates redirect, EF creates article. ML updates, EF adds new developments. ML makes large expansion, ML updates. MusicLover560 mainly created music bios, of which Earflaps has also created numerous examples, but others like EZGenerator and FL Studio Mobile fit the paid editing modus operandi as well. What I find most convincing of all though, is that from their very first edit they used an unusual referencing format of {{reflist|refs= etc....}} just like MusicLover650 did: [125]. When most newbies struggle to even use ref tags, how come Earflaps was using this overly-complicated method? I'm as convinced as I can be that Earflaps is a paid editor and also that they are a sock of MusicLover, but I appreciate that I could be wrong, so please let's hear your comments. If I am right, the contribution surveyor makes for scary viewing. SmartSE (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC) If the user is creating articles based on content they found online without attribution than we also have an issue of copyright infringement. Have deleted the page The Sledge/Leather Project as it was created without proper attribution of the original authors or the origin of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC) These two accounts use very very similar referencing style. They take part of the url, typically a short text segment, use "ref name" tags, and collect all the refs at the end of the article. They put quotes around the names. Here is MusicLover650 from 2012[126] Here is Earflaps[127] from 2012. And this is the first edit they every made[128]. Yes that is correct one edit created this. Fully linksed. Refs formatted in MusicLover650's usual style. External links, infobox, and categories and everything. They were clearly not a new editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC) And looking at MusicLover650's first edits and they obviously were not a new user either. This was their second still live edit.[129] There first live edit was deleted G11 for being advertising and was 11,751 bytes in one go. Hum Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Found more evidence. 1) So not only do we have MusciLover650 failing to finish the "Sledge Leather" job they were also working on the "Blake Morgan" job[130] when they were indeffed as a sockpuppet. They uploaded this picture of Morgan on April 1st 2012[131] 2) User:Earflaps is than created and recreates the "Sledge Leather" page and keeps it up and makes the money. They on September 28, 2012 also uploads an image called "BlakeMorganPublicity"[132] which has since been deleted due to copyright problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Opened a SPI here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Comments I have reviewed this editor's article creations as SmartSE stated, and have found a pattern that fits the undisclosed paid contributor profile to a T, especially so in 2015-2016 with a steady stream of creations on corporate entities, CEOs, financial advisors, medical device companies, and the like -- nearly three dozen articles that appear just like those of a paid contributor in those two years. This point of view hasn't been made public until now; however, Earflaps accuses me here in the of being part of a cabal out to get him, related in some way I can't explain to the Daniel Amen kerfluffle. So I'd like to say for the record that I find this accusation inappropriate and wildly non-germane to the AfD in which it occurred, just as if it was intended to deflect attention from the content of his contributions. Otherwise, I agree with SmartSE's analysis and conclusion and find the editor's flat denial to be in no way credible. Additionally, if anyone should doubt that American/UK music promoters exist which advertise their Wikipedia article writing prowess, see this and this. - Brianhe (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC) The circumstantial evidence points convincingly to this being a case of undisclosed paid editing, yet Earflaps says they are not paid. It is theoretically possible the editor takes a keen interest in out-of the-way medical device companies and obscure US businessmen and likes building puffy articles about them scratched-up from the meagrest and/or unreliable sources, but I find it hard to conceive that's really what's happening. If we look at Tommy Hilfiger, before Earflap's involvement[133] this contained some criticism about alleged "sweatshop conditions" and a court settlement, yet this was apparently moved[134] to the Tommy Hilfiger (company) article. In fact, looking at the dated edits this "move" never happened – strangely, the "controversies" were added by anothed editor, Stray.Child[135] before being "respectfully" massaged-in by Earflaps[136]. Stray.Child is almost certainly another WP:SOCK, since in their few edits thay also overlap with Earflaps at Hell & Heaven Metal Fest. After Earflap's subsequent work the company's article now has a "Corporate responsibility" section which is not so much "criticism" as a paean to the superb ethics of the Hillfiger corporation, heavily sourced to the company's own material. In other words, a pretty slick PR whitewashing job has apparently been done. While the community can siteban Earflaps on the basis of the volume of WP:QUACKing, the reach of this is so big (e.g. Earflaps has worked on the The Coca-Cola Company article, which suggests this may be a high-profile PR outfit) I would hope it was something WMF legal would pursue to get some real-world traction on. Alexbrn (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Further comment – and what is with creating redirects like this? And with the *vast* number of edits to categories. Some kind of SEO? Alexbrn (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Yes the editing appears to be that of someone with a COI. Definitely they are promotional and to such a degree that admin interventions are required IMO. A checkuser may be useful but as they are sophisticated might come up empty. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Lol - if all my edits are obviously paid, how come you are the first people to bring me to ANI ever? I see even more now why most other large posters dont' seem to stick around long - they get hounded off the website. I regularly clean up crap pages and have probably interacted with hundreds upon hundreds of banned puppets by now - going through the list and picking one I seem to have some similarities to is cherry picking evidence to the extreme, as far as I am concerned. And where is your analysis of all my beautiful festival pages, for example? Out of all my edits, you only seem interested in the corporations and biographies I've bothered bringing to (basically) good quality. This whole thing is ridiculous. Posting big pages and touching controversy sections is not some hard proof of COI puppetry, just of nerdy dedication with ocd tendencies. The Tommy Hilfiger page, for example, is incredibly high-profile - and yet not a single editor disagreed with me on a single point on that whole page, because my edits were awesome and sensible. I would like to point out that BrianSE has been hounding me for the last day, first with a trivial and easily removed speedy deletion tag on a stub from years ago, and then a deletion discussion on one of my page creations where he smears my neutrality with no diffs or evidence, excluding the vague arguments that "its big" and "low-level executive" (evidently not bothering to look at my editing history prior to that posting, or he would have seen exactly how I happened upon the topic in the first place). Also, Alexbrn was just a week or so ago involved in an edit war with me, which ended in me bringing him to the noticeboard and getting the page where he encountered me (Daniel Amen) frozen for a week - over a simple balance tag! And Doc contacted me in private to ask if I was a paid editor within hours of BearSE's first accusations - I assume he noticed the issue on BearSE's talk page and jumped on the bandwagon. Or, maybe a sockuppet of BearSE himself, lol, if we're just going to town with speculation. Nah, I don't actually think that about BearSE. See, I respect the contributions of my peers in the spirit of AFG, and don't like to drag their reputations through the mud, without absolutely no conclusive evidence of anything, just to protect a pet page. Earflaps (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC) "How come you are the first people to bring me to ANI ever?" Nobody has said that all of your edits are paid. I guess I'm the first to connect all of the dots, but back in 2012 User:Bilby added a COI tag to one of your first creations, User:Voceditenore raised concerns that Korliss Uecker contained unsourced personal info (presumably obtained direct from the subject). More recently, your rewrite of Hampton Creek was branded "a terrible, terrible article written by the company's pr department" by User:Exeunt. I imagine there are other examples. SmartSE (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Of course I have criticism. Have you seen how many pages I've written? Here's a question - don't you find it odd, that in all of my edits, this is all you have to criticize me with? Korliss Uecker was tagged undoutably because I was a new account, which all experienced editors tend to treat with suspicion. I assume the "unsourced personal information" was something harmless found on a blog or other website that I didn't source correctly - unless you have any evidence to the contrary? Maybe there are other "mishaps" from 2012 you'd like to try and dredge up? Earflaps (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC) I suppose it's moot now that Earflaps has been indeffed by User:Someguy1221 for socking, but... His assertion that this material about the subject's family in Korliss Uecker was widely available on the internet and he had just used the wrong source for the citation beggars belief. I searched for it myself before deleting it from the article. And it wasn't tagged because he was a new editor, it came to my attention because I monitor all new opera-related articles. The MO is also classic paid editing, and not just this article. Voceditenore (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

There is sufficient on evidence on Wikipedia of promotional editing and a long history of the same. I would like to proposal a community ban. Cleanup will of course time and likely all this editor's edits need to be reviewed. Post any dealing with medicine to WT:MED for our review. Reviewing their edits pertaining to medicine was what raised my concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow. This is the twilight zone, I swear to god. I understand duck hunting is a noble sport, but shooting every goose, grebe, and swan in sight is egregious overkill. I don't even know what to say - the allegations and suppositions are so outlandish at this point I'm flabbergasted. Paid to work for billionaires and multi-billion conglomerates? If I'm paid to work for billionaires, why the world do I live in a basement? There is no consensus in this ANI that I am some sort of shill, excluding editors who have an obvious bone to grind because of that singular tag I dared add to Amen's page - so why on earth are people taking the initiative to tag every single major semi-large or large project I've done (hundreds I might add), with no actual evidence of COI except conjecture? Does WP:Wikihounding literally mean nothing here? The Amen posse needs to start acting civilized, and do their due diligence before brutally attacking editors for the simple "crime" of posting big pages. I note that none of them are bringing up the many cases where I added controversies and negative information, which, I might add, I do regularly. I'll be requesting assistance at the harrassment noticeboard, to ensure Brianhe, Smartse, and Alexbrn don't destroy years of volunteer hours for no good reason. Earflaps (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

My concerns have nothing to do with the Amen page. It is the medical articles you have written the cause my concerns.

Also that your editing style is basically the same as that of sock puppet User:MusicLover650 and you recreated work of that account without attribution. And this was your first edit[137] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

1. Provisional support for community ban. Smoke from the gun obscures the sun. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC).
2. Comment user was indeffed at SPI here[138] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
3. Ban the user for violation fo the terms of use. Delete all articles created by the user and plausible socks. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
4. Support community ban. This degree of sockpuppetry, promotional editing and disruption by this user far outweighs any valuable contributions he has made for this project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
5. Support I spend quite a bit of time at New Editor Contributions and the paid/promotional edits are easy to spot. I would have been 50/50 in favour of a temporary restriction if the editor hadn't brazenly denied everything despite the obvious nature of his edits. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Strike this - the editor has been Indef Blocked as a sock so it's moot. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
6. Ban - a community ban goes beyond a block in expressing the outrage of the community. Ban him. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
7. Support obviously. SmartSE (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

User:CesareAngelotti

CesareAngelotti is likely also a sock: see for example their efforts at Gigi Levy-Weiss, which are stylistically the same as Earflaps' (Levy-Weiss is an executive at a company whose articles Earflaps edited). As doc said the editor is (semi-) sophisticated so a checkuser might not tally. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Related

I have initiated discussion at WT:CSD on the addition of a new General criterion for material created in violation of the terms of use. I have also forked COI to {{Undisclosed paid}}, as there is a substantial and important difference between the (often naive) involvement of, say, an employee of a company, and systematic, cynical abuse of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for these Guy. SmartSE (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Huge clean up still required

Guy has taken care of some of the page creations per G5, but there are still many article expansions that require attention, to either revert per WP:EVASION or clean up if other edits have taken place after Earflaps' edits. I have only gotten through the first 5 pages of so of the contrib survey and only listed non-musical articles in User:Brianhe/COIbox43, most of which have not been edited. There are huge amounts of content remaining. Should we move Brianhe's subpage to WP:LTA? How have we gotten more people involved in previous cases like OrangeMoody? SmartSE (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

sock puppet allegations

User:36hourblock has today posted false allegations in two places that I am a puppet master saying "about your continued operation of the sock puppets User:Display name 99 and User:PeacePeace." see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bank_War&diff=746655180&oldid=746361679 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjensen&diff=755920454&oldid=755780022 Rjensen (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99 explains to User talk:36hourblock why he's not Rjensen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:36hourblock&diff=755930724&oldid=755925277 Rjensen (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at your second dif, 36hourblock needs to read WP:OWN. No user owns an article. --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Darth Mike enters the sockpuppet dispute with a Troll-like comment on article "ownership" - nothing but a distraction - and totally consistent with the activities of Rjensen and Display name 99 when these usernames fool with the articles I edit. But thank you for you input. 36hourblock (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

