Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

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

]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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:CENSOR. Citobun (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

"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: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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yesterday Onward&Upward wrote the following on the John Laurence Talk Page [12]. I responded saying that I did not believe that I have initiated any "impolite criticism, sarcasm and insults", rather these started with Onward&Upward's initial comment on my Talk page on 21 February here: [13] and have continued up to and including the comments above questioning my knowledge and integrity. I will readily admit that my edit summaries have become more curt as I continue to revert Onward&Upward's edits which do not accord with WP policies and procedures. Onward&Upward cannot describe him/herself as a "newcomer" and is not entitled to rely on the indulgence that might be granted to a newbie, rather s/he has persistently ignored WP policies and procedures, does not adopt

which starts as an apology but then quickly becomes another attack on me.

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

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

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)[reply

]

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

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)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

Hatting wall o'text as description of content dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
John Laurence, who is 78 years old and very much alive, has been given the highest praise for his work over the past 50 years, especially in Vietnam during the war there, and has received countless awards for his journalism, authorship and documentary filmmaking.[1] 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.[2] Reviews of the book were 100% positive and included most of the major newspapers in the United States as well as several magazines.[3] 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."[4] 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]"[5] 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.[6] 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"[7] "...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"[8] 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.[9] 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.[10] 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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Hatting "shorter" wall o'text
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SHORT VERSION OF ONWARD&UPWARD'S DEFENSE: User Mztourist is attempting to have me blocked on Wikipedia for interfering with his attempt to publish a biography of the American journalist John Laurence that is a cleverly disguised attempt at character assassination. Using Laurence's 850 page book, "The Cat from Hue: a Vietnam War Story", as his primary source, Mztourist has chosen a couple of negative incidents and one of his own critical observations to suggest that Laurence socialized with drug addicts in Saigon and whose reporting was "cynical" in Vietnam during the war. I have revised Mztourist's bio repeatedly to try to set the record straight, but he has resisted on each occasion with complaints about my failure to use the Wikipedia software correctly. I was learning it. An edit war has resulted. Here are examples of differences: 1) Mztourist posted on 28 January: "Laurence was initially supportive of U.S. policy in Vietnam and willing to give favorable coverage for access and information, what was referred to as "being with the program".[11]: 123–5  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.[11]: 293 " 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".[11]: 123–5  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.[11]: 293 " NOTE: Onward&Upward changed "more cynical" to "more critical." 2) Mztourist posted on 28 January: "On 10 March 1966 following the 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.[12] " Onward&Upward posted this correction on 30 January: "On 10 March 1966 following the 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.[13] 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.[11]: 295–314 " 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.[11]: 295–314 " 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[14] 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.[15] 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)[reply] Onward&Upward has now added a reference to The Cat from Hue to Vietnam War here: [18], but still making no effort to properly cite refs despite seeing numerous examples of how this should be done. Mztourist (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] A Shorter version usually means something like five or ten sentences, not the 971 words and 6871 characters you have just above. Granted, it's an improvement over your first attempt, which weighed in at 1,556 words and 9936 characters. Counting the characters was about the only salient thing I could extract from either. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] 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?[16] Is it the fact that they're cited at all? Or that they offend you? References ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Laurence ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Ryan_Award retrieved February 26, 2018 ^ Kutler, Stanley (21 April 2002). "Apocalypse Then". The New York Times. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Laurence&oldid=822096035 ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Laurence&oldid=822096035 ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20030810110627/http://thecatfromhue.com:80/Press.htm ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=35 ^ https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/john-laurence/the-cat-from-hue/9780786724680/ ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Laurence&oldid=827752973 ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mztourist ^ ISBN 1586481606 . ^ Shulimson, Jack (1982). U.S. Marines in Vietnam: 1966, an Expanding War. History and Museums Division, USMC. p. 62-3. ^ Shulimson, Jack (1982). U.S. Marines in Vietnam: 1966, an Expanding War. History and Museums Division, USMC. p. 62-3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Laurence&oldid=827962051 ^ http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-vietnam-war/about/ ^ [1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

• My opinion is that IP user, please note that the English Wikipedia is
  problem. Alex Shih (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

---

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

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

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)[reply]

I see Heia Fotball [no] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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:

• 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
  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

]

• • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply
  ]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply
  ]

For the record, in the real world, which Wikipeida seeks to record, 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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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

]

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)[reply]

• I'm really sick of this. The objection to bundled nominations is nothing sort of
  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 @

]

• 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)[reply]
• As I've said above, I'd support the deletion of most of the articles listed in the AfD. Despite the fact that
  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
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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

Rusf10 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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)[reply
  ]

• 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)[reply]

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

Rusf10 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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)[reply
  ]

I refuse to apologize when 1. I did nothing wrong and 2. to a person accusing me of

Rusf10 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

There have been an astonishing amount of controversy regarding New Jersey related topics recently at AfD; both

]

• 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:IAR can apply in this circumstance.) --Enos733 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

As previously stated, a

WP:IAR

?

Despite warnings in

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

@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

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

]

I'm sorry, but you're 100% wrong here. There is absolutely no violation of

Rusf10 (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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

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)[reply]

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

Without intending to comment on the merits of the bundling, personally I would have suggested that the disputed nomination was just procedually closed. I don't see how the fact that a few people have !voted for delete all affects things. Their !vote to delete the other articles is not affected by the removal of this one article per

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Their !vote to delete this one article is affected, but there's a fair chance it's just going to be closed as a no-consensus for that article anyway. So why continue to waste time on it? A new nomination can be opened for that one article, and they, and everyone else who has already participated in the bundled AFD can be invited. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Time for an IBAN?

Deletion TBAN proposal for Rusf10

Refusal by Alansohn to remove personal attack

In the

]

Issue of

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

]

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

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

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

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

There ARE those who know more than you do. And if you want to simply allow content about rural schools that is

]

@

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

]

Personal Beliefs seem to be at the heart of the issue here. He has already stated the I "have a long history of adding poorly (usually non) sourced material on high school sports in Indiana". If this is truly the case, why then did WikiProject Illinois adopt the same format on their sports as well a couple of years later and others in WikiProject Indiana have long since took the mantle of keeping the project up to date since I finished it in 2010. That's right. I have made very few edits to those pages in almost 8 years, others have. Unfortunately as I just said, most information about rural schools in Indiana, or any other state for that matter is usually not compliant with

WP:V

but that does nor mean it's not true either. That's where outside of general information, it should be left to locals to fill in the blanks.

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

I think "A picture is worth a thousand words" is the more common version, but maybe "a thousand facts" is a variation. I think there are

WP:VNT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

• @Rhatsa26X: Stop reverting back in unsourced content, especially about living people. Full stop. Do so again and you're looking at a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  WP:UP#GOALS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

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

• (Non-administrator comment) Nobody owns an article per
  WP:EW
  , which should be followed. Everything I just posted are things that the Wikipedia Community might expect a new inexperienced editor to not really understand, but more is certainly to be expected from someone who has been (regularly) editing since 2007.

My suggestion to you (=Rhatsa26X) would be to take a step back and let things cool down for a bit because if you continue to post things and

WP:NPA. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

Proposed topic ban

New editor here for promotional reasons

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

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

]

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

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

Tell me all about it. 18:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Proposal to Change Talk Site to Top Importance

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

Changing Wikipedia’s “Constitutional-Democracy” Redirect

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

Administrator MPants is Using Insulting Displays and Language

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

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

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

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

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

Fritz Fehling's article edits

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

π, ν) 06:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

What, you want sad jokes instead?

Tell me all about it. 14:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Attack account, conflict of interest

I called a user on account of conflict of interest, and she made an attack account, a play on my username. She has also violated

]

• 172.250.65.115 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 107.77.229.14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Notbinker (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Registered account blocked, IPs given a 48 hour timeout. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trung has a history of emoji usage and has been banned from using them in certain cases as part of an unblock request by

]

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

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

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

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

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

• That Donald Trung and his emojis should be im🍑ed. EEng 09:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Donald Trung (talk · contribs) is indeffed at meta (block log). The meta contribs and the current unblock request look like trolling to me. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• comment This does not violate the terms of his unblock unless he did it on non talk pages? I made a suggestion re: increased sig visibility. Wish he'd take it.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that you're trying to help him, Dlohcierkim, but this does seem to explicitly violate the terms. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Beyond the emoji issue, I think Donald has made it abundantly clear by his actions here and on meta that he’s here to cause disruption (I don’t know how else to classify comments about good faith block evasion by a prolific sockmaster as anything but trolling.) His nonsense during the steward elections I think confirm he is only on Wikimedia projects to troll, that he has long since passed the point where he is a net-negative to the Wikimedia community at large, and is certainly one on the English Wikipedia. I’d support a global ban, but those typically require 3 project blocks to get traction, but barring that, I’m content that he stay blocked on en.wiki even if he fixes his signatures. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever Tony said.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is not the first time these time of information removal edits have popped up. It's always with the same fields removed, Callsign, Community of License, Airdate, Frequency, and Coordinates. (Diffs: 1, 2, 3. When I Warn4'd Warrenton905, the user responded that he/she "work[s] at the station" and "was asked by [their] General Manager to edit the information on the page because some of it is outdated." This is an outright lie. None of the information on the page is outdated and if so, why remove it, why not correct it? Also, if they work for the station, it's a

and shouldn't be editing the page anyway. The user continues by saying that they were trying to upload "the new updated logo" but couldn't because they are a "a new user" and haven't made it to "10 edits" yet. For a new user, they seem to know alot about Wikipedia. Also, WPER/WPIR doesn't have an "updated logo", so another outright lie.

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

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

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

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

This user has created a startling number of redirects that have been found questionable and deleted at RfD; they don't seem to have changed their behavior based on this. They're also adding extremely questionable hatnotes, such as [51].

]

• I agree that some form of action needs to be taken regarding this. I discovered this discussion after I nominated a few redirects and a category recently created by Bodhi Peace. At the least, I think in regards to redirects, Bodhi Peace should be required to use
  WP:AFC/R for a determined amount of time. Steel1943 (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

User (perceived as unconstructive) wants me to review a non-existing argument on

]

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

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

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

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

Icarosaurvus: Thank you for your time and effort.

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

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

KingAttack! has added material to several Wikipedia pages without proper referencing [52]. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the user for 72 hours.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a long time coming as I and many others believe that

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

• Laura Hale retires after being harassed by Fram for many months
• Fram blocks Mathsci for a week. Mathsci recently suffered from a stroke and was recovering at the time, however Fram does not grasp the concept
• "Please explain yourself more clearly, as I'm very close to taking this kind of editing to WP:ANI to get you blocked"
• Cwmhiraeth's editor review
• Fram accuses Cwmhiraeth of using personal attacks, tells her to "fuck off". Fram remains confrontational, but shrugs it off.
• "I miss my weekly dose of Kumioko-getting-laughed-out-of-the-room"
• "Fuck off and reread policy, Bgwhite. You are out of line here". Personal attack was removed for a third time
• Fram's proposal to ban Laura Hale from DYK fails. The proposal was considered aggressive
• Another proposal to topic ban Laura Hale, a year later. ("Fram has a history of hounding me")
• User: Fram "Exactly right, Only in death. If a non-admin used that fuck off edit summary while edit-warring on someone else's talk page to re-insert a personal attack, they'd find themselves blocked in an instant. But no-one has the guts to deal with Fram because they know very well what would ultimately follow"
• Inappropriate threats made by Fram,[53]
• "I'm an admin, you are not. You may have your own stupid opinion". Fram causes Ybmlanter to resign
• "I couldn't give a flying fuck about how I come across"
• Week-long block considered excessive, refuses to accept compromises[54][55]
• Hounding Gatoclass[56][57][58]
• Fanatical over adding hyphens, 24 hour block
• Fram delists four of Nvvchar's GAs without the criteria being mentioned[59][60][61][62]. Per
  WP:GAR
  , "The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. The goal should not be to delist the article, but to restore it back to its former good article quality, if possible."
• Fram proposes DYK ban for LavaBraon. Two months later LavaBraon retires, citing a campaign of personal harassment
• Rich Farmbrough's arbcom case - has a witch hunt happened?
• Misuse of tools by Fram
• Bullying of Geo Swan
• Fram blocks Elisa.rolle indefinitely, deletes a dozen articles due to unambiguous copyright infringement without community discussion.[63] Continued to gravedance[64]
• Fram threatens to block Martinevans for having YouTube links on his user page.[65] Unsurprisingly, he actually does it. The block was seen as vindictive and transferal to ANI for a community discussion was recommended
• More bullying towards Martinevans
• Fram accused of being an "attack administrator"
• Discussions on GA regarding Flat Bastion Road. Fram's proposal to have it deleted backfires
• Proposal to topic ban Cwmhiraeth from DYK after Fram rejects Cwmhiraeth's attempt to make peace
• "I'm very close to taking this kind of editing to WP:ANI to get you blocked"
• Strains on ArbCom[66][67]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Iridescent 20:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Metareply; I believe the message it's intended to convey is "This is such an important issue, I'll briefly emerge from retirement to comment because it needs the input of an elder statesman like me". There are very few people on Wikipedia who can pull off that

  Iridescent 20:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

• Oh and while I'm here, the shameless playing on the "how terrible is Fram blocking MathSci because of MathSci's health" issue. That'll be the same MathSci who - very much to his credit - admitted after his block that "On the other hand I completely agree with User:Fram that I should not have reverted those postings, no matter what had been written. It was poor judgement on my part and I apologise without reservations for that." [68]. Why didn't you mention that, Jaguar? Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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