Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1060

I posted here a while ago about a biased admin who was patrolling the cultural marxist conspiracy theory page despite being a marxist himself. After this, another admin who had a photo of Lenin on his page reverted months old edit that I did on the Jewish views on slavery (despite me having 3 sources) out of spite and then suspended me in a mocking way.

Needless to say, this was an awful experience. I shouldn't have to experience a power hungry admin taunt me and verbally fight me. I don't think an admin should use power like that. What can I do about this? I believe that I was targeted due to ideological differences. My edit was fair. I will no longer use wikipedia if this continues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.84.140 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• A couple of questions and concerns arise here:

(1) No one's going to do anything about this complaint unless you name names and provides diffs for every claim you make. You can't expect people to spend their time searching all over Wikipedia to find evidence for your complaint.

(2) Have you considered that the admin with the picture of Lenin on his page might have been displaying it ironically? Or not.

(3) When you say that the second admin "suspended" you, I assume that means that they blocked you from editing. Did that block run out? If that's not the case, and you're here posting, and this is the first edit that this IP address has made, I guess that means that you are evading your block by using another IP to get around it, which -- in and of itself -- is grounds for this IP to be blocked.

(4) If you're still blocked, did you file an unblock request on your talk page? Every block comes with the instructions on how to do so.

(5) You might like to bone up on WP:Assume good faith, as in perhaps the admin blocked you because you were violating Wikipedia's policies or best practices, and not because they're a commie.

(6) But, as I said, no one's gonna jump to your assistance if you don't provide diffs, and f=diffs will -- of course -- show what the behavior was you were blocked for, whether you are still blocked and evading it, and so on.

Good luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Here [13] and here [14] and here [15].  // Timothy :: talk  01:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The first way to having your account unblocked is not to continue to edit from IPs evading your block. And as such, this IP has been blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment RickinBaltimore, Beyond My Ken, this was not reverted and remains [16]. Since it has been there a while, I can't revert it, it could be rolled back to [17].  // Timothy :: talk  01:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is the original IP's contributions and user talk page. Anyway, I don't need telepathy to know what this is about. And no mocking on my part, as that would involve additional interaction with this individual, one with whom I have absolutely no interest to engage with any more than I have to (not one iota). Noticed them via usual patrolling of this noticeboard, btw, in a thread they, themselves, had started (diff), again, containing bluster of much the same orientation as all of their other disruptive edits. It all speaks for itself rather unambiguously, I'd say. //Out. El_C 01:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Gah, I guess a got beat to it while grabbing a snack! El_C 01:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, good day! I would like to directly report to you an editor, whom admin User:JJMC89 has removed of patroller role, due to multiple inappropriate draftifications, cut/paste moves, and inappropriate CSD. Seems like User:Spiderone hasn't learned their lesson. They have explicitly draftified four of my recently-created articles:

• San Joaquin-Kalawaan High School
• Buting Senior High School
• Sta. Lucia High School
• Eusebio High School

Hilarious thing is he even tagged a

I hope that the administrators look into this matter. Thank you! ~PogingJuan 12:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:AfC in their current state and they are not suitable for main space. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)}

12:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Whether the articles are made in good faith or not is not the issue. Nor is COI. I've noticed that

WP:NORG, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I've noticed that you created all 9 articles within 45 minutes as well, please take more time. There is no rush. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)}

12:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NORG and WP:Notability in general. I won't create articles of subject that lacks reliable and independent sources. What I'm saying, you should have given me ample time. The articles didn't even reached its 24th hour. One of it, I have already put another independent source. Again, the notability stub (which states the need of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic) put by User:John B123 was enough for the current time being. I don't think you must have draftified it explicitly and immediately. ~PogingJuan

12:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Spiderone The source from the educational agency in the Philippines is only an initial one. Eventually, I'm gonna put another reliable and independent sources. I just cannot work on Wikipedia for 24 hours, but tbh, the early publish would definitely "energize" me to "solidify" its notability and not forget the subjects. ~PogingJuan 13:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI. I can't see any evidence of trying to resolve the issue with me on my talk page. ANI is a last resort only. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)}

13:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

it is recognized. The notability stub, I believe was put less than 18 hours ago. After the consecutive creation of the articles of schools, I was still able to create another two articles. I don't think 18 hours were that long. The draftification was inappropriately quick and I think, without consideration. ~PogingJuan

13:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The following statement is a whataboutist one but there are so many articles in the backlog with the notability stub a long time ago. Compared to the article created 18 hours ago, I think those should've been given attention first. ~PogingJuan 13:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

PogingJuan - just out of interest, what would be an acceptable amount of time to wait before sending them to draft? I've seen articles sent to draft that have been on here for barely even an hour today. Please can you point me to an appropriate guideline which says that draftifying an article after 18 hours of inactivity is inappropriate? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE

should have been implied. I don't think that the explicit and immediate draftication was the best judgement, especially when the article creator have worked hard before on seriously contributing in Wikipedia, in compliance with policies and guidelines, for better. I have been here for years.

I think that I have a point here, based on the rationale that you were removed as a new page reviewer for the same exact reason of "multiple inappropriate draftifications" and etc. ~PogingJuan 13:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I also think that the administrators know better and are expectedly, more experienced. ~PogingJuan 13:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You've taken that out of context. The 'inappropriate draftifications' were when I had attempted to draftify articles by cutting and pasting them rather than using the draftify option. That has no relevance to this discussion. Had an 'experienced' patroller draftified those 4 articles would you still be reporting them to ANI? I get that you have taken offence to what has happened but I still don't see what rule I've actually broken here nor do I see anything wrong with draftifying any of those articles. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(

WP:DRAFTIFY

is there is no evidence of active improvement. Creating 9 articles in 45 minutes and then doing nothing with them since gives no indication of improvement imho.

As per

WP:DRAFTIFY

.

As you have indicated that your intent to improve the articles, I don't see where the problem is in doing that in draft? --John B123 (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to observe a few things: 1) They have not edited for about a year... later edits do not display this behaviour 2) They stopped, apparently immediately, after first being asked to stop doing this. 3) With a total of 922 edits, they would probably be extended confirmed without these edits. I haven't done the exact maths, but it looks close enough. Other admins may act differently, but personally I have considered removing EC and a raft of other sanctions, but as a result of these observations, have decided to take no action. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This editor has been here for a while but their recent behaviour is a serious cause for concern. They have hijacked

Paradise Chronicle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Was recently warned by ArbCom regarding their behavior in Kurdish-related articles. They just resumed removing the same sourced content from the same article they were blocked for a back in July by El C. Regarding these very same quotes they have ignored suggestion by volunteer user Nightenbelle that they should be kept in aDRN case they opened but still decided to remove the SOURCED Washington Post material and Washington Institute material and continued to edit-war. They even removed the material during the DRN. That initial removal of the WaPo content was criticized by BDD here during the ArbCom case eight days ago, but here we go again, they just removed the same content for the nth time. I think a tban is now warranted. Thank you, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the filer is topic banned from Kurds and Kurdistan by the arbitration committee, though I am not sure that bringing this to ANI is a violation of the topic ban. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned by Hemiauchenia, the filing editor is currently topic banned from articles and events relating to Kurds and Kurdistan. Besides I have opened a discussion about the subject at the article talk page. The filing editor had since May 2020 mainly the argument sourced and ignored multiple questions at the talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe that

WP:BANEX allows a topic banned editor to file an AN/I report about the subject they are banned from. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 01:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, I have not edited in the area. I am just bringing the issue to the admin attention given that the editor in question (Paradise Chronicle) is obviously taking advantage of my absence since we had argued on this before. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

And I just read the WP:Banning_policy#Topic_ban; tbanned users are not allowed to edit in: related articles and lists, related categories, related project pages, related parts of other pages, discussions or suggestions such as a deletion discussion. It is mentioned nowhere that interaction with admins or admin noticeboards about the topic is prohibited. Now let's focus on the issue at hand. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Uh, that is the issue at hand — that though ANI isn't ordinarily a related project page, it does temporarily becomes such a page once this prohibited content is introduced to it by the banned user (or, saving that, surely this thread counts as discussions or suggestions, etc.). I'll spell it out: no mention of the topic area by Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم is permitted, whatsoever. The only exception to that would be once the allotted 12 months had passed and the user submits their appeal to the Arbitration Committee. It isn't complicated. El_C 01:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

So, do I take it that this thread serves as the (first and only) warning to the OP, and that the next violation of their topic ban will result in a block? Paradise Chronicle, on the other hand, was not warned about the subject per se, but about their general behavior: "Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future." As far as the results of the Kurds and Kurdistan case is concerned, they are not restricted in their editing of that subject in any way, as I read it, so the OP's report was totally unnecessary in any case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note taken, but can we hear from ArbCom members? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:ARCA. El_C

03:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a cut-and-dried situation, black-letter law, as the attorneys say. If BANEX doesn't say that you can do it, then you can't do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the filer for a week for the topic ban violation--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations by User:Pstevensfan105 (contribs) on article Greek Orthodox Church of St. George (Piscataway, New Jersey), despite four warnings/messages on their talk page. They haven't replied to any of the messages, either. Not much more to say, other than that one of their edit summaries (attached to what seems like a blatant copyright violation) says Added info that was deleted by a miserable wikipedia moderator that has nothing better to do then to delete our pride of our religion. Should you continue to delete the page will come back and better than before, as you can see, more information has been added then previous updates., so... color me surprised that they keep adding the same content back to the same article. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked the user. Thanks for the report.— Diannaa (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

From archives

This timeline is not exhaustive and, before 2021, comes from the list in the ANI notice of November 2020. --Delfield (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

September 2017 (TBAN and warning)

TBAN "due to your lack of facility with the English language and with the policies of English Wikipedia"

Warning "against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#Repetitive_accusations_of_antisemitism_and_homophobia.2C_and_threats_and_personal_attacks_by_XIIIfromTokyo

Additional comment by admin: Any further comments of this type on your part may lead to an immediate block. --Delfield (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

September 2020

ANI notice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#Infringement_of_caution_against_attacks_and_of_topic-ban_by_XIIIfromTokyo (according to me, unfounded accusations of "xenophobic behaviour" by Wikipedia admins and agressivity towards me)

--Delfield (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

November 2020

ANI notice by Guy Macon listing previous ANIs about XIIIfromTokyo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#XIIIfromTOKYO_%28need_an_admin_who_speaks_French%29 --Delfield (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

9-18 January 2021

• XIIIfromTOKYO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Delfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user XIIIfromTOKYO has been "cautioned against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants".

I tried to add a story that is all over the news the best I can, and it made XIIIfromTokyo say about me: "Junk sources, fraudulent use of references, and abusive promotion of Paris Assas University. Nothing New."

Thank you.

--Delfield (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this is a pretty serious BLP issue, dealing with the ongoing sex crime accusations against Olivier Duhamel. I know that's somewhat afield from what OP is concerned with—that XIIIfromTOKYO's references to "abusive promotion of Paris Assas University" is directed towards Delfield. Interestingly, the content at issue does not seem to discuss Paris Assas University, and in fact seems to be a throwback to accusations made in a SPI case opened against Delfield that closed without action. I think there's a lot more to this case than meets the eye. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, thank you for clarifying that--it's very interesting. As for the accusations, XIIIfromTOKYO's comment strikes me as nothing but hot air. If XIII means that the edits, which are well-verified (what's "junk" about this?), are an attack on SciPo and thereby promote the competitor--well that's far-fetched. What I do know, and I've noticed this before, is that the article is way too promotional and needs pruning. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@

Better source}} to the article [40]. Gala is a junk reference, and I'm not alone to say so[41]. Other references were used to write elements that were not in the references. Once again, I'm not alone to claim that. Evidences have been provided already by Asterix757[42][43]

.

And once again, Delfield promotes Assas University. Without adding a single reference, Delfield wrote that "Many of the alumni before the 1990s have completed a degree in Sciences Po besides a core degree in a traditional university, in particular the Paris Law School, but it has more recently become the main school of its students". It's nothing but Delfield's opinion, and it promotes Paris Law School. And guess who wrote all the articles related to that so called Paris Law School/Assas University... Further details can be found at the Launebee/Delfield SPI case. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

XIIIfromTOKYO, I said elsewhere that that one edit doesn't prove "abusive promotion of Paris Assas University"--not in the slightest. Nor does the "better source needed" by Asterix757 add up to "junk sources"--again you are conveniently leaving out that there were references to Le Monde, The Guardian, and the New York Times. And while you claimed "fraudulent use of references", which is an unacceptable personal attack if not rigorously proven, I see no evidence of that. Again, there's Asterix, who said "incorrectly used" on the talk page--whether that's correct or not is immaterial to me, but it's acceptable to speak in that way.