36hourblock if you think you have enough evidence that Rjensen is a sock master the correct forum for presenting that evidence is WP:SPI. If you continue to make allegations of sockpuppetry any where else you will be blocked for personal attacks. - GB fan 21:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear GB - Would you agree that the level of suspicion was sufficient in 2007 to warn Rjensen about his activities? 36hourblock (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not know nor care what happened 10 years ago. If the evidence was there, then it should have been taken care of then. If you suspect there is sockpuppetry going on now, take it to the proper forum with evidence. - GB fan 21:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Aside from explaining why Rjensen and I are not the same, I would like to refute the connection that 36hourblock alleges exists between Rjensen and PeacePeace, an allegation which was made in the second link that Rjensen provided. They link to Talk:John C. Calhoun#Advocate of "Minority Rights"?. From the looks of it, PeacePeace asked a question, Rjensen responded, and the matter was resolved. How in the world is that supposed to indicate sockpuppetry? Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It would seem 36hourblock is trying to win a content dispute by intimidating/provoking anyone that disagrees. This conduct is unbecoming. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Check out his reverts of my edits to Missouri Compromise. Display name 99 (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the OP for 48 hours for disruptive editing and personal attacks add they have not retracted their sock puppet allegations nor started an investigation. - GB fan 21:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

POV sockpuppetry by blocked user:Urchu at Japanese war crimes

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

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

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

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

Rococo1700

ANI notification here

Rococo1700 (talk · contribs) was BOLD in his edit in the Menachem Mendel Schneerson, but he was reverted (several times) and a discussion ensued in Talk. Unfortunately, for what ever reason, Rococo had a very difficult time comprehending what many editors wrote, time and time again, explaining as to why certain items should not be considered as "controversial" or why other parts simply fell outside of the scope of the article. Most editors were patient with him, again and again, repeating what they had already explained several times to him. Also, most editors agreed that it was worthy to place something into the article. Subsequently, we were in the process of building a strong consensus on two items: the text itself and placement. However, because Rococo didn't agree with the consensus, he hijacked the discussions and, while discussions ensued, Rococo continued to add his own edits into the article. In this edit here, I gave Rococo four difs showing a consensus that the insertion should not be placed under the heading "Controversy". Those examples were here, here, here, and here. And here was even more to the consensus by Kendall-K1. However, Rococo responded here with "Kamel, none of what you states, I repeat none, constitutes "consensus". Sorry to be blunt but you have a difficulty understanding how Wikipedia works." He then went and placed his own wording in the article here UNDER the heading "Controversy".

• Rococo was admonished by Bus stop here

Rococo has violated WP:DISRUPTIVE WP:EDITWAR WP:EXHAUST WP:WOT

Following are the Article diffs:

• [139] 2016-12-15T08:36:27 Kamel Tebaast reverted Rococo (Summary: Reverted. Does not belong under controversies and needs a proof read.)
• [140] 2016-12-15T09:51:54‎ Rococo1700 reverted Kamel Tebaast and placed back under Controversies
• [141] 2016-12-15T11:46:10‎ Debresser reverted Rococo1700 (Summary:This was discussed before. The consensus remains that this is not relevant in the article about the rabbi.)
• [142] 2016-12-15T14:25:33‎ Rococo reverted Debresser
• [143] 2016-12-15T20:28:30 Kamel Tebaast reverted Rococo (Summary: Reverted because Talk consensus is that this does not belong under Controversies)
• [144] 2016-12-16T15:22:17 Revert by Rococo
• [145] 2016-12-16T15:41:45 Revert by Kamel Tebaast (Summary: Reverted because Talk consensus is that this does not belong under Controversies)
• [146] 2016-12-16T17:07:01 Revert by Rococo
• [147] 2016-12-16T18:22:36 Rococo reverted by Bus stop (Summary: consensus opposes this; see Talk page; the implication is one of cause-and-effect; the riot was not caused by the accident; the riot was not caused by anything Schneerson did or did not do) [NOTE: Bus stop self-reverted here, then self-reverted that here.]
• [148] 2016-12-19T05:25:59 Rococo reverted Bus stop, no reason given.
• [149] 2016-12-20T11:48:25 Kamel Tebaast reverted Rococo (Summary:Reverted per Talk. Consensus presently backs other wording and insertion under New York)
• [150] 2016-12-20T13:34:56 Reverted Kamel Tebaast following warnings to Rococo on the article and user Talk pages. No explanation given.
• [151] 2016-12-20T13:45:39 Rococo moved the section, but did not follow the consensus for the wording, as had been requested (and warned) several times.
• [152] 2016-12-20T13:47:11 Against Talk consensus and many warnings, Rococo added his own heading, placement, and wording, and proclaimed in his summary (Now it should show up in index)

Following are Article Talk page diffs: Rococo's WP:WOT: here, here, and here.

Rococo was warned:

1. here
2. here
3. here
4. here
5. here I gave Rococo another warning and a chance to self-revert, but he ignored it.
6. here After being warned about a possible AE complaint against him, he responded with "by all means report me to AE. Threats mean little in Wikipedia if they are not backed by substantive contributions."
7. here Rococo's final parting shot to take him to AE while accusing other editors

Rococo deleted the warnings on his user Talk page

1. here
2. here.

While I have not commented on the substance of Rococo's edits or arguments, his many WP:WOT are filled with absurdities, such as this, where he equates Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who was simply a passenger in a police-led motorcade with Rodney King.

Rococo is an extraordinarily disruptive editor who has flagrantly violated several policies while being given many warnings. He has demonstrated zero interest in building consensus in the Menachem Mendel Schneerson article.

At the least, he should be temporarily blocked, and I support a ban from editing the Menachem Mendel Schneerson article for a period of time. KamelTebaast 06:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I had a very quick look at the issue and the talk page. Normally an article about a person should not have a coatrack section about a riot caused by incidents only peripherally connected with the person. However I see claims on talk that at least one major biography of the person has made the connection, and that reverses the normal situation. If consensus is hard to gauge, an RfC would be the best approach. At any rate I don't think ANI is suitable. If there is a consensus that the material should not be included, there should be a pretty clear cut case of edit warring to report. If it is blatant, the report would be at WP:AN3. If not, the focus of an ANI report would be on diffs showing an editor persistently re-adding material that was removed by several other editors. Diffs of talk page comments don't help much here (unless the diffs show bad WP:CIVIL violations and that does not seem to be the case). What I'm saying is that this report is too long and has too many links that don't matter for ANI. If pruned down, the situation would be much clearer. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I bounced this here from AE without looking at it in any detail because it doesn't fall into an ArbCom case, but on looking closer I agree that it is probably a content dispute best resolved with a neutrally-worded RfC. Evidence of edit-warring or rank incivility is needed for this to be actionable here (or elsewhere). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Really, seven reverts on the article while it is being discussed in Talk? I thought the rule was once an editor is reverted and a discussion ensues in Talk, that's it until there is a consensus. I guess that only applies to the Arab-Israeli topic. KamelTebaast 16:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I would be interested in an RfC, I thought that was what I would get from going to Neutrality Noticeboard or asking from comments from the various wikiprojects. Kendall-K1 did try some mediation but appears to have backed out. I can look into it, but "oy vey", do we really have to argue this all over again, or can we have someone neutral, just look at the discussion and decide. It reminds me of a Mexican joke of a man climbing mountain after mountain proclaiming Que viva Pancho Villa, the joke keeps repeating this over and over again, until the man says Que viva Pancho Villa, pero que no viva tan lejos. Anyway, funnier in Spanish. I will see if the other editors gets an RfC started. Que viva Wikipedia.Rococo1700 (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on the editor who wants to add to a consensus version. Rococo1700 has been reverted by three or four editors, and still goes on, including rant-like posts and forum shopping. I will support any block or ban request against such an disruptive editor, even though I agree with the present paragraph. In the end, this editor is here to WP:BATTLEGROUND, not to contribute, and he has managed to utterly antagonize me. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute and one with entrenched viewpoints. It's basically a question on should there be a mention or not. If you can't resolve it on the talk page, then open an RFC or mediation. But you shouldn't let your biases get the best of you. I stopped watching that page because the whole article looks like a hagiography and not a biography. If you do dare to edit in a critical or negative piece it will be reverted, so I do sympathize with Rococo, but ANI is not the place for this discussion. (For the record, here is the ARBCOM case about Chabad: [153] 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This is where you're wrong. A content dispute can be settled. There is also, as you mentioned, the option for a RfC. Rococo did none of that. He moved forward with seven edits after reverts by three different editors while consensus was being discussed. That is not a content dispute, it is a policy violation. KamelTebaast 05:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Mikijirō Hira

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

---

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

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

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

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

False allegation on disruptive editing, admins take initiative

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

---

The article Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation was cleaned up,as it has multiple issues, the clean up ,tag has been removed, by the editor User:Vanamonde93 as per diff , claiming it disruptive tagging [154]. The contents of article Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation have been edited to pages, without any speedy deletion, but the following edit [155] diff, false allegation of disruptive editing.Junosoon (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Moreover the editor User:Vanamonde93 doesnot seem to have respect the other editors contributions as well , as the revert edit [156] removes others contributions [157] Along with it the editor User:Vanamonde93 leaves a harassment message on talk page of lengthy block[158].Junosoon (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Adding few copy edits to pages,of Income Tax Department and Reserve Bank of India: Working and Functions [159],[160],[161].Junosoon (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Musashi miyamoto

• Musashi miyamoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RF resonant cavity thruster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Informed on talk page here.

Disruptive editing and incivility by ♥, a WP:SPA (technically, he posted some non-SPA in 2011, but his 2016 contributions have been SPA), mainly on the article RF resonant cavity thruster (aka the emdrive), a controversial invention. As background, the emdrive article is currently dominated by three emdrive proponents, twbo of whom (including Musashi) are WP:SPA.

Musashi tried to introduce weakly-sourced and IMHO pseudoscientific content (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RF_resonant_cavity_thruster&diff=prev&oldid=752493757), and has been edit-warring for months on and off (with sporadic support from the other two dominant page editors) to attempt to steamroller in the content without WP:CONSENSUS, for example: [162][163][164]). Continued despite a warning on the article talk page [165] and two warnings on his talk page. Claims there is WP:CONSENSUS for change, despite active discussion and multiple skeptical editors objecting to it on reasoned grounds. (To be fair, I'm the only page editor currently actively trying to revert that particular weakly-sourced addition, but other editors have raised objections on Talk about the addition!) Again to be fair, the three most active editors are pro-emdrive and in favor of inclusion, but my understanding is that WP:CONSENSUS doesn't work that way, especially on WP:FRINGE pages. If my understanding is incorrect, please correct me! To be clear, my complaint filed here is about Musashi's behavior, not the other two main pro-emdrive editors.

In addition, Musashi consistently exhibits non-civil behavior, for example:

• According to Guy/Jzg, an admin, Musashi wrongly accused Guy of vandalism; Guy's warning is here: [166]. I don't have a diff for whatever actual incident Guy alludes to. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• [167] Apparently not taking Guy's warning to heart, called my edits "vandalism".
• [168] Possibly in retaliation for my placing edit-warring warnings on his Talk page, opened a section on my Talk page titled "Belligerent Editing".
• [169] Accused me of "slandering" the IBTimes and the authors of the paper he's trying to include.

