Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Personal attacks/battleground-like pattern by user Giorgi Balakhadze[edit]

Giorgi Balakhadze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Virtually every time there's a discussion about Georgia-related articles with said user, mostly pertaining to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, he loses his temper, and resorts to using personal attacks and WP:BATTLEGROUND-loaded commentary. I initially decided not to report this matter when it happened for the first time, but to my amazement I noticed that once again, as of a few minutes ago, he couldn't refrain from doing so.

This is some of the material I'm talking about;

  • "(...) maybe before your shameless intrigues you first talk to me a?"[1]
  • "(...) so please have more dignity"[2]
  • "(...) he tries to show me from the negative side and he lies ".[3]
  • "Be sure Aragon if you continue behaving like this (POV based intrigues) and "throwing" to me dirty I will ask admins to review this case, to make special efforts and to call down your appetite in attempts to block me."[4]

Some earlier examples where he has used such commentary towards me;

  • "You are lying".[5]
  • "THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT GEORGIA IN ITS INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS AND EVERYONE MUST ADMIT THIS."[6]
  • "Sorry but you need more knowledge to understand what means imagined lines".[7]
  • "You won't afraid no one with this cheap pathos about sanctions and my "POV".[8]

I'm always open for discussion about whatever content-related matter, but this stuff should simply not be tolerated. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but it is you who started blaming me on something that do not exist, you have problem with me not me with you. And if I wrote something it has reason you try to show me from negative side and imaging such issues that do not exist. Posting them to other user's page and do not tagging me because you wanted to make everything hidden from my eyes. You claim that you are neutral but you have clear POV and special interest towards conflict regions of Georgia since you said "they do not belong to Georgia anymore" and etc. From the very begging of our clash I see your will to find something that will block me here, and then you will have all playground with no opposition. When someone says that 2+2 is 10, this is a lie or lack of knowledge or one specially says that for other reason (similar to intrigues). I see that you make intrigues with the hidden reason to block me and that is much more personal attack if so. --g. balaxaZe 08:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I am sharing your all (to me hidden) discussion to let people know all aspects of the case ► User talk:Chipmunkdavis#Same_issue--g. balaxaZe 10:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support six-month TBAN on all articles related to Georgia, Russia, or any nation that borders Georgia or Russia - It seems like LouisAragon has a point. Editing in this area would be terrible if being subject to this type of constant shellacking. Giorgi has already been blocked once for edit warring on these articles. LavaBaron (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry but those bans are to prevent people repeating same mistake, are we talking here abour edit-wars? No (there were no edit-wars again) we are talking about one user's POV-intrigues on another user's talk page against third one (against me) even not noticing me about discussion. Where is neutrality he blamed something that I do not do is this ok? Where is good faith? So he can blame me and I can't answer to that it was a lie? --g. balaxaZe 16:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Also that one day block was not because of POV or something else, but about reverting sockpuppet's contribution in the rule WP:EVADE (we also had discussion with admins) it was said that it is not necessary to revert those edits if material is worthwhile and our clash was due to this. LavaBaron claim "edit warring on these articles" is unsourced.--g. balaxaZe 21:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Adressing a few points;
  • "Sorry but those bans are to prevent people repeating same mistake" -- Yeah, and one of the "mistakes" you're making over and over is losing your temper when talking to others, especially whenever its about Abkhazia/S. Ossetia.
  • "No (there were no edit-wars again)" -- That's incorrect. We can clearly see that even after your 24hrs block due to edit-warring on the Georgia page dating to some months ago,[9] you were edit-warring again over the same content on 19 November 2016.[10]-[11]-[12].
  • "he blamed something that I do not do" -- yeah, obviously we're all grasping at straws here, and all evidence is just actually fake (/end sarcasm).
  • "Also that one day block was not because of POV or something else" -- wrong, again; it was exactly due to your "POV" (namely that the long-term sock abusers' content was "useful", and therfore had to be warred in) that resulted in the block. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You are mixing everything just for one goal to place me to negative side. Edit-war does not mean that you can't revert, when CMD reverted my images about landscape and not about conflict regions or etc his summary was not enough and well explained for me, same issue was with another revert when he just said that it was "pointy" after that I asked on his talk page for more explanations and somehow we've settled everything without rules violation. I am not a such person that if someone explain really neutrally that something is going wrong to do not understand that. What makes me angry is that instead of such talks you just make intrigues, behave like WP:WIKIHOUND and etc (because you are not interested in normal editing but just in blocking of me). Now about POV you like to show diffs so could you provide that material how was looking article before "sockpuppet's" edits and after your reverts? It was not about POV or something else it was about information. Then if you remember I started restoring history section (with some changes) and you reverted even that. And about "yeah, obviously we're all grasping at straws here" yes you are grasping at straws here. Can you answer to me why you hided that discussion on CMD talk page? Why you talked to CMD and not to admins? Why you started these intrigues? --g. balaxaZe 01:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Regarding conflict regions issue and Aragon's POV on them (that they are not part of Georgia anymore) I would like to suggest to read this new research [13] (I've found it today and share to interested parts)--g. balaxaZe 12:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • And again willful interpretation and distortion of the facts in his new list:

    "No (there were no edit-wars again)" -- That's incorrect. We can clearly see that even after your 24hrs block due to edit-warring on the Georgia page dating to some months ago,[14] you were edit-warring again over the same content on 19 November 2016.[15]-[16]-[17].

  • When he wants something he can clearly find it or say, but now he makes mistakes or lies? This [18] is not same content it was all my contribution, this [19] was re-adding of worthwhile material according to the discussion with admins where they clearly said ("As well as allowing an editor to revert the edits of a blocked editor, we also allow other editors to restore the material that had been reverted, if they feel the material is worthwhile, and they are prepared to take responsibility for it") and I wrote about this in summary. There was nothing wrong in doing this (especially edit-war) as you want to show to people. I will remind people that you reverted that sock's edits just because they were his edits not because of POV, violation of other rules or etc, he made a lot of good sourced contribution but you simply reverted and now the article is in worse condition with many [citation needed] and lack of information.--g. balaxaZe 17:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Bot (?) mass-adding categories[edit]

User going around rapidly adding Category:Biology to pages with an edit summary indicating they're a bot. All edits marked minor but not marked bot edits. Unapproved bot in action? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Bot or not, they should stop as this is a greatgrandparent category, not a basuic category where everything should be added ("Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable."). The pages I checked were alreday in multiple subcategories, so the edits are unwanted. Fram (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't seem to have an easy "rollback all" option, although in this case that would be perfect. Fram (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Rollback in progress. Pichpich (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Fram: you don't? I always thought admins had a mass-rollback tool. I've been asking admins for mass rollback for years. If you have to do these one-by-one then I could have just done it myself. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps I have it, but I certainly couldn't find it. I don't know whether User:Pichpich did it manually or had a tool for it (but thank you anyway!). Fram (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Rollback done (manually). Also left a note on the editor's talk page explaining the mass undo. Pichpich (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Fram: One of the "mass rollback" calls in my personal .js files. Unfortunately, it's the one that doesn't have options; it reverts all visible "last" edits on the contributions page. I've it run for over 300 reverts with one click. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Fram: Appears to be
            importScript( 'User:John254/mass_rollback.js' );
from my common.js. I believe it only requires rollback, rather than admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Admin attention needed at Sciences Po / Sciences Po talk[edit]

Hi there. After a violent controversy on the Sciences Po talk page and an edit war, the Sciences Po article has been fully protected. Several editors (including myself) have tried to step-in to restore a positive work dynamics, but it now becomes clear that user Launebee has a personal agenda. After 2 months (!) and a lot of energy spent trying to build consensus, we arrive at a stage in which we really need admin attention. Anybody to help? Thanks! SalimJah (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I have asked two admins to look into this after seeing that the user in question can be reasonably assumed to be the same user who was blocked on French wikipedia for similar agenda pushing. It is quite clearly impossible to make even the simplest of improvements on that page (like adding a reflist:30em to the references section, which was not done despite a protected edit request). Perhaps Launebee is writing a thesis on media studies and is actively experimenting? I don't know exactly what the motivation is, but the result is clearly disruption. (I have been marginally "involved" in the last few days because of 2 edits: 1) responding to an RfC and 2) testing the waters with a protected edit request.) SashiRolls (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sanctions needed over personal attacks[edit]

It seems the personal attacks against me are continuing.

“Violent controversy" perhaps, but not from my part. I do not have a "personal agenda" or test "media disruption", I was just helping the SP page among others but they were against obvious changes which needed to be done (Jytdog looked into my intervention in the last ANI :

Copy/pasted quoting

I looked at this article as it stands now and as it stood before Launebee started working on it back in July (see this version. Like too many of our articles about universities, the former article was a cesspool of promotion - not a WP article at all, but a brochure for Sciences Po; as it stands now the article is still full of unsourced promotional content that belongs on the Sciences Po website (i.e. the unsourced content about the campuses and the entirely unsourced section about notable people). Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The previous ANI request is here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Agressive_comments_over_Sciences_Po_page

As you can see, the Talk:Sciences_Po and Talk:Panthéon-Assas_University talk pages have become a place a place for not discussing content anymore but only me, with special section about me! They are discussing there my link with a French Wikipedia account, but my personal knowledge of the French user is totally irrelevant. Even if it is true that I know the French user, and? How is it relevant for us to know is SP is a university or not?

They is also, on both article, a special subsection comparing the fact that MSGJ and I put templates in front of the SP page, and they think they should therefore be entitled to put the same templates in the Panthéon-Assas page, without any explanation in talk of for example how there would be close paraphrasing because somehow all of this would be a fight between the two, and then if there is a template in one, there is to be one on the second!? Because XIIIfromTOKYO made a disruptive editing on Panthéon-Assas, I made this request for protection accepted for one week :

Copy/pasted quoting

There is a disruptive editing on the Panthéon-Assas page. One user is not happy with the reputation of this university of "top law school of France" that all the sources state (he’s deleting in the lead, but there are more sources in the "reputation" section, so he’s deleting things with sources, and is doing only personal attacks on me in talk page (like I would be clearly protecting paid contribution!?)

Note that it’s part of a broader POV pushing on the Sorbonne in general. There is currently a push on Pantheon-Sorbonne_University and there has been vandalism through false edit summaries also on Sorbonne University (alliance) and Sorbonne Law School pages, or with no edit summary of Paris-Sorbonne University page. But for example my work on University of Lorraine or the good ranking that I add in Aix-Marseille University page is not vandalized because there is no link with the name Sorbonne. There was also Science Po but it has already been fully protected. I took care of the latter Sorbonne University and Sorbonne Law School, others are taking care of Pantheon-Sorbonne and Paris-Sorbonne, but the user is insisting on Panthéon-Assas (Sorbonne Law School) and is now attacking me personally on talk page.

--Launebee (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

But now I am subject to even more personal attacks, for example:

Now the two talk page are pages to do "comparative study" on me etc. It’s becoming harassment. Can someone do someone do something to stop this?

The problem is now even more serious because XIIIfromTOKYO, to somehow compensate the SP page, is defaming PA. He links to articles dealing with far-right groups in the 1970s with students from PA, and some students that have been trying to have a group with the same name in PA, but with no success (they just existed a few years with only a few students), and he’s transforming it to completely defamatory statements I won’t even copy or link (with the title in the link) here, because it would mean that the history of this page would have to be worked on too. But you can easily find it in PA talk page.

All of this is becoming really wrong. I was just discussing the fact SP is not a university, and now look what the pages look like.

I would like, once again, these personal attacks to stop.

--Launebee (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, from the point of view of someone outside of this squabble / différend, could you answer the following question clearly: Are you saying 1) that you know the French user Droas82 (talk page) but 2) are not that user? The similarity in tone and style is striking.
For information here is a birds-eye picture of that user in action (being reverted by 3 different users: XIII from Tokyo, Jules78120, Olivier Tanguy) [21]. I've read Droas82's first warning (at the equivalent of ANI) at French Wikipedia (23 juin) and decided to stop there (since research indicates that there were problems every week: [22])
Regarding the claims of promo: yes, of course, there is promo everywhere. That does not strike me as a reason to prevent collaborative efforts to minimize such promotion and work towards NPOV. The page history is quite clear. You are not making progress on improving that page, since nothing can currently be done on that page. My two cents worth on the subject as a passerby who decided to look into the quarrel on the page, first because the RfC seemed absurd and second because I wanted to understand why Launebee was being accused of deleting talk page comments. SashiRolls (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Droas82 and Launebee were created on fr-wiki and en-wiki within 15m of each other and immediately started editing exactly the same topic. I doubt it's a coincidence ... -78.151.144.185 (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: I am not claiming anything, I am saying it is off‑topic and you have to stop attacking me.

@NeilN:You told me long time ago to tell you if the attacks continue, and now it is gone to the point that XIIIfromTOKYO is accusing me of antisemitism in PA talk page, with a obvious misquoting of me! What is the next stage? He has to be strongly sanctionned for this absoulutely outrageous personal attack. He is now defaming me!

@Mr rnddude:I also ask for these defaming statements against me to be deleted in the current version and in the history.

Please do something.

--Launebee (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

To make such a claim, you would need to provide a diff of @XIIIfromTOKYO: accusing you of anti-semitism. I read that page, s/he did nothing of the sort. S/He reminded you to be careful of what you write, calling you out for what you, yourself wrote in the heat of the moment, and nothing more. (While that "calling out" was not really necessary, it certainly wasn't defamation.) p.s. the verb is "defame", not "defamate", I've read this word (too) often in your prose. SashiRolls (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Stopping by here quickly to make a relatively small comment. XIIIfromTokyo's comments were unnecessary and probably skirting the line of civility. There is a difference between calling you an antisemite and suggesting that you've said something antisemitic. However, I don't think you've said anything antisemitic either, so even implying/hinting at it can understandably cause offense. That said, I cannot delete or revdel the comments as I am not an administrator. I also left a comment at Talk:Panthéon-Assas University about some of the disputed content. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
He did not call me antisemitic but said I said the Jews are foreigners, and is linking me to fascist regimes from the WW2. That is clearly libelous because I clearly did not say such a thing, which would be a crime (hate speech). This attack is absolutely outrageous! --Launebee (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I would like all the current sections with only personal attacks on me to be erased. But the most important is the libelous statements of XIIIfromTokyo: I did not call Jews foreigners, not at all! --Launebee (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You are accusing me of "libelous statements" (among other things).
You have accused 75.156.54.227 of sexism.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but you have also listed MePhisto and SashiRolls as contributors guilty of personnal attacks [23].
You have also tryed to discredit Salim Jah and MePhisto, and you have described them as "single-purpose account".
That's a lot of accusions, don't you think ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Launebee That is clearly libelous But the most important is the libelous statements of XIIIfromTokyo Friendly advice... Those words that you have used could be constituted as a Legal threat. Per WP:No Legal Threats Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. Users who do so are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding. I strongly suggest that you either retract those statements or indicate that you are not seeking to bring legal proceedings against an editor. Hasteur (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
On that page, it is written: "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." --Launebee (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware of, I have always given reliable sources (large newspapers), so nothing can be qualified as false accusations. More often than not, I have given citations, and translations.
So far, you haven't given even the slightest clue to prove "That is clearly libelous". So I don't really see how you can call that "a discussion". XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Launebee is successfully driving our attention away from content, dragging this thread into an endless 'personal attack' argument. He also tried this strategy with me while I was trying to restore a positive work atmosphere on the Sciences Po talk page. He's flooding us with 'arguments', forcing us to address them until we forget what the subject matter actually is, or simply give up. Assuming good faith all along, I've done my part in the past couple months on the Sciences Po talk page. (See, e.g., this ridiculous debate). As we discuss personal matters, Wikipedia is losing. I urge everybody to stick to the *facts*. Compare Launebee's edit history on the Panthéon-Assas University and the Sciences Po pages, consider his behavior on the respective talk pages, evaluate the evidence provided by XIIIfromTOKYO. Agenda pushing is clear, disruptive behavior is evident. SalimJah (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Who is driving the attention away from content? The SP talk page has become a study on me, and not on issues anymore. Why? Because I only asked for comments about SP not being a university, and I bring sources to that (it is easy it is ridiculous). You created a thread on me because you are not happy on content. --Launebee (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Could anyone have a look at this contribution by Launebee on the Sciences Po article. 6,473 bytes added, mainly to list any single scandal related to this college. As of today, it represents 28 references, for a total of 33 references. It looks like a WP:UNDUE. It's very weird, because Launebee's contributions on the Panthéon-Assas University article are very different. These colleges are considered as rivals in France.

An other point that I would like to be checked is this contribution by Launebee. S/he turned the wording linked to various aspects of his lifestyle into linked to his controversial gay livestyle (I added the emphasize). Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not stated by the reference. He is described as a "controversial figure in French academia" (because of his strategic choices), but nowhere in this article his alleged homosexuality is linked to any "controversial livestyle". That's an other very poor choice of words.

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Instead of discussing me in SP talk page, and the SP page here, I suggest you focus on content in the SP talk page, to simply kindly proposing another choice of word (and not making a statement on me personnally), and I would have kindly answered to you. About scandals, it even the title of a series of articles of a newspaper: [1] About controversial gay lifestyle, it is not from me, I copied it from the Richard Descoings article, it is possible to discuss it.
But it is off-topic here. The topic is you and others transforming SP and PA talk pages on places for personal attacks on me (and now even libel), away from content discussions. It is
--Launebee (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
You made the choice to put homophobic slurs in the article.
You didn't even check the references.
You didn't even mention in the article that you copied/pasted it from an other article. CC-BY-SA is not optional.
And you did all of that to write a text that clearly fall under the scope of WP:UNDUE. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
You insisted I said antisemitic things, now you are saying I am writing homophobic things! There is nothink homophobic about saying his gay lifestyle is controvesial, on the contrary. See for example this newspaper article saying that his gay lifestyle was taboo and is denouncing the fact it had to be.
Can someone stop these insults toward me?
--Launebee (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Obviously, you have no idea of what is written in the article. How could it be controversial, if it was hidden, and that no one has ever heard of it before his death ? You wrote in the article that his gay lifestyle was conroversial, and that it hurted the school's reputation.
Anone can see that what you wrote in the article wasn't backed by any reference. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Sincerely, how to discuss with you when all is about attacking me personnaly? We could have had this discussion, in SP talk page, in a civil manner, but no, you choose to say outrageous things about me (using Jews), and you take everything I copied on Wikipedia to attack me and say I am evil intended. This "discussion" is pointless. You have to stop acting like that. --Launebee (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
You are not answering the questions. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Break[edit]

You've got a damn cheek, I'll grant you that. :) Back to the facts -- again and again! You started an edit war based on those rather violent exchanges. The talk page has grown exponentially since then, which makes for a *lot* of arguments. And while you managed to put banners everywhere, deleted a lot of content, added a scandal section, and then got the article fully protected until March 2017 (!), the consensus on the Sciences Po talk page runs unambiguously *against* your positions. We can see from the talk page that people were willing to debate and compromise. But even when questions can be resolved clearly based on simple factual evidence, you reject it all and prevent any progress being made on the subject matter. Some get upset and leave (the IP that you edit warred), some simply give-up (you win by K.O.), and some (the craziest of all) waste their time and energy on the issue (that's me :) ). The question of whether Sciences Po can be described as a university is a clear-cut example. Based on your argument, Sciences Po cannot be described as a university. You maintain: it is legally a Grande Ecole, period. But then MIT and ETH Zurich shouldn't be described as universities either, right? The precise location of the campus is another clear-cut example. People can't say that Sciences Po "encircles Boulevard Saint Germain". Why? "Once again a tentative to artificially associate Sciences Po with 'great' things!" So you refuse, even in the face of contributors who dig out the campus map, for God's sake! In the meantime, you're quite happy with the formulation that "the majority of the nineteen campuses of Panthéon-Assas are located in the Latin Quarter" in the Panthéon-Assas article. Well... And it goes on and on. (Sorry, I did not intend to write-up a serialized novel here...) Bottom line is: at the very least, you simply refuse to compromise when consensus runs against you. This is toxic for our project and community, and it needs to stop. So what do we do now? SalimJah (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Could an admin intervene? These people are not happy with mere facts so they are attacking personally. I’ve tried to explain them again and again but it is obviously not working. Doesn’t anyone has a problem that I was wrongfully accused of antisemitism? --Launebee (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
+1! BTW, you still haven't responded to SashiRolls's above request that you clarify your relationship to the French user who recently got blocked for similar disruptive behavior on the same pages. I quote:
"Just out of curiosity, from the point of view of someone outside of this squabble / différend, could you answer the following question clearly: Are you saying 1) that you know the French user Droas82 (talk page) but 2) are not that user? The similarity in tone and style is striking." SalimJah (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I answered that it is off‑topic, and in case I know him, it does not change anything at all, it is absolutely pointless. There is absolutely no link with the question of SP being a university or not. --Launebee (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Him ?
XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment at the "Once again a tentative to artificially associate Sciences Po with 'great' things!"[24]. That's clearly Launebee's strategy on the Panthéon-Assas University article. In the lead s/he introduced ""Heir of the faculty of law and economics of the University of Paris (La Sorbonne), it was established as its successor when the world's second oldest academic institution was divided into autonomous universities in 1970. It is a member of the alliance Sorbonne University."". The Sorbonne is only a building, and has never been used by the faculty of law. And the university of Paris was by no way a medieval university. It was founded in 1896. The medieval university was dibanded more than a centrury before that, in 1793.

Once again, Sciences Po and Assas are often considered as rivals in France. As anyone can see, Launebee's contributions are more than questionable. They are always excessively favorable when related to Assas, and unfavorable when related to Sciences Po. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats[edit]

I have provided yesterday about 10 news articles, published by well known French newspapers (national one, from different political leanings).

Today, @Launebee: used the title "Reminder of what is libelous" to answer[25]. It was not the first time that s/he used this legal reference.

@Hasteur: told him less than a week ago that "Danger, we've entered NLT territory". Hasteur asked Launebee to remove his/er comment, or to amend it. Launebee refused to remove that first comment, and said what s/he was simply started a "discussion as to whether material is libelous (is not a legal threat)". That discussion never actually started.

Today again, Launebee don't even try to start a discussion about that, that is say using Arguments to proove his/her statement.

That's clearly an intimidation attempt. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Everyone can see that I take each time the time to explain calmly to you things, but you keep answering agressively. I gave examples in my first message here. And Mr rnddude explained in PA talk page it is not legal threat from my part. --Launebee (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
You are calmly threatening contributors away.
You are calmly describing victims of antisemitism and racism as "foreigners".
You are calmly putting homophic slurs in {{Sciences Po]]' article.
Did I miss something ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Can someone do something about this user continuing to do outrageous statements about me ? @NeilN:You told me long time ago to tell you if the attacks continue, this urer is telling at least for the third time that I called Jews foreigners, even if I clearly did not, I told him I did not, and Mr rnddude intervened because I clearly did not. (And he is doing the same thing about homosexuals now). Can’t anyone temporarily block this user for repetitively having made such despicable statements about me? (More all the other personal attacks etc.) --Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Homophobic slurs in the Sciences Po article? XIIIfromTOKYO, Launebee hasn't touched the Sciences Po article since September of this year. You're either referring to the talk page (in which case point me to the discussion/comment) or a very old edit to the article (in which case I'll need a diff please). The only other alternative is that you mean Pantheon-Assas' article or talk (in which case diff again please). Otherwise, the claim of homophobia is a brightline violation of NPA policy and I'm going to ask that you strike it. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude:You can see above he is refering to me copying, a long time ago, the Richard Descoings article mentioning his "controversial gay lifestyle". You can see I explained to him there is absolutely nothing homophobic saying this, on the contrary, and I gave him anti-homophobia article link about the fact that his homosexuality is taboo (a lot of articles deal with the fact his gay lifestyle was controversial and the possible link with his death has been underlined, eg [26][27][28][29][30]), but he continues to say anyway that I put homophobic content and that I wrote Jews are foreigners, even though both are obviously absolutely false:( (he is in general saying a lot of other things about me, as I stated above, but these are the most shocking). --Launebee (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't help noticing that one of your links is "How did another top Frenchman come to grief in New York?". TOO MUCH INFORMATION! EEng 23:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
^^ Am I right to say that since I started this thread two weeks ago, we failed to attract the attention of a single admin? SalimJah (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock request for 208.114.164.2*

Since September ([31]) the range 208.114.164.232 - 208.114.164.242 has been quite disruptive and accumulated a number of warnings on various IP talk pages. The disruption is targeted to TV related articles. They've made 462 total edits as of this filing. Is it possible to do a small range block like that? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

208.114.164.232/29 looks to be the smallest range which contains most of the above IP addresses
Sorted 8 IPv4 addresses:
208.114.164.232 – 208.114.164.239
Total
affected
Affected
addresses
Given
addresses
Range Contribs
8 8 8 208.114.164.232/29 c
-- samtar talk or stalk 19:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
A range block is definitely possible on 208.114.164.232/29 and the other two IPs (.240 and .242) that have been active. Could you provide a few diffs to justify the block so I can just reference this discussion in the log, EvergreenFir? ~ Rob13Talk 22:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Long term disruption on South Beach Diet

I am seeking community action with respect to User:Anmccaff's long term disruptive editing at South Beach Diet.

Their disruption goes back over a year, per their contribs to the article and their their contribs to the Talk page.

Their longest term focus has been seeking removal of the well-sourced attribution fad diet, which they started doing back in spring 2015 here (also introducing WP:OR) and as recently as this September.