No, it seems clear to me that you violated the outcome of that ANI thread. BD2412, I think a block is in order, given your conclusion here. Delfield may be a sock, I don't know, but XIIIfromTOKYO was warned, and in this very thread they had an opportunity to retract the worst of their personal attacks; they didn't. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Since I'm notified, I presume I can make some remarks. First of all, I understand that there are past conflicts that may lead to these attacks. But from my fresh point of view, and only about Sciences Po article, recents contributions of Delfield about Duhamel's scandal were indeed problematics. The question of poor quality of "Gala" refs is in fact secondary (and now Delfield change them for "Libération" which is better), the worst problem is that good sources like "Le Monde" has been used incorrectly as I said (in French we may say "détournement de source"). I presumed good faith and tried to tag to see an improvment. But later changes, and removal (of tag {{Failed verification}} whithout changing sentence, or of Sciences Po statement regarding sexual violence related by NYT) are still questionable. But I don't want to be involved in some never ending dispute. I suggest XIIIfromTOKYO to apologize for the use of harsh words such as fraudulent. If one wants the truth to prevail one should stay moderate and polite, despite possible exasperation. Asterix757 (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I have spent weeks to document a SPI case against Launebee/Delfield, a case that was openned by MePhisto.

The current incident was opened by Asterix757 [44]. I quote "written inaccuratly pretending facts that are not in the sources and is using also poor source (Gala). It's like a gossip article[45]" :

"pretending facts that are not in the sources" is not different to "fraudulent use of references". I'm strictly following the openning statement.

Gala is nothing more than a tabloid. See the SPI for more input on the use of that kind of material. Asterix757 has provided more element on that newspaper[46], so I don't know what I can provide on top of that.

In the openning statement, Asterix only mentionned Gala. I answered on that statement, and that statement only. I don't know why " Le Monde, The Guardian, and the New York Times " are mentionned by Drmies, since neither I nor Asterix mentionned them. I didn't make or intended to make a comment on the quality of these newpapers. @Drmies: you need to provide a link to support your accusation or remove it.

"abusive promotion of Paris Assas University". Links have been provided on the SPI, I not going to copy-paste everything here.

So, may we talk about the overabundance of {{Failed verification}} that need to be added to Delfield's work. Where does the line between "honnest mistakes" and "fraudulent use of references" can be drawn ? 3 contributors, myself included, have reported multiples issuses in the past months. That's the core problem. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You can't make accusations here, or write down edits, based on claims made elsewhere. The SPI doesn't even mention Gala, and at any rate that's subject matter for a community discussion on

WP:RSN. Same with "abusive promotion"--if you make a very serious claim here, you need to substantiate it here. No, I am not convinced by anything you say here, and I stand by my point: you are making unacceptable and unsubstantiated personal attacks. Drmies (talk

) 15:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The SPI is 25'000 bytes long, and the link has been provided. I not going to burry the whole discussion by c/c it here, that would be a

WP:POINT

. You refuse to click on the link, that's fine. But don't make claim that I didn't provided a link, I did.

You have just removed 8 times materials from the Assas University, on the ground that these abstracts were too promotional[47]. You do it 8 times on the edit summary, it's acceptable, I do it once with a 25'000 SPI bytes, it's not ?

You have just removed a full paragraph because, according to you "whether Eduniversal is a good enough source for this remains to be seen"[48], but when 2 French speakers explain you that Gala is not reliable (and that's a big understatement), and provide references about it[49], this subject matter has do go through community discussion and approuval beforehand. An American contributor can make that kind of comment about a website written in French, but two French contributors have to go through community approuval first, even if references have been provided.

I hope that you understand that at this point, you have been doing nothing less than I have.

Do you have any comment about Delfield's comments on my sanity (see Comment 1 and Comment 2) ? Why is it acceptable ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I did not read what was written under this thread. I will just say that I read what Drmies wrote in the Sciences Po talk page (how I have to improve the section), it totally makes sense and I will try to improve the section. Feedback is very helpful. I think it is something different than having constant personal attacks about my motives after I edit an article or write something in a talk page, without any help on content, as it has been going on for quite some time now, since I began to edit the Sciences Po page.

I also kindly let know the admins of the problem I wanted information on there. XIII is clearly using the talk pages and filling them with statements about a university he does not seem to like, for whatever reason. He was recently claiming things in this university talk page that other contributors assessed as wrong and he is once again pursuing this obsession with section. I am not pursuing this if admins think it is not worth looking at, I just wanted to raise the issue.

--Delfield (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"pursuing this obsession you say "[50] ? You are questionning my sanity, that kind of statement in not acceptable. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a colloquial expression, not a medical diagnosis. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: see the edit at Comment 2[51] : The use of websites like www.psychologytoday.com and www.healthline.com/health/mental-health clearly put that on the medical field. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Obsessive–compulsive disorder is a medical diagnosis. Saying you are "pursuing this obsession" is a colloquial term for "you're focused too much on one thing." These are not the same, and you should drop this argument promptly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Too bad, Delfield has admitted that these comments were indeed pointing at a medical condition[52]. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You've completely misrepresented that diff as if it applied to the "obsessed" statement. It has nothing to do with that, and it seems you're determined to distort this matter until it suits your agenda. 16:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment 2: To admins: I won't engage with XIII at all. He has been harassing me and the only way not to be a victim a such verbal abuse is to just ignore him if possible.https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-mysteries-love/201612/the-best-way-end-verbal-abuse I made a report, you assess the situation in whatever way you want. He is trying a classic debate technique: make a scandal about the report so that the original issue get drowned in the smoke (what they call gaslighting: https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/what-is-verbal-abuse#gaslighting). I won't fall for that and I leave it to you, as I did last time (I did not comment), even though nothing was decided in ANI and even though the comment section proved him wrong and XIII was imo aggressive toward Narky Blert as an answer there (pointing imaginary mistakes instead of kindly discuss content).

Psychological health is therefore the reason I am not answering to XIII or going deeper in the ANI dispute. Thank you.

--Delfield (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You have already made comments about my mental health, and I have clearly told you that it was not acceptable. Yet, you made the choice to keep the discussion on that track, conspicuously using website like www.psychologytoday.com and www.healthline.com/health/mental-healt.

You have been harrassing me since day 1, and abusing personnal attacks. Your first answer to one of my comment[53] was a comment on my "low" editcount (only 100K), implying that I was a sockpuppet, and bringing back some years old stuffs[54]. That is gaslighting and personnal attacks. You have started no less that 3 ANI against me in the last few months[55][56][57]. Nothing came out of it, excpet a lot of wasted time on my side, thanks to the Brandolini's law. That is harrassment and playing the mental health game.

It's clear that Delfield is a new puppet of Launebee. It was banned for a reason. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, either file a

Unfounded accusations of sock puppetry are personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

18:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Already done by MePhisto who openned the investigation last August[58] . Already mentionned repeadly on that ANI, you can't have missed it. I have added some inputs to that SPI, and went as far as asking if he thought a third account should be added[59] before actually adding it. I haven't voiced an opinion that is not shared by at least one other contributor.

It took us 6 monhs to solve the issue at FR.Wiki, but it has been draging on for 4 years at EN.Wiki. It might be time to consider that you might be wrong on that. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A stale SPI from August is not a reason to repeat those accusations months later. Either file a new SPI with new evidence, or withdraw the claim. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

To clarify to the admins (I am not talking to XIII but to you admins): I was of course talking about my psychological health and my need to follow guidelines, but I guess it was clear enough. --Delfield (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC) To clarify further: I am fine, these guidelines I follow are just to keep it this way. No risk of self-harm of course. --Delfield (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

1-2 February 2021

• XIIIfromTOKYO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Delfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Because I asked an admin to "clean up" a talk page of personal attacks, he answered: "My comments are not dirty things that need to be, as you said, "cleaned", thank you. As you might know, stereotypes about French people include having a poor hygiene, so that choice of words is a bit unfortunate."

--Delfield (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, make it quick this time :

• A 40 months old edit about a past beheaviour[60], what do you want to prove with that ? Yes, I know than I'm not perfect, but Wikipedia:Don't remind others of past misdeeds might apply after all this time. Yes, I claimed that a contributor was abusing sockpuppets, and yes, I'have been cautionned against that. And yes, it turned out that I was absolutly right, and that that contributor was indeed abusing sockpuppets.

A contributor can't remove or alter an other contributor's comment. Period. It's was not the first time that you have tried to rewrite one of my message in order to alter its original meaning, and I have already clearly said that it was not acceptable[61]. So you knowingly behave in a way that I have asked you to refrain from.

It's the third ANI that Delfield has started against me during the pasts months[62][63]. Mostly off-topic accusations, always starting with that once a bad guy always a bad guy mantra over and over again. And everytime I waste more time on ANI than on the article. That's how Brandolini's law works, and Wikipedia:POV railroad also apply there.

I see that Delfield only has 200 edits so far (3 ANI started with only 200 edits, that's actually amazing), so it might be time to draw a line between harassment strategies, and genuine grievances. And I understand that, as a still young contributor with edits on controversial articles as a sole experience, it might be hard for Delfield to make that difference. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

A contributor can't remove or alter an other contributor's comment. Period. Incorrect. Please see

WP:TPO for specific instances in which the comments of others can be edited or deleted. I'm not saying that any of those apply, just correcting your blanket generalization. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 01:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

XIIIfromTOKYO is once again again making a whole section in talk page on my edits (implying bad intent), even though what he is talking about had already been sorted out by Asterix757 (there was a confusion about where the claims took place: the institution or a group of institutions).

His edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sciences_Po&type=revision&diff=1007909303&oldid=1007908098

Former edits by Asterix757: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASciences_Po&type=revision&diff=1008065409&oldid=1008062642

Warning of XIIIfromTokyo about this (and above the 9-18 January section) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XIIIfromTOKYO#Topic_ban

At every ANI post, he is trying to have the admins not reading by writing long texts in which the line of thoughts seem difficult to follow (or trying to make obviously bad faith claims, like on 12:20, 11 January 2021 above about the word "obsession" I used), so that they let down the whole subject.

Even if Asterix757 had not already made these judicious improvements, I feel it is not normal that every edit I make is observed by XIIIfromTokyo and a whole section is made each time a sentence in my edits can be improved. Even if XIIIfromTokyo did not create a new section, I do not think he should ever write "Delfield has done this and this" but "This is written in the article, I think that should be written for this reason" without mentioning me in talk pages. It has been polluting discussions between Asterix757 and me for months and it is becoming difficult for me to write anything even in talk page because for everything XIIIfromTokyo has a bizarre comment (see above 1-2 February where I asked the talk page to be "cleaned up" of his personal attacks, and he answered referring to the stereotypes about French people like him having a bad hygiene).

--Delfield (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Delfield's harrassement

Hi,

I think it's pretty obvious that Delfiel has been filling a swarm of ANI in the last past months in order to harrass me. Per Brandolini's law, I won't waste my time to debunk any of this, unless expressly asked my an admin.

There is a strong case against Delfield for a long time abuse of sockpuppet; It was opened by an other contributor, but I totally support it. We just need 1 admin to have a look at it.

There is also a strong case against Delfield for enduring misrepretention of sources and/or use of poor material[64]. As you can see, when caught, Delfield doesn't answer, and opens an ANI as an answer. Delfield has also tried to remove failed verification tags[65]... So the real question is, is Delfield able to contribute to Wikipedia. Afer 200+ edits, and already a long history of ANI and editwaring, I strongly doubt it.

The Sciences Po article is now filled with that kind of QAnon Pizzagate elite pedophile conspiracy mumbo-jumbo : "Duhamel was indeed organizing many events with the French intelligentsia involving a lot of sex and alcool and mixing adults and children. Small children were told about loss of virginity at 12 and were asked to mime in front of parents sexual acts, 12-year old girls were dressed with provocative clothes and make-up and sent to dance with 40-year-old men, older children are asked to tell the audience about their first sexual experience and young boys are "offered" to older women. [...] ". And it's not even connected to that college. The controversy section is now longer that the History section. 200+ edits of pedophile conspiracies. An other contributor has already tried to make it understand that it was turning the article into a gossip magazine, BUt Delfield sees nothing bad about it [66].

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The section in question, while it needs to be rewritten to meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone, seems to be well sourced enough. I would say block XIII for personal attacks, but if the logs show Delfield has significant violations of policy, they get blocked as well. 4D4850 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

As seen in the below section, he may have falsified the entire start of the conversation. 4D4850 (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@XIIIfromTOKYO: the SPI you linked to was closed back in October with this comment "Open for a month and obviously not going anywhere, so closing with no action taken. If anybody has some new evidence and can present it in a clear and concise way so it's easy to evaluate, file a new report." So it's fairly unlikely "just need 1 admin to have a look at it". What you need to do is follow the advice given. If you have new evidence, present it in a clear and concise and manner in a new report. Edit: I see you were already told by User:HandThatFeeds to stop treating that old report as convincing evidence of sockpuppetry. You really need to follow that advice as well. Just stop mentioning that SPI. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Yes, it was closed because no one took a look at it. Two contributors spent hours to collect evidences, so far, for nothing. I have more elements to provide, but for that I need to have someone who is willing to have a look at other peronn's work. That's a shame, because that's the fastest way to deal with that ANI.

I have 110'000+ edits and 13+ years as a contributor. Delfield has 200+ edits, and only controversial edits. So maybe, maybe, the old grumpy contributor has seen something. And maybe MePhisto, who openned the SPI, has also seen something. And maybe, Asterix757, who found that a lot of references discrepancies[67] (failed verifications and poorly sourced claims), has also seen something. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@XIIIfromTOKYO: it's not possible to parse that closing statement (in particular, the request for new evidence) as there being no review of the evidence. It's clear that it was reviewed, perhaps only cursorily given the length, and was found insufficient compelling to demonstrate sock-puppetry. You and MePhisto should take this advice on board, and if you have new evidence open a new case in a clearer and more concise manner. Until you do so, you need to drop the sockpuppetry allegations. Even if you are right, the evidence presented to the community thus far is not sufficient for finding of sockpuppetry. There are plenty of times when sockpuppetry happens but the evidence isn't sufficient. You can continue to personally believe whatever you want provided you don't let it unreasonably affect your editing here and especially stop making unfounded accusations. As for the other stuff, I'll put it this way. I had a quick look at the talk page of Sciences Po and what you said there did lead to concerns on my part about Delfield inaccurately summarising sources. But I didn't investigate further in part because I didn't feel I could trust you either. I don't care that much how long you've been here and how many contributions you have. I do care in my one recent experience with you, I found you continued to make an unsupported allegation of sockpuppetry even after you'd been told to stop. If you keep at that, why should I believe anything else you have to say? In other words, maybe you are right, but you haven't given me a reason to think you're right. The opposite in fact. So rather than spending hours reviewing if it's a persistent problem with Delfield editing, I'll just drop it. If you're lucky, maybe someone else won't be so daunted. If not, well maybe reconsider you approach. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: If I have to drop the sockpuppetry part, why is Delfield allowed to use past ANIs, especially when nothing came out of them ?

I don't ask you to "trust" me, I ask you to understand that other contributors have also voiced their concerns about this contributor (that lead to an SPI and the finding of multiple references discrepancies). I want you to undertand that Delfiel's narrative and habilities don't match at all with a 200+ edits contributor. It was already true last septembre, when it toped only 140 edits. Let me explain that again :

• 4th edit, 20 September 2019 : First edit on a law college in Paris[68]
• 8th edit, 20 septembre 2019 : First edit on Science Po, removing a large part of the intro, and already using {{Citation needed}}[69]
• 23rd edit, 7 October 2019 : First creation of an article, a POV-fork[70]
• 33rd edit, 9 October 2019 : First request for page protection[71]. The aim was to have the artile locked on the version the Delfield wrote.
• 43rd edit, 10 October 2019 : First message on a Wikiprojet talk page, in order to start a merging process detween two articles[72]
• 55th edit, 10 October 2019 : First article for deletion nomination[73] : Sciences Po Law School. Large parts of the article were subsequently removed by Delfield[74][75] in order to thin the article, and ease the deletion process.
• 86th edit, 20 August 2020 : First disambiguation page[76], in order to promote Assas.
• 113rd edit, 5th Septembre 2020 : Sock Puppet investigation against Delfield begins[77]

5h September 2020, I let a message on the sockpuppet investigation. Delfield starts red herring tactics. I'm the main target, and Delfield starts to dig 5 years olds edits.

• 121st edit, 11 September 2020 : First message at the Administrators' noticeboard [78], targeting my supposedly low number of edit and/or lack of fluency in English.
• 125th edit, 12 September 2020 : Delfield opens a sockpuppet investigations against MePhisto[79]
• 131st edit, 13 Septembre 2020 : Delfield opens a ANI against me[80]

In barrely more than 100 edits, that contributor has been able to use correctly a very specific template (8th edit), create and article (23rd), make a request for page protection (33rd), start a merging process (43rd), start a deletion process (55th), start an SPI (113rd). It doesn't really fit the narrative of new contributor discovering Wikipedia throught a trial and error process, don't you think ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)