Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:41, 28 February 2018

• 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

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Sander.v.Ginkel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly. At the moment, I wouldn't support a block for it would be against policy. Salvio 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

And how is Sander.v.Ginkel's block preventative in any way? Salvio 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political agenda editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Resorting to ad hominem simply doesn't justify your politically-motivated accusations. (the usual low-level political agenda editing, lacks understanding of key Misplaced Pages 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages, not HKpedia. At present, Pinyin Guangdong is more prevalent Canton in English.

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

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

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

@Citobun:

1. Since my editing wars can be well explained, why do you insist on making your own assertions that those wars are of "political agenda"? Apparently you are too assertive on this issue.
2. For the Wechat stuff, I would like to add that those so-called several users are very likely to belong to the same person given that those users (all of whom are IPs) are all SPAs whose very first edits were to undo mine. Also, my edits are definitely not of "absolutely zero functional purpose". Making such assertions can only demonstrate your non-objectivity. Lastly, not all the edits made on Misplaced Pages 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)

WP:BLP issues at WP:ITN/C

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

Could someone uninvolved step in to explain to User:Stemoc that he cannot refer to someone recently deceased as a "pathological liar" per the BDP clause of WP:BLP? I'm no fan of Billy Graham, but this is getting disruptive and even though I'm aware that reverting per BLP is exempt from 3RR, I get the impression he's not listening to me or User:Stephen. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• And ... no, he's definitely not . Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Calling a cow a bovine is now a crime? look up the description of pathological liar and look at the work done by the person in question. The comment was added to make a justifiable point. people who do NOT know about certain people should NOT be making nominations on their behalf. This is NOT the first time Misplaced Pages decided to ignore the death of a known international actors by stating bullshit reasoning for it...and it definitely won't be the last. There was no option given by TRM for a blurb when it was obvious to most that that article should have received a blurb nomination. Manish tried to bring that up and Stephen abused his admin rights and blocked him.Why are only "american-known" celebrities treated better than the rest of the world, Is this wikipedia, Ameripedia or Christianpedia, please explain...in detail.--Stemoc 11:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If you look back, it is quite a regular thing for people to be nominated at RD and then get a blurb when there is a significant support for it. Indeed, if you look at Billy Graham's nomination, it was originally posted as an RD (by The Rambling Man, no less) before being converted to a blurb when sufficiently supported. So the discussion at Sridevi is nothing unusual - a number have people have already suggested a blurb so consensus will just form in the usual manner. Manish was just being disruptive trying to open a second nomination, removing other people's comments, canvassing and restoring those same BLP violations despite being warned not to multiple times. And no, you don't get to describe Graham in that way, so please don't do it again, you can compare the two nominations without resorting to that. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes but ppl were supporting RD cause no one knew that you can "support blurb", people who voted there are not the same people who vote regularly on ITN/C so if you are going to make a nomination, makes sure you make one which is the better option which in this case was a blurb, i'm pretty sure if the 8 or so people who supported RD were aware that they could support a blurb, they would have done so....--Stemoc 12:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem with that is that if people think it doesn't deserve a blurb, they vote "Oppose" and so it ends up not even getting an RD. That's why it usually works the other way round. Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Stemoc seems to be rather POINTy when it comes to religion. I can funnily recall the last time I came across this editor, which was during a 2014 discussion concerning the nomination of the new patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church, which he kept describing as a "cult" despite reservations from other editors. A strong reminder that BLP applies to recently deceased individuals and that it involves talk pages as well should be issued. Fitzcarmalan (talk)
  • I'm not the one that keeps pushing religious propaganda and giving it priority to it so if i have to be POINTy to fight that injustice, so be it. My comments there stands true 3 years on, we are prioritizing religious nonsense over real news....That pastor died 4 days ago, its very much "stale news" now, lets have something more far reaching and interesting on the main page instead of the same old same old ..don't you think?--Stemoc 12:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Okay, we get it. You're an anti-religion bigot. You're also not going to get your way, so stop spouting nonsense. Nobody is pushing religious propaganda; you're just throwing a temper tantrum because you can't get your precious way. Lepricavark (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Stemoc, I very much disapprove of your tone and your direct personal attack here. Before you ever ping me again, you should know that anyone can nominate anything including RD and/or blurbs, and RD noms are regularly converted to blurb nominations. Personally attacking me and then hounding me here is completely unacceptable. I'll be keen to see you never make any such mistakes again, and if that means you are prevented from editing Misplaced Pages again, that would be a reasonable outcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Just so that Stemoc is clear, since I saw this in one of their recent edit summaries: while BLP is meant to protect living persons, it also extends to those recently deceased like Graham; the moment someone dies, we do not start throwing accusations and other factors into their articles or on talk pages, we still treat that with some decorum. How long after a person dies that BLP still applies varies, but it generally from around 6 months to a year or more if the person was highly controversial. --Masem (t) 13:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice to get threatened by a serial sock puppeteer and an infamous former (multiple times because our rfa process is a huge failure) admin who the arbcom does not have the balls to ban...and that is what's wrong with wikipedia today, whats that old saying? ahh yes, the inmates are running the asylum....please continue, its not like this project will have a long shelf life..--Stemoc 14:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Who's the serial sock puppeteer? Who's the "multiple time" former admin? I guess we should allow you enough rope right now because the continuation of personal attacks will only lead to one result, and that will be well deserved. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Regardless of the BDP matter, the merest review of Stemoc's behavior discloses a history of this sort of slap-happy tossing of insults: I note this AN/I discussion from a year back. Personally my reaction is to ignore them as somewhere between deliberately provocative and simply adolescent, rather like the speech of the man who so prominently figures on his user page, but it would improve discourse here if he were to stop. Mangoe (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

  No, I think it's gone beyond him just "stopping" now, further action is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Stemoc is not qualified to diagnose Graham, Trump, nor anyone else as "pathological liars". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I guess most would agree with that. Question is: is Stemoc qualified to contribute to Misplaced Pages? Kleuske (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Indeed, the answer appears to be no, so it's time to continue on that theme. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: They just got blocked for 31 hours but that might be worth reconsidering given the fact that they outed themselves as a white supremacist neo-Nazi with this edit summary. (If you don't know what that means, you're in the minority so Google it.) 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:F15A:C440:7077:A088 (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Kek != kkk. I fail to see how kek is outing himself as anything other than possibly a World of Warcraft gamer.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Some context for the association between kek and white supremacists is available at Pepe the Frog entry. nwatra (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, no-one was saying kek=kkk, the link provided above is clear for all. A 31-hour block is welcome to avoid the personal attacks, but this has really become sickening and problematic. 20:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

With this confirmation of the "kek" problem I'd suggest this user is blocked indefinitely. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I was trying to assume good faith with the use of kek, but continuing to assert false accusations, and using the word again, I've now blocked indefinitely. Any admin is free to review my block.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Good block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought it, you did it. Support this. Nazis, we do not need. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

+1 Swarm ♠ 00:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would like remind everyone here that PAs are unacceptable, even against problematic users. Please remain civil.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Cyberpower678: And now Stemoc is unblocked? Where did this come from? What I see here is a consensus the user should be blocked, not a consensus to unblock him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I discussed with the user on IRC, and I'm no longer convinced the block was appropriate to begin with. The consensus here is also a bunch of people personally attacking one another, and one user getting blocked for it. Consequently I unblocked after also briefly discussing it on the admins IRC channel.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

      • As someone who has not participated yet, and rarely hangs out at ITN/C, personally I can't say an unblock is a wise choice unless Stemoc agrees to cut out the random insults and attacks of LPs or RDs.

        Sure it may not be the worst BLP problem, but there's really no reason why an editor should be insulting LPs and RDs. I'm particularly concerned if an editor calls a subject covered by BLP a pathological liar and then tries to keep it up when challenged. I'm not so concerned about the history linked above since it looks like in that case Stemoc wasn't calling the LP 'retarded' etc but saying the picture makes them look that way. While I think that's language that should be avoided for multiple reasons, it doesn't quite rise to the same level of concern.

        I am concerned that their talk page suggests they were calling another LP 'dumbo'. While these sort of personal attacks or insults are not the worst thing possible (e.g. calling someone a rapist, paedophile, murderer) they still aren't something that is acceptable especially if an editor keeps making them and insists they should stay up. The fact that these people are probably often called these and worse not just in forums but in opinions pieces etc is still no excuse for them.

        I'm actually not so worried about the kek issue, since I'm not seeing any other evidence of white supremacist leanings from the editor. There is always going to be the question of how you handle stuff that has become associated with some horrible movement or person but also has some other meaning for other people. Should these people completely abandon something just because of the association or do they keep using it? To give an example, given my Chinese heritage, I do often use the number 8 for fun, including 88 particularly when it comes to money (e.g. 88 cents). I didn't even know of the other association for this until a few years ago and that was long after I even started using wikipedia. Of course if someone likes to hang out at the race and intelligence, Black Lives Matter, The Holocaust and other such pages and use kek or has 88 on their username, there is going to be major concern.

        In this case, the lack of any other evidence suggests to me at worse it may be some lame form of trolling than any real white supremacist leanings.

        Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

        • Looking again at their talk page again, I see another concern. They seem to have unnecessarily insulted someone who appears to be the husband of a subject by outright rejecting the claim with a silly "I'm Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie's ex husband, nice to meet you" comment. Sure we always have to take care and ask for verification where necessary with someone's self identification. However there is no need for random insults, and in this particular case it was fairly silly. From what I can see, while the editor could have been lying, it was also easily possible they were telling the truth. (It was very important that the copyright issues were resolved, but again that could have happened without the silly insult.) Stemoc really sounds like an editor who has no clue how to deal with BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
          • So just to be clear the block was made on personal authority for attacking other editors. However having talked to the user, and reflected, Stemoc wasn't the only one attacking yet he was the only one blocked. I unblocked after thinking it through and discussing it with the other admins. With that being said whether or not Stemoc should be blocked for BLP issues, I won't comment, and will defer judgement to other admins.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 05:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
          • (EC) I'm reminded in particular of this Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive961#BLPVIO and Stephen Miller (political advisor) discussion concerning another editor. Sure the attacks there were more serious, still we really need to cut down on editors thinking it's okay to toss out random attacks on LPs (or RDs). At least the editor here didn't start making the attacks in this thread, still it seemed clear they werein no way willing to accept what they did was wrong, or more importantly that they needed to stop. Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a very poor unblock decision. Personal attacks and BLP attacks and continual white supremecy usage should not be tolerated. Having a "chat on IRC" is completely inappropriate and should be strongly discouraged as subversive and completely non-transparent. This sets a very disturbing precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Is reinstating a self-reverted action wheel-warring? GoldenRing (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Technically it isn't. Otherwise it would set the door wide open for admins to prevent someone else taking action by doing some action and then reverting their own action. Plus, there is clear consensus here that the user should be blocked, and some nebulous IRC discussion between the (un-blocking) admin and the blocked user doesn't overrule that. Fram (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man and Fram: My block was strictly for making personal attacks, and it's not like others haven't attacked him in the process, yet he was the only one blocked for making them. So with that being said, I considered my block unfair and undid it. After which I pulled back, and left the decision to block based on the BLP issues to another admin. I'm not getting involved in this issue anymore.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably for the best. Conducting these kinds of activities via IRC is definitely not appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well that kind of just happened. He approached me on IRC and we had a civil and pleasant discussion about the block, after which I felt my block was premature. I should have let the thread continue to play out instead. Lessons learned, and experience gained.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Y'all need to understand something here. By referring to Graham as a "pathological liar" for espousing Christian faith and belief, simply because he does not share that belief is bigoted beyond words and not only a personal attack on Graham , but on every Christian in the world. If it weren't so repugnant, it would almost be humorously ironic that his block was made indefinite when it appeared he made an obscure reference to the KKK, but it's just fine to insult every Christian in the world. Indeffd is the appropriate result here, just as much as if he'd made a blatant racist or antisemitic attack. John from Idegon (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeff has been reinstated per the obvious consensus here by John. Bravo. 18:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Old account inaccessible

My old account and email (Darren1988cdm) are inaccessible. Could an administrator move the talk page over to this new account? How do I go about proving I am the owner of the old account? Darrencdm1988 (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Darrencdm1988:, because I was concerned this might be a compromised account, I posted about this on this page above. Alfie ran a check user and has verified both accounts as you. Also above, Oshwah has made the rather practical suggestion that you simply redirect your old talk page to the one you're using now. — Maile (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Maile66:, Important distinction: I didn't run a checkuser, I put in a request for a checkuser to run a checkuser. There'sNoTime ran the actual checksuer, IIRC. Other than that, you're correct! -- Thanks, Alfie. 20:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Alfie Thank you. I was close, but no lollipop. — Maile (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've merged the old talk page history with your new talk page, so it's officially the same talk page under a different name (the old page still redirects to the new one). As for proving you're the same person, as indicated above, it's already been proven by a checkuser, and that's it. You won't have to worry about it coming up again. Swarm ♠ 02:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Could this also be done with the user contributions page as well? Just curious. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Darrencdm1988: Sorry, the user contributions are fixed to the account in question and cannot be moved to another user (well, a developer probably could but won't). You can always link to your old account's contributions on your user page and your signature. Regards SoWhy 11:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"Math vandal"

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

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

Persistent changing of apostrophes and quotation marks: straight to curly

Hgrosser (talk | contribs) has changed straight apostrophes and quotation marks to curly several times (e.g., ], ], ], ]), in violation of MOS:STRAIGHT; has been warned more than once (e.g., ], ]); and has removed such warnings from his/her talk page more than once (e.g., ], ]). Would it be appropriate for an administrator to intervene?—Anita5192 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

In looking at their userpage, they state they edit using a script called wikEd. In looking at your diffs provided, and some other of their contibs, it looks like they do mainly copy editing and the curly changes appear as secondary changes. In looking at the talk page diffs provided, one was from Sept 2017 and the other from Nov 2013 -- can't judge maliciousness by those. In the 2017 diff, an editor expressed concern that this was a script glitch, which I suspected as well. Pinging @Cacycle: who maintains the script to see if they know if this is a known bug. HTH, Rgrds. --64.85.216.76 (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've warned the user. If they do it again, let me know.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not a problem or bug of wikEd as far as I can see. Cacycle (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Cyberpower678: This user has done this again today with this edit: ].—Anita5192 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Can an IP range be banned from certain articles?

IP using range 175.45.116 keeps bring disruptive on 2017-18 A-League changing soccer to football, normally not a problem but with Australian articles, football is known as soccer there as per WP:NCFA. See IP 175.45.116.69, 175.45.116.70 and 175.45.116.74 all recently did this edit. They don't normally do it enough to end up banned, but as per 175.45.116.69 even after getting banned, they are back doing it again. Just wondering if there is a way to restrict them from editing the article or do we just have to keep managing by reverting them. NZFC 06:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

175.45.116.64/28 is the range, but it doesn't seem like enough to warrant a rangeblock. You should perhaps request protection at WP:RFPP. Nihlus 06:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thought I'd check. Don't really think it needs page protection because there is legitimate IPs that edit it and approval would be more troublesome than just reverting this IP. NZFC 06:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Interference with editing Sukhoi Su-25

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

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

User:Ahunt posts:

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

User:Acroterion says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repetead WP:WIKIHOUNDING accusations at Talk:Battle of Szina

There is a classical dispute regarding the language of place-names on Talk:Battle of Szina. Furthermore, an accusation of WP:WIKIHOUNDING was launched 13 times in the discussion thread. Maybe an administrator is needed for a mediation, to break the infinite looking loop. 123Steller (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Violation of edit rate by Ser Amantio di Nicolao

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Tamas0103

Tamas has been receiving warnings about creating poor articles for some time, see User talk:Tamas0103#Please take a little time to look at the suggestions Misplaced Pages editors are giving you from 16 months ago. They have never edited their talk page, so may be unsure how to do so, but it's really easy and they've been editing quite a while. I'm also assuming a language barrier may be an issue here, but if it means the editor can't work out these issues, then they would be better, as has been suggested to them before, editing only in languages they are fluent in.

I have left several messages at User talk:Tamas0103#Sources, over the last month, but Tamas has continued to edit but not to reply. I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but they just continue. Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Boleyn, the user hasn't been on since the 19th, as I'm sure you saw. Their additions are indeed problematic, and combined with a total lack of communication, that's indeed troubling. If they come back and continue in the same vein, we should consider blocking. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

He has had a few days' off but he has continued with the lack of communication and not addressing the issues after my first four messages - I don't think the fifth message will make any difference unless we ensure we have their attention by an indefinite block, which means they will have to communicate, and when they do, they can edit again. I think four warnings over a month is enough, Drmies. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Sanajeh

I have sent several messages over nearly a month about creating unreferenced articles, see User talk:Sanajeh#Sources, but Sanajeh won't respond, but continues editing and continues creating unreferenced articles like Kiangyousteus.

I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN. They have also been contacted by other editors about this issue, see User talk:Sanajeh#About sources and reversions. Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This is somewhat annoying because the editor is clearly capable of producing useful stubs that could be readily sourced (as in Kiangyousteus, which I just did) but they frequently don't seem to want to bother. They are also completely uncommunicative. Can someone break out that nifty "Oy! Pay attention!" script so that they are at least obliged to drop in here and start talking? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Tea1212

I have contacted this editor several times over two months, please see User talk:Tea1212#Sources about creating many unreferenced articles. They won't respond or address the issue. I have directed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:BURDEN and WP:V, but no change. Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Paul Thomas explained this phenomenon. Fans want to write the narratives of their fandom, NPOV and sources be damned. If it were me, I'd block Tea1212 per NOTHERE. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I would be careful about making that accusation, Chris - see WP:NOTNOTHERE. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I don't know anything about this IP, but I have a feeling he/she has been around the Wikispace for a while. They probably had an account sometime, got blocked and now hover around, watching. So far, that amounts to little. But I know the big picture, which is that the thousands of accounts that we have blocked over the years, now form communities or gangs, for whom Misplaced Pages is a drama, and we are all its characters. These characters have fans as well as enemies, and engage in gang warfare. The gangs stray into the drama itself, every now and then, and bring their gang warfare here. The proliferation of WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY accounts, against which we seem to have no defence, are coming from these gangs. I found the Xinjao block affair quite fishy, which is why I didn't vote on it. But I voted on the unblock request, against my better judgement, and unwittingly became part of the drama. If we want to fight these gangs, we need more defences against the NOTBORNYESTERDAY accounts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Onward&Upward

I created the page John Laurence. User:Onward&Upward who has been on Misplaced Pages since June 2008 claims to be related to John Laurence, see: and therefore is not a neutral writer. Despite having been on Misplaced Pages 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: 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages page about the TV series), Laurence himself discusses the frequent marijuana use there, but Onward&Upward repeatedly tried to remove all reference to this: , , 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: , Onward&Upward has repeatedly deleted the reference to Tim Page's book: .

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: . 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 ) 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 . 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: and have continued up to and including the comments above questioning my knowledge and integrity. I will readily admit that my edit summaries have become more curt as I continue to revert Onward&Upward's edits which do not accord with WP policies and procedures. Onward&Upward cannot describe him/herself as a "newcomer" and is not entitled to rely on the indulgence that might be granted to a newbie, rather s/he has persistently ignored WP policies and procedures, does not adopt WP:NPOV and has done everything possible to sanitise any perceived criticism of John Laurence. I also pointed out that Misplaced Pages was different from WikiLeaks which s/he referred to in the original post and received this response: . Onward&Upward then continued his/her insults by posting this: on my Talk Page, starting with "So, Mztourist, you are English and living in England (or possibly Welsh or Scottish or Irish). Your diction and anti-American attitudes give you away." What possible relevance is my ethnicity or location? None of which is correct btw. I ignored that post and then noted this pseudo-apology: 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: . As I have grown tired of Onward&Upward's failure to follow WP policies and procedures, edit-warring and insults, I request that an Admin imposes a Block or Topic Ban on him/her. Mztourist (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

John Laurence, who is 78 years old and very much alive, has been given the highest praise for his work over the past 50 years, especially in Vietnam during the war there, and has received countless awards for his journalism, authorship and documentary filmmaking. His book, "The Cat from Hue," received the Cornelius Ryan Award for "best non-fiction book on international affairs" by the Overseas Press Club of America, the only book award it makes annually. Reviews of the book were 100% positive and included most of the major newspapers in the United States as well as several magazines. That Mztourist is using Laurence's own book with which to attack his reputation as a journalist is less ironic than it is a clear indication of his ulterior motives.

Here's how he did it:

After creating the new John Laurence page on 22 January 2018 with basic information about where he was born, year of birth and education, on 24 January Mztourist added two incidents taken from "The Cat from Hue." In a post of only 12 lines to describe Laurence's first 10 months in Vietnam in 1965-66, a period which occupies 340 pages in the book, he wrote: "Through his friendship with correspondent Steve Northup he became a frequent visitor at 47 Bui Thi Xuan, Saigon, the home of Northup and fellow correspondents Simon Dring, Tim Page and Martin Stuart-Fox, known as "Frankie's House" after the resident Vietnamese houseboy. Frankie's House became a social club for a group correspondents between field assignments and their friends with large quantities of drugs being used there." Large quantities of drugs? What's that supposed to mean if not that Laurence socialized among a group of drug addicts? Later, when I discovered the new page, an edit war ensued over the reference to "large quantities of drugs" and the fact that Mztourist could not figure out who lived in the house and when. You would have to read the 340 pages of the book to understand that Laurence was NOT a frequent visitor to Frankie's House, only an occasional one (because he was not invited often), that only marijuana was smoked there and not "large quantities of drugs," and that the house was inhabited by several other well-known, accomplished journalists than those he mentioned. All are included in the book. One of them was Sam Castan, a senior editor at LOOK magazine and Laurence's close friend. He received a medal for his courage in saving the lives of three American soldiers at the cost of his own. That Castan was the only civilian journalist to receive a medal during the war (from General Westmoreland the overall commander), seemed to me to be worth including in a paragraph about Frankie's House. Especially if Mztourist insisted on disparaging everyone in the house for using "large quantities of drugs." But he struck out Castan's name every time I included it. The whole paragraph about Frankie's House should be deleted.

The second incident Mztourist included in his 12 line summary of Laurence's tour of Vietnam in 1965-66 is this: "On 10 March 1966 following the Battle of A Sau, Laurence interviewed Marine Lt Col Charles House, commander of HMM-163, the unit which had evacuated the survivors of the battle and who had himself been shot down and rescued from the battlefield. House stated that panicking CIDG troops had overrun the evacuation helicopters and the crews and Special Forces troops had had to fire on them to establish order. The story caused outrage when broadcast leading to an investigation by Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) and III MAF." Mztourist used a book by a Marine Corps historian for this account rather than Laurence's first person description of what happened. I objected to the use of the phrase "the story caused outrage when broadcast" in such a general way. It is clear from Laurence's account that the incident did not cause outrage in the general public or in the rank and file in Vietnam. No disciplinary action was taken against him. The fact is that a few Marine and Army generals were upset because Lt. Col. House told the story on-camera and that it was broadcast on CBS News. A reading of the book shows that's what happened. Mztourist and I argued over edits because the way he portrayed the incident it looks like criticism of Laurence for reporting the story.

But that was it. There is nothing more in Mztourist's biography about the often incredible events that Laurence saw and reported in 1965-66, including being wounded with his soundman in a battle. In all the reviews of "The Cat from Hue," I can find no mention of the two incidents Mztourist chooses to include. It gets worse. The next day, 25 January, he adds this to the original 12 lines: "Laurence was initially supportive of U.S. policy in Vietnam and willing to give favorable coverage for access and information, what was referred to as "being with the program".: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.:293" "...he became more cynical." Cynical? More cyncial? There is not a word in the book to suggest that Laurence was cynical. The man is not a cynic. He is a warm and kind-hearted person. His writing shines with his humanitarian beliefs. His spiritual nature is on every page. The edit war between Mztourist and I began with the words "more cyncial" in this paragraph and continued when I tried to make clear that the deaths and wounding of American soldiers were part of the equation. Laurence has been described as "the best television reporter of the war" and also "the best war reporter of his generation." (Esquire magazine (October, 2003)). But nothing in Mztourist's biography reflects that.

I started trying to make edits to Mztourist's work for the first time on 30 January and added over 3,000 bytes of new information. Neither of us made any edits between 2 and 13 February as I struggled to learn the methodology of using Misplaced Pages's software. Throughout the month of February, Mztourist has been belittling me for not using the correct editing methods with comments such as: "Stop making unreffed changes..." and "provide WP:RS for your changes, how many times do I have to say this?" (both on 21 February) During the month of February, the number of references has gone from two (both by Mztourist) to 19 (most of them by me). The size of the page has gone from 4,500 bytes with no edits by me, to more than 13,000, mostly added and correctly referenced by me. I have got the hang of it. I have added a dozen references to Laurence's distinguished reputation as an author, journalist and documentary filmmaker.

If you check Mztourist's history of edit-warring with other users on his Talk page, you can see how disputatious and bullying he is, not only with me.

It appears that Mztourist now wants to get rid of me so that he can delete my edits and get back to writing his cruelly critical biography. I beg the Administrators who will decide this case to block Mztourist from participating any longer in the creation of the John Laurence biography and trust the good nature and wisdom of other editors on Misplaced Pages to keep it honest and objective. Onward&Upward (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

SHORT VERSION OF ONWARD&UPWARD'S DEFENSE:

User Mztourist is attempting to have me blocked on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages software correctly. I was learning it. An edit war has resulted.

Here are examples of differences:

1) Mztourist posted on 28 January:

"Laurence was initially supportive of U.S. policy in Vietnam and willing to give favorable coverage for access and information, what was referred to as "being with the program". However as time went on, after witnessing the deaths of Vietnamese civilians, the mistaken bombing of a village in neutral Cambodia, coming under fire from friendly forces and seeing the corruption endemic in South Vietnam, he became more cynical as to the effects of the U.S. presence and what could actually be achieved there."

Onward&Upward posted this correction on 30 January:

"Laurence was initially supportive of U.S. policy in Vietnam and gave favorable if neutral coverage in what was referred to by the U.S. Army public information officers as "being with the program". However, as he witnessed more and more of the war--seeing the deaths of Vietnamese civilians, the mistaken bombing of a village in neutral Cambodia, coming under fire from friendly forces, and seeing the corruption endemic in South Vietnam--he became more critical of the U.S. presence and what might actually be achieved there."

NOTE: Onward&Upward changed "more cynical" to "more critical."

2) Mztourist posted on 28 January:

"On 10 March 1966 following the Battle of A Sau, Laurence interviewed Marine Lt Col Charles House, commander of HMM-163, the unit which had evacuated the survivors of the battle and who had himself been shot down and rescued from the battlefield. House stated that panicking CIDG troops had overrun the evacuation helicopters and the crews and Special Forces troops had had to fire on them to establish order. The story caused outrage when broadcast leading to an investigation by Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) and III MAF."

Onward&Upward posted this correction on 30 January:

"On 10 March 1966 following the Battle of A Shau, Laurence interviewed Marine Lt. Col. Charles House, commander of HMM-163, the unit which had evacuated the survivors of the battle and who had himself been shot down and rescued from the battlefield. House stated that panicking CIDG troops had overrun the evacuation helicopters and the crews and Special Forces troops had had to fire on them to establish order. Many were killed. The story caused criticism when broadcast and led to an investigation by Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) and III MAF. Laurence and one other reporter were criticized for going with the story because it reflected poorly on the Marines."

3) Mztourist posted on 28 January:

"Through his friendship with correspondent Steve Northup he became a frequent visitor at 47 Bui Thi Xuan, Saigon, the home of Northup and fellow correspondents Simon Dring, Tim Page and Martin Stuart-Fox, known as "Frankie's House" after the resident Vietnamese houseboy. Frankie's House became a social club for a group correspondents between field assignments and their friends with large quantities of drugs being used there."

Onard&Upward posted this correction on 30 January:

"Through his friendship with UPI photojournalist Steve Northup, Laurence became an occasional visitor at 47 Bui Thi Xuan, Saigon, the home of Northup and fellow correspondents Joseph Galloway, Tim Page, Martin Stuart-Fox, Simon Dring, Sean Flynn, and Dana Stone. It was known as "Frankie's House" after the resident Vietnamese houseboy. Frankie's House became a social club for a small group of young correspondents between field assignments where they listened to music and smoked marijuana instead of drinking alcohol."

The editing has gone back and forth for weeks. Mztourist is trying to make the bio of Laurence as negative as possible while I have been trying to make it fair and objective. The version now on Misplaced Pages is the result of many additional references that I have added about Laurence's distinguished career as a journalist. He is still alive. Mztourist's claim above that he "tried to add other WP:RS as I went along" is not true. 95% of his effort has gone into edit warring with me.

Recently, Laurence acted as a consultant for the Ken Burns/Lynn Novick documentary series on the Vietnam War and was one of the eye-witnesses interviewed for the broadcasts. Excerpts from "The Cat from Hue" were included in the book, "The Vietnam War," which accompanied the series. To now start a biography of Laurence which mentions prominently only that he was a visitor to a Saigon house where "large quantities of drugs" were consumed, that he caused "outrage" with a report on the murders of allied soldiers, and that he became "more cynical" as he witnessed more of the violence in the war--none of which is true historically--is more than biased or unfair. It is slanderous.

May I suggest that Mztourist is the one who should be blocked from this page? Onward&Upward (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Onward&Upward has now added a reference to The Cat from Hue to Vietnam War here: , but still making no effort to properly cite refs despite seeing numerous examples of how this should be done. Mztourist (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Mztourist is at it again with the comment above: "...but still making no effort to properly cite refs..." No effort? Look at it, man! And tell me, what's wrong with my two refs cited on the Vietnam War page? Is it the fact that they're cited at all? Or that they offend you? Onward&Upward (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/John_Laurence
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/Cornelius_Ryan_Award retrieved February 26, 2018
3. Kutler, Stanley (21 April 2002). "Apocalypse Then". The New York Times.
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Laurence&oldid=822096035
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Laurence&oldid=822096035
6. http://web.archive.org/web/20030810110627/http://thecatfromhue.com:80/Press.htm
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=35
8. https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/john-laurence/the-cat-from-hue/9780786724680/
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Laurence&oldid=827752973
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mztourist
11. ^ Cite error: The named reference Laurence was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
12. Shulimson, Jack (1982). U.S. Marines in Vietnam: 1966, an Expanding War. History and Museums Division, USMC. p. 62-3.
13. Shulimson, Jack (1982). U.S. Marines in Vietnam: 1966, an Expanding War. History and Museums Division, USMC. p. 62-3.
14. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Laurence&oldid=827962051
15. http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-vietnam-war/about/

User:Niyaz ibrahim

I have contacted this editor five times now over more than a month about creating unreferenced articles. They have not responded although they have edited their talk page several times, so although quite new, they do know how to do this.

I have directed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, they've ignored this. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Garam

On the article Bareun Future Party, User:Garam has, within the past two to three weeks, attempted to change the name of the party, via edits and page moves, numerous times without community consensus and in blatant violation of conventions. The conventions have been made clear to him numerous times, and evidence presented of the current article name being more prevalent than the version he is pushing. The user has refused all overtures for a resolution to the issue, insisting that the party be called by its Korean name, even on English Misplaced Pages. The issue is leading to a degredation of quality in Korean-related materials, and after exhausting all options, I am hereby asking for action to be taken. Kiteinthewind 02:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a routine content dispute, Kiteinthewind, and this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. What action do you propose that we take? I do not see any behavior from Garam that requires action from an administrator. That editor is discussing the matter on the article's talk page and bringing forward examples of use of the name you do not like in reliable English language sources. I advise against taking a combative stance on this issue, and instead work toward a consensus solution where all the names used by reliable English language sources are included in the lead section of the article. This is a newly founded political party, after all, and it may take some time for the English language usage to shake out. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

user:Czalex

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

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

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

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

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

The information is reliable, citing authoritative sources, namely:

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

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

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

User:Διοτιμα

Διοτιμα is disruptively editing the article Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger). He or she has repeated many versions of this edit, which I consider objectionable, among other reasons, because it removes all mention of the fact that in Introduction to Metaphysics Heidegger referred to the "inner truth and greatness" of National Socialism from the lead of the article, along with mention of the fact that the book "has been widely regarded as fascist in character". In my opinion this amounts to outright censorship and distortion and is utterly unacceptable. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is obliged to mention "the most important points, including any prominent controversies" - the pro-Nazi references in Introduction to Metaphysics are an obvious example of this. The most recent revert by Διοτιμα can be seen here. It was done without any edit summary, indicating the user's lack of interest in discussion or compromise. I am posting here because I honestly cannot see another way of dealing with this user, and an ANI discussion seems better than interminable edit warring over the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

What other methods of dispute resolution have you tried before asking admins for help? If you can show us the results of those, it would let us know that all avenues of fixing the problem have been exhausted. --Jayron32 13:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• yeah I don't know about admin intervention, but I threw in some old-fashioned editor intervention. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Hmm. Some further digging reveals a pattern, maybe: "Expectedly to a vainglorious simpleton, it is poor writing without even asking for clarificaion" (from September 2017, the "simpleton" being FKC), proving both the quality of writing produced by this editor (one of the reasons for my revert to FKC's version) and the personal attacks, which does indeed make it difficult to deal with the editor. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  If that's the case, I'd like to see more of that evidence; the OP only presented this as a basic content dispute, and not as a behavioral issue. We aren't really here (at this board) to decide between versions of an article, and whose version is better. This board is to handle behavioral issues, and the OP's initial description of the problem focuses only on content issues; for example the OP asserts that the user in question has a "lack of interest in discussion or compromise", but presented no situations where discussion or compromise was attempted. It may have been. But I'm not going to go dig through pages of diffs to find it. It's the OPs responsibility to provide us with the evidence that an admin needs to step in to block someone or protect an article or something. If it hasn't gotten to that point, then there doesn't need to be a discussion here. Maybe someone does need a block; but if so, help us do that by gathering the evidence. --Jayron32 19:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  • It would be my "responsibility to provide us with the evidence that an admin needs to step in to block someone or protect an article or something" if I were calling for Διοτιμα to be blocked or the article to be protected. I was not. I agree that neither of those things would be appropriate at this stage. I was simply hoping that someone would do something helpful, and fortunately someone did. Thank you, Drmies. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Serbian national teams, again

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

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

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

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

User:他删之石 on Deaths in 2018

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

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

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

User:MigenMemelli and 3RR on adding trivia to article

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

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 Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. However, he still 3RR (the last revert was performed by logout as 185.191.204.139 (talk · contribs)). So, either block would make him understand, or someone with fluent Norwegian to tell him wikipedia is not a collection of every trivial information. Matthew_hk tc 13:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody ever said that the offices weren't any different. But the notability and sourceability standards that a holder of either office has to pass to qualify for a Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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