Their contribs to the Talk page include gems like:

  • their first one here from March 2015 which expresses their personal opinion clearly
  • this with a lovely reference to "tar baby" and comments directed to contributors not content
  • here making an WP:OR argument that it is "no longer considered" a fad diet

See also this baseless EWN filing from May 2015 and this one from June 2015

They have done this same kind of disruption at another diet article, per this EWN report.

What prompts this filing is their repeated removeal of new, neutral content based on a new MEDRS source, for no valid reason.

The content was added here and was reverted by Anmccaff here (with an inaccurate edit note), and here (again with an inaccurate edit note) and here. And see their disdainful comment here at Talk.

There is no basis in policy or guideline for removing this content. It is pure disruption and not acceptable behavior. I don't see any end to this in sight. Jytdog (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Note - an EWN filing was made at the same time I did this, see here. I am seeking stronger action than an EW block. This is disruption that has gone over a year and a half now. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC) (redact per comments below Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC))
Jytdog has a long history of tag-team ed-warring on this and related subjects, as an interaction check will show. Stronger action is certainly required, as it was on the GMO business. Anmccaff (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog's history might be relevant, but his claim of removal of reliable sourcing which meets MEDRS is probably more so. Not having checked the source in question itself, it would be extremely useful to know whether the source itself says that the claim has not been supported by evidence or not, or whether the phrasing in question might be less than accurate and/or maybe a mild form of SYNTH. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
While this is only tangential to your disagreement, you should read about what Tar baby means. AlexEng(TALK) 21:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. It seems to be basically synonymous with "quagmire," not really any sort of personal statement. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, struck it. The long disruption has been just a pain in the butt, and with the stuff yesterday I have had it. They are not even pretending to edit in good faith on this topic anymore. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Whoa, hold on there. I don't think anyone here necessarily indicated that your initial comments were wrong or that they disagreed with them. I know that wasn't what I was thinking. But I do think that we didn't have all the information we might have wanted. I know I at least would still be very open to considering some sort of action if I had a clearer idea of whether the source in question directly supported the text it referenced. That seemed to be what Anmccaff was indicating in the edit summary, and if he or she was wrong in that, then there might very well be grounds for some sort of action. John Carter (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi sorry i seem to have miscommunicated. I appreciate you all clarifying the "tar baby" thing and fixed that. Thanks for that. About [the dif. Here it is:

The diet is promoted with claims it can improve cardiovascular health, but these claims have not been borne out by evidence.[1]

References

  1. ^ Atallah R, Filion KB, Wakil SM, Genest J, Joseph L, Poirier P, Rinfret S, Schiffrin EL, Eisenberg MJ (2014). "Long-term effects of 4 popular diets on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials". Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes (Systematic review). 7 (6): 815–27. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000723. PMID 25387778. Lay summary.
The article is not behind a paywall so anybody can check it. The ref is solid MEDRS - 2 year old review from a decent quality journal.


detail for how the ref supports the content, for anybody who wants it
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support for the first clause of the content ("The diet is promoted with claims it can improve cardiovascular health") from the Introduction of the ref: "A wide variety of diets are available to promote weight loss and improve cardiovascular risk factors, such as lipid levels, blood pressure, and glycemia. Among them, 4 are particularly popular among North Americans. Millions of copies of Atkins, South Beach (SB), and Zone instructional books have been sold,1–3 and over a million Weight Watchers (WW) members attend its weekly group meetings globally."  Done
Support for the first second clause of the content ("but these claims have not been borne out by evidence") from various places in the ref:
  • Weight: "At 12 months, the 10 RCTs comparing popular diets to usual care showed that only WW (weight watchers) was consistently more efficacious at reducing weight.... the single SB RCT (randomized clinical trial) found no difference versus usual care among severely obese patients postgastric bypass surgery:
  • Lipid levels: "There were no or limited data on the effect of SB and WW on lipid profiles versus usual care at ≥12 months.:
  • Blood pressure: "No blood pressure data were available regarding SB"
  • Glycemic control: "there were no major differences in glycemic control measures between popular diets in short-term RCTs"
  • Conclusion: "Our systematic review was designed to examine the currently available evidence on the efficacy of the Atkins, SB, WW, and Zone diets at promoting weight loss and improving cardiovascular risk factors, with a particular focus on sustained weight loss at ≥12 months. ...Our results suggest that all 4 diets are modestly efficacious for short-term weight loss, but that these benefits are not sustained long-term....Moreover, there were more limited data on the long-term effects of the 4 popular diets on other cardiovascular risk factