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

Political agenda editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Citobun:

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

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

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

The issue is that every single change this user makes that isn't insignificant somehow subtlety pushes the views of the Chinese government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Onward&Upward

I created the page John Laurence. User:Onward&Upward who has been on Wikipedia since June 2008 claims to be related to John Laurence, see: [2] and therefore is not a neutral writer. Despite having been on Wikipedia since 2008, Onward&Upward is not familiar with the most basic policies and procedures, such as providing WP:RS (something which I pointed out to him/her on 1 February: [3] nor how to reference despite seeing numerous examples of how to do this on the page.

My primary source material was John Laurence's book, the Cat from Hue, which as I explained to him/her I enjoyed sufficiently to start the page about Laurence, see [4]. As the book focuses primarily on Laurence's Vietnam reporting that is what I included in the page. The page is about John Laurence's life and not about the Vietnam War generally or other unrelated matters, such as whether or not Sam Castan received a posthumous medal. I selected events in which Laurence played a key role such as his reporting of many battles including A Sau, Con Thien and Hue. In relation to Laurence's report on the interview with Lt Col House, following the Battle of A Sau (which Onward&Upward repeatedly tries to Americanize to the Battle of A Shau), the official Marines history states that the interview "caused some furor" and that Secretary of Defense McNamara requested an investigation into "unfavorable TV and press releases in the U.S.", which I abbreviated into saying this caused "outrage", User:Onward&Upward claims that this somehow denigrates Laurence or makes me an apologist for the US military. As Laurence was friends with many of the other somewhat famous young Vietnam War journalists such as Tim Page, I included a mention of "Frankie's House" (which itself has a Wikipedia page about the TV series), Laurence himself discusses the frequent marijuana use there, but Onward&Upward repeatedly tried to remove all reference to this: [5], [6], [7] on the basis that I was implying that Laurence was a drug addict. I referred Onward&Upward to Laurence's book and Tim Page's book that both speak to the frequent marijuana use here: [8], Onward&Upward has repeatedly deleted the reference to Tim Page's book: [9].

I asked Onward&Upward to focus on productive edits rather than edit warring with me over trivial points such as who actually lived at Frankie's House and to learn to reference properly: [10]. Onward&Upward has added additional information regarding Laurence's career outside of Vietnam, but in several cases has only provided references for the existence of certain events (e.g. DNC 1968 and the Chicago Seven trial [11]) and not Laurence's reporting of them which is inadequate. In all cases Onward&Upward has made no effort whatsoever to reference sources properly which has become completely frustrating for me tidying these up.

Yesterday Onward&Upward wrote the following on the John Laurence Talk Page [12]. I responded saying that I did not believe that I have initiated any "impolite criticism, sarcasm and insults", rather these started with Onward&Upward's initial comment on my Talk page on 21 February here: [13] and have continued up to and including the comments above questioning my knowledge and integrity. I will readily admit that my edit summaries have become more curt as I continue to revert Onward&Upward's edits which do not accord with WP policies and procedures. Onward&Upward cannot describe him/herself as a "newcomer" and is not entitled to rely on the indulgence that might be granted to a newbie, rather s/he has persistently ignored WP policies and procedures, does not adopt WP:NPOV and has done everything possible to sanitise any perceived criticism of John Laurence. I also pointed out that Wikipedia was different from WikiLeaks which s/he referred to in the original post and received this response: [14]. Onward&Upward then continued his/her insults by posting this: [15] on my Talk Page, starting with "So, Mztourist, you are English and living in England (or possibly Welsh or Scottish or Irish). Your diction and anti-American attitudes give you away." What possible relevance is my ethnicity or location? None of which is correct btw. I ignored that post and then noted this pseudo-apology: [16] which starts as an apology but then quickly becomes another attack on me.

Onward&Upward continues to revise the John Laurence page, providing some useful but poorly referenced information and some which is poorly written or irrelevant, e.g. what is the relevance to Laurence of Sam Castan being awarded an Army Commendation Medal which Onward&Upward has once again reinserted: [17]. As I have grown tired of Onward&Upward's failure to follow WP policies and procedures, edit-warring and insults, I request that an Admin imposes a Block or Topic Ban on him/her. Mztourist (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hatting "shorter" wall o'text
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SHORT VERSION OF ONWARD&UPWARD'S DEFENSE: User Mztourist is attempting to have me blocked on Wikipedia for interfering with his attempt to publish a biography of the American journalist John Laurence that is a cleverly disguised attempt at character assassination. Using Laurence's 850 page book, "The Cat from Hue: a Vietnam War Story", as his primary source, Mztourist has chosen a couple of negative incidents and one of his own critical observations to suggest that Laurence socialized with drug addicts in Saigon and whose reporting was "cynical" in Vietnam during the war. I have revised Mztourist's bio repeatedly to try to set the record straight, but he has resisted on each occasion with complaints about my failure to use the Wikipedia software correctly. I was learning it. An edit war has resulted. Here are examples of differences: 1) Mztourist posted on 28 January: "Laurence was initially supportive of U.S. policy in Vietnam and willing to give favorable coverage for access and information, what was referred to as "being with the program". However as time went on, after witnessing the deaths of Vietnamese civilians, the mistaken bombing of a village in neutral Cambodia, coming under fire from friendly forces and seeing the corruption endemic in South Vietnam, he became more cynical as to the effects of the U.S. presence and what could actually be achieved there." Onward&Upward posted this correction on 30 January: "Laurence was initially supportive of U.S. policy in Vietnam and gave favorable if neutral coverage in what was referred to by the U.S. Army public information officers as "being with the program". However, as he witnessed more and more of the war--seeing the deaths of Vietnamese civilians, the mistaken bombing of a village in neutral Cambodia, coming under fire from friendly forces, and seeing the corruption endemic in South Vietnam--he became more critical of the U.S. presence and what might actually be achieved there." NOTE: Onward&Upward changed "more cynical" to "more critical." 2) Mztourist posted on 28 January: "On 10 March 1966 following the Battle of A Sau, Laurence interviewed Marine Lt Col Charles House, commander of HMM-163, the unit which had evacuated the survivors of the battle and who had himself been shot down and rescued from the battlefield. House stated that panicking CIDG troops had overrun the evacuation helicopters and the crews and Special Forces troops had had to fire on them to establish order. The story caused outrage when broadcast leading to an investigation by Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) and III MAF." Onward&Upward posted this correction on 30 January: "On 10 March 1966 following the Battle of A Shau, Laurence interviewed Marine Lt. Col. Charles House, commander of HMM-163, the unit which had evacuated the survivors of the battle and who had himself been shot down and rescued from the battlefield. House stated that panicking CIDG troops had overrun the evacuation helicopters and the crews and Special Forces troops had had to fire on them to establish order. Many were killed. The story caused criticism when broadcast and led to an investigation by Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) and III MAF. Laurence and one other reporter were criticized for going with the story because it reflected poorly on the Marines." 3) Mztourist posted on 28 January: "Through his friendship with correspondent Steve Northup he became a frequent visitor at 47 Bui Thi Xuan, Saigon, the home of Northup and fellow correspondents Simon Dring, Tim Page and Martin Stuart-Fox, known as "Frankie's House" after the resident Vietnamese houseboy. Frankie's House became a social club for a group correspondents between field assignments and their friends with large quantities of drugs being used there." Onard&Upward posted this correction on 30 January: "Through his friendship with UPI photojournalist Steve Northup, Laurence became an occasional visitor at 47 Bui Thi Xuan, Saigon, the home of Northup and fellow correspondents Joseph Galloway, Tim Page, Martin Stuart-Fox, Simon Dring, Sean Flynn, and Dana Stone. It was known as "Frankie's House" after the resident Vietnamese houseboy. Frankie's House became a social club for a small group of young correspondents between field assignments where they listened to music and smoked marijuana instead of drinking alcohol." The editing has gone back and forth for weeks. Mztourist is trying to make the bio of Laurence as negative as possible while I have been trying to make it fair and objective. The version now on Wikipedia is the result of many additional references that I have added about Laurence's distinguished career as a journalist. He is still alive. Mztourist's claim above that he "tried to add other WP:RS as I went along" is not true. 95% of his effort has gone into edit warring with me. Recently, Laurence acted as a consultant for the Ken Burns/Lynn Novick documentary series on the Vietnam War and was one of the eye-witnesses interviewed for the broadcasts. Excerpts from "The Cat from Hue" were included in the book, "The Vietnam War," which accompanied the series. To now start a biography of Laurence which mentions prominently only that he was a visitor to a Saigon house where "large quantities of drugs" were consumed, that he caused "outrage" with a report on the murders of allied soldiers, and that he became "more cynical" as he witnessed more of the violence in the war--none of which is true historically--is more than biased or unfair. It is slanderous. May I suggest that Mztourist is the one who should be blocked from this page? Onward&Upward (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Onward&Upward has now added a reference to The Cat from Hue to Vietnam War here: [18], but still making no effort to properly cite refs despite seeing numerous examples of how this should be done. Mztourist (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC) A Shorter version usually means something like five or ten sentences, not the 971 words and 6871 characters you have just above. Granted, it's an improvement over your first attempt, which weighed in at 1,556 words and 9936 characters. Counting the characters was about the only salient thing I could extract from either. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC) User:Mztourist is at it again with the comment above: "...but still making no effort to properly cite refs..." No effort? Look at it, man! And tell me, what's wrong with my two refs cited on the Vietnam War page? Is it the fact that they're cited at all? Or that they offend you? References

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

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

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

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

Tell you what: why don't you both back off and let some other people take a look at this? Mangoe (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

OK by me. Onward&Upward (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven't touched the page since 26 February, Onward&Upward has continued to make changes including at 20:44 yesterday, i.e. after agreeing above to back off the page. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I have made two minor additions to the page. Where did I agree to "back off" as you claim? Why can't you simply desist? Onward&Upward (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

User:他删之石 on Deaths in 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:MigenMemelli and 3RR on adding trivia to article

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

---

• Kante4 (talk · contribs)
• Inurehates (talk · contribs)
• KylieTastic (talk · contribs)
• Reinhardheydt (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

add AstoundingBumper. Matthew_hk tc 00:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

add more rightful revertor to the list Inurehates, KylieTastic, Reinhardheydt Matthew_hk tc 00:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for @Alansohn: who feels the need to chime in here. Why doesn't someone ask him as author of most of these articles, why are they copied and pasted from biographies on the official county website? Isn't that a WP:COPYVIO? Could that be why he might agree to delete some of the articles? (although I must point out that the DeGise article itself is copy and pasted) Furthermore, as he is now trying to act as Mr. Civility, he just leveled an extreme WP:PERSONALATTACK on me in another AfD, see [19]. He has been uncivil in the past, but calling me "truly fucked up" and "fundamentally fucked up" goes way too far and IMO he should be blocked.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Alansohn loves to play the victim, but the fact is he opposes and attacks me for any nomination that involves New Jersey (whether or not he created the article). He clearly exhibits WP:OWNERSHIP behavior over all New Jersey related articles and its not just me, look at the numerous content disputes in his edit history and you will see he always insists on his versions of pages. Just look above, he references Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn Adams (lottery winner), did he write that article? No. In fact, he didn't even edit it until after it was nominated. But, its New Jersey related, so according to him my participation there must have something to do with him. (ie. it's one of "his articles") As I showed in a previous ANI [20] which was basically ignored, he was suggesting that I be banned after I had made only a few nominations. I didn't even know who the hell he was at that point. He routinely opposes nominations just because I made them. For example, here he blasts me for not considering a merge/redirect target and then goes on to propose a completely inappropriate target (its like he didn't even read before posting his response): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Black Sr.. Or how about the fact that created the composite biography article County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey in direct response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Levinson? Alansohn has been extremely uncivil since Day 1, yet he wants to play the victim now. And for the allegation of stalking, from an edit like this [21], it is quite clear he actually "stalks" my editing history, as I explain here:[22]. And let's not forget Alansohn was actually the origin of the false allegation of WP:OUTING made by Unscintillating: [23]--Rusf10 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

It's all reliably sourced publicly available information that anyone could have easily found, on or off of wikipedia. I simply updated information in an article that was out of date (something alansohn routinely does for every other town in NJ). You can't use your real name as your username and then claim you have some expectation of privacy, so I don't know why we're even talking about that. Three times Alansohn accused me of outing him [24] [25] & [26]. Alansohn is actually wrong about our first interaction, its actually this: [27] A suggestion that I be topic-banned. Immediately after he posted: [28], he alleged [29] that I have a "complete lack of understanding of WP:BEFORE" and was suggesting that I been topic-banned just because he didn't like the nomination. A nomination that actually resulted in "no consensus", so obviously not everyone else though there was a problem with the nomination. That's right from day 1, Alansohn assumed bad faith and attacked me and now he's here whining that I am harassing him. It is Alansohn's MO to attack me or insist on an extreme "nothing can be deleted" interpretation of WP:AFD, rather than actually provide other policy-based arguments why an article should be kept.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time for an IBAN?

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

@Jayron32:That may be your intention here, but that's not what this actually does. It in effect bans me from editing a large number of articles. Alansohn has edited virtually all articles related to New Jersey including any article about a person who has ever lived in New Jersey (even if only for a small portion of their life) He considers it "his area" of the encyclopedia and does not want other interfering with the article being the way he wants them. As you see from our first interaction, he wanted me banned at once because I dared to nominate one of "his articles" (meaning ones related to New Jersey, not just necessarily ones he edits). Actually, he never even edited the Henry Vaccaro article (which is usually not the case with NJ articles) either before or after the nomination, yet came out of nowhere to attack me. You can call this an IBAN, but the way it is worded is in effect a topic ban of me editing New Jersey articles. Alansohn has on other occasions accused other editor of harassing him. Either you have to believe there is some conspiracy to harass Alansohn or this is simply how he operates in order to get his way. That is he claims WP:OWNERSHIP of article and then attacks anyone who doesn't go along with what he wants. When is called out on his behavior, he then pretends that he has been victimized. But its always the same, it is his aggressive behavior that caused the problem to begin with. Alansohn's behavior is very similar in this ANI and others there also noted his WP:OWNERSHIP behavior [30] The result of that ANI was an mutually-agreed to IBAN that was less broad that what is being proposed here. I am not going to agree to something that would ban me indefinitely from editing a huge category of articles. Please look at these previous ANIs and you will see a clear pattern of his behavior, everything he has accused me of he has accused someone else of before: [31] [32] [33] [34] And there are even more than that, but I can't list everyone of them here. Given his pattern of behavior, I ask you to please reconsider your proposal.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me set this straight here. No one, including yourself has proven that I violated any policy including WP:BUNDLE. You keep citing guidelines that do not exist. There are no specific instructions on which pages can be bundled together. And it's really ironic you telling me to follow WP:IAR now which is the vaguest of all policies. And by the way in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Cemetery, you opposed the nomination because it was bundled and demanded that I unbundle it. [35] I did exactly what you asked. I withdrew the nomination and closed the discussion (because no one else had voted delete). Then when I renominated it separately you opposed it because I renominated it [36] Then you actually had the nerve to tell me that you didn't ask me to unbundle the nominations [37]. My point here, is what you did was just bad-faith WP:WIKILAWYERING--Rusf10 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

I know your response was directed at Calton, but I feel compelled to respond here because because you have grossly mischaracterized alansohn's behavior. Please look at previous ANIs (some of which I linked to above) involving AlanSohn (and not involving me) and you'll see his pattern of uncivil behavior and other editors have described described his behavior as WP:OWN. He attacked me first, so I do not understand why you are defending his behavior. I can't believe you are supporting a ban on the basis of how someone feels, rather than actual facts. And Alansohn is not backing down, I removed a clear personal attack he made about me, leaving the portion of his comments that were actually relevant to the discussion [38]. And what does he do? He restores the comments saying that they were "improperly deleted in a previous edit", see [39]. Then he arrogantly acts as if he cleaned up the personal attack by changing the word "fucked" to "f-ed", like that really makes a difference. If he was acting in good faith, why did he restore the comments?--Rusf10 (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

And neither did I.

Nor do I see Alan claim he can ignore GNG.

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

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

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

More lies, you are not a victim, you have been very aggressive in attacking me. I am not going to repeat everything I said above about your behavior. However, let me respond to a few of the allegations. 1.see here Seriously, you are complaining because I corrected an obvious typo you made? Talk about being petty. 2. As I said above, you do not WP:OWN all NJ-related articles. Your attitude towards [here] only proves that point. 3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico contains some very poor quality articles. Notability concerns aside, they are WP:COPYVIOs, that is a serious problem. I could have just tagged them as copyvios, but if I did you would just remove the tag, so I thought the AfD was necessary. And furthermore they are clearly share similar characteristics with other articles I have proposed deleting that have absolutely nothing to do with you. And I have repeatedly warned you above civility at AfD, starting with the first time you suggested that I be topic-banned. It is astounding that you demand an apology from me, but don't even show the slightest semblance of guilt here, even going as far to repeatedly restore a personal attack [40] because you think it is justified. But WP:PERSONALATTACKs are never justified.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

