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

Sander.v.Ginkel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sander v. Garfinkel

-EEng

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

"Math vandal"

Not too long ago, no more than a few weeks, we had someone vandalizing math articles, inserting formulae and stuff like that--but I can't remember a name. Please see the work of User:Qazxswdfghjkvy6euevdttcvcw5vy, who can hardly be a new editor. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

That looks to me like someone experimenting with Wikipedia's math editing features (WP:MATH). As a user of those features I can confirm that it takes some practice. I don't see any edits of Qazxswdfghjkvy6euevdttcvcw5vy other than in their user sandbox, which is a good place for such experiments. Of course it's possible that they are connected with some past vandalism that I didn't see or don't remember, but nothing like that is obvious from looking at their current contribs. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Interference with editing Sukhoi Su-25

Four years after the discussion was started on the technical performance of the Georgian Su-25 airplane, editors User:Acroterion and User:Ahunt have expressed their intention to suppress any discussion of the performance of the Su-25. Such discussion is warranted because there is a wide range of valid performance possibilities, and an informed understanding of the performance and limitations is not possible if the issue is being WP:OWNED and controlled by a small group of editors.

At issue is that the WP article states that the "Ceiling" of the Su-25 is 7,000 meters, but the designer/manufacturer says the ceiling is either 10,000 meters or 14,000 meters, and these editors are trying to block any discussion of why there's a difference in the published numbers. The facts are available from reliable sources, and the discussion of the facts would be useful to readers.

User:Ahunt posts:

"There is plenty of proof that Russian trolls are working here on Wikipedia and your edits may result in you being blocked if an admin judges that you are here to disrupt Wikipedia for national reasons. Take it at that and as per the cited Arbitration Committee decision refrain from pursuing this any further."

User:Acroterion says:

" I have tried to warn you that, as per the ArbCom decision you are risking a block,"

NOTE: I have not edited any specs on this page, I'm only requesting a discussion on the issue of the performance numbers. For simply proposing to discuss this topic, User:Ahunt says I should "refrain from pursuing this any further"; User:Acroterion appears to be threatening to block me from discussing this topic. This seems to me to be an extremely uncivil approach to discussion.

I'd like to request that these two editors be advised to stop interfering with a legitimate discussion by using innuendo and threats of Wikipedia blocks, and that if they continue this behaviour that they be blocked from any further discussion on the Sukhoi Su-25 page or the Talk:Sukhoi Su-25 page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Santamoly (talk • contribs)

@Santamoly: Did you notify them of this post?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes although without signing there either [5] [6]. Santamoly, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages (including noticeboards) using four tildes ~~~~. See WP:Signing for more info. Nil Einne (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

As has been widely reported outside Wikipedia [7] [8], the Russian performance data for the Sukhoi Su-25 has been manipulated to support theories that a Ukrainian Su-25 shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. This is noted at the top of the article talkpage. After the issue was extensively discussed on the talkpage in 2014, Santamoly has recently been urging the use of the falsified data [9], [10], and has entirely ignored advice that the data is not usable because it was altered with the intent of manipulating Wikipedia and has been specifically noticed as such by outside sources. Santamoly has had a severe case of IDHT [11], [12]. I placed a DS notice concerning Eastern Europe on Santamoly's talkpage [13] [14] which got this [15] bizarre response.

Both Ahunt and I have advised Santamoly that continued advocacy of using dubious or outright falsified sources is a non-starter, and that they may be subject to AE sanctions if they persist. Since Santamoly found that advice threatening I advised them to come here if they wanted to pursue it farther. Per standard procedure I would not take AE action myself, but would make a request of other admins, but here we are. Acroterion (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I cannot add much to what User:Acroterion has written above, that summarizes things well. Perhaps a checkuser would be appropriate? - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ahunt: CheckUser is not for fishing expeditions nor is it magic pixie dust. If you have suspicions of socking, you should open a WP:SPI. Blackmane (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• In the end, it doesn't matter. You only have to look at the entire history of the Su25 article, and then what happened after July 2014, to see exactly what the problem is. If Santamoly continues with their antics, they should simply be blocked as a net negative. In fact, they're approaching that point now. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record I wasn't referring to any sock allegations, as there are none that I am aware of, just point-of-origin connections to the third party media stories cited above. - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that the above editors are continuing with threats and innuendo that have no place in a simple technical discussion. There are good, reliable, technical sources to support a wider explanation of the numbers, but I'm reluctant to engage these editors who have an obviously menacing, political agenda as can be seen clearly in their ad hominem comments above. User:Black_Kite now appears to be joining in this discussion with indirect threats above. Santamoly (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• And I notice that you persist in making false allegations of threats, political agenda, etc. As far as I'm concerned this is your last such edit: persist and you should be blocked. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing any evidence that Santamoly plans to start listening anytime soon [[16]]. Acroterion (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Haha hilarious--wait, that's not his own talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Blocked two weeks. We're supposed to escalate, and their last block was two weeks also, but that was two years ago, so via a very complicated differentially perpendicularized multiline equation array I arrived at two weeks. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Based on their bad-faith behavior here and their POV edits [17] at Abiogenic petroleum origin (another Russian propaganda favorite), they should consider themselves lucky they didn't get an INDEF. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Violation of edit rate by Ser Amantio di Nicolao

Greetings, I just wanted to report that it appears Ser Amantio di Nicolao is again violating AWB's terms of use edit rate rule. He is currently editing at a rate of 25-30 edits a minute without an apparent bot flag. Far above what is normally allowed. 2601:5CC:100:697A:F55F:44A4:194F:D883 (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Notified. GMG^talk 15:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't realize I was getting quite so out of hand this morning. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

1000 edits in the last 1/2 hour alone, all to add yet another box at the bottom of articles (these things are proliferating at a quite alarming rate, considering the limited use most of these links have), which has the peculiarity of starting of with our favourite unreliable database, wikidata. As that is not intended for reading, and is unreliable, and more reliable links are given in that box anyway, I fail to se why it is included (never mind as the first link), but in any case ading thousands of boxes in such a fashion should be done by bot if there is consensus for it, or not at all if there is no consensus for it. Fram (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The more reliable links are stored in Wikidata, and Taxonbar pulls the links from there. Plantdrew (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Which is not what I asking, but thanks anyway. Take Triprismatoolithus: the taxonbar shows the Wikidata ID, and the Fossilworks ID. The Wikidata item has no information at all apart from that Fossilworks ID. So why do we have the Wikidata item (which is already shown in the left sidebar anyway) here, as it is an unreliable site anyway and offers no extra information? Note that in the code, an editor is now adding the Wikidata ID inside the template as well to get rid of some unnecessary maintenance parameter[18], making this even more an example of the overkill this is generating everywhere. Any reason why reliable links are not stored in enwiki, and why unreliable links without extra information are given such prominence? Fram (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The template that stored reliable links to six databases on enwiki was deleted in favor of taxonbar. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_14#Template:TaxonIds. Plantdrew (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

...And the "wd" link then added as the first link after that TfD had concluded: [19]. Fram (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

So, is this a discussion about Taxonbar and Wikidata, or an ANI? If the former, I believe the best venue is either WT:TREE or Template talk:Taxonbar. Ser Amantio di Nicolao's edits are desirable by WP:TREE via discussions at Template talk:Taxonbar. If strictly ANI, where is the evidence that IP tried to resolve this issue with Ser Amantio? Isn't ANI the last resort, not the first?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the IP should have taken this up with Amantio. No, whether the edits are desirable by one project or not, they are not acceptable in this way (making thousands of rapid-fire "test" edits from a non-bot account). Furthermore, Amantio adds them without the "from" parameter, which adds them to a maintenance category, which you then clean by adding the from parameter (which doesn't change anything on the eventual page but removes the maintenance cat, hurrah). If this parameter is needed, it should be added in the same run as the taxonbar, not in a second run across the same articles. Which is yet another reason why this is better as a bot task, approved and tested to see whether the changes are needed and complete. As for taking this to WT:TREE or even worse the template talk page, I'm rather tired of insular projects or template editors deciding the addition of thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands) templates or wikidata links without actual consideration of more general consensus, standards (e.g. authority control doesn't add the Wikidata link, but the taxonbar, which does the same thing, adds it as the first link?), ... We already had multiple RfCs and discussions about specific cases where WD was linked from articles or used to automate tasks, which mostly ended either in "no consensus" with a lot of opposition, or in "remove it from the mainspace" completely. It is, to put it in biological terms, a pest, an unwanted invader which is popular with small groups but has a lot of resistance elsewhere. Fram (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, to the former point, I'll admit that I got carried away. I do sometimes...especially if my internet connection appears to be working better than usual. Apologies for that; usually I respond fairly well to a newspaper smack about the nose, though today my brain was elsewhere for a variety of reasons.

To the latter point...it seems to me that such things as the Taxonbar do have their uses, especially as it relates to collection of external links. Similar to Authority Control, near as I can tell.

I have no feelings as to whether or not this is better done by a bot. If it is, I'm happy to hand over the task. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I can easily roll this into WP:BRFA#Tom.Bot 2 (which has been very slowly making its way through BRFA). It might have to go through re-trial, and another several week's wait, or possibly faster given the added attention this had garnered.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Just let me know, please. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the real problem here is flooding of watchlists and recent changes to do a task like bulk adding of a template. This is really what bot flags are for, bulk adding of repetitive positive minor changes (in this case literally just appending {{Taxonbar}}) and should not have to bother human reviewers. At the very least I think these should have been flagged as minor edits to give reviews a means to filter these edits. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

But adding links to Wikidata is not a minor edit. In this case, Ser Amantio's botlike editing brought it to people's attention, which is what the watchlist is for: to enable editors to be aware of potentially contentious edits. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict

This has to do with the protection of Kashmir conflict in the wrong version. I just got a friend request on Facebook from someone claiming to be the real life name of Kautilya3. Seeing as they seemed to be an editor I recognised I added them. So a few minutes later I get a message from them telling me that I'm a bastard (I know that already) I need to revert this or they will join forces with Sitush and Vanamonde (I think they mean Vanamonde93 and have me "desypopped" (which sounds quite painful). Now I suspect that neither Sitush or Vanamonde93 know anything about this and I'm leaning towards the FB account being fake and not really Kautilya3 but whoever is behind the IP, 27.107.82.190. Oh, apparently they haven't heard of screenshots as part of the message said "you won't have any proof of this message when I deactivate". CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Fake indeed. If not, then best wishes for you CambridgeBayWeather, you will be desysoped soon ;) — MapSGV (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This is serious off-wiki harassment if he's truly attempting to create social media accounts in order to impersonate another editor (severely if it contains his personal information). This needs to be taken care of privately. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment: This is concerning. The IP 27.107.82.190 is based in Bangalore from a look at the geolocation. Some months ago there was an IP from the same city Bangalore trying to frame KA$HMIR for sockpuppetry.[20] Around the same time a very similar Indian IP, familiar with Kautilya3, turned up and tried to frame both KA$HMIR and Owais Khursheed.[21] Owais then took this to WP:SPI[22]. The administrator then did not think it worth their while to run a CU. CambridgeBayWeather you should take a read of the case. I think its time CUs are run and relevant action. It is getting too much. These IPs show coordination and are clearly not new editors. The bullies are IP socking to escape the consequences of WP:HARASSMENT.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

NadirAli It seems to me that you are stretching this a bit too far and connecting other IP's to this incident with scant evidence and to a SPI which was more POV motivated against Kautilya3 and MBlaze Lightning. Yes this particular incident is definitely concerning since they are trying to impersonate Kautilya3 and a serious off wiki harassment and should be dealt with accordingly. The IP 27.107.82.190 (talk · contribs) seems to be connected to this incident but I don't see a connection with others. The other IPs 223.31.156.6 (talk · contribs), 42.109.194.95 (talk · contribs) you mention are all from different ISP's and not necessarily from the same city (different geo-locations state different locations). Let's try to focus at the situation at hand rather than random theories. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment': I agree with NadirAli. I think all these IPs are connected. They all share the interests and motives of Kautilya3. Whether it be the grudges against other editors or the page versions they want. If two IPs in two different cities, Bangalore and Delhi, were in coordination with the same purpose its likely there's a deeper collaboration which we need to uncover and this new Bangalore IP is part of it. We know that the Bangalore IP has admitted by their word ″we″ to being not alone. The recent Bangalore IP is likely one or more of them. I would recommend that CambridgeBayWeather run a CU on all those who were supporting the block proposal for Xinjao. "vandalism". We might find the troublemaker. DarSahab (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I've been notified of this thread as per the standard ANI m.o. but I know absolutely nothing about the matter being reported., it is extremely rare that I get involved in Kashmir-related stuff and I have never been active on Facebook. If anyone gets targeted by someone using my name or similar in this way then it'll be fake. - Sitush (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Right after I posted this I went back to FB and linked to this section and asking if they knew what a screenshot was. Within minutes the FB user deactivated their account and removed the reply. I don't believe that Kautilya3 has ever posted anything indicating their real name. However, I'm even more sure now than I was earlier that the FB person is not Kautilya3. I also don't the FB has any real clue as to Kautilya3's identity. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

DarSahab are you seriously suggesting that I go to WP:SPI (because I'm not a checkuser) and ask that all the editors that posted oppose at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive976#WP:CIR, editor frequently calling constructive edits a "vandalism" be checkusered? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes that made no sense. I think that either NadirAli or Darsahab or anyone close to these two users is behind this disruption given how these two users are taking it "too far". Pretend to be Kautilya3 since he is clearly their major opponent in these content disputes and then seek some action against him and or at least get his account checked by a CU. Pathetic. — MapSGV (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Can't a CU check be performed? The IP threatened Mar4d ″we will get you blocked like we got Xinjao.″ ″We″ is more than one peron. I feel there is collaboration going on. And this person or persons don't seem very smart. They have left a clue by saying Xinjao. I also think the behaviour of the similar but separate pro-Kautilya3 IPs in Delhi and Bangalore match this IP. The demands and actions are almost identical. DarSahab (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this impersonation hypothesis is tremulous. How is it possible that someone here can find out a user's real-life identity? Is security on Wikipedia so fragile we can't trust Wikipedia the secret of our identities when we sign up here?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

DarSahab if you think a checkuser is required then you ask for one. And I never said the FB user had the correct real life identity. Some users give theirs out but I don't think Kautilya3 ever did. CambridgeBayWeather (mobile) (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You have no real way of knowing if the personal details provided are actually those of the user. @CambridgeBayWeather: - this is probably all a discussion better done via an email from you to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org as per the guidance in Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment. Fish+Karate 08:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about this IP, but I have a feeling he/she has been around the Wikispace for a while. They probably had an account sometime, got blocked and now hover around, watching. So far, that amounts to little. But I know the big picture, which is that the thousands of accounts that we have blocked over the years, now form communities or gangs, for whom Wikipedia is a drama, and we are all its characters. These characters have fans as well as enemies, and engage in gang warfare. The gangs stray into the drama itself, every now and then, and bring their gang warfare here. The proliferation of WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY accounts, against which we seem to have no defence, are coming from these gangs. I found the Xinjao block affair quite fishy, which is why I didn't vote on it. But I voted on the unblock request, against my better judgement, and unwittingly became part of the drama. If we want to fight these gangs, we need more defences against the NOTBORNYESTERDAY accounts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 27 February 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: [23] 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: [24] 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 [25]. 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: [26], [27], [28] 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: [29], Onward&Upward has repeatedly deleted the reference to Tim Page's book: [30].

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: [31]. 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 [32]) 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 [33]. 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: [34] 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: [35]. Onward&Upward then continued his/her insults by posting this: [36] 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: [37] 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: [38]. 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)

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)

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.

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)

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: [39], 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)

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

References

user:Czalex

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

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

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

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

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

The information is reliable, citing authoritative sources, namely:

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

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

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

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

Serbian national teams, again

A few weeks ago I reported Gagibgd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for revert-warring at Serbia men's national water polo team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Water polo at the Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and, more importantly, a complete failure to engage. I dropped the issue after he sort of wrote a reluctant talk page post, but we're back to square one with revert-warring. I tried to engage him at Talk:Serbia men's national water polo team but with no futher response. Having waited a while, I reverted the article to the stable version, only to be reverted again [40] by 89.216.96.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have little doubt as to the IP's identity, as it also continued Gagibgd's old battles at Volleyball and Basketball pages. Having seen Gagibgd trying to hide last time by deleting messages from his talk, and now by editing logged-out, I'm having hard time to AGF now. Adding to the equation his serial copyvio at Commons from yesterday [41], I also suspect some CIR issues; I'd guess he's a pretty young person.

There's a wider-scale dispute concerning SFR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro/Serbia national team results, which resulted in several ANI excursions and full protection of FIBA Basketball World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) until March 1, but nobody is discussing that issue anymore and I predict continuation of the edit war. Apart from Gagibgd (who mostly just reverts), the involved are Asturkian, Anaxagoras13, Bozalegenda, Pelmeen10, and myself, as well as a couple of "helpful" IPs. Nobody seems willing to start an RfC on the issue, and I'm certainly not without blame.

In closing, I'd like to propose a topic ban for Gagibgd from all Serbian national teams articles, broadly construed, and, perhaps, some guidance (arm wrenching?) how to resolve the broader dispute. I will happily accept any WP:BOOMERANGs and WP:TROUTs coming my way. No such user (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see why you need to ask use how to resolve the broader dispute. You seem to already know, start an RFC. (Well or use some other form of WP:Dispute resolution but an RFC is really looking best given how things are going.) It may be a bit more difficult getting the wording right, but you could at least propose one and see if you get any feedback and then do your best from there and open one. I'm not involved and haven't looked into the dispute, but I would recommend restricting it two one sport since from what I've read there may be issues unique to each sport so it may get complicated if you try to cover them all. I'm not suggesting you open one for each sport, after one has closed, wait a few weeks or more assess the situation and device how to proceed. While nominally if you've left some comments on the talk page and no one is responding you may feel this justifies continually reverting when whoever is reverting isn't joining the discussion (at least after reverting), it gets complicated. If there has been some discussion, then they may feel they have said all there is to say and you haven't raised anything new and there's no point the two "sides" going back and forth at each other. Of course in that case they should try some form of dispute resolution like an RFC to resolve the dispute rather than just shutting up and reverting, but then so should you. I understand it may be frustrating and time consuming to start an RFC, but anyone who wants to be involved in the dispute has the responsibility to try and resolve it. The alternative of course is to wash your hands of it and let them fight amongst themselves until someone makes the effort, or they end up getting all blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Gagibgd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs to be banned for failing to engage in resolving disputes on talk pages and continuous edit-warring, currently at Water polo at the Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Marbe166 (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I know you all hate success that Serbia made throughout it's history, and that you are trying to take away from us what's rightfully ours, and reduce the success our teams are making, and show to the people that we achieved less than we really did. All you are accomplishing with this is just making wikipedia look ridiculous to everybody in Serbia, nobody will take these results that you are publishing seriously, so you are degrading wikipedias reputation. You keep separating results of Serbia from results of Serbia and Montenegro, although Serbia is it's direct successor. And you have articles with contrary data, somewhere those results are joined, somewhere they aren't. This all looks idiotic. You should be taking the page Serbia national football team as an example of how to handle Serbia's sports results. Gagibgd (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

• Support the proposed topic ban on Gagibgd from all Serbian national teams articles, broadly construed. Their response above is enough to make it clear this is this is the minimum required. They're clearly here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. (Sadly what they don't understand is that most of us don't give a damn about either hurt or improving Serbia's image. We just want this silliness to stop, preferably by some sort of consensus being reached via discussion in an appropriate place rather than this continued edit warring and random minor discussions all over the place. If they actually presented a compelling case based on sources and evidence in an appropriate place, maybe we've even be supporting.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest topic ban on Nil Einne on all topics, because he is encouraging spreading false data on the web. Gagibgd (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Except I didn't. I haven't edited this dispute at all and I said it's possible I may have even agreed with you if you had bothered to actual start a discussion in an appropriate place with the appropriate sources an evidence. (Well most likely I still wouldn't have bothered to !vote since I find this dispute fairly lame, but you never know.) Nil Einne (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support, Gagibgd continues to shoot himself in the foot. --Marbe166 (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Something has to be done about his childlike behaviour. Csknowitall (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support, to make it stop. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support as second choice. That childish response to Nil Einne above says more about the user. I'd be more inclined for an indef since we'll probably be back here before long. Blackmane (talk) 23:21, 1 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)

User:MigenMemelli and 3RR on adding trivia to article

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

---

• Kante4 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for @Alansohn: who feels the need to chime in here. Why doesn't someone ask him as author of most of these articles, why are they copied and pasted from biographies on the official county website? Isn't that a WP:COPYVIO? Could that be why he might agree to delete some of the articles? (although I must point out that the DeGise article itself is copy and pasted) Furthermore, as he is now trying to act as Mr. Civility, he just leveled an extreme WP:PERSONALATTACK on me in another AfD, see [42]. 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 [43] 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 [44], it is quite clear he actually "stalks" my editing history, as I explain here:[45]. And let's not forget Alansohn was actually the origin of the false allegation of WP:OUTING made by Unscintillating: [46]--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 [47] [48] & [49]. Alansohn is actually wrong about our first interaction, its actually this: [50] A suggestion that I be topic-banned. Immediately after he posted: [51], he alleged [52] 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)

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)

Time for an IBAN?

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

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

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

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

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

@Jayron32:That may be your intention here, but that's not what this actually does. It in effect bans me from editing a large number of articles. Alansohn has edited virtually all articles related to New Jersey including any article about a person who has ever lived in New Jersey (even if only for a small portion of their life) He considers it "his area" of the encyclopedia and does not want other interfering with the article being the way he wants them. As you see from our first interaction, he wanted me banned at once because I dared to nominate one of "his articles" (meaning ones related to New Jersey, not just necessarily ones he edits). Actually, he never even edited the Henry Vaccaro article (which is usually not the case with NJ articles) either before or after the nomination, yet came out of nowhere to attack me. You can call this an IBAN, but the way it is worded is in effect a topic ban of me editing New Jersey articles. Alansohn has on other occasions accused other editor of harassing him. Either you have to believe there is some conspiracy to harass Alansohn or this is simply how he operates in order to get his way. That is he claims WP:OWNERSHIP of article and then attacks anyone who doesn't go along with what he wants. When is called out on his behavior, he then pretends that he has been victimized. But its always the same, it is his aggressive behavior that caused the problem to begin with. Alansohn's behavior is very similar in this ANI and others there also noted his WP:OWNERSHIP behavior [53] 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: [54] [55] [56] [57] 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. [58] 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 [59] Then you actually had the nerve to tell me that you didn't ask me to unbundle the nominations [60]. 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).

Deletion TBAN proposal for Rusf10

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

• Support as nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

223.104.107.207

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

---

Would someone be willing to take a look into 223.104.107.207's conduct? In a span of 17 minutes this morning, this brand new editor made 15 reverts across various articles. Some of these reverts may be reasonable but others definitely are not (example). Something fishy is going on here. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think we've hit on some Chinese sensibilities. Some of the stuff was (to my estimation) disruptive, so I've reverted a bunch and issued a level one warning for disruption. Kleuske (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Kohoutek1138

User:Kohoutek1138 reverted edits of mine on 3 different articles (Farther Along (The Byrds album), The Notorious Byrd Brothers, and History of The Byrds) within the past day or so. One reversion ([61]) was simply ridiculous, and another one ([62]) wasn't as bad but still restored POV material. Two ([63], [64]) revolve around word choice – a single word, actually – and the last one ([65]) is about the inclusion of two words in the article. He's additionally opened a very petty discussion at one of the articles' talk pages, and although I admit I was wrong about "pinnacle" being non-neutral, I don't see why he had to revert it in the first place (I don't care one way or another at this point). His views (ha ha) on what exactly constitutes POV material seem to be a little skewed ([66]) and he seems to be pretty revert-happy about stuff like this (see [67] and go through the histories of some of the other Byrds-related pages if you want), so I'd say this is a combination of ownership and driving away productive editors. Someone please do something about it. Esszet (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think this ANI report is premature; I do not yet see behavioral or other issues that require an administrator's attention. If these two keep it up, the matter should be discussed at ANEW since the edit warring is the most disruptive part. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't you think he's exercising borderline ownership or something? I wouldn't say pettiness is exactly civil either. Esszet (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

And don't you think he's unambiguously violating Wikipedia's POV policy in any event? Esszet (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Esszet could you please use edit summaries, it's hard to tell what your intentions are or the point of most of your edits without any summaries. A quick look would make it look like you're edit warring and just making random changes to articles without them. Canterbury Tail talk 18:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I have opened up discussions on two of these article's talk pages and urged Esszet to discuss these changes, which I personally think are unnecessary. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, as can be seen from my user page and edit history, and not given to reverting edits for no reason. I really don't know why this has even been brought before the administrator's board? That seems like overkill to me. The place for this discussion is on the relevant article's talk pages, which is why I have initiated discussions in an attempt to reach a consensus with Esszet. That seems like proper Wikipedia etiquette to me when disagreements over an edit arise. I also don't think there's any need for Esszet's brusque tone and little personal digs, like referring to my "views (ha ha)" or calling me "ridiculous". That's hardly in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. -- Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The first thing was a pun (views – point of view), and I wasn't calling you ridiculous personally - I was referring to your reinstatement of clear POV material that you yourself did not subsequently reinstate. That seems like WP:SANCTIONGAME (mischaracterizing my actions), as does the discussion at The Notorious Byrd Brothers (saying I've provided no rationale when I clearly did). Esszet (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

And I do use edit summaries for major edits that require explanation ([68]) – most of my edits seem too minor (or straightforward) to need them. Esszet (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

wp:edit summary reads in part It is good practice to fill in the edit summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as this helps others to understand the intention of your edit. Edit summaries are displayed in lists of changes (such as page histories and watchlists), and at the top of diff pages and this is repeated later on the page at wp:edit summary#Always provide an edit summary. Can't be much clearer IMO. It's just being polite, really. Andrewa (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright – the discussion at the Notorious Byrd Brothers isn't that bad (he was right after all, and it probably would have been easier to just leave a message on my talk page), but he still mischaracterized my actions. Esszet (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Although I still don't see why he had such an issue with it in the first place. Esszet (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems a content dispute rather than anything ANI can solve. I think both editors can and should lift their games a little in the interests of teamwork, including but not only by seeking consensus on talk pages on the changes concerned and as I noted above, but I don't think admin intervention is indicated at this stage.

And I think it worth adding, a most significant band (its article is rated high importance on the WikiProject Rock music scale) and therefore these are quite important articles, so it's good that we have editors who are so concerned about them. Andrewa (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

User:75.186.83.183

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

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

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

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

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

User:Senyung

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

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

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

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

disruptive editing by 1256wiki

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

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

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

2018 in South Korean music page

MeIN (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC) I'm a new editor for this page. I felt this page is lacking information,therefore I thought of adding 2 new columns titled 'Title Track' and 'Label' with related information.

But multiple times my edit was removed by these users Alexanderlee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Kpopfangirl2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Abdotorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Administrators please check this issue ,send them required notices and let me improve this page. Please...

This is the wrong venue. You need to discuss your contentious edits over at Talk:2018 in South Korean music. The fact that multiple editors are disagreeing with you should give you pause. You need to obtain consensus for your edits on the article's discussion page before introducing them again. That also means if you can't obtain consensus for your edits, you shouldn't make them. --Yamla (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Evidence of canvassing at AfD/British Independence Day

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

AfD troubles

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

---

Neutral messages to wikiprojects are already bad enough in influencing the outcomes of AfDs (see the difference between Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Virgin Islands men's junior national softball team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore women's junior national softball team for a striking example), but when they also start to blatantly canvass people, it may be time to bring in the cavalery some neutral editors to get this back on the rails.

The AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irlam (1813 ship), the canvasser is User:Acad Ronin (the article creator), with messages like this and this. Yes, we normally need to discuss problems first with the editor involved, but once the canvassing has been done, the damage is done and getting a fair AfD with uninvolved opinions is a lot harder than it already was. The people at the AfD so far have not been directly canvassed (only by the neutral project message), but even so the thing is an example of what makes Wikipedia discussions so tedious and disheartening. Fram (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral messages to wikiprojects are allowed, and even encouraged by policy. If you see someone canvassing inappropriately, yes, you are expected to discuss the issue with them before opening an ANI. Long time editors and administrators are not exempt from the expectation to not use ANI as the first step in the dispute resolution process. If you like, you may note on the AfD that certain editors were notified contrary to policy, if those editors choose to participate, and this should be duly considered by the closer. Neutral messages to relevant noticeboards are also allowed and encouraged by policy. ANI is not a particularly relevant noticeboard, and asking to call in the cavalry to get your AfD back on track is not a neutral message.

Acad Ronin, this type of notification is not appropriate. Please stop. GMG^talk 15:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

In what way is "asking to call in the cavalry to get your AfD back on track is not a neutral message. ", certainly after there has been canvassing. When you are already on opposing sides, like in an AfD, it rarely helps if you complain about canvassing and so on. Bringing in an uninvolved editor to restore some semblance of normalcy and to indicate to everyone involved what is acceptable and what isn't may get a better effect. Noting the canvassing only at the AfD and at the editor's talk page sounds very nice, but the end result is that the canvasser gets the message out to whoever they choose, and the opposing opinion gets to drop a measley note at the AfD. Raising the issue here (or at another noticeboard, if you have a better suggestion) brings the AfD to the attention of a wider group of uninvolved editors of all opinions, not just a selected group of editors with a one-sided point of view (at least, that's what the canvasser / notifier hopes, it doesn't always work out that way). Fram (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well that was easy. GMG^talk 16:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment - This should not have been brough here. As an apparent first offence, it is something that can easily be handled by some words of advice on a one to one basis. I will attend to this in a minute. IMvHO, this thread should be closed as "no further action needed". I'm sure Acad Ronin will have learnt his lesson. Fram may well fall foul of the Streisand effect by raising this here, as more editors may well join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Request for administrators attention

I ask admins for an indefinite block of my account thanks.

Piaren (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Done as sock/block evasion in response to a message on my talk page, which led me here. See this diff. @NinjaPirateRobot and Ajraddatz: As info. -- ferret (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I've locked the account. NPR, there might be a case for an expanded rangeblock here. It isn't feasible at the global level due to collateral damage. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: fix ping. Robots before pirates, yo. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well that's just embarrassing. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This one was on a webhost, which means we might see more of him later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Cause of Death Vandal has resurfaced

Please see the contributions of this IP here - geolocates to the same area as other IPS on the vandal's page. Note that I chose not to alert the IP, as is appears to be the custom here for LTA vandals. Scr★pIron^IV 18:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I've soft-blocked 86.174.164.0/24 for three months; they're the only one using it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response - Happy Editing! Scr★pIron^IV 18:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral admin needed

This is not exactly an incident but there is a talk about putting a possible quite-limited interaction ban at Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Promising_Drafts_of_Mathematical_Articles. It is a follow-up to the previous suggestion at [69]. I’m afraid that I formally making such a request on the ban can trigger a drama so it would be nice if someone (preferably admin) with less conflict of interest can coordinate the terms. —- Taku (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I don't believe I'm entirely to be blamed: if it is only of my fault, the discussion would have been much shorter. The interaction ban I'm proposing can have a possibility of putting an end to the dispute. -- Taku (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

SPA user Beluuga

• Beluuga (talk · contribs · count) Reverted by User:Ealdgyth, User:Sjö, User:Freshacconci, and myself. Likely a Holocaust denier. Removes all warnings and advice from his talk page (Freshacconci, myself, etc).[70] [71] Grossly offensive edit summaries. Bad faith editing in progress. See Treblinka extermination camp: Revision history for more of his recent edits, which are less than one minute apart. Poeticbent talk 20:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unattributed reuse of Wikipedia text?

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

Details here.

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

What's the normal operating procedure here?

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

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

Blanking of article section Dana Loesch#Personal life

Ping to user's talkpage here Talk page discussion here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unnecesary attacks and rude language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)