Also, Musashi is IMHO tendentiously helping block inclusion of well-sourced material:

• [170] The Washington Post publishes the uncontroversial statement that "Most scientists are skeptical" of the emdrive. Musashi (along with the two other main pro-emdrive editors) argues against the change to the WP:LEDE, insisting on watering it down to something like "Many scientists are skeptical". This seems to me tendentious. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Regards, Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• I echo Rolf's comments. I would suggest that in the first instance the user is restricted from making edits directly to that article, and potentially is topic banned altogether. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Dear admins, I can't help but guess I am the other account accused by Rolf of being a "WP:SPA" (I am a indeed a relatively new account but that has contributed a fair amount to other articles here, here , here, and am drafting a new article here). I appreciate Rolf has highlighted that he is not raising the complaint about myself or InsertCleverPhrase, but I would like to raise some points: It seems reasonably clear that Rolf has his own POV on the emdrive issue (""the emdrive doesn't work" is an objective fact") and that the reported incident here appears to be motivated to advance that POV on the page rather then tackle underlying breaches of policy. There is extensive coverage of the topics being debated on the talk page: notably the "most/many scientists" controversy in the lede, and the underlying science (a purported "Casimir-like effect') behind the drive. From what I see there is a healthy debate on the talk page, and the editing on the main page merely reflects that debate. There are die-hard opponents and proponents on both sides, both of which seem incapable of compromise.--Sparkyscience (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Sparkyscience Correct, you're the other SPA editor I was referring to. The three articles you list as having contributed to, zero-point energy, De Broglie–Bohm theory, and electrodynamics all relate to the emdrive or fringe theories advanced to justify the emdrive; thus SPA. Many accounts, despite being SPA or initially SPA, are nevertheless still WP:Here to build an encyclopedia, in which case we're happy to have you here. As for being new, welcome aboard; we were all new editors once, and I'm sorry your initial experience editing Wikipedia is encountering difficulty. Yes, there is debate on the talk page[171] that blocked the change to "most scientists are skeptical", sourced to the Washington Post[172]; I consider the blocking of the edit tendentious, and understand that the people blocking the change obviously do not consider their arguments tendentious. I'm sorry you and I don't see eye-to-eye on the motivation behind this ANI post, hopefully that won't prevent us from working together to improve the RF resonant cavity thruster article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Dear Admins, apparently user Rolf H Nelson considers that attack is the best form of defense, that is why he created this entry in which he twists everything round and distorts the facts. He falsely accuses of alleged wrongdoings not only me but also other editors of that article like Sparkyscience[[173]], to which Sparkyscience replied: "The irony is not lost on me that it appears to be you who is deleting other peoples contributions and that most other editors do not agree with your preferred version of the page. Any particular reason why you copy and pasted this warning on my and Musashi miyamoto but not InsertCleverPhrase talk page seeing as we have all done the same thing? I agree this needs to go to DR.--Sparkyscience (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)"
  I and several (at least 3 others) other editors merely have been reverting his obvious vandalism. In particular, there has been already reached the consensus twice regarding [[174]], yet he repeatedly ignores that and is pushing his own POV by removing indiscriminately multiple times (about a dozen times) without any good reason the whole sections of the article against the consensus previously reached - this is a seriously disruptive editing, it is in fact vandalism, because it became evident that his motivations have been other than to improve Wikipedia, his removal of the whole sections of the article were not good-faith editions. In order for a disruptive editing to be considered non-vandalism, there must be seen any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to core content policies of neutral point of view is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia and therefore constitutes to be vandalism. I suppose that we all assumed good-faith editions by Rolf H Nelson at the beginning, but evidently repetitive removal without a good reason of the whole sections without waiting to reach a new consensus and ignoring the previous consensus, and ignoring most of the valid points, which successfully rebut his unfounded opinions, show that his intentions are not to improve Wikipedia. His overall behavior in fact shows that he is trolling, because despite being the culprit he dares to falsely accuse victims of his trolling and takes unfounded actions against them unscrupulously lying and distorting the facts. It is quite apparent that he gains satisfaction from such disruptive and cunning behavior like all trolls do.
  

Sparkyscience said to Rolf H Nelson in the talk page of the article: "It should be self evident looking at the talk page that not everybody agrees with your POV, but nonetheless your view has already been taken into consideration with the correct moderation, by clearly stating that many scientists believe it to be impossible and classify it as pseudoscience. Attributed quotes stating that the majority of the scientific community believe such devices as impossible belong in the body not the lede. The lede should be objective and not portray opinions as facts. The other editors are under no obligation to accept your demands for a false compromise that you offer on your own terms to remove the NPOV tag. Continuing to hold the page hostage until you "win" just betrays the fact you are wedded to own ideas. Accusing the other editors of being disruptive while deleting whole sections indiscriminately is clearly hypocritical and unhelpful. You also consistently seem uninterested in addressing or giving specific criticism to the proposed underlying scientific theory by which the device works: Let me ask again - where does the energy of the Casimir effect come from? and is it possible in principle to transfer momentum from the electromagnetic field to matter and under what constraints?--Sparkyscience (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)"

Also confirmed by Insertcleverphrasehere who said to Rolf H Nelson the follwing: "Know when to give up, the majority won't always agree with you, even if you argue ad nauseam. You clearly have a POV to push here, try to exercise some self control. I realise that you don't like that the mainstream media keeps being overly positive about these tests, but thats what the sources are, for better or worse.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)"

Now, let's move to the other points in his false accusations:

• WP:SPA - this accusation is so ridiculous, I do edit also other languages wikipedias, and I do not always login when edit, because the only thing I care is improving Wikipedia, while it seems that some other editors also like to brag how many edits they did. I do not know how many edits altogether I did in en Wikipedia and other Wikipedias, because it never mattered to me, but certainly more than my logged editions here show. Probably I do not edit as often as some other editors for various reasons, including time constraints, however, there is noting wrong with that. I only edited Emdrive while being logged only because my web browser or wikipedia site remembered me all the time when I was returning to see again the article, and because of that I have been doing all Emdrive editions while being logged. I note that this is also the first time ever, since I began editing Wikipedia many years ago, that I met so much belligerent and unfair editor as Rolf H Nelson.
  
• Musashi tried to introduce weakly-sourced and IMHO pseudoscientific content - not true, the consensus on the talk page was that it is a well sourced input[[175]], not different in any way from other inputs. All papers which are in included in the article, just like this one, were published in peer reviewed journals and had multiple secondary sources. If this one is to be removed then all other hypotheses would have to be removed as well, because there is no difference between them regarding weight and sources (all peer-reviewed and all with the same or similar multiple secondary sources).
  Also I replied to Rolf H Nelson on the article talk page as follows and he did not comment it in any way:
  

It can be said about all or most of the hypotheses presented here (except perhaps measurements errors). So why would you challenge this one and not the other ones? I have to repeat myself again: "There is no difference between the position of this hypothesis and all the others. All of them have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals and subsequently debated in popular press. This is not up to Wikipedia users to decide which one is correct one and which one is not. You have no qualification for that, unless you published a rebuttal in a scientific peer-reviewed paper - but even then the hypothesis should not be deleted, but merely an information about rebuttal paper added. However, no such rebuttal paper has been published in this case." So there are no reasons to remove this hypothesis - if you remove this hypothesis then all the others would have to be removed as well. They are all equal in a sense that they all have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals with decent IFs, and all have been published in secondary sources.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• and has been edit-warring for months on and off Not true. I started editing Emdrive article on 6th of December 2016[[176]]. I have always been logged when editing this article and never edited this article before. It is Rolf H Nelson who is edit warring and other editors agree with me.
  
• (with sporadic support from the other two dominant page editors) Not true. It was the other way around.[[177]] First Tokamac, Sparkyscience and Insertcleverphrasehere have been reverting disruptive blanking of the whole sections by Rolf H Nelson. So there have been three editors before me reverting Rolf H Nelson disruptive edits and I began supporting them, as the fourth editor, only when it became apparent that what Rolf H Nelson is doing is vandalism (that these were not good-faith edits), and when it became apparent that those three other editors had hard time coping with the malicious, indriscriminate, repetitious removal of the whole sections of the article by Rolf H Nelson against the consensus reached twice amongst active editors on the article talk page.
  
• Continued despite a warning on the article talk page [165] and two warnings on his talk page Not true, there was only one false warning (which by the way I did not see for some time). As already other editors pointed out this is all part of pushing his POV against the consensus. When his vandalism did not work, because the 4 editors were firmly against him and none from the active editors supported him, he eventually stopped vandalising and instead started this phoney war accusing falsely other editors, while the evidence shows that he is the culprit. Also he ignored multiple requests from other editors of taking the matter to DR or RS, as other editors multiple time suggested to him, which he has not done yet, and which additionally shows that he is not interested in any compromise, he is not interested in improving this Wikipedia article, he is only interested in personal attacks against editors. Also I note that I did not notice his phoney warning on the article talk page (which was not directed personally to me), because he inserted it after the references.
  
• Claims there is WP:CONSENSUS for change, despite active discussion and multiple skeptical editors objecting to it on reasoned grounds. Not true, there was achieved twice the consensus among active editors. Editor InsertCleverPhraseHere replied to Rolf H Nelson on the article talk page as follows: "Still, none of this explains why you unilaterally removed the section under discussion here, citing the need to get consensus before inclusion. A huge discussion has been undertaken here regarding that section, and consensus seems to have formed that the material merits inclusion. I really don't understand why you decided that removal and more talk was the right option here. If you believe the material does not merit inclusion, perhaps you should say so here, as the points you have raised above don't really apply as we DO have reliable secondary sources reporting on this.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)"
  The views of those two who became inactive had been rebutted and they did not object, so it had to be assumed that they agreed with rebuttals. Rolf H Nelson at that time did not participate in the discussion on the talk page, but instead started his disruptive war editing, even though he had been told multiple times by at least 4 different editors that what he is doing is wrong and disruptive. For some unknown reason (probably to show that there is allegedly less editors against his views than there really are) Rolf H Nelson has not included here Tokamac who also reverted his disruptive blanking of the whole sections of the article; it is also not clear why Rolf H Nelson chose me as his main victim of his trolling attempts.
  
• According to Guy/Jzg, an admin, Musashi wrongly accused Guy of vandalism; Guy's warning is here: [166].) I did not know at that time that vandalism on Wikipedia has more narrow meaning than dictionary meaning. However, what Guy/Jzg did would not be vandalism only if we assume good-faith editing, and I am not so sure that it was such editing when considering his further disruptive edits, because he did not explain the reasons neither of that first edit and later ones (he later removed twice china.com link as the source and he did not explain why he did it). Also Guy/Jzg is using two different usernames, apparently he is using Jzg for disruptive editing and Guy when talking to editors. He knows very well that editors cannot know that he is an admin when he edits as Jzg, because there is not information on his page about that, and yet he told me "don't accuse administrators of vandalism", even though I had not chance of knowing that he is an admin. Then he threatened me in such a way that it looked as abuse of his power and was simply unfair. No matter who he is he should follow Wikipedia policies (he was not) and as an admin be particularly friendly to other editors (he was not to me), being an admin he should shine to others as an example and not behave like he did.
  
• Apparently not taking Guy's warning to heart, called my edits "vandalism". Because they are vandalism as already explained in details above. I made only two major additions to the article, and I did not expect when I added them that there will be any problems, because these were good edits with good sources added in agreement with all Wikipedia policies. Other editors later changed the text of my editions to other equivalent texts and I did not complain. But what Rolf H Nelson was doing by repeatedly (about a dozen times) removing indiscriminately whole sections without a good reason and against the consensus reached in the talk page was simply wrong. I improve Wikipedia by adding good, reliable, sourced content, so I create the content, while all Rolf H Nelson did was indiscriminate destruction - he was not improving Wikipedia, but destroying it for his own purposes, which seems to be a satisfaction from trolling other editors as well as administration by creating this entry instead of taking it to DR or RS, as other editors multiple time suggested to him, which he has not done yet, and which additionally shows that he is not interested in any compromise, he is not interested in improving this Wikipedia article, he is only interested in trolling here, because he just does not like the article and apparently the editors who disagree with him.
• Possibly in retaliation for my placing edit-warring warnings on his Talk page, opened a section on my Talk page titled "Belligerent Editing". Considering his notoriously belligerent behaviour I believe that we all here can only regret that such a warning has not being issued earlier. We can see on this example how he is trolling, when he put, for a false reason, a warning on my talk page it is not according to him non-civil behavior, but when I duly put a warning on his talk page to attempt to stop his war editing against the consensus, then suddenly it is allegedly non-civil behavior according to him - such hypocrisy and perfidy is not helpful to anyone.
  
• Accused me of "slandering" the IBTimes and the authors of the paper he's trying to include. Because that is what he did, he said without a good reason on the article talk page about many times awarded International Business Times that "ibtimes historically has a reputation for clickbait" and regarding the authors of the papers "I think the physicist would've said "reading this paper was a waste of my precious time on Earth"."
  Again he was proved to be wrong by other editors, and ignored it:
  

"The peer-reviewers (presumably physicists) who reviewed the article obviously didn't think it was 'utter nonsense', or else they would not have approved it. Your personal opinion of the validity of the paper's theoretical musings is very unimportant to establishing WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. Rather this seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is not a reason for the deletion of the section. Specifically why, what policies, is the section in clear violation of?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)"

• Also, Musashi is IMHO tendentiously helping block inclusion of well-sourced material:) All said in that section was this: "Arguments of Insertcleverphrasehere are convincing here. 'Many' is a better choice than 'most'" There is nothing wrong with that. That is in fact a correct way of discussing the issues.

As you can see from the whole evidence Rolf H Nelson is a belligerent, not objective editor uninterested in compromise and pushing his own POV, he is doing it probably to satisfy his trolling needs, he is uninterested in improving this wikipedia article; during the whole December 2016 he was only removing the whole sections from the article without a good reason and against the consensus, he was destructive, he did not add any new content on merit, while I was constructive and improved Wikipedia by adding new, good, well sourced content, and other active users agreed with me.

What Rolf H Nelson is doing is greatly discouraging users like me to improve Wikipedia, because not every user has time, stamina and will to struggle here with trolls and other belligerent users. Many will give up and Wikipedia content will suffer as the result.
For those and other reasons such belligerent behavior as Rolf H Nelson presented when disruptively editing that article and when interacting with other editors, and falsely accusing them of wrongdoings, should not be tolerated, therefore I kindly request to ban Rolf H Nelson for considerable amount of time or at least restrict his access to that article, so that he could not disruptively edit that article again. Kind Regards Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The most brutal Wikihounding I've ever endured

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

---

I knew touching a page involved with alternative medicine was probably a mistake, but was naive and underestimated how aggressive the resident editors would be. Four editors from the Amen page have now accused me of being a paid editor on the mere grounds that I post so many pages, cherrypicking obviously forced and inconclusive evidence and running wildly with conjecture and supposition. It's gotten bad, to the point they are trying to go after everything I've done, and I'm at my wits end. I don't have a problem with editors scrutinizing my edits and sanctioning me for misdeeds if need be, but I literally feel attacked by a posse with a vendetta because I touched their pet page. Alexbrn, for example, has tagged the page plenty of times himself, but refused to let me add a simple balance tag at the start, and every single one of my accusers at this ANI has been fiddling with the Daniel Amen page for years (and here, see Doc James).

1. . My initial interaction with these editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Amen&action=history
2. . My initial report on their behavior: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Alexbrn_reported_by_User:Earflaps_.28Result:_.29
3. . The initial crapstorm: Talk:Daniel_Amen#Balance_tag
4. . Where the aspersions on my neutrality start: User_talk:Earflaps#Are_you_paid_to_edit_Wikipedia.3F
5. . Where the wikihounding gets worse: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Lovegrove
6. . Where I tell Smartse to stop the harrassment (note it continues afterwards in the Nick Lovegrove page): User_talk:Smartse#Wikihounding
7. . My giving in: Talk:Daniel_Amen#I'm_out

This is my favorite website and I would be beyond distraught if the community tossed me aside like this. Please help? Earflaps (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The link you have added pertaining to me is simply someone mention my username on the talk page.

I have made two edits to that page which you can see here[178] back in 2014.

They were unrelated to the person in question but were to correct a misstatement that made it sound like ADD and ADHD were separate conditions when they are simply different names for the same condition.

My issues with your editing has nothing to do with the Daniel Amen article. It has to do with the articles you have written about medical companies and their products. Specifically this OrthoAccel Technologies and Cardiac Dimensions which were before clean up very promotional and similar to much of the paid editing I have seen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Earflaps: I have said some of your editing resembles promotional content for corporate entities and publicity seekers. Yes, I !voted at an AfD to delete one of dozens of such articles you created over the past two years. Where can anything I said reasonably be construed as ad hominem or wikihounding? Please provide specifics, preferably as a diff that I can respond to. - Brianhe (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This looks like WP:Boomerang per current ANI against them. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The evidence is piling up. I am convinced by the on Wikipedia evidence that this user is a sockpuppet of User:MusicLover650 per what I have described here. One needs to be an admin to put it together. There initial edits were simply finishing the jobs that MusicLover had failed to finish before being indeffed.

Gah. We have a lot of clean up ahead :-( Our ability to deal with undisclosed paid editing is miserable. As MusicLover was not the first account either.

We can get legal to force this user to take down their use of the Wikipedia logo to promote their business. But this user makes such a good living doing paid promotional editing that they will simply move on to another sock such as they have done before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Another likely sock of the family User:Robohearteipr with the classic edit formating[179] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Earflaps has been indeffed as a sock. Can this be closed so we can concentrate on cleaning up the mess they've created. SmartSE (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User;TroySchulz showing repeated disregard for warnings/policies guidelines

As evidenced from their Talk page, TroySchulz (talk · contribs) has shown repeated difficulties either understanding or following Wikipedia guidelines despite multiple warnings, nor have they shown a willingness to discuss the concerns editors have expressed.

Warnings for adding unsourced information/original research (2016): [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186].

Beyond their issues with adding unsourced material, the editor has shown a tendency to rely on IMDb as a reference despite being referred to WP:RS/IMDb, and bloats ploat summaries in violation of WP:FILMPLOT despite similar advisories. I'm happy to provide additional links as desired.

Given their evident lack of interest in changing their editing habits, I feel a block is warranted until such time as they recognize that they need to change their behavior. DonIago (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I was alerted to this discussion, so take my comments with a grain of salt, I guess. Anyway, TroySchulz had a bit of a rough start; I and several other editors warned him for apparent vandalism because it looked like he was intentionally adding incorrect information to articles. It could be that he was using copying information from the IMDb, which is infamously subject to incorrect rumors and hoaxes (much like Wikipedia itself). For an explanation of why the IMDb is not a reliable source, see this source and this hoax cleanup (much of the sourcing depended on the IMDb). After this behavior stopped, TroySchulz mostly started adding unsourced puffery and citations to the IMDb. It would be nice if he stopped. There are a number of diffs on his talk page where I addressed individual problematic edits. I eventually stopped giving him warnings because it didn't seem to be accomplishing anything. As far as I can tell from the x tools, he's only made two edits to talk pages ever. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Gerry1214

User:Gerry1214, who is currently blocked (by User:Bbb23) for a week over edit-warring on Immigration and crime in Germany, has responded to his block with a pretty nasty comment on his own user talk page which blames the 2016 Berlin attack on another Wikipedia editor[187]. While his comment seems to indicate that he intends to leave Wikipedia, he also announced his intention to leave Wikipedia after his last block some weeks ago, calling other editors "braindead" at that time.[188] In my opinion, his most recent comment is totally unacceptable and warrants an extended block, whether he sticks to his most recent promise to leave the project or not, particularly because it is not the first time he makes such comments and because he has received advice and warnings over his behaviour many times. --Tataral (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I should also mention that the editor engages in block evasion to continue edit warring on Immigration and crime in Germany, per Talk:Immigration_and_crime_in_Germany#Block_evasion. --Tataral (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like this is old news. Is there current disruption that requires attention? Tiderolls 07:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The comment was made on 19 December. He's still blocked, so he can only edit his own talk page. I don't consider this old news as far as a possible extension of his current block is concerned. --Tataral (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Articles created by Sander.v.Ginkel

As part of his close at the top of this page, @Avraham: stipulated that all of @Sander.v.Ginkel:'s BLP articles were to be listed, and any not endorsed as acceptable within a week would then be deleted. I was concerned that this process would delete a large number of acceptable articles? I therefore asked Avraham on his talk page if he would be willing to allow the articles to be moved to draftspace instead so that myself and other interested editors could check them, or else undeleted into draft space in chunks, checked for BLP violations, and then checked for mainspace worthiness the same way. Avraham suggested that I bring the discussion to ANI. Does the community feel that moving the articles to draft space (either en masse or in chunks) so that they can be checked should be permitted? Tazerdadog (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am discussing the supervote close by Avi at WP:AN. The discussion above has been going on for more than two weeks, and not a single article has been checked by these concerned citizens or projects. But when a proposal to delete them all gets overwhelming consensus, we first have a closer ignoring that consensus, and then a proposal to weaken the unsupported proposal even further. The articles in general have so little added value that checking them will take about as much time as actually recreating them. This supervote and subsequent proposal to simply ignore the long discussion and consensus reached there is a rather sad state of affairs. There is no deadline, we survived without these articles for 15 years, we then had them for a few months (for the vast majority of them), it does no harm at all if we again not have them for some time, until someone comes along who wants to create decent articles about them. Fram (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose I don't know why you felt the need to re-open this issue. The issue is already closed. Please stop. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It would be good to at least see a complete list of these articles. I'd be happy to check any cyclists who've been at the Olympics, for example. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Carlos Danger

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

This is a user who makes a fair number of edits to climate change related topics, which edits consistently favour the fossil fuel agenda and downplay the problem of denialism. He also appears to stalk William M Connolley ([189], [190], [191], [192]). Example problem edits:

• [193] changing several sources, including The New York Times and The Independent, have described him as a climate change denier to just The New York Times and The Independent, have described him as a climate change denier. That frames a widespread accusation based on copious evidence as coming only from two newspapers.
• [194] which changes Tillerson has controversial ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin to Tillerson has ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin, with an edit summary of "non-factual". Really? Ties with Russia are not controversial now? CBS didn't get the memo.
• [195] this edit adding WP:UNDUE references to methane, a classic denialist trope.
• [196] changing ExxonMobil has a history of lobbying for climate change denial and against the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels to ExxonMobil has been accused by some of lobbying [...], which is WP:WEASEL and a flat denial of the documents references in ExxonMobil climate change controversy which unambiguously prove this activity.
• [197] which removes the well documented problem of methane leakage, which is generally accepted as offsetting a significant part of the reduction in greenhouse impact of switching from coal to gas - ironic given the insistence on adding methane to the lede of the CO₂ article.
• [198] removes the important context that Nils-Axel Mörner's claim that sea levels are not rising, ignores the satellite data which shows that actually they are.

As far as I can tell, most if not all his edits on topics related to fossil fuels, climate, and climate change, are tendentious and reverted by others. This is a time sink and I think the user should be topic banned form climate related articles. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support "Discuss" is not in this user's playbook. Except for a single quote from a third party he has not posted any talk page comments, A number of us have attempted to point out how this place works at his user talk. No response, nadda, zip.... but more edits of this sort. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Update - earlier today (Dec 23) Carlos made his second all-time talk page edit, by blanking his own talkpage, including tips from others, the DS WP:ARBCC warning, and notice of this ANI filing. His edit summary dismisses all of these prevention efforts with the edit summary "clean up". Of course, this is Carlos' prerogative under WP:OWNTALK, but the closing admin should be aware of his cavalier response.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support As much as I think topic bans don't work, the last thing Wikipedia needs is a climate change denier trying to edit articles on climate change. Any way we can stop such accounts from wasting good faith editors' time is something we should try. jps (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support for the greater good.--WaltCip (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support; the lack of D in his implementation of WP:BRD is very concerning. His rare edits outside that topic are somewhat pertinent, however. Let's start with a topic ban and see if he's WP:NOTHERE, or if his energies can be employed more productively. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support although I fear the problem may spread to other topic areas (I am a pessimist). The TB should include related topics, like fossil fuels, imho. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Discretionary-Sanctions tban. Editor was already warned about WP:ARBCC and continued to make the same/similar problematic edits. I and others have undone several of this editor's edits where sentences were removed with WP:ES "uncited" or "not supported" or such, but they indeed were. In every case, the removed content was contrary to this editor's apparent bias, so this is more evidence of bad-faith edits against neutrality. DMacks (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I'm fairly certain that CD is an old friend who has returned after something of a break. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sock of whom? Guy (Help!) 20:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know but I think Boris is right William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• I was looking for another ANI thread when this one caught my eye. I want to point out a possible (???) username issue. Please see here for an explanation. I honestly cannot make up my mind whether this is, or is not, a violation of the username policy, so I'm just pointing it out and leaving it to others. I apologize in advance if I have raised a non-issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Pearson Wright

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

This is a user who came here solely for the purpose of promoting his own recreation of the Pirates of the Caribbean Online game called Pirates Online Retribution. Unfortunately, it looks like he thinks he owns the page and no one is allowed to edit it except himself. At first, any mention of another recreation of the game, the one called The Legend of Pirates Online, was unacceptable to him which is why he began replacing all traces of TLOPO with his own project ([199], [200]), making his project look like the only one, which is not true. That led to an edit war between him and Mike48374, who I believe is a member of that other project, TLOPO. For those who don't know there's an ongoing feud between the leaders of those two projects and now they're spreading the war here. Of course, when anyone undid his edits, Pearson Wright would call that "vandalism" ([201]) and even go so far that he claimed that his project is the only accessible Pirates of the Caribbean Online recreation, which is again, not true. People are playing both games whenever they want. Finally, AryaTargaryen edited the page so it would include the mention of both projects. [202] Arya also notified the admin AlexiusHoratius about Pearson Wright's disruptive edits but there was no reply. [203] Mike48374 removed the unnecessary bold text in links [204] and I put TLOPO in the first place because that project is older than POR. [205] It didn't take long for Wright to start another edit war, undoing my and Mike's edits, claiming that "an admin has intervened and has taken appropriate action", even though there were no admins involved in the dispute. I explained to Wright why his edits were wrong [206] to which he replied with accusing me of being a member of the TLOPO project [207] which I'm not, and continuing his rants about my "vandalisms". After another day of edit warring Wright broke the three-revert rule despite my warning not do that [208]. Something needs to be done about him.--Max Tomos (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This user has been consistently attempting to change the placement of our two emulators on the Pirates of the Caribbean Online article, placing his own emulator (TLOPO) in front of ours (POR) for the sake of making his more visible. I am fine with TLOPO's project being left on the page. At first, I was not given the fact that their Staff are criminals, some indicted felons who have previously been charged with SWATTing, RATTing, and DDOSing numerous people. See here if interested: https://www.piratesforums.com/threads/evidence-against-tlopo-and-their-crimes-against-the-community.965/ Naturally, I was not in favor of such a criminal organization even being allowed to be mentioned on the POTCO article. A while ago, I replaced TLOPO with POR, and then the user Mike48374 replaced POR with TLOPO. A compromise was eventually reached when Arya Targaryen intervened and both project's names were left on the page. For a while, things cooled down, and then Max Tomos decided to begin another edit-war by changing font styles, and positions of the project names on the page for the sake of advancing his own project, and shoving ours under the rug.

TL;DR, we'd like things to remain as they were when Arya Targaryen intervened. This is only fair. Our project is far more popular, is in a fully public state, and is actually in good standing with Disney Interactive; unlike TLOPO whose Staff are notorious for engaging in criminal activities. Therefore, we (POR) should be mentioned on the article before TLOPO. The fact that Mox Tomos is putting me on blast for essentially doing the same thing that he's been doing is hypocritical, narcissistic, and short-sighted. I was editing this article long before he was. Another user (Arya Targayen) also edited it, and I was fine with his/her edits. Mox Tomos has single-handedly attempted to overturn all of our edits for the sake of advancing his own ends. Furthermore, his argument that I've broken a "three revert rule" is also hypocritical since all of his edits are essentially nothing but reverts of mine. We can agree on one thing though, something does need to be done.

Regards,

Pearson Wright

I suggest you strike the uncited accusations of criminal activities against living persons, and possibly against fellow Wikipedia editors. They are unhelpful personal attacks and do nothing to improve the encyclopedia or to solve this content dispute.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

For the last time, TLOPO is not my project. I'm not involved in any of those projects. I don't care whose project is "more popular" and whose "Staff are criminals". Keep your feuds out of Wikipedia. I'm simply putting TLOPO first because it's older than your project. That's all. If you can't understand that, that's your problem.--Max Tomos (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Who's project is "Older" is irrelevant. As i said before and i will say it again, i don't care who is right and who is wrong. Nothing good ever comes from an edit war or personal attacks for that matter as is precisely the case here.

I will not engage in this dispute any further unless i absolutely have something further to add.

AryaTargaryen (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

• I have no opinion on the merits of the editors concerned, but the vast majority fo that article was either sourced to blogs and fansites, or not sourced at all. I removed most of this material. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Smallbones failing to heed WP:CIVIL

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

---

In a very public discussion, User:Smallbones labeled the dialogue of another long-time editor in good standing as "ignorantly blathering". WP:CIVIL policy states "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect". When I requested that Smallbones reconsider his words, he erased the request. Smallbones has been notified of this discussion. - Truth about MVNOs (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't find this to be uncivil. I think there was pointed language was used but it does not cross a civility barrier. The content of Smallbones' post and what it brings to the discussion outweighs concerns about incivility.--WaltCip (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to remember that; as long as I bring informative content to a discussion, I may label my counterpart's thoughts as "ignorantly blathering", and I won't have to worry about crossing any civility barrier. Thank you! I look forward to using this soon. - Truth about MVNOs (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You risk being blocked for trolling if you blather like that at ANI, Truth about MVNOs. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC).

You wouldn't say the blathering is ignorant, would you?--WaltCip (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, no, nothing to do with ignorance. What I'm asking for is simply a little respect for the noticeboard, and for the informative reply you took the trouble to write, WaltCip. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC).

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

Psychopathy in the workplace

Some pesky trolling going on at Psychopathy in the workplace--Penbat (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Reverted, blocked, ignored. Why the hell do people feel the need to start ANI threads on every single thing? ‑ Iridescent 14:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe because it says "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors" right at the top of this page. Is there somewhere else this should be posted at? Please let the community know (in no-more than 1,500 words). Go! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:AIV, as it says in those same instructions. ‑ Iridescent 14:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just to reassert my longstanding proposal that every new ANI thread should require a "second". EEng 21:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "Second" as in dueling or "second" as in Robert's Rules of Order? The first might be more interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
    • But if every person starting an ANI thread must also start a second, the page will become infinitely long. It would be turtles all the way down.David in DC (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

"perennial disruption problem from this ISP"

There's a user making abusive unblock requests. See for example, [209] and [210] and [211] and [212] and [213], which are basically all the same. This is a /13 block so I'm not sure if there's a better way of responding other than blanking the page and protecting it. If I don't protect the page, the vandal just reinserts the request. I expect this is a long-term vandal, though I'm not generally familiar with most of them. Any suggestions to more efficiently respond other than WP:RBI? --Yamla (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikinger, most likely. I don't know if talk access can be removed with a rangeblock but if so it would be appropriate, they won't stop. Suggest semiprotecting any page they touch for at least as long as the rangeblock. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Yeah, looks like it. The suggestion there is to semiprotect any page he touches. --Yamla (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that you might be busy for a while :( Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Editing issues in railway articles

• Southern Railway 722 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 24.88.92.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Sundayclose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The users above have been engaging in a slow-motion edit war it seems since August across many articles, which is boiling over at present on this one. I encountered Sundayclose repeatedly templating the IP with level-4im vandalism warnings a week or so ago (see this version of the IP's talk page, much of which I reverted). I replaced all of Sundayclose's warnings with what I figured was an appropriate level-2 unreliable sources warning, as it appeared to me that was all that was warranted, and I also advised Sundayclose that if they wanted to persist in warning the user that they should use the right templates (since the edits were not vandalism, just poor sourcing). They insisted that the IP must be given a stronger warning so they adjusted my warning to a level-4, and then after a bit of discussion in which I also suggested that they should report at AIV rather than fill the page with "final" and "only" warnings and that assistance could be requested from SPI if the anon jumps to another IP, I figured it was best to leave it at that.

Yesterday and today I saw the IP's talk page come up in my watchlist again with more level-4im vandalism warnings added by Sundayclose. The edits in question are, again, not vandalism, just poor sourcing, and Sundayclose has still not reported the user to AIV, and so it appears to me that Sundayclose is more interested in WP:HOUNDING the user than actually resolving the situation. I would appreciate if an administrator would review the situation, both with regard to the IP's poor sourcing, the present 3RR violations ([214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219]), and Sundayclose's repetitive templating of the anonymous user. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Given this report, I'm backing away from any more reverts of or warnings for 24.88.92.254. It's not worth my time to try to prevent numerous railroad/train articles (which I really have very little interest in) from being overbloated with unsourced and poorly sourced information. 24.88.92.254 and his/her many other IPs will never be blocked because of IP hopping and stale warnings, so it is what it is. I apologize if I have offended anyone, and I have no animosity toward Ivanvector who made this report in good faith. I have taken all of the related articles off of my watchlist. Sundayclose (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Ivan seems to be a pretty nice guy. I think you two can resolve your differences by talking about them. Please try (again). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: See above. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: Thanks for your comment. I agree completely that Ivan is a nice guy. As I said, I'm not making any more edits related to the IP's edits, so at this point I don't feel that Ivan and I have any differences. I'm always willing to discuss anything with Ivan or any other well-intentioned editor. Sundayclose (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You are both well-intentioned, and I think you are both partially correct. Ivan can perhaps reword his message, it seems it was worded too strongly, and I think your differences can be resolved. We need more people who are willing to keep our railway articles in good condition, not fewer. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Happily retracted (see above). I would still like someone to review the IP's behaviour and block if necessary. Contrary to Sundayclose's worry, there are things that we can do about IP disruption of this sort, and competence does certainly appear to be lacking on the IP's part. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ivanvector. Regarding the competence issue, I have not been able to figure out how much is incompetence and how much is willful disregard for sourcing requirements. After another editor and I gave the IP many warnings, both templated and personalized, he/she finally started adding some sources. But the sourced edits are sometimes interspersed with unsourced information; that doesn't seem like a competence issue. Then again, IP has linked to sources that are only photos as if a photo confirms details that a photo can't confirm; that my be a competence problem. I do feel strongly that there is an immaturity problem. In one of the very few instances of IPs willingness to comment on a talk page or edit summary, the comment is much like a child's tantrum. Anyway, since all of this is off of my watchlist, I'll leave it to others to figure it out. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way for anyone who is interested, thanks to the efforts of Jackdude101, there is a list of other IP addresses, many of which are very likely used by the same person. This also highlights the difficulty of getting a block because of IP hopping and stale warnings: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/174.107.173.231/Archive. Sundayclose (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, that's what I mean by competence. It's one thing to want to add content and only have some poor sources and want to learn from the advice that other editors are giving you and build your referencing skills and such. It's quite another to keep making the same mistakes disregarding that advice and throw your toys out of the pram when editors keep having to revert you. And in the second case, when the editor is obviously wilfully ignoring that advice, then continuing trying to advise them is just a time-sink for editors like yourself; it becomes better for the project to block them so we can go back to doing productive things. Or at least with an IP that we can't block indefinitely, you can deflect some of that burden onto administrative processes (like AIV and SPI) designed to handle them more efficiently so that you don't have to. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

(after ec) I'll take a look. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh hey, I already closed that case! Very well then, I'll take a better look. I don't have time to investigate deeply today but if I haven't commented by this time on Saturday then please ping me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

In terms of the edits made by 24.88.92.254, to put it the most polite way possible, let's just say that his strengths lie elsewhere. His edits are not just poorly sourced; they are also poorly written with incorrect spelling and grammar throughout. This guy reminds me a lot of my four-year-old son whenever he insists on "helping" me with something. His heart's in the right place, but in the end it's better that you decline his help, because he's just going to make a mess that you have to clean up later. Most US rail transport articles that are not related to currently-used urban mass transit systems are sub-par in terms of quality, and immature and unprofessional unregistered users like 24.88.92.254 are largely responsible for this. Jackdude101 (Talk) 03:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:AB GenC

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

---

Here.[220] Veiled threat from lawyer at pet food drug company. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not exactly seeing a legal threat, or anything that would suggest legal action really. I'd keep an eye on this, however. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I think "I am General Counsel for PetMed Express ... Your changes amount to an unfair smear campaign of our company. ... [we] are hereby formally asking ..." is litigious language in my view. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here and assume that's simply how she writes. Some lawyers are like that. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree. Saying that they are the "General Counsel for PetMed Express" and that the changes "amount to an unfair smear campaign of our company" is and of itself not a legal threat, or implies one. As for the "formal request" part, I'm pretty sure they just mean request Jytdog directly in hopes of getting their request fulfilled. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Where exactly is the legal threat here? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Inherent in the phrases "I am General Counsel for PetMed Express ... Your changes amount to an unfair smear campaign of our company. ... [we] are hereby formally asking ..." as above. Roxy the dog. bark 17:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat. She's identifying herself and then requesting something. No threat at all. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Intending to have a chilling effect imho. Roxy the dog. bark 18:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake. No more than any other subject complaining about an article about them. If they hadn't introduced themselves as attorneys it wouldn't even occur to anyone this was an LT. It's what's said, not who's saying it. There's no threat here. EEng 18:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Concur, it's a legal threat In above comments Someguy1221 dismissively says that some lawyers are just like that and I certainly agree that some lawyers exude legally threatening vibes with every word they utter, but I disagree that this behavior is welcome at Wikipedia. If User:AB GenC really is a lawyer, then they got thru law school and if they got thru law school they have at least two brain cells to rub together. For the privilege of participation here, they need to learn how to speak in favor of collaboration instead of threats. Some lawyers are like that, also, and those kind specialize in building up relationships through deal making and working together. This user sounds like the "You-Do-X-or-we're-gonna-sue" type. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

PS The rationale for our No-Legal-Threat Policy trumpets the vital importance of "free editing of pages" so that "Wikipedia remains neutral". The policy further states that "Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other. The only reason to have your attorney post to Wikipedia instead of doing it yourself is to WP:Right great wrongs through the inherent intimidation that editors are confronted with officers of the court. It's an implicit threat, more sneaky than an explicit one, but just as damaging. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Where exactly is the threat? She identified herself as the general counsel and then requested something to the article. There was no threat, implied or otherwise. We need to stop with throwing around false claims of legal threats. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Your summary missed out the accusation phase of the statement, about "an unfair smear campaign of our company". Maybe I've spent too much time around lawyers. Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Where exactly in our WP:NLT policy does it say you can inimidate editors into making desired changes so long as you refrain from making promises of explicit consequences? The policy is not about explicit consequences, its about intimidation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Before anyone jumps to conclusions and escalates matters out of hand, has someone tried politely explaining to Alison the verifiability, no legal threats, and other pertinent policies on her talk page and engaging her in conversation prior to invoking protective measures? -- Avi (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, but I thought WP:Don't bite the newbies applied to humans. Are you suggesting we expand its scope to include lawyers? Well...... ok. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• She started it! on Jytdogs Talk page, about forty minutes ago. C'mon. Roxy the dog. bark 18:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• It's clearly and indisputably a legal threat designed to have a chilling effect on editing. I really don't understand how anyone can disagree with that, it's so blatantly obvious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh well, everyone is well aware of the situation now. Let's see how it develops and hope all proceeds smoothly. Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Removing comments from another person's user talk page?

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

---

Is it not permitted to remove another person's comments from a third person's user talk page? I ask because a unsuccessful Arbitration Committee candidate (most candidates are esteemed Wikipedians that people should emulate) did so.

I ask about the behavior, not about the person. In fact, ignore the person's name because my question is only about the behavior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrKay&diff=prev&oldid=756220279

Lakeshake (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I am merely seeking advice only. This is not a dire emergency. If this is the equivalent of calling 9-1-1 or ringing 999, let me know because I don't intend it to be such. Is there a link such as WP:DontMessWithOthersUserTalkPages? Lakeshake (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This is too much. Bullied by a prospective Arbitration Committee member? I quit Wikipedia, at least for the time being. I urge you to answer this question and not close and box up this question but I don't plan to edit Wikipedia for the time being. You win, you've chased away good people from Wikipedia, Mr. Arb Com Wanna-be. Lakeshake (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lakeshake: in general, users are prohibited from editing another user's talk page in the way that Calidum did in this case, and I do not see a valid exemption that applies here. That being said, your attempt to bring attention to the matter on Harry S. Truman could be interpreted as canvassing—although in this instance, I recognize it as a call for help. May I recommend that you instead follow the proper channels for an RFC. It may be valuable to get more exposure to this issue, but it should not be done by asking specific editors for help. With regards to the original issue of talk page behavior, I have reverted Calidum's problematic revert. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This seems resolved already, but I'd just like to comment that the edit summary by Calidum (talk · contribs) identified Lakeshake's comment as canvassing or extortion. I read your post and it is easily understood as both "help" and "canvass". But extortion? Generally I'm pretty good at reading ambiguous things in multiple ways, but I can't fathom why Calidum thought "extortion" might describe your post. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The not so subtle threat to try and get the page stripped of its featured article status if he doesn't get his way: "take steps that lead to delisting the article as FA on the basis of a slow but record breaking edit war. I really hope that it doesn't come to that!" followed by a threat to escalate an already settle content dispute to arbcom. Extortion might've been a strong way to phrase it, but neither of those ideas should be taken lightly. The editor in question had also just compared me to Hitler and made other put downs on my talk page [221]. He also accused me of accusing him off being a sockpuppet, which I hadn't done, but now I strongly suspect he is not a new user. Calidum 23:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining.... I originally read it as possibilities the other side might try that LakeShare wanted to avoid, but upon another reading I can certainly understand why you read it that way. My apologies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not say you were Hitler. You are being too grandiose. Lakeshake (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Strongly suspect? Don't suspect but state it as a true fact. It is true. I freely disclosed when starting my account that I lost my password. See, this is typical Wikipedia attack behavior....want to attack someone, just accuse them of being a sock. I am shocked that Calidum could have been an Arb Com member with her/his bad temper. How can she/he enforce rules when she/he is so lawless and disruptive. This has got to stop because it is ruining Wikipedia. Calidum and like users should be warned to be cooperative or be banned. Wikipedia would be so much better if these disruptive people would just stay with Facebook.

Calidum should just confess and allow to be banned if she/he doesn't stop being so disruptive. Lakeshake (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

So, if you simply lost your password, and that's why you have a new ID, it should be no problem to reveal what your previous ID was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Lakeshake, being so accusatory in your posts isn't going to help your case. Please, try to discuss this calmly and rationally so it can be resolved in an amicable fashion. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Lakeshake I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG it has some advice that might be helpful. And don't try to argue semantics, you appear to intentionally be casting aspirations against Calidum's character with the reference to Hitler, which is definitely uncivil. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Lakeshakes userpage

Could an admin do me a favor and nuke Lakeshake's user page. It's literally a copy of mine. I think it's fair to say he's harassing me at this point Calidum 00:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

JJMC89 did so here [222]. Thanks. Calidum 01:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Non-admin declining requests at WP:UAA

User:Linguist111 has been declining reports at WP:UAA, and subsequently removing reports that he declined. This has apparently been going on for a while, but I just noticed. I tried to have a friendly discussion with the user on his talk page, but Linguist111 simply removed my note without comment. I also just noticed that the user was previously asked at Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator_attention#Users_who_have_only_edited_drafts_or_whatever to stop commenting and filling up the holding pen by User:Beeblebrox, but Linguist111 instead said he would do whatever he wanted, and stepped it up to outright declining reports. This behavior seems problematic to me. What should be done? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not responding to you; I just wasn't sure how I should respond. I don't decline anything as much as I used to, only removing clear bot-reported false positives, removing declined reports and moving waiting ones to the holding pen, and only rarely declining ones that definitely needed waiting or discussion. But from now on, I'm not visiting UAA at all except to report users. Thank you. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 21:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I would not have noticed if that was all you were doing. As linked above, a history of your edits to WP:UAA show repeated, recent use of responseHelper to decline requests. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but only the ones that I thought definitely were not vios at all, needed to edit, needed discussion etc., as opposed to when I was doing a lot before the first ANI discussion. But I'm not doing anything any more. Feel free to undo any of my edits there you think need undoing. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 22:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Linguist111: Unless we've started using AIV clerks, why are you removing reports at WP:AIV? This is similar to our discussion about your tagging users with sock templates. You appear to think you can do administrator tasks even though you are not an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I was only removing the ones that were declined by an admin. The rest I did not touch. Beeblebrox told me on the UAA talk page that I could help by removing declined reports and moving waiting ones to holding pen. I thought the same would apply to AIV too. But I'll stop removing those too, if that's a problem. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 22:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was a previous Ani discussion. I see at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive939#User:Linguist111_at_WP:UAA you promised to stop declining reports, yet you continued to do so. This is problematic. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Linguist111 has a habit of putting on a plastic sheriff's badge. Keri (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ramaksoud2000: I know. I'm sorry. I'm not going to do any UAA stuff anymore, except reporting. I've disabled ResponseHelper.

@Keri: Another user said they wanted admin attention. The thread had gone two days without any replies, and it would have then be archived, so I added the bump template to postpone this. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 22:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The thread had gone 11 days with no interest. It had already been pulled out of the archive twice. It has now been prohibited from archiving for a further month. Will it still be there next Christmas? Keri (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

But not because of me. I set the template I added to 3 days. I don't need to do anything with that thread anymore, so I won't. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 22:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) We all need to remember that unfortunately, RfA voters expect you to have demonstrated competence in administrator areas, and sometimes this is very hard to do without doing some of the things that administrators do in a non-administrator capacity. This is why we have the templates {{nac}} and {{non-admin comment}}. It's not necessarily a bad practice unless you're doing it so poorly that it's causing problems. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

A non-administrative disclosure of an AfD or even a report at ANI is not the same as clerking on administrative boards that have no clerks. You can get experience as a non-admin by reporting problems to various administrative boards, not by doing tasks that have been reserved for administrators even if they don't require the tools.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't like telling users that the only way to get involved at those boards is to report issues to them. To make reports at UAA you first have to come across a problematic username and hope that no one else has seen it and blocked or reported it yet. Similarly, to make reports to AIV, you have to have the luck of being the user who first reverts them following a final warning. For this reason, I welcome non-administrators leaving their input on reports at those two or other admin boards, so long as they don't try to pass off their assessment as a final decision on the matter. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

He's not "leaving [his] input" - he's removing stuff from AIV and declining reports at UAA. If you feel that these boards would benefit from non-admins doing that sort of thing, then propose clerks for the boards. Until that happens, I'm dead set against it.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I had previously seen one or two other non-administrators decline reports (by decline I mean add any template e.g. {{UAA|no}}, {{UAA|w}}, {{UAA|d}}, {{UAA|m}}), so I thought it would be acceptable and helpful to the administrators for me to join in. If you look through my decline history, you'll see I did use the {{nao}} template for a long time, but I eventually stopped using it as I didn't think it was necessary anymore. Given that I was doing it so often, I reckoned everyone already knew that I was a non-admin. I didn't think it would make much difference anyway, and was fine with any admin overriding it if they objected. As far as removing reports was concerned, I removed reports declined by admins on sight, moving ones with {{UAA|w}}, {{UAA|d}} etc. to the holding pen, as Beeblebrox had told me I could do. I think most of the ones I declined I left on the board until they were moved to HP by someone else or the bot; as for the ones that I removed after declining, I removed them because there was no apparent objection to my declining after a few hours and didn't see a point in just leaving them there; any I did remove that I put a {{UAA|w}}, {UAA|d}} etc. I moved to HP. However, I'm not doing any of this anymore. No declines, no moves to HP, no removing of bot FPs, nothing. I understand and respect what everyone has had to say. This will be my last reply to this discussion, as I will be taking a WikiBreak. Thank you, and Merry Christmas! Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 23:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• 1. Does the task require administrative tools to complete? 2. Is the task being completed incorrectly? Rejecting a report which is incorrect does not require the administrative toolset so unless someone protects the pages so its administrator only, or there is a policy somewhere prohibiting non-admins there, or the editor is formally restricted... tough. As for 2. Are the reports they are declining incorrect? Has someone got any examples? Those would be a much more persuasive reason for preventing an editor from doing it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Minor note, but we do have clerks for UAA...there's just only one of them...and it's a bot. if Linguist is doing a good job, then wave a magic wand and make him a clerk. If he's not, then he shouldn't be there to begin with. We shouldn't be preventing someone from contributing to the project because they didn't tick the right boxes and submit their requisition form to ArbCom in triplicate. TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Beetstra and Twitter/ Facebook

User:Beetstra is using semi-automated (AWB) edits to mass remove instances of {{Twitter}}, {{Facebook}} and several other external link templates, at a rate that shows he cannot possibly have manually checked the articles and external sites involved. The articles for which he has removed Twitter links include those where the official website link is dead or no longer maintained; or where the subject's official website home page does not link to their Twitter account.

I and at least four other editors have asked him to desist; it is clear from his replies that he intends to continue, claiming that WP:ELMINOFFICIAL "prohibits" them. It does not.

Please can someone revert the recent removals (well into four figures in the last 36 hours), and prevent further such removals? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), Theanonymousentry, Montanabw, and Moscow Connection: - all of whom have been discussing this on Beetstra's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if Beetstra is removing that crap then we should thank Beetstra. Consider giving him a barnstar. The burden is usually on those who include stuff to prove that it is actually an improvement. If you have specific examples where you think that his edits should be reverted then you can discuss those on Beetstra's talkpage. See also WP:ELNO #10. This page is for stuff that requires admin attention. Giving someone a barnstar or talking about a situation where you would like to include a link to a social media site because you believe the link is among the tiny minority of those links that are actually useful does not require a mop. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that ELNO says: Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject. If you click that link you see this:

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Basically none of the Twitter links primarily cover the area for which the subject of the article is notable. There may be a handful of useful links to Twitter (out of thousands), you can discuss those cases individually on Beetstra's talkpage. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL clearly states: "Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances."

It seems you disagree with the guidelines; you should consider trying to change the guidelines instead of reporting someone on WP:ANI who didn't do anything wrong. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• I for one did not report anyone. No reason for me to, yet. However, I'm not going to discuss it on his talk page if I have to revert one of his plethora of removals. If it's wrong I'm just going to revert it. If it continues I'd mark it as disruptive and then revert it. Since I started discussing it on his talk page I haven't noticed zillions of other removal errors, and he certainly kept talking... at least to me. We have a disagreement on due-diligence before removing links, so that's my beef. About half the articles I bothered to check yesterday had issues with his edits. As long as he's more careful in the future I'm good with things. We want a good official website in the external links. If no official website is around or it sucks, then a twitter or facebook link is fine. But we usually only need one. My original complaint was that he didn't bother to check if the bio had an official website listed in the external links, and if it did he didn't check that it was viable or had prominent twitter and facebook links. As long as that is checked out, I'm ok with things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Reverting when you feel a specific edit is not an improvement is completely reasonable, as long as you've checked if that link is an exception to the guideline. If no official website is around or it sucks, then he is still allowed to remove those spammy twitter or facebook links. He is not required to check if there is an official website, and if it contains links to social media profiles, prominent or not (that seems to be a misunderstanding). Cleaning up crap is usually not considered disruptive. Maybe you'll end up reverting him a couple of times for every thousand or so links he removes. You wrote: "No official website yet you removed his official twitter page. That is wrong.". That is incorrect. The existence of an official website has no influence on the appropriateness of social media links (that seems to be another misunderstanding). He seems to be restricting himself to pages where there is a {{Official webpage}} template transcluded, something which he is not required to do. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes it absolutely does matter. You are incorrect. It is not like twitter sites and facebook sites are against policy or even guidelines for that matter. What we want is one good link to. If he just removes all twitter links that is quite disruptive. And I had found bios that had no official website listed in the external link where he removed twitter. That is really disruptive. I'm all for the best site to link to whether it's twitter, facebook or a personal website, but he needs to check before removing. I tend to mull about a lot of tennis articles and his percentage was very low on getting things wrong... at least at first. I haven't seen another tennis article removal marathon since i discussed it with him. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you are incorrect. You seem to disagree with the guideline, why don't you try to get consensus to change it? Please read the guideline again, you misinterpret it. The existence of an official website has no influence on the appropriateness of social media links. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

We are at an impasse because nope, you are incorrect yet again on the guidelines. Quite often social media links ARE a person's personal website. Musicians ditch their original websites all the time and let them rot, letting facebook serve as their website. We have to take that into account and not just throw out every link. The best one can certainly stay but that can only be determined by taking a look. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I am a potato, and you are incorrect. Please re-read the guideline. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You need to re-read the guidelines once again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Barring a few initial mistakes, user:Fyunck(click), I only removed social networking sites that were in ADDITION to the listed official site (in most of the cases referenced by you the official site was defunct, or plainly wrong, but still there). Your assertion that I throw out every link is wrong. In the cases where there is (really) no official (working) link, selected re-inclusion of one (the major) social networking site is warranted. Note however that I am not required to take into account that there is an official website in the first place: "A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." - maybe the subject does not have a proper web presence, they just happen to have a never used Twitter account. Question is, what use is thát to the reader. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

There are very few actual "requirements" at wikipedia... it's mostly guidelines. However there are plenty of things that are disruptive when multiple people complain about it. I have said I'm on your side as far as cleaning these multi-links out. I am not on your side if it's going to be done with a chainsaw, without checking the context or without checking if it had been discussed on the article talk page.

I sort of agree with the Potato here. I dont disagree with rationale for the base removal, or even the method, however I do feel that any sort of mass-removal by automation needs some form of discussion first, even if the editor feels there is a valid policy based reason for it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Striking above. After reading the relevant guidelines in more detail its clear the consensus already exists that those links should only be *rarely* used, and that the burden is on those who want to include them to justify it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

For what's it worth, I support Beetstra's removals, which are beneficial and in line with our guidelines. Fram (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not about whether or not the guidelines are correct. It is about the fact that the guidelines do not support mass removals, with no human intervention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines support 'removal'. It makes no mention of the means of doing so. They do not prohibit mass removal any more than they endorse it. If the removals are correct and supported by policy/guidelines (which all the relevant documentation strongly endorses) then you need a much better argument to prevent them than 'they shouldnt be mass-removed'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The removals are not supported by policy in the least. And guidelines tell us to use the best source. For some that will be twitter, some facebook, and some a personal website. When you remove one or two it behooves one to make sure which is the best. That isn't done with a bot. Also, if it was discussed on why a particular site was kept, a bot will miss that too. It needs a personal touch. I'll tell you this right now...he has been told by me what the original problems were. If it keeps happening to tennis articles that pop up on our watchlists, it will likely be taken as vandalism by tennis project members. I assume his removal process is fixed now so that all will be good. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The removals are supported by a guideline. Sourcing facts is something completely different. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Then tennis project members will get a very swift lesson in WP:NOTVAND and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Andy, you seem to disagree with the guideline, why don't you try to get consensus to change it? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You are replying to comment in which I said "This is not about whether or not the guidelines are correct. It is about the fact that the guidelines do not support mass removals, with no human intervention.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That is what you claim, but you are incorrect. Please re-read the guideline, you misinterpret it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the relevant guideline; they allow for the use of such links in certain cases. The algorithm used by Beestra takes no account whatsoever of that and removes them regardless. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you are very familiar with the relevant guideline then you may have to ask someone to explain it to you because you misinterpret it. Being very vocal doesn't hide the fact that you are in the minority. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Strictly spoken, the pillars, policies ànd guidelines support keeping them out, yet they creep in, and it is not only newbies that are not aware that they should stay out.. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

And again you misquote the guidelines. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't even a quote, how can it be a misquote? Please re-read the guideline, you misinterpret it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Andy, the guideline says to avoid linking to social networking sites. How is that not discouraging them, how is that not suggesting to keep them out, how is that not trying to keep official websites to a minimum? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

And again you misquote the guidelines. Please stop. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Andy, the horse has died, please stop beating it. The header says: "Links normally to be avoided" and #10 is "Social networking sites". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

There is more to the guideline than a heading, even if it does include the word "normally", which disproves your point and precludes mass, automated, removal. We're going round in circles, so I'm going to respond less to such misrepresentations, A neutral admin needs to review this case, and the guideline. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The horse isn't moving though. If you look closely you can see it isn't even breathing. The community creates guidelines. Admins aren't here to overrule guidelines when you disagree with the guideline. Fram is an admin. Fram wrote: "For what's it worth, I support Beetstra's removals, which are beneficial and in line with our guidelines.". (emphasis mine) (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

"Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to: ...... Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists." .. yet you insist that the guideline does not say to avoid such sites? Stop beating the dead horse, it was already dead on your first revert of my removals. And the same for many other reversions which are NOT backed up by policy, guideline, the template instructions. It doesn't say anything about removals (which, if I did them slow would result in the same - complete removal), it does however say that they should not be there in the first place. ---~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs)

And now you're quoting the guideline selectively (albeit including the word "generally", again disproving your own point), and misquoting me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You still seem to misunderstand the guideline, please ask someone to explain it to you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply from Beetstra

Twitters, Facebooks, youtube channels, flickr profiles, google+, Myspace profiles, Instagrams, etc. etc are discouraged since ages, especially if there is already an official webite listed. Everything, including our pillars, guidelines ánd the templates for these say the same: Do NOT add them if there is an official website, and even more if the official website is also linking to them. The consensus established in discussions that resulted in our pillars, policies, and guidelines gives us reason to uphold those pillars, policies and guidelines. It allows us to bring articles in line with them. Having to rediscus that because s.o. is mass cleaning up is unnecessary, editors claiming that should read the pillar, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY.

Yet, we have this crap everywhere!

I have restricted myself to pages where there is an official website, something that I am not even required to (we discourage social networking sites .. FULL STOP). We only list them if they are the main web presence of a person, or if they are of an extreme high importance for the subject (a subject that has an official website, but is exclusively known for their youtube presence or twitter feeds, for example). Those insertions are often reverted on sight (but it is hard to keep up with, and as is clear from this thread, even long term editors have no friggin' clue that we actively discourage linking to these websites, they happily (re-)instert them). We are NOT writing a linkfarm, we only add external links to expand on the information on the article (read the intro of WP:EL). I removed Elon Musk's Twitter feed from SpaceX, first of all it is indirect (as you will find for many of these indirect links on many of the pages where iI removed them), second of all, Elon's Twitter feed does not tell us anything encylopedic about SpaceX (even worse, he hasn't said anything about SpaceX for over a month!). So if you are interested in that Britney Spears is tweeting that she is going to have cake with her father, then please, go to a tabloid wiki and have all the social networking sites there, here they are inappropriate, it does not say anything encyclopedic about Britney, except the WP:OR synthesis that she is a family person. A twitter feed does not tell anything encyclopedic about a subject beyond what our Wikipedia article on the subject (should) include and beyond what is on their personal websites (barring very, very few exceptions). And that goes for all of subject's social networking sites.

And that is exactly what is codified in our guidelines, and that is exactly what I did to those thousands of articles (and will continue doing, time allowing). Go write reliable content or go cleaning up the crap (there are still hundreds of defunct MySpace links to repair/wipe, e.g.), but stop including (encyclopedically speaking) utterly useless social networking sites (better, wipe them as much as possible). Maybe something for a lost hour during the festive days to come.

Merry Christmas, and I wish you all a prosperous and happy 2017 with a lot of happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and keep up the good work! Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You are again misquoting the guideline (which is a "guideline", not a "policy"; and which also cautions that it is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply"). Your claim that we "discourage social networking sites .. FULL STOP" is false. Your thousands of edits, made blindly by an automated process, failed to carry out any analysis whatsoever of the individual cases to see whether or not they complied with the guidelines you rely on. Such automated editing is disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Andy, please go read the guideline, you misinterpret it. You can keep repeating yourself but that doesn't change the fact that you are incorrect. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I have just replied to your near-identical bugs accusation, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Andy, if you want to change a guideline you disagree with then WP:ANI is not the correct place. This page is for stuff that requires administrator intervention. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

For the third time: ""This is not about whether or not the guidelines are correct. It is about the fact that the guidelines do not support mass removals, with no human intervention."". Please stop misrepresenting me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You can keep repeating yourself, but I don't think it is a very productive use of your time. You are wrong, people have explained why you are wrong, and if you do not understand the guideline then you can ask someone to explain it to you in more detail. If you disagree with the guideline then you can try to change it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines support removal, and in fact heavily (and explicitly) state that the burden is on inclusion. It makes no reference at all to mass removal or otherwise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

They do not support removal in every case. Please stop mis-representing them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

How can you tell if someone is misrepresenting a guideline you interpret incorrectly? Please ask someone (not me) to explain the guideline to you if it isn't clear to you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well make the case on the talkpage of the relevant articles to include them then as the guideline says. If your complaint is that in some rare exceptions it should be included, then go re-add them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

How does your automated script check whether such consensus has already been reached? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that I thanked editors who made reasoned re-insertions (which should ring a bell on those who did not get thank - you did not use a reason that is backed up by policy or guideline). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes; you edit-warred with me, even when I reverted your removal of a Twitter link that was fully in compliance with the guidelines which you cited in your edit sumamary. You're not checking before you edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You still seem to misunderstand the guideline, please ask someone to explain it to you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A brief explanation of WP:EL with some notes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:EL is the relevant guideline for including external links. As an article style guideline this should only be ignored in cases where there is a very good reason to. "There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.: Is the site content accessible to the reader? Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional?" Social media such as twitter is rarely going to be useful, informative or factual compared to a proper official website. And given some twitter accounts, tasteful is also going to be an issue. WP:ELNO clearly states "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:" - "10. Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists." - this establishes that the removals are in scope of ELNO. They should not be there in the first place. WP:ELOFFICIAL defines an 'official link' as "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria: 1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2.The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." - this establishes that almost all twitter feeds (and quite a lot of other social media) is not going to be considered an official link as they are not primarily covering the notability. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL states: "Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances. - Even if a twitter or facebook page was accepted as an official link per the above, if there is an official website, the social media links would *still* not be included. "Inappropriate and duplicative links may be deleted by any editor" - where the links are clearly inappropriate they can be summarily removed. It makes no comment on mass or any other means of removal. It just says 'may be deleted'. WP:ELBURDEN in full: This guideline describes the most common reasons for including and excluding links. However, the fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard. Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." So there we have it. A guideline that clearly says the links shouldnt be there. That anyone can remove them, and that they should be excluded with the burden on justifying inclusion. And thats just the guideline for including external links. I didnt even look at the template documentation which editors above have indicated concurs. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC) @Only in death: How does Beestra's automated script check whether consensus exists, for a given article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC) You still seem to misunderstand the guideline, please ask someone to explain it to you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC) The first point is that these are GUIDELINES, not hardcore policies, and mass-removal of something based on a guideline without a case-by-case analysis is disruptive and pointy. Montanabw(talk) 21:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Everything, including our pillars, guidelines ánd the templates for these say the same: Do NOT add them if there is an official website, and even more if the official website is also linking to them.". One thing I would say on this point; many musical artists (and others in creative media), especially smaller and medium-sized ones, have their FB page as their main hub these days. They will probably have an official website - purely for those searching for them on the web - but it will quite often have basic content and simply link to the social media pages. In these cases I don't think it's unreasonable to include the FB page as well - why send the reader on a longer journey to access their main page?. Twitter, however, is usually pointless, especially as it's often fed directly from the FB feed. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Black Kite, just as a note, I did my best not to remove ANY social networking sites if there was an official site listed, even if there were next to the official site 10 social networking sites listed. But even if the official site is just a shell, it often has at least the relevant social networking sites listed. And I would then consider the facebook the official site, not <subject.com>, and I think that Wikipedia should reflect that as well, Wikipedia should list what is regarded to be the most relevant official site (note that <subject>.com, the facebook, myspace, twitter, instagram are ALL official sites of the subject, we chose to list only one. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
    • " I did my best not to remove ANY social networking sites if there was an official site listed" Patently untrue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You still seem to misunderstand the guideline, please ask someone to explain it to you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Another struggle to the death for the heart and soul of Wikipedia. EEng 11:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• • Sad, but true. Montanabw^(talk) 21:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Article ownership by User:Drdpw

User:Drdpw has consistently and constantly acted as if he owns articles related to U.S. politics, just take a look at how many times he's reverted edits for simply being "unnecessary" in his view or "trivial" in his view (see here and here and tap F3 to search for key words such as "unnecessary" and "obtain consensus", et cetera). A huge chunk of his edits consist of quite a number of reverts, and despite breaking WP:3RR at least once (actually he's been reported twice here and here in the last year without any consequences), it's almost impossible to make any bold edits without being plunged into a semi-reverting war with this user. In a simple nutshell, this user just reverts any edit he doesn't like in the name of "consensus". I've advised him to read WP:DONTREVERT numerous times, but that essay still hasn't enlightened him. I have tried to reasoning with the user in the past but this is a regular pattern, and it keeps going on and on without anyone else doing anything.--Nevé–selbert 17:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is going to sift through the list of contribs you posted to figure out which specific edits are evidence of the alleged problem. See HELP:DIFF and try studying the how-to-complain-at-ANI type stuff; that will give you an idea of how to present evidence to support your complaint. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: How many diffs? Ones involving me or others?--Nevé–selbert 17:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Since you've been at it so long already, suggest a few more weeks won't hurt. In that time, you can carefully work through the options for WP:Dispute resolution while reading threads on this board that you don't really care about, but you will learn what sorts of packaging works and what does not. Hopefully you will not need to make use of that learning, but that's the best way to figure it out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I recommend the best thing to do, is work out a consensus for changes to the article-in-question, at that article's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thing is, it isn't just one page. It's pretty much every single page in the vicinity of US politics, most specifically any article related to the presidency.--Nevé–selbert 17:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

These situations are quite frustrating. Reminds me of the articles Pedro I of Brazil & Pedro II of Brazil. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Isnt US politics under 1rr at the moment? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's only US politics after 1932. I am not sure. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

US politics after 1932 and DS applies. See WP:ARBAPDS NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks not subsiding

User:Asilah1981 with consistent erratic, irregular behaviour on summary lines and personal attacks, especially on sensitive Spanish articles related to national matters, like Basque Country related, or Gibraltar, and Spanish history, where he adds emotional, inflammatory comments in accusatory ways. After being blocked two weeks ago [223] in Gibraltar for personal attacks, he came back to a sensitive article to continue with his pursuit inviting another Spanish regular editor with like views and a very short record in the EN WP to come to the article [224]. After insisting in adding comments skipping community input,[225] and having his own way again with an irregular false summary line [226][227], [228] (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). He is sometimes accompanied by ghostly editors. [229]

The last straw, he comes back to his old habits, with a straight libel and misrepresention of mine [230]. This comes from a long history previously, of intimidation by using very sensitive vocabulary to do so (see below), citing victims of ETA of which I have said nothing (they have all my respect for their suffering) but arrogating for himself some kind of representation, sometimes using the Spanish language. The editor seemed mildly to mend his way after he was warned in an ANI for his confrontational way months ago, but is not subsiding, set in his ways, see history here with a variety attacks and libels to discourage me from editing [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237]. After two years of account, a clear case of recurrent and continuous litigating ways, and confrontational, toxic editing. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I have a few comments here.

First, I am involved in the Gibraltar dispute, but not in the Basque or Catalan ones. I am not a disinterested party.

I note that multiple editors, including both Asilah and Iñaki, have broken 3RR at Basque conflict over the past few days. I note that this is a clear WP:CANVASS violation, that the canvassing should be taken into account when determining consensus on that page.

Asilah was blocked on 9 December for one week following this discussion, in particular the issue was his repeated accusations of racism. He has since removed all mention of his block from his talk page (which he is, of course, allowed to do), but it may be instructive to look at it here. He is now accusing people of being terrorist apologists. I suggest that this is repeating the behaviour that saw him blocked two weeks ago and that escalating blocks are now appropriate.

Second, I have had my suspicions of sockpuppetry from this editor, but nothing concrete enough to bring it to WP:SPI. But this from this editor is frankly taking the piss. Suggest we should also be dealing with both per WP:QUACK. Kahastok talk 21:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki LL Addressing you specifically: you accuse me of Personal Attacks. Look, when you are deleting sources from an article written by Basque intellectuals who are outspoken against ETA violence as "dubious" and only accepting sources from ETA´s ecosystem, then yes, you are editing in a way which is pushing the pro-ETA narrative and POV on the article. This is not a personal attack, it is an opinion regarding the nature of your edits which I am free to express. It is indeed an emotional topic, particularly to those of us who have lost loved ones to terrorism. But I have (recently at least) showed restraint and have focused on Wikipedia policy. We both violated the 3RR rule, but there has been no recent Personal Attack against your persona. I did go over the top last march, I concede. Nothing over the past couple of days merits me being discussing this on ANI.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Sockpuppetry, this is the third time I am accused of Sockpuppetry by this editor, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Carlstak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pablo.alonso Perhaps my "sockpuppets" User:Carlstak, User:Pablo.alonso, User:Sidihmed, User:Johnbod and User:asqueladd have something to say?Asilah1981 (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki LL Also one last thing. You are Spanish, so I have addressed you a couple of times in Spanish. I speak it to a near-native level but I am not a Spanish citizen. So it would be wrong to say "I invited another Spanish editor to do so and so". Spanish editors involved in this dispute are just you and User:asqueladd . I happen to be Moroccan in heritage as you should have worked out from my user name and my earliest edits on Wikipedia. My ethno-religious background may also explain my sensitivity to perceived apology of terrorist groups (in general).Asilah1981 (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

As I have been summoned... I have some things to put in here:

1. With due respect, I am not exactly a user with a "very short" record in EN WP.
2. Neither Iñaki LL nor Kahastok know "my views" as I haven't ever disclosed my views here.
3. Have I been formally accused of being a sockpuppet?

--Asqueladd (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just to make a few points, maybe this isn't the case in Spanish (and some of the diffs are, so I can't really comment on those), but in English, Libel is a legal term, and accusing someone of making libelous accusations may very well be construed as a legal threat. That's likely not the intention, but it's a good idea to avoid it. The same goes for accusing someone of defamation, which is also a term of legal consequence in English.

When it comes to calling something terrorism there is actually official guidance on that, and a redirect from WP:TERRORIST to guide you there. Furthermore, accusing someone of sock puppetry, especially repeatedly and without evidence, may be construed as a personal attack in its own right.

So given that no one involved appears to be 100% on their best behavior, has anyone actually tried any of the steps in the dispute resolution process? TimothyJosephWood 23:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Asilah1981, yes, accusing someone of pushing an agenda is absolutely a personal attack, and a consummate failure to assume good faith. TimothyJosephWood 23:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Re User:Asilah1981. This is just adding to your personal attacks to the conscience of others. For a start, I should ask you not call me Spanish, since I am not, except for administrative purposes. You had that horrible experience no one deserves and others have been tortured by the state's forces, etc. Now that does not give you more reason, if you are unable to edit in the WP because you cannot refrain, have your own blog. I make also a very big effort to edit in these circumstances.

I came here for suffering frequent personal attacks from the editor in question, but I could have posted equally for Sockpuppeting or Disruptive editing to be honest. The editor in question every time I bring up his irregular editing cites those two cases, which indeed are frustrating. The first one was a technicality, since I was not familiar with the resource, posted also another report failed for another technicality (oldest account...), and the third, User:Pablo.alonso, a sleeper/dormant account, I used the Checkuser and told that was not the case (IP alteration devices? There are), I do not think the administrator went through WP:DUCK. Evidence is extensive per WP:DUCK: topics, kind of language, timing, outlook/viewpoint, spellings, aggressive attitude but accommodating. I do not know who 83.213.205.100 is. However, this post seems to be only about only one kind of irregularity.

The 3RR, well I did indeed, Asilah1981 always pushes the limits and the patience, I just restored it to the regular version, since the editor did not respond to any input whatsoever, a complete WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:JDLI) with self-entitled edit summaries contradicted by the very content (check reference) [238], [239] and altering the sources [240], it was a circus... Iñaki LL (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Timothy Well, I did add evidence in the cases cited above. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I went through the diffs in your original post again, and I may have missed something since I'm holding a fussy baby, but, where...exactly...did anyone do anything in the dispute resolution process? I'm afraid, with my handicap, you may have to point to specifics. TimothyJosephWood 00:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, by dispute resolution process, I mean things like requesting a third opinion, input from related WikiProjects, opening requests for comments, and appeal to the dispute resolution noticeboard, not simply continuing a dispute on the article talk. TimothyJosephWood 00:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Requesting lifting of create-protection imposed by "office actions"

Hello. I posted here at WT:FOOTBALL to ask if any passing admin could lift the create-protection on the page Paul Hutchinson so that I could create a stub about a footballer of that name. In reply, Number 57 said he couldn't do so because the page had been protected as a result of WP:Office actions and I should make a request here. So here I am.

Is it possible to lift the protection, or alternatively should I create the stub at a suitable alternative name, such as Paul Hutchinson (footballer). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence of OFFICE actions (though second opinions are most welcome). The unprotection page does say (as it always does), "If this page is protected due to office actions...". Maybe Number 57 wants to check again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with zzuuzz, the appropriate page doesn't show Paul Hutchinson as an office action, | this log shows it's been protected from recreation, per | this AN request which doesn't specifically mention Paul Hutchinson, however, on the protection log , made in 2012 it does state he's an un-notable youth football player. Any evidence of notability ? KoshVorlon 20:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The AN request is only a bureaucratic deprecation of cascaded protection, and the deleted revisions all relate to a different player (born 1986/7). I understand this player played for Darlington, which I think might be good enough, so as it's a different article I'd defer to Number 57's judgment, as it's within his field of expertise. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon and Zzuuzz: My bad, I misread the thing at the top of the page when I went to unsalt the article. @Struway2: I've now unlocked it for you to create (your subject is notable). Apologies for wasting everyone's time. Cheers, Number 57 22:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)