  Saying others will do it when others don't isn't very helpful, IMO. The "well it must not be important then" excuse that usually comes up after that isn't very convincing either: there are plenty of users who do very important work in obscure areas where if they left the work wouldn't get done. The wiki doesn't die because of it, but it would be a negative. To your questions: from a cursory review of some of these AfDs, it appears they were good and even the ones that closed as keep were good faith. While an IBAN might not explicitly cover deletion nominations or !voting in AfDs, what would happen is that the !votes or noms would continue, someone would get mad, it would be brought to ANI again as an IBAN violation, someone would say it wasn't, someone else would say it should be, another person would say it wasn't but it was gaming so lets make the IBAN stricter, and we'd have a new sanction on our hands even stricter than this, which would not help. IBANs in anything involving deletion tend not to work well, so my oppose stands. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Oppose - This prevents Rus from cleaning up the scores of poor content Alan has introduced to the encyclopedia. From my understanding, the AFDs themselves are not disruptive but the commentary is. Simply restrict the two editors from replying to each others' comments more than once. I would also advice Rus to not be in such a rush to nominate content, even though it is well-meaning. Perhaps expand or create content so Alan is not under the impression you are out to "get him" for poor content.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support No one should be stalked and outed as punishment for opposing someone at an AFD. No one should be given a punitive audit for opposing someone at AFD. Most of the people holding local politician positions should have been bundled into a single list rather than deleted as individual articles, and Rus never considers this as an option. --RAN (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm really not sure why these false allegations of outing are still being tolerated. Reyk _YO! 15:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

They really shouldn't be, its a violation of WP:AOHA. The community has already rejected these allegations.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Deletion TBAN proposal for Rusf10

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

---

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

• Support as nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose- First of all, look at the extreme amount of wikilawyering involved with these AfDs. Whatever happened to editors just saying I think this should be deleted or I think this should be kept and here's why? The editors who want to keep these articles don't want to make valid arguments why the articles should be kept, rather they keep inventing new rules about why the nomination is procedurally wrong. Just look at the Clinton Cemetry nomination discussed above and you'll see what happens when I actually tried to address DJflem's concern, by doing what he asked. Did he drop the procedural objection after I renominated the article alone? No, he didn't, instead he began to argue that the article was kept (because I withdrew) and since it was kept it could not be renominated. These are bad faith objections. Rather then argueing why the article is notable, people would rather wikilawyer their way into gettign the article kept.
  Second, this proposal is a reward for Alansohn's unacceptable behavior. As I have outlined above, this is exactly what he wanted from day 1. Alansohn is generally opposed to deleting almost everything (with a few exceptions). If you're going to punish me and reward Alansohn, you might as well just crown him the king of Wikipedia (a position that he already thinks he has). I promise you he will do the exact same thing to the next person who wants to get some type of community input (because that's really what AfD is, I don't unilaterally delete the article) on New Jersey related topics. Believe it or not I actually had some articles that I created taken to AfD in the past, see [41]. Did I attack the person who nominated it? No. I just defended the article with reasons why I though it should be kept. I actually was annoyed with the person who nominated before the AfD because he was just trying to get rid of it without a discussion, but the AfD itself did not bother me and it really shouldn't bother anyone else if they really believe it is a good article. Because if I'm wrong and I had been wrong with some of my nomination, the community is supposed to come to the right decision.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Nope. But maybe the walled garden should be addressed by dealing with the behavior of the King of New Jersey instead of blocking someone standing in his way. --Calton | Talk 05:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support in addition to the above. Swarm ♠ 06:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose- The IBAN above is already too much. And since nobody has mentioned issues with Rusf10's behaviour outside of the New Jersey AfDs it's clear that banning him from all XfD processes is overreach, and purely punitive. Reyk _YO! 07:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose No evidence of problems outside of direct interactions with Alansohn. --Jayron32 14:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no consensus that the bundled nominations were improper by any but the most pedantic of standards. We do not require that editors have nuanced understanding of how American counties organize their elected officials. What I do find abusive is the attempt to use, by Wikipedia's notability standards, a meaningless distinction between titles of county level elected officials to sanction an editor one disagrees with. Jbh ^Talk 15:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Or maybe something less drastic such as the below. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support My calculation last month was the about 85% of his PRODs were removed, and less than 25% of his AFDs were deleted. He definitely is targeting articles by User:Alansohn and I was disturbed that he outed Alansohn after an argument at AFD. He has made no attempts to improve articles, or create articles, and only deletes articles. When he nominates for deletion, he always says that he looked and found no references, but I can't see how he has time to look when his next nomination is a few minutes later. It took me 4 hours of research to fill in an article that it took him 30 seconds to PROD, then when PROD was denied, take to AFD. No one can possibly do the extensive research needed when 10 deletions are bundled together. Minimally if someone took 15 minutes to research each person in the list, that would take 2.5 hours to look at 10 people. When we have 10 people with the same job, such as mayor, the rule has always been to combine the small biographies into a single list, and he has never considered that option. When mayors or county executives were combined, his knee jerk response was then to nominate that new list for deletion. --RAN (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• I was disturbed that he outed Alansohn... He did no such thing. That you feel the need to make stuff up doesn't help your case.

--Calton | Talk 03:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I get it, RAN wants retribution because I pointed out that he violated his arbitration ban. I don't know where he got these figures though. According to the AfD tool, over 60% of the articles I nominated get deleted. The statistic on Prods possibly could be right, but that only because RAN and one other user mass deporded the articles (and almost always without explanation). Most of the deproded articles ended up getting deleted at AfD anyway.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct. No outing has happened. And it's worth remembering that the last inclusionist wikilawyer with a history of incompetent, trollish commentary at AfDs, and who made the same dishonest accusations of outing, ended up being the one indef banned from XfD. Reyk _YO! 08:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Too far reaching. There isn't a problem outside interactions with another user. 2601:401:500:5D25:8DD2:E29C:238A:A95 (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Just an idea
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposal to indefinitely topic ban Rusf10 from bundling articles at AfD or nominating for deletion more than 10 articles per day by any method (CSD, AFD, PROD, etc). Additionally Rusf10 may not nominate for deletion any article created by Alansohn, but may comment on any AfD nominated by another. The ban may be appealed after six months. N.B this was really meant to be a possible softening of the proposal by power~enwiki rather than a new proposal all on it's own, please no-one vote on it, I am not an admin, this was just an idea. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Oppose I see no need for this. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Oppose ( Same as above but it bears repeating.) There is no consensus that the bundled nominations were improper by any but the most pedantic of standards. We do not require that editors have nuanced understanding of how American counties organize their elected officials. What I do find abusive is the attempt to use, by Wikipedia's notability standards, a meaningless distinction between titles of county level elected officials to sanction an editor one disagrees with. Jbh Talk 15:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Support I have sometimes joined a discussion about Rusf10's overly hasty and ill-informed AfD nominations regarding New Jersey and other topics, and have found him to be dismissive and aggressive towards fellow editors. Moreover, his aggressive nominations for deletion, quite often without evidence of WP:BEFORE or of any particular familiarity with a topic, is disruptive. I know that he has been advised to slow down, to consider tagging pages for notability or sourcing, and to run proper BEFORE checks. But his AfD nominations and style during discussions continue to be disruptive and I can see that a temporary TBAN is warranted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Refusal by Alansohn to remove personal attack

In the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey discussion I removed a clear personal attack he made about me, leaving the portion of his comments that were actually relevant to the discussion [42]. And what does he do? He restores the comments saying that they were "improperly deleted in a previous edit", see [43]. Then he arrogantly acts as if he cleaned up the personal attack by changing the word "fucked" to "f-ed", like that really makes a difference. For the second time, he has restored the personal attack [44], commenting "restore comments; for someone who uses AfD as the preferred method of personal attack and harassment, should we just delete all of your AfDs and solve the problem? It's time to address these issues, not delete them". He is insistent that his personal attack is justified and both times he has removed unrelated comments made by myself and an other editor for no apparent reason. Since I don't want to engage in an edit war, can someone else please straighten this out.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Issue of WP:OWN and WP:IDHT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed topic ban

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

The idea is to short circuit wiki lawyering. Is John Green (author) an Indiana related article? What about Indianapolis 500? Wha bout Madge Oberholtzer? The idea of the "broadly construed" phrasing is to avoid tediously defining the scope of topic bans.--Adamfinmo (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Comment I fall in with John from Idegon on this. After more than a decade of being given free rein, when finally called out on these edits he attacks several of us, throwing around the troll word and playing the victim. The damage, as I indicated above, is widespread. There are dozens of Indiana high school articles, some of dubious import and many with few or no sources, that have been created and maintained by a few accounts. After a decision is made re: this editor, attention to a laundry list of related articles will be inevitable. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I left notes two days ago with two other editors, Mtndrums (talk · contribs) and Jmajor2013 (talk · contribs), who have been deeply involved in constructing these articles, again, often sans sources, inviting them to comment here. Would very much like to hear from them. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Rhatsa26X has 30k edits, but this appears to be his first trip to ANI. He started contributing a decade ago when WP:V was not as important as it is today. I'm willing to give Rhatsa26X the benefit of the doubt that he was unaware of this gradual change. I think a final warning is appropriate, with further sanctions if there are subsequent violations. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support I think "all Indiana related articles broadly construed" is a bit too far as, from what I see presented here, the issue is with schools. However, a topic ban is appropriate. It gives Rhatsa26X the "benefit of the doubt" Billhpike mentions while also upholding Wikipedia's policies. If Rhatsa26X moves to other areas and disruptively edits, then a block maybe justified. 2601:401:500:5D25:1C79:DCFF:DBE3:9D25 (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Block and let him explain in an unblock request - for these [45][46] unexplained reverts and above arguments against WP:VERIFY. Capitals00 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

New editor here for promotional reasons

Fritz Fehling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor appears to be here purely to attempt to start a movement based on their own philosophical musings. As is typical for such editors, the exact meaning of much of their commentary is obscured behind their own non-standard use of common terms and frequent misuse of jargon. However, it has become clear through comments like this, this and this that they are not suggesting improvements to our articles, but rather trying to promote their own theories. Both another editor and I have attempted to explain the problem to them, but as is usual in these cases, those attempts were met with "You're missing the point and you're rude!" style reactions. I don't see any use in wasting editor time continuing to try to explain the purpose of Wikipedia to someone who simply doesn't care what we're here for, and is highly unlikely to even really understand what is being explained to them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure "promotion" is the right word, but the user certainly has the wrong idea about Wikipedia, and thinks it's a place to publish original thought. I've added a short comment and a policy link telling them it's not. Perhaps the drip-drip of more and more users coming by will do the trick? Anyway, I think it's too soon for any thought of sanctions. Bishonen | talk 17:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC).

While I don't really see editor this going anywhere but down the drain, I agree, which is why I didn't actually ask for sanctions (to be fair, I started to, but changed my mind before I hit "publish"). I'm more than happy to open up the faucet of "hey, that's not what this site is for" comments and see if that washes away the problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Edits are made by humans who are always prone to expressional faults, no matter how professional! Such mistakes that the author did not realise do not necessarily make these expressions useless, incompetent or unprofessional, but in need of correction / improvement. This is one major reason for the talk sites where others can edit / insert corrections – otherwise there is no point of having them, and Wikipedia is throwing out the baby with the bath water… Of course, in order to achieve the removal and silencing of an author's truth-revealing edit even the smallest of such mistakes can be used as pretence. As examples for useful neutral contributions I quote my latest 2:

Proposal to Change Talk Site to Top Importance

Currently Talk:Constitutional Democracy is rated only "high" instead of top on importance scale, despite that it is fundamentally more important than Talk:Politics' top rating, because it deals with the neutral constitutional pre-condition for democratic politics versus authoritarian propaganda... Furthermore, there should be big hyperlink jumps embedded by Wikipedia within strongly related talk sites to enhance discussion inputs by other competent contributors... --Fritz Fehling (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Changing Wikipedia’s “Constitutional-Democracy” Redirect

Wikipedia redirects “Constitutional Democracy” to “Liberal Democracy” which counts some parliamentary monarchies as democracies, whereas by inherent definition a [constitutional] democracy cannot be a monarchy, regardless how liberal the latter is. It uses “liberal” too liberally and thus wrongly, which is another reason for merging democracy/republic entries into one “Constitutional-Democracy” entry! --Fritz Fehling

Proposal below was embedded in Talk: Republican Democracy - Wikipedia and in Talk: WikiProject Politics on 2/3/2018, but reverted by MPants:

Talk: Constitutional Democracy/Republic

Please visit Talk: Constitutional Democracy/Republic for discussing a detailed draft Constitutional-Democracy/Republic (a pre-condition for democratic politics versus dictatorship propaganda) design! --Fritz Fehling (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fritz Fehling: This is about editor behavior, not article content. There have been claims that your edits so far have been focused more on presenting your own views (which we do not use) rather than summarizing professionally-published sources (which is what we do here). You have not properly addressed that. The simple way would have been to say "oh, I didn't realize that Wikipedia does not use original research, I will just summarize sources from now on." Instead, you chose to throw plenty of Tu quoques at MjolnirPants, some of which involve wild fantasy on your part. The wild fantasy parts (that he's on gov't payroll, that he was actively pretending to be an admin and you weren't just mistake) actually do hurt your case.

Now, would you like to try again? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrator MPants is Using Insulting Displays and Language

It should be remarked that MPants is even intentionally using unprofessional insulting displays and language in talk communications; see my user-talk page. --Fritz Fehling (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fritz Fehling: Could you quote something? I'm not immediately spotting any such language. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, MjolnirPants isn't an administrator. ansh666 01:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)He may be referring to the edit notice on my page: which is expressly intended (at least in part) to dissuade editors such as this from repeatedly complaining about how "rude" comments like this are. But then, it's equally possible that Fritz is referring to me asking him to trust that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to WP standards and norms, or perhaps it was my offer to help them become a productive editor, if they will just stop going on about their philosophical musings. That's pretty much the extend of our interaction, right there.

Oh, and Fritz? I'm not an administrator. I'm just an editor who has made an effort to try to help you avoid sanctions. Look just above. Even when I did break down and ask an actual admin to take a look at your edits, I decided not to ask for you to be blocked. I'd really rather you figure out what we're doing here and join in than get kicked off the project for refusing to listen, no matter how unlikely you're making that seem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I am referring to MPants' talk entry where he writes that [the uncivilised American middle finger on top of his edit-source page; You can only understand the meaning, when you follow this trail, because he avoided to literally mention this finger...] also applies to me; I was at that time unaware of the administrator-contact function of the user-talk pages.

There appears to be a need for WP to introduce a clear signature info (abbrev.) when a talk-page entry is from an administrator; Otherwise some correspondents (on payroll of their government?) may enjoy the power-play of indirectly pretending to be a competent administrator, preventing/down-putting valuable contributions and lowering WP to a shallow nasty chat site. --Fritz Fehling (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Or you could assume good faith and quit imagining that you mistaking MjolnirPants for an admin is really the same as him pretending to be one (because he didn't). Maybe you could also consider that, by our standards, you have yet to contribute anything of value to the site, as we do not accept original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Fritz Fehling's article edits

I have closely examined Fritz Fehling's article edits, and ... oh, wait, Fritz Fehling has not made any article edits, only talk page edits. I suggest that it's possible that Fritz Fehling is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

"Constitutional Democracy" is currently redirected to WP"Liberal Democracy" and thus not available for editing -- For developing any new complex main encyclopedia article from scratch the related high-importance talk site appears to be most suitable, apparently allowing for the correction of mistakes / formulations / omissions through the wider public, rather than expecting finished articles (plus a donation?) by paid government officials having to tow the double-speak-propaganda line of their undemocratic governments. My major contribution has been removed (censored) by someone, without notice or shifting it to my talk page for referral, leaving commentators guessing and making wrong down-putting conclusions. Is this American power politics?... --Fritz Fehling (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Ye shall know them by their fruits - I think that, if this editor doesn't improve their editing behavior going forward after the feedback they have received, they will certainly be blocked. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, cut out the gay jokes. EEng 08:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

What, you want sad jokes instead? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

No making fun of the afflicted, either. EEng 22:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trung's emoji signatures

Donald Trung has a history of emoji usage and has been banned from using them in certain cases as part of an unblock request by DoRD. See User talk:Donald Trung/Archive 1#February 2018 Unblock request. A few sections down from that DoRD urged them to remove emojis from their signature. Apparently they are back at it. In violation of WP:SIGIMAGE they have included images in their signature on dozens of pages. I started to remove some of them per the policy [47][48][49] and told them that they had to change their signature before I realized the extent of the problem. Considering part of their unblock involved emojis and other images and DoRD already asked them to knock it off with the images in their signatures I'm bringing this here for further community review. At the very least, Donald Trung has to go back and clean up the massive mess they have made on so many talk pages across the project. Putting unnecessary resources into showing their signatures just because they had to have images in it. --Majora (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I'd highly recommend a sig change too, just to avoid problems... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I just removed nearly 3450 bytes from one of his signatures, and given that he has violated the unblock terms he agreed to, the block has been reinstated. I will commence cleanup in the morning unless someone gets there first. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I can help if needed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I got them all. At least the ones outside of their own user space. That has got to that the record though. A 3,000+ byte signature. --Majora (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@DoRD: He also did some disruptive emoji on his signatures at Meta-Wiki site and get warned by multiple admins over there in the past, see this commented by Ajraddatz in previously. SA 13 Bro (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• That Donald Trung and his emojis should be im🍑ed. EEng 09:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: ?? Strawberried?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Donald Trung (talk · contribs) is indeffed at meta (block log). The meta contribs and the current unblock request look like trolling to me. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• comment This does not violate the terms of his unblock unless he did it on non talk pages? I made a suggestion re: increased sig visibility. Wish he'd take it.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that you're trying to help him, Dlohcierkim, but this does seem to explicitly violate the terms. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Yech. Oh. see what you mean. He has since amended his sig. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Beyond the emoji issue, I think Donald has made it abundantly clear by his actions here and on meta that he’s here to cause disruption (I don’t know how else to classify comments about good faith block evasion by a prolific sockmaster as anything but trolling.) His nonsense during the steward elections I think confirm he is only on Wikimedia projects to troll, that he has long since passed the point where he is a net-negative to the Wikimedia community at large, and is certainly one on the English Wikipedia. I’d support a global ban, but those typically require 3 project blocks to get traction, but barring that, I’m content that he stay blocked on en.wiki even if he fixes his signatures. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Whatever Tony said.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• He is banned from meta, ban him from enwiki too. This will make two. Then only one project will be required for the global ban. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Block - Donald Trung has made numerous valuable contributions in a subject (Asian numismatics) which has practically no other regular contributors. He's written extensive and well researched articles such as Qing dynasty coinage, Ryukyuan mon, Southern Song dynasty coinage, Guanzi (currency), Jiaozi (currency), Huizi (currency), and many other drafts in his user space. Blocking him over such a trifling issue as his use of emojis is gross overkill and detrimental to Wikipedia. I'd support a ban on his use of emojis and images in his signature, but please allow him to continue contributing content. -Zanhe (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It was the straw that broke the camels back. He's a gigantic troll whose disruption in non-article areas across projects far outweighs the limited good he does for mainspace. He's just a massive time waster, nothing more. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with what he's done in other wikis, but his edits on en-wiki seem to be concentrated in the article space, to which he's made enormous contributions. I contribute regularly to Asian history topics, and I know how much time and effort it takes to find reliable sources and write extensive articles like his. Topic ban him from non-article discussions if you have to, but please allow him to continue writing articles. -Zanhe (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

That wouldn't work as a key part of being able to work on Wikipedia is the talk page: it requires collaboration with other editors. A topic ban from everywhere but article space would simply be ineffective. Since the issues with him have to deal with his communicating with other editors (the signature, his viewing block evasions as a possible positive thing, trying to start an RfC on emoji signatures, etc.) I'm confident he would find a new way to cause disruption on article talk pages. As I said above, I view this as a user who should be banned from all Wikimedia Foundation Wikis because his disruption and complaining wastes too much time (and pointless conversations like this over his antics). TonyBallioni (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I probably didn't make myself clear. I meant topic ban him from discussions not directly related to his content creations (such as unrelated AfDs, move requests, RfCs, etc). Doesn't make sense to ban him from discussing the content he's written on article talk pages (or his own talk page). -Zanhe (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment editor has made a number of suggestions on his talk page and is seeking guidance. Could someone swing by and see if he can work out an unblock?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Warrenton905

Warrenton905 has removed vital information from the WPIR and WPER (FM) pages repeatedly, always with the edit summary "I updated the slogan and branding due to it being outdated and the station not using those anymore" or something along those lines. (Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4)

This is not the first time these time of information removal edits have popped up. It's always with the same fields removed, Callsign, Community of License, Airdate, Frequency, and Coordinates. (Diffs: 1, 2, 3. When I Warn4'd Warrenton905, the user responded that he/she "work[s] at the station" and "was asked by [their] General Manager to edit the information on the page because some of it is outdated." This is an outright lie. None of the information on the page is outdated and if so, why remove it, why not correct it? Also, if they work for the station, it's a conflict of interest and shouldn't be editing the page anyway. The user continues by saying that they were trying to upload "the new updated logo" but couldn't because they are a "a new user" and haven't made it to "10 edits" yet. For a new user, they seem to know alot about Wikipedia. Also, WPER/WPIR doesn't have an "updated logo", so another outright lie.

After this exchange, Warrenton905 pulled the same stunt here on the WPER page a couple days later and today on the WPIR page. This is clearly a vandalism-only account and probably tied to other vandalism-only accounts. I would like to see this one blocked, and I'll file an SPI afterwards (one step at a time). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:14 on March 6, 2018 (UTC)

I did this immediately after, but forget to mention it here, the user has been notified of this discussion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:41 on March 6, 2018 (UTC)

Been more than 12 hours, just lighting this up for eyeballs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:00 on March 6, 2018 (UTC)

Bodhi Peace's redirects

Bodhi Peace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has created a startling number of redirects that have been found questionable and deleted at RfD; they don't seem to have changed their behavior based on this. They're also adding extremely questionable hatnotes, such as [50]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that some form of action needs to be taken regarding this. I discovered this discussion after I nominated a few redirects and a category recently created by Bodhi Peace. At the least, I think in regards to redirects, Bodhi Peace should be required to use WP:AFC/R for a determined amount of time. Steel1943 (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've blocked them indefinitely. The simple way of dealing with this is to secure an agreement via a conditional unblock. Swarm ♠ 00:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Wingwraith

User (perceived as unconstructive) wants me to review a non-existing argument on yesterday's Current events talk page. I also denounce its apparent need of "amalgamation" which i don't understand and think is its burden, not mine. I got discussed and supported by consensus the topic of notability (as testified by User:Icarosaurvus, the only user or IP who weighed in in the content of this "feud"). After questioning my interpretation of the previous (3RR) ANI notice, user now awaits my "intervention". Please help. Wakari07 (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

While I was hoping to avoid this particular conflict, my opinion is that the matter is indeed notable. However, I do feel that Wingwraith has a point in that a broader summary of the expected outcomes might be advisable. To be clear, I mean a summary that includes China's economic plans; perhaps something similar to what was used in the BBC article. While I'd definitely prefer not to get in the middle of a disagreement between two other editors, I will state that the majority of my edits, over the past several years, involve gnoming in the area of the current events page, and in this time I have noted that Wakari07 generally has a good sense of what is notable and helps keep the page presentable. If it is desired, I could attempt my own summary of the event in question. Icarosaurvus (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icarosaurvus: Please do (on the talkpage). Wingwraith (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icarosaurvus: Sorry for the bother. Wakari07 (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've full-protected Portal:Current events/2018 March 5 for 2 days (Twinkle default), since we're probably at about 10RR by now. No opinion on the content dispute. Pinging the two outsiders who participated in the last AN/I report: Dlohcierekim, Bbb23. ansh666 09:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• comment I've no opinion on the content dispute. In retrospect, I should have followed my first instinct and PP'd the thing. @Icarosaurvus: That might save some wading. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Apparently, neither editor heeded my warning. Had I not been asleep, I would have blocked them both.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• I've posted my suggestion to to the talk page, if anyone wishes to take a look. Wakari07 has already encountered it, and made some constructive suggestions. I am not fully sure that the two day protected status is needed, but those of us who regularly edit current events do tend to feel things are a bit more urgent than is necessarily the case. Icarosaurvus (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Icarosaurvus: Thank you for your time and effort.

ansh: I understand the page was blocked for WP:Protection policy#Content disputes and WP:Edit_warring. Wakari07 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Wakari07 (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, I should have mentioned this before: once there's consensus on the talk page, the protection can be removed by any admin. No need to wait for it to expire. Thanks, ansh666 21:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for desysop of Fram

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

---

This has been a long time coming as I and many others believe that Fram has been the biggest bully on English Wikipedia for a time now. While Fram has no doubt contributed to articles and does appear to care about content, I consider him to be an overall hindrance to Wikipedia because of the negative effects he has on other editors. This is not an editor purely going about improving the site, but an editor who appears to systematically target individuals (which over the years have included Cwmhiraeth, Laura Hale, Ritchie, Ymblanter, Rich Farmbrough, Nvvchar, myself and dozens of others) and bullies them often overzealously to the point of submission from editing the site by humilating and harassing them in the guise of cleansing Wikipedia of inaccuracies, copyright violations, DYK errors and lacking GAs. Fram's misconduct of late I think is a prime example of why he should no longer hold admin tools in the way he treated Mathsci who had suffered a stroke and the way in which he has tried to generate drama by starting a sensationalist thread on Dr. Blofeld and copyright here rather than deal with it quietly. He became very abusive when challenged and then proceeded to open another arbcom case, one of several which have been rejected in recent months alone. He is causing a nuisance to ArbCom and his behaviour has been brought into question currently by many others. His temperament and social understanding is severely lacking to the point I believe that it is in the best interest of the site that he is stripped of his administrative powers.

• Laura Hale retires after being harassed by Fram for many months
• Fram blocks Mathsci for a week. Mathsci recently suffered from a stroke and was recovering at the time, however Fram does not grasp the concept
• "Please explain yourself more clearly, as I'm very close to taking this kind of editing to WP:ANI to get you blocked"
• Cwmhiraeth's editor review
• Fram accuses Cwmhiraeth of using personal attacks, tells her to "fuck off". Fram remains confrontational, but shrugs it off.
• "I miss my weekly dose of Kumioko-getting-laughed-out-of-the-room"
• "Fuck off and reread policy, Bgwhite. You are out of line here". Personal attack was removed for a third time
• Fram's proposal to ban Laura Hale from DYK fails. The proposal was considered aggressive
• Another proposal to topic ban Laura Hale, a year later. ("Fram has a history of hounding me")
• User: Fram "Exactly right, Only in death. If a non-admin used that fuck off edit summary while edit-warring on someone else's talk page to re-insert a personal attack, they'd find themselves blocked in an instant. But no-one has the guts to deal with Fram because they know very well what would ultimately follow"
• Inappropriate threats made by Fram,[51]
• "I'm an admin, you are not. You may have your own stupid opinion". Fram causes Ybmlanter to resign
• "I couldn't give a flying fuck about how I come across"
• Week-long block considered excessive, refuses to accept compromises[52][53]
• Hounding Gatoclass[54][55][56]
• Fanatical over adding hyphens, 24 hour block
• Fram delists four of Nvvchar's GAs without the criteria being mentioned[57][58][59][60]. Per WP:GAR, "The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. The goal should not be to delist the article, but to restore it back to its former good article quality, if possible."
• Fram proposes DYK ban for LavaBraon. Two months later LavaBraon retires, citing a campaign of personal harassment
• Rich Farmbrough's arbcom case - has a witch hunt happened?
• Misuse of tools by Fram
• Bullying of Geo Swan
• Fram blocks Elisa.rolle indefinitely, deletes a dozen articles due to unambiguous copyright infringement without community discussion.[61] Continued to gravedance[62]
• Fram threatens to block Martinevans for having YouTube links on his user page.[63] Unsurprisingly, he actually does it. The block was seen as vindictive and transferal to ANI for a community discussion was recommended
• More bullying towards Martinevans
• Fram accused of being an "attack administrator"
• Discussions on GA regarding Flat Bastion Road. Fram's proposal to have it deleted backfires
• Proposal to topic ban Cwmhiraeth from DYK after Fram rejects Cwmhiraeth's attempt to make peace
• "I'm very close to taking this kind of editing to WP:ANI to get you blocked"
• Strains on ArbCom[64][65]

Fram has an incredibly long history of harassing other editors, I would be here all year really getting to the bottom of it but virtually everything I came across was Fram taking the commanding position and acting very aggressively or in a hostile fashion towards other editors rather than working with people towards improving articles or improving what he seems to be problem. Given that Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project and administrators are supposed to help rather than hinder the community. His temperament, manipulation and apathy has driven many people off over the years. I think it's gone on long enough, it's time to stand up to this bully. JAGUAR 17:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sadly support. The evidence above shows a long history, both deep and wide, of using his admin tools (or using the threat of admin tools) to gain leverage in disputes or drive away editors with whom he has disagreements. It's gone on too long, and is unbecoming of the role of admins at Wikipedia. The repeated attempts to weaponize Wikipedia processes such as ANI discussions and ArbCom cases against others is not helpful to the maintenance and growth of the project. Fram has been useful especially in dealing with LTA cases and the like, but his zeal has come to be more of a liability than an asset. --Jayron32 17:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• I thought only ArbCom could desysop? - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

That's what I figured, but I'm not sure what the procedure is on whether or not someone else can start the discussion. I'd kinda assume that if there's a very clear community consensus, they'd at least discuss the issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Only ArbCom can desysop. If you want them to look at this, the correct thing to do would be to file a case request. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Fram needs to have How to Win Friends and Influence People as his bedside reading material. It is probably missing from his library at the moment. Anyway, it is a matter beyond ANI, as mentioned.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  (EC x a billion, reply to all above) See Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship, which states "Requests to revoke another user's adminship may also be made using the dispute resolution process." This would be part of that. We're allowed to have the discussion; if a clear community consensus develops, then ArbCom would have a hard time disputing that. --Jayron32 17:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  I think having a discussion here first would help straighten things out. If ArbCom is the proper venue then we could move it to that, but I was aware that a desysop request could be made using the dispute resolution process - WP:ANI. JAGUAR

• Just as a point of order, at least some of the diffs above are taken wildly out of context; e.g. *"I'm an admin, you are not. You may have your own stupid opinion". wasn't Fram boasting that his admin bit gave him some kind of elevated status, but his pointing out (correctly) that Ymblanter was abusing admin status to claim it gave him some kind of special authority in content disputes. Plus, without wanting to state the screamingly obvious, quite a few of the people to whom Fram was directing abuse in the (often years-old) diffs above were seriously problematic serially disruptive editors. (FWIW, Fram had nothing to do that I can see with Ymblanter's resignation—that was a temper tantrum in response to not getting his way in this thread, on which Fram didn't comment at any point.) ‑ Iridescent 17:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  What you say about me is incorrect. If I wanted to resign because I did not get my way at ANI, I would say "I want to resign because I did not get my way at ANI". This is not what I said. Certainly, Fram aggressive behavior towards me (as well as yours, to a much lesser extent) contributed to my loss of confidence and led to my resignation. And I did not abuse admin status, whatever Fram or you may think about it. (I still maintain that Fram's, and then yours attempt at mindreading in the episode you mention failed badly, but this is not relevant for this thread anyway). I wish Fram gets desysopped for cause ASAP, but at this point I will not spend my time finding diffs facilitating a new Arbcom case. Honestly, I have better ways to spend my time.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  I wonder how many other editors will come out of retirement to see Fram get desysopped?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  Well, noticing that the diff you provided actually shows removal of the retirement template (and this was not today) would be a good first step.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  TGS is pointing out that four days ago you said I am not contributing in this project in any capacity. I might be back in several months. and yet here you are at the first chance to score points regarding one of your old grudges. And you wonder why the community fails to take you seriously. ‑ Iridescent 20:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  I am coming closer and closer to the conclusion that this was not the community who does not take me seriously but a bunch of assholes. But you are right, I should indeed stop writing here. Whoever is interested can now read my response to an incorrect statement which was made about me.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Arbcom is the appropriate venue for requesting desysopping. Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship has very little weight as it is not even a guideline, let alone a policy. That said, there is nothing wrong with a discussion on another forum about whether an admin has abused their tools or has otherwise lost the trust of the community. I tend to agree with Jaguar and Jayron32 in the sense that it could be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Poor lowly editors get blocked for less aggressive behavior with no warning or process. Once blocked, they have to come crawling on hands and knees admitting wrong doing regardless of the facts. Once blocked once, Admins assume that the earlier block was correcr and use it to justify another block. Admins get a free pass from blockable offences and plenty of process. Admins need to have the trust of the community and it looks like Fram has lost that trust. Time to lift the "shield of protection" and subject them to the same standard of behavior as normal editors. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Jaguar, if you are going through with this, you need to contextualize. For instance, you say "Misuse of tools"--yeah, that's the title of the AN section, which was closed with no consensus that indeed that is what happened (more likely the opposite), and no sanction. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment: I just notified Fram of this discussion since I didn't see the required notification created by anyone else. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Steel1943. Fram (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• As has been said by others, at least some of the diffs are simply wrong, others are very old (e.g. the Kumioko one is from 2013). E.g. he last one is one of me discussing with Carolus that his edits are unacceptable. Surprise, another editor since indef blocked them. You included e.g. this, which is a block of you for one week. Dr. Blofeld disagreed. How is that evidence of anything needing desysopping? You add Rich Farmbrough's arbcom case. Considering that it ended in a desysop and near-ban of Rich Farmbrough and not even an admonishment for me, how is it evidence of bullying or desysop-worthy behaviour? I can understand people complaining about me starting ArbCom cases which aren't ArbCom ready, fine. But when I notice problems with someone's editing, it gets discussed, it gets escalated to ANI and so on, and eventually it ends at ArbCom where the consensus is that yes, there were indeed serious problems, then the fact that a few people complain at Jimbo's talk page is not evidence that I was bullying or wrong.
• Basically, you are just throwing lots and lots of mud in the hope that it will stick and that people will see "oh, so many diffs, there must be something there". Stick to the ones that you truly believe to be problematic and which preferably aren't many years old, and then people can fairly judge if there is a case to answer here or not.
• But as long as your "case" includes things like "Bullying of Geo Swan" where I started an RfC/U in 2011 which got endorsed by 11 others, and where I have left Geo Swan alone after the end of the RfC/U, then you are simply grasping at straws. Fram (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, agreed; I've (obviously) got serious concerns about your recent conduct, but when the alleged "evidence" includes such things as LavaBraon retires, citing a campaign of personal harassment (LavaBaron may well have cited a campaign of personal harassment, but I suspect his resignation had considerably more to do with the indefinite block for abusive sockpuppetry), it's clear this is a malicious filing. ‑ Iridescent 18:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• So, to get things straight, this has been filed by an editor who retired three weeks ago, but has come back to attempt to get an admin who is almost always a net positive desysopped by posting multiple misleading and irrelevant links (the one regarding Ymblanter, where Fram was paraphrasing Ymblanter's comment, not saying it himself, is spectacularly incompetent)? Here's a bit of advice, Jaguar - retire again. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• While I wince at the tone of some of Fram's posts, I am uneasy at some of the evidence being presented which seems to lack context or involve blocks for repeated copyright violations (an action which I fully support). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Per NeilN just above, I also wince at some of Fram's recent actions (the block of MartinEvans was particularly heavy-handed), but I don't see this as a viable proposal. Advice to Jaguar; make a list of recent (<12 months old) diffs, save it as a text file, then take a one month wikibreak and if it still seems important to you, come back here. Metacomment; am I the only one slightly annoyed and confused by those who post retired notices then come back, while leaving the notice up? --John (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  Metareply; I believe the message it's intended to convey is "This is such an important issue, I'll briefly emerge from retirement to comment because it needs the input of an elder statesman like me". There are very few people on Wikipedia who can pull off that king in the mountain stunt and be taken seriously; even Larry Sanger has been generally ignored when he's tried it. ‑ Iridescent 20:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  The retired tag is staying up. Once this all blows over I'll get back to my concrete life ;) JAGUAR 21:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oh and while I'm here, the shameless playing on the "how terrible is Fram blocking MathSci because of MathSci's health" issue. That'll be the same MathSci who - very much to his credit - admitted after his block that "On the other hand I completely agree with User:Fram that I should not have reverted those postings, no matter what had been written. It was poor judgement on my part and I apologise without reservations for that." [66]. Why didn't you mention that, Jaguar? Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  Why so vitriolic? Believe me I'll gladly stay retired. I can't stay on Wikipedia now—I've never felt so unmotivated for the project. The environment, the people, the way some like Fram agonise and demean others. I don't have anything personal against Fram at all—it's just his behaviour is so problematic that he's driven off a good number of editors. I realise I could have phrased some of the diffs better; it was a big task to gather all of them and some of which I wasn't familiar with (to my dismay I realised that LavaBaron was not the best example to use). I regret that the way I put all of those diffs together in one long list might come off as mud slinging, but I couldn't think of another way, so for this I apologise. Please feel free to remove or rephrase some of them if need be, but hopefully you get the gist that his social interactions are nothing but pleasant and he takes his role of purging Wikipedia of all discrepancies too far, even to an obsessive level. The trouble is that Fram is synonymous with Wikipedia itself in that nobody seems to care about writing content but rather reinforcing the already hostile climate this place has. The upside is that a lot of people have been disgruntled with Fram's behaviour so it's not an isolated issue but literally a project-wide one. There have been a couple of instances when I have agreed with Fram and respected his decisions, though I didn't agree with his "shoot 'em up style" with DYK I did like the fact that he brought to light the amount of errors the place contained.

  I had hoped to get the ball rolling here and prompt a discussion. I wasn't surprised to see this thread close and be told to take it to ArbCom. You must know that they can't do everything for us, in other words it seems to me an excuse to keep things the same around here and therefore keep Wikipedia the same. Please believe me when I say that I really didn't want to edit again, but I couldn't stand by and see him continue his usual antics and harass people. I really hated myself for coming back actually. I've got nothing to lose by trying to make a change because my reasons for retiring last month were mostly personal and to do with time constraints, not with how I feel about the project. JAGUAR 21:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - If the point of this thread was to present to Fram a "sense of the community" message that he should consider tempering his bluntness, I might well be onboard, but I do not think a call to desysop is warranted (besides being, as already pointed out, in the wrong venue). Fram quite frequently points out things that need to be pointed out, which is a very valuable service. Do I think they might help themselves by utilizing more honey and less vinegar? Yes, I do, but that's a matter of personal style, not of admin abuse. We have sysops who are the quintessence of politeness, and we have others that are much more blunt, and Fran falls on that side, but what's important to me is what they're being blunt about, and I value that. If Fram and I were friends in RL, I might take him aside and try to give him some fatherly advice, but that's not the same thing as seeking to take their bit away.
  My prediction is that if this were brought to ArbCom, the result would be an admonishment of some sort (and in the old days perhaps a civility parole), but that the Committee wouldn't find a pattern of abuse of the admin bit, and there would be no desysop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Also for the record now that we're getting into the merits: I agree with a lot of what BMK and Black Kite above say. Fram is much more on the blunt end of the admin spectrum than I am, but overall I still feel he is a net-positive to the admin corps, and even if we had community-based desysoping, I would not support it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as setting a really bad precedent. The procedure for desysopping does not allow "transient majority votes" as one of the legitimate grounds for desysopping. Collect (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• I'm sure I'll be around if and when you decide to open a request for arbitration. I suggest you be more thorough if you do, and consider that a handful of damning diffs are more useful than an immense amount of ominous seeming noise. Until then I'll kindly save my dirty laundry for the laundromat, because that's where the cleaning up gets done. As a side note, for those here saying essentially "go the hell back to retirement" to various editors, you need to seriously consider your attitude. When we have someone accusing someone else of driving away editors, the appropriate response is not to try to drive them away, regardless of your opinion as to the merits of their complaint. GMG^talk 22:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Close Now The stated subject and purpose of this discussion is not within the competency of this board. If/when an arbcom case is opened I may (or may not) have something to say there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

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

forged dates

User talk:124.106.243.149 from Philippines keeps adding fictitious dates (usually days and months when undefined) to biographical articles, then linking the article with forged dates in the corresponding year articles. I warned the user twice, yet he/she plays deaf and keeps disrupting. I already encountered an extremely similar behaviour from a Filipino IP range in mid-2016, that time admin Bishonen apparently solved the problem with a temporary IP range block, see my talk page. Khruner (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd forgotten, but that's a helpful link to your archive, Khruner, thank you. To block 124.106.243.149 along with the IPs that were in question in July 2016, the range 124.106.240.0/21 would have to be blocked. That's not undoable, but I see here that actually only 124.106.243.149 has been active recently. Blocked for two weeks. If you should see similar editing from similar IPs during that time (or later for that matter), you're very welcome to report it on my page, and I'll block the range. Bishonen | talk 00:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC).

Repetitive and disruptive editing by User:Freikorp

User:Freikorp first started editing Y&R ANZ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on 21 May 2011, the very same day that a misleading and inaccurate article was published about the company. Since that day he has made it his personal agenda to remove accurate information on the page and replace with more misleading and libellous statements, accounting for over 25% of total edits to the page. I request that this editor not be allowed to edit this particular page. -- Peacenik162 (talk · contribs)

Considering you started editing just 10 days ago, maybe you shouldn't be editing that page either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Peacenik162: do you have any connection to the company? Keep in mind that you are required to disclose if you have been paid to edit Wikipedia. Beyond that, this is a content dispute that should be resolved through Wikipedia's dispute resolution, not by repeatedly reverting edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Where do I even start to respond to this hilarious incident report? Please read the talk page of the article in question. I would be surprised if Peacenik162's IP address doesn't match one of the IP vandals that has been targeting this page for years. I informed Peacenik162, in an extremely civil manner, why it was not appropriate to add self-published sources to promote the company in question. Peacenik162 did not reply to my comment on their talk page, though ignored my comments and added back the self-published sources promoting the company. This user has also repeatedly removed information referenced to reliable soruces that could be considered to not promote the company, such as that they lost a contract with the Australian Defence Force. This user has also repeatedly misleadingly used sources to make inaccurate statements which the sources do not back up. This user has refused to respond to comments on their talk page or the talk page of the article in question. I suggest they be permanently blocked from editing on the grounds they are a single-purpose account who has demonstrated they are completely unwilling to stop edit-warring or start discussing the issue on talk pages. Freikorp (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

That's funny because everything you accuse me of you have done yourself. You have been edit-warring with this page since 21 May 2011 and should be blocked. Peacenik162 (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not even remotely true. I haven't added any self-published sources to promote an agenda; you have. I haven't removed referenced information without explanation; you have. I haven't ignored attempts to discuss the issue on talk pages; you have. Reverting an IP editor who has completely removed referenced information without adequate justification is not edit-warring. Once an edit gets reverted, if you still have a problem with it you discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Please read WP:BRD. You are the only person edit-warring as you repeatedly revert edits yet refuse to respond to attempts to communicate about the issue. I could go on but there's no point. I'm not replying to any further ludicrous accusations that get made here. I'll let the admins decide what is the most appropriate action. Freikorp (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"Reverting an IP editor who has completely removed referenced information without adequate justification is not edit-warring." Don't bet the farm on that. There are exemptions from edit warring, but disruptive editing that falls short of obvious vandalism isn't exempt. You guys need to discuss this on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at WLNS-TV

Between Spshu and Wcquidditch. [67] [68] [69] [70] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who did not intend to do anything to end up at ANI, and has generally tried to avoid partaking in edit wars… I don't know what to say… except that there is a separate noticeboard for edit warring. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: As someone who has worked with both of these editors and reviewed the diffs given, I don't see edit-warring here. I see two users stepping on each others toes a little bit with edit conflicts, but not edit-warring. I would warn Spshu on this edit, which is clearly from another time span (2015) and the user should know that. Wcquidditch caught it and corrected and updated further. Again, this is not anything warring, just editing and different editing styles too. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:05 on March 7, 2018 (UTC)

Behaviour at Talk:Battle of Szina

While I am not formally reporting an incident here, I believe that some sort of oversight might be appropriate with respect to interactions between @User:KIENGIR and @User:Ditinili. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks and bad faith editing on a RfC

I recently opened up a RfC on an article (link here: Talk:Rod_Laver#RfC_on_article_intro_and_statement_"the_greatest_player_of_all_time"). A user, Fyunck(click), has repeatedly made personal attacks against me and made disparaging remarks about my edits. I have tried to follow WP:GF and WP:EQ and encouraged him to do the same. He has criticized me on other user's Talk pages as well (link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoug_Weller&type=revision&diff=829170674&oldid=829008997). On the RfC, he is now, repeatedly, copy and pasting the same thing over and over again (link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rod_Laver&diff=prev&oldid=829172294). This type of behavior is not new for this editor, he has also been banned for using sock puppets in the past (link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FreepRipper). Zerilous (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

An editor of your obvious experience should know that RFC openers are explicitly told to "include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". Your opening statement was neither so I've removed it. If you can't see why, I suggest you enlist the help of other editors with drafting one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand and will re-word the intro to the RfC. I would like to discuss the actions of Fyunck(click) as I described above. Zerilous (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

They told you it was a bad RFC. You insisted on keeping it open (repeatedly). They pointed out it was a bad RFC (repeatedly). Was there anything else? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If you don't feel the language Fyunck(click) used was against WP:EQ or copy and pasting the same thing over and over again was inappropriate then no, there's nothing else. If you don't feel it relevant that he was banned in the past for using sock puppets to push his agenda then I guess we don't need to discuss that further either. His comments like "His lies are upsetting me and I have better things to do than worry about what this guy does to the article. I hope you got what you wanted." and "This is the worst RfC setup I have seen in probably the last 5 years." don't seem WP:EQ or WP:GF to me. Zerilous (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

User:172.251.100.84

• 172.251.100.84 (talk · contribs)

Hello I come here, to ask for help, the aforementioned user insists on making constant editions without reaching a consensus, eliminates sources and information, and modifies multiple articles to his "taste" apparently. For example here, he eliminate sources and information to impose its edition. And that's the way it is in multiple actors articles. Although I have warned him about his editions, he did not seem to take it seriously. Here already several times i have reverted their editions. But this happens in multiple articles, then I do not know if it is a constant war of editions, since sometimes it lasts for days without editing.--Philip J Fry / talk 02:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Here i will leave a list of several articles in which I have reversed their editions:

• Gabriel Soto
• Alejandra García (actress)
• Emmanuel Palomares
• Leticia Calderón

These are just some articles, there are more, if you want you can check the history of each one.--Philip J Fry / talk 02:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Acroterion has abused admin powers and they should be revoked

I pointed out in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_ScratchMarshall how Acroterion suppressed diffs in the following edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Hogg_(activist)&offset=20180304&action=history&limit=6

@SarekOfVulcan: pointed out in special:diff/829124255 on March 6:

"I don't see a BLP violation in those supressed diffs"

Only after this abuse was pointed out did Acroterion admit in special:diff/829163386 on March 7:

In reviewing ScratchMarshal's edits at Talk:David Hogg (activist) I have reconsidered my redaction of some of ScratchMarshal's edits as essentially futile, in that they aren't blatant BLP violations

Futile as in ABUSIVE. They aren't "blatant" BLP violations because they are not ANY kind of violation. The edits are now presently un-redacted but I believe admins would be able to provide a log showing that Acroterion did redact then unredact them only when called out on it.

Acroterion's block based on false reasons was cited by MrX in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive977#ScratchMarshall_promoting_conspiracy_theories to support a topic ban against me:

He posted more BLP violating content, which I reverted again. He reverted me, restoring the BLP violating material, at which point he was blocked by Acroterion.

This is blatent well-poisoning by both of these users, but it was Acroterion's abuse of admin tools which made it possible. It will not be possible to get a fair hearing until this abuse of powers is understood and there are punishments for it.

If people want to make an argument for me being topic-banned, that's fine, but it should be done from scratch with this initial attempt completely discredited because of the false allegations in it.

MrX deleted a source from the talk which was present in the article for 7 days, and which MrX was clearly aware of because he edited directly after it was added on February 25. Acroterion supported this dishonest behavior and engaged in further dishonest behavior.

I am glad that Acroterion has acknowledged the abuse and acknowledged that I did not violate BLP in what was rolled back and diff-redacted for days, but it isn't enough. There should be a consequential loss of power until Acroterion has shown the ability to edit responsibly and not endorse falsehoods. Acroterion needs to understand BLP better to avoid abusing his admin tools in the future. ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I recommend an immediate and long block for ScratchMarshall for violating their topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not violate the topic ban. You said in special:diff/829119931 there's no problem linking to diffs, mentioning BLP articles, and explain I didn't violate BLP. The only edits I have made since then are ANI/ARE related. ScratchMarshall (talk) 10:14 pm, Today (UTC−5)

In your topic ban appeal. This is not your appeal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

See my comments at ScratchMarshall's AE appeal. Recognizing ScratchMarshall's enthusiasm for discussing conspiracy theories about living individuals by incrementally framing them in extensive discussions of refutations, essentially inserting a parenthetical "NOT"! after going into great detail about the CTs, I gave up on the redaction. Since SM's trying to relitigate those BLP-violating discussions here and at AE, it seems to me that their topic ban isn't going well. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The ongoing venue shopping by ScratchMarshall may necessitate a lengthy block.--MONGO 03:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Acro this is not about whether or not reasons exist to enact a topic ban against me. This is about the fact that you

1. abused your admin powers to redact talk page comments which did not violate policy
2. reverted talk page comments which did not violate policy with your administerial weight behind the action
3. enacted a 48 hour ban under false pretenses
4. refuse to acknowledge how your abuses influenced the initial ANI arguments by MrX and how people perceived them

You simply backpedal and try to find different reasons to retroactively justify your actions once your initial reasons turn out to be wrong.

Someone as biased and abusive as you've proven to be should not be part of any future discussions to determine whether or not to topic ban, revert, redact or block someone related to BLP topics. You have proven irresponsible in this area.

If new blood comes along who have not actively engaged in abuse of admin powers in the course of BLP disputes, there's plenty of room for them to make those decisions. Even if they result in the same outcome, at least can possibly base it on better arguments.

Mongo: this isn't venue-shopping. Whether or not I should have a topic-block and whether or not Acroterion should keep his admin powers are separate issues. The only confusion that exists is the order to approach them in. The dilemma I face is:

1) if I appeal the topic block without proving Acro's abuse, Acro's abuse is kept in place as the linchpin of arguments against me

2) if I appeal to punish Acro's abuse without repealing my topic ban, NeilN says I am not allowed to discuss the evidence of Acro's abuse because of the topic block.

So what exactly is the correct order here when each issue interferes with appealing the other? ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat what I said at the AE Appeal: This editor is attempting to end-run BLP and muddy up articles by trying to link to fringe viewpoints (like conspiracy theories) in an attempt to darkwash articles about shooting survivors. They know they can't get the claims in the article, but by including the debunks - and the links to "sources" in the talk pages, including its history - their goal will be met. They are not here to help; they are here to harm.--Jorm (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"Someone as biased and abusive as you've proven to be should not be part of any future discussions to determine whether or not to topic ban, revert, redact or block someone related to BLP topics. You have proven irresponsible in this area." About Acroterion. Facepalm --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

<ec>Well, I certainly cannot support dessyopping Acroterion. I think the matter looks well blown out of proportion and would rather err on the side of caution where removing BLP problems are concerned and then be reversed then err on the side on leaving in a BLP violation.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked ScratchMarshall for a week for disruptive editing. The attacks on Acroterion and the blatant forum shopping are disruptive. I'll leave the thread open in case anyone wants to explore whether it was a TBAN violation, but my initial inclination is that while it is, to let it go with a warning as someone who isn't familiar with the AE process might confuse this as being part of an appeal (though if someone else sees it differently, I won't object to upping my block as an AE action). TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)