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

• Look, i'm sorry I didn't see the massive sinkhole full of simmering hostility under this issue, but since I have now noticed it, it could be an idea that Rusf10 and Alansohn come to some mutual arrangement to avoid stamping on each others feet. Maybe if Rusf10 leaves it to someone else to wipe out all the articles on local American politicians or pauses the pace of his crusade for a while, people could calm down! Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• As I've said above, I'd support the deletion of most of the articles listed in the AfD. Despite the fact that Rusf10 has been systematically stalking my edits for more than three months because of my vote at an AfD, responding "I think what is making you upset here is a conflict of interest WP:COI. I have now noticed that both you and the subject of the article live in the same town. And to be honest with you, the article List of people from Teaneck, New Jersey should not exist and neither should about half the articles on that list. Believe it or not, every mayor of Teaneck does not qualify for an article." (see here), I do acknowledge that some of the articles I created in my first few months on Misplaced Pages 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):
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey - a list of mayors of Teaneck (withdrawn as an inappropriate bulk nomination)
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lizette Parker - a mayor of Teaneck (no consensus; default to keep)
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Kieliszek - a mayor of Teaneck (keep)
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Frank W. Burr - mayor of Teaneck (delete)
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/William W. Bennett - mayor of Teaneck (keep)
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey (2nd nomination) - a list of mayors of Teaneck (keep)
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Steven Weil - a rabbi from Teaneck (delete)
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Howard Jachter - another rabbi from Teaneck (keep)
  • Misplaced Pages: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
  • Misplaced Pages: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
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico - the current AfD under discussion, where the majority of the articles bundled together in the nomination are ones I created, including Bill O'Dea, Jeffrey Dublin, Tilo Rivas, Thomas Liggio and Albert Cifelli, as well as the title article of the AFD for Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico and the article under question for Thomas A. DeGise.
• Per Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." I had refrained from getting involved in this AfD explicitly because of this pattern of abuse and harassment. I have tried to make it clear that to Rusf10 that the pattern of abuse is not appreciated, but the hint has never been taken, all that follows is further escalations of the abuse. I only responded here because Prince of Thieves had pinged me.No editor should be forced to endure this deliberate pattern of stalking and harassment. This is truly fucked up. Anything that can be done to get Rusf10 off my back would make a difference in my ability to edit without enduring the abuse. Alansohn (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• I don't know who you are, I don't care who you are, I respect your privacy -- I don't even know if you're male or female -- and I have not followed you around from article to article to undermine your efforts to contribute to Misplaced Pages, 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, "Misplaced Pages must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here. Edits constituting harassment will be reverted, deleted, or suppressed, as appropriate, and editors who engage in harassment are subject to blocking.", but that's not what I'm looking for, I just want this systematic harassment to stop and to be able to edit without worrying that Rusf10 is looking over my shoulder.Just acknowledge the stalking, say you're sorry, promise you'll stop, learn your lesson and we can both move on. If you can't or won't, maybe a block is appropriate after all, which would be the saddest way to resolve this matter. Alansohn (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

223.104.107.207

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

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

Kohoutek1138

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:75.186.83.183

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

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

(Non-administrator comment) A video game has characters, since they're fictional. You really need to read Misplaced Pages:Communication is required, since this question is the first time you've actually responded to any concerns. Kleuske (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Vios of DE, BATTLEGROUND, AGF

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

Repeated and ongoing violation of WP:DE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:AGF at Sutherland Springs church shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), re-reverting against both me and Ianmacm. Has ignored multiple requests to take the issue to article talk. See their UTP and mine. Requesting a short block. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears that Stephen Willeford is a NRA member but this isn't obviously relevant to the shooting itself.-♦IanMacM♦ 20:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Me right now. ...Wait, shit, the only reason I've been watching is because I'm an admin who has Mandruss's talk page on his watchlist.

(Puts on admin pants) I haven't blocked yet because ASM is at 3 reverts and a newbie. Hence, handing him rope and seeing what he does with it. I'm not taking action just yet, but sure ain't gonna stop anyone else from doing so and will even back up whatever action some other admin takes. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This is AllSidesMatter. I'm not a coder so I won't be able to post links and such like you have. Your main grievance against me is that I named Stephen Willeford the first time he was referenced by the article. Standard writing practice dictates that if you're referring to someone -- especially if you identify them at some point -- you identify their name the first time they are referred to. By changing "a male civilian" to "Stephen Willeford, a local resident," I am adding information and value to the article. Not only am I identifying the person that was previously left a mystery for several paragraphs but I also revealed that he was a local resident. Both of these facts serve to more fully inform interested readers about the details of this shooting. This aligns with Wiki's BOLD, revert, discuss style. Furthermore, Besides the shooter himself, Stephen is the most critical player in this event yet you're pushing to have his name removed until further down in the article. That just doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You made a bold edit, it was reverted, you failed to discuss it. "Bold, revert, discuss" is more than one word for a reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a behavior complaint, not a content discussion. You could have had the latter on the article talk page as suggested multiple times. Instead, you chose to re-revert yet again because our arguments didn't make sense to you. You had your chance to resolve the content dispute in the manner described in Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, you declined it, and now we're here. We are not going to discuss the merit of your edit here. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think that naming Stephen Willeford is a WP:BLPNAME issue. Misplaced Pages articles are not written in news style and do not include phrases like "21-year-old John Doe from Oshkosh" unless this is necessary for a full understanding of what happened. We should also be discussing this at Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ 20:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Since this is about behavior more than content, I'll say here that I was ignorant of proper editing etiquette and will adhere more closely to proper etiquette from now on. I did actually open dialogue with Mandruss -- I posted on my own talk page and his own as well. I didn't refuse to discuss, I just did things in the wrong order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Give sufficient reason as to why you're choosing to delete pertinent facts from the page I've edited or you will be reported to Admins for disruptive editing. is not "opening dialogue", especially while still re-reverting at the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, Stephen is one of two critical players in the shooting. Common sense as well as standard writing practices demands that Stephen be identified as early as he is referenced. Kelley, the shooter, is referenced and identified by name in the second sentence. It stands to reason that since Stephen -- the man who stopped the shooter, the local hero -- is also referred to in the first paragraph, he should also be identified by name. I don't understand why someone would fight to keep Stephen's identity hidden from anyone casually glancing at the first paragraph before moving on from their research into the matter. Mandruss says IDing Stephen in the first paragraph is excessive -- that is patently false. The shooter is named, so should the hero who stopped the shooter be named. The man who stopped the shooter is one of the top key details of this event. The man's name should absolutely be included in the overview. This is not politics, this is common sense and journalistic integrity — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Since this is about behavior more than content (proceeds to go on about content). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ian, show me the rule that says editors can't identify key figures to an event in the first paragraph. Your decision to uphold Mandruss' edit needs to be backed by a rule. Unless Wiki allows and encourages Admin to act with prejudice. If I broke a rule in the way I added content, I'm fine with the decision. But if I broke no rule, and instead added value to the article, then I stand firmly against your decision to defend Mandruss' edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Show me where I've said anything about what shape the article should take. The closest I've come to commenting is saying that there needs to be high-quality sources for any claims about living people. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ian: "Since this is about behavior more than content, I'll say here that I was ignorant of proper editing etiquette and will adhere more closely to proper etiquette from now on. I did actually open dialogue with Mandruss -- I posted on my own talk page and his own as well. I didn't refuse to discuss, I just did things in the wrong order." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Again: you finally got that this discussion is about behavior instead of content, and yet you keep bringing up content. Drop the content issue, it only gives weight to Mandruss's complain regarding your bad attitude. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Give sufficient reason as to why you're choosing to delete pertinent facts from the page I've edited or you will be reported to Admins for disruptive editing. is not "opening dialogue", especially while still re-reverting at the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I have already admitted I did things out of order and didn't closely adhere to proper Wiki editing etiquette as per the BOLD, Revert, Discuss page. Mandruss's complaint is now resolved.

This content discussion is MY complaint against Mandruss. If this needs to be started in a new thread it can be, but I think it can just as easily be handled right here.

Ian, your reference to WP:BLPNAME as a reason for why Stephen should not be named doesn't actually apply. There is nothing in WP:BLPNAME to support your claim, I've looked it over now.

The possible relevant clauses in WP:BLPNAME are as follows:

1) Subjects notable only for one event 2) People who are relatively unknown 3) Privacy of names

however none of those clauses actually address this issue. Stephen is already a well-known name; he has been named in every major news publication from USA Today, to WaPo, to CBS, to CNN, to FOX, and so on and so forth. He is not relatively unknown anymore thus privacy is not a concern. All three conditions under the clause "Subjects notable only for one event" must be met and naming Stephen earlier in the article is not an issue that meets criteria 2 or 3.

Furthermore, the article does identify Stephen in the main body so identifying him earlier in the article is a non-issue entirely. If he wasn't named at all in the article, then we should be having this discussion, but he is already identified in the wiki article.

There is absolutely no reason why Stephen's name should not appear when he is referenced in the opening paragraph, especially considering he played the 2nd biggest role in this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

":Give sufficient reason as to why you're choosing to delete pertinent facts from the page I've edited or you will be reported to Admins for disruptive editing. is not "opening dialogue", especially while still re-reverting at the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)". Technically it is, Ian. I'm engaging him in dialogue. I'm conveying to him that I need his reasons as to why he is reverting my edits. That is part of the "Discuss" portion of editing etiquette.

You still fail to get it. There is no "right order" for edit warring and battleground behavior. And the reason for the original BRD revert of your edit was given in that edit summary, so why would you need to come to my talk page and request the reason? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

And this noticeboard really isn't for content disputes. That's what the article's talk page is for. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

My complaint is that Mandruss started an edit war with me without just cause. That is something to be posted on the admin complaint board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC) And there is a right order to BOLD, Revert, Discuss. The order is: BOLD, Revert Discuss. I skipped the first round of Discuss and did a few Reverts before the first Discuss. That was the wrong order. If you want to talk Edit Wars, speak to Mandruss who started it. Without just cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC) In fact, Ian, that's what I'm asking you to do here. Speak with Mandruss about his unjustified edit war with me. I am not the one on trial here for improper content and the issue of improperly following editing etiquette has been resolved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs)

As has been explained before, no, you reverted multiple editors without discussing matters.

@AllSidesMatter: Are you really not gonna drop this until someone gets blocked? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you asking me to drop my own complaint, Ian, before it gets resolved or I face a ban? I didn't know who I was reverting, to be honest. I didn't know how to read the edit history in full so I assumed it was Mandruss the whole time. This issue is resolved: I've admitted that I didn't Discuss before Reverting because I was unaware of procedure and now that I'm aware of it, I will be sure to adhere to proper procedure from here on out regarding BOLD, revert, discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC) My complaint, however, is not resolved. Are you impartial here or do you just want me to shut up and stuff my legitimate complaint?— Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs)

I'm asking you what outcome you want from this. Do you really believe this needs to end with someone being blocked, that this is a zero-sum issue, with one side completely right and one side completely wrong?

I didn't know who I was reverting - That indicates that you're the one who was edit warring.

And how many times do I have to explain that you made a bold edit, it was reverted, and you failed to discuss it...? It is not "bold, revert, revert, discuss," or "bold, revert, revert, revert, revert, discuss." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

By AllSidesMatter: I never suggested anyone be banned so I don't know why you put it like I did. I don't think a ban is needed here.

I hardly even have a complaint, to be honest. I believe Stephen should be IDed in the initial paragraph of the article. I've given more than sufficient evidence as to why naming Stephen in the first paragraph makes sense. When asked for your reasons as to why he shouldn't, you pointed to broad wiki articles without specifying how the clauses within applied. I've displayed how your cited justifications don't apply. So this entire issue will be resolved and forgotten once Stephen's name is listen in the first paragraph of the article. That is the outcome I want from this and it is a very reasonable one.

":I didn't know who I was reverting - That indicates that you're the one who was edit warring." No, it just means that I didn't know who I was reverting. THAT I was reverting without discussing is the edit war indicator BUT there has to be two participants or more for there to be an edit war. I was not the only one edit warring yet you are acting like it. Mandruss continuously reverted my changes as well.

":And how many times do I have to explain that you made a bold edit, it was reverted, and you failed to discuss it...? It is not "bold, revert, revert, discuss," or "bold, revert, revert, revert, revert, discuss." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)"

Ian I've admitted to this like 4 times now. I said I didn't follow the proper order of things. In fact I already said this: "I skipped the first round of Discuss and did a few Reverts before the first Discuss. That was the wrong order." There is no argument to be had here. I've already agreed with you, a few times, in the past now. By AllSides Matter— Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs)

Again, this is not the place for a content dispute. What you think belongs or doesn't belong in the article doesn't matter on this noticeboard, quit wasting time and space about that.

If you aren't going to drop your complaint about Mandruss, what is it you expect to happen, exactly?

And you have no room to complain about anyone (supposedly) not following BRD when you were the one who threw out the cycle to begin with. Pull the plank from your own eye before pointing out the mote in the eye of another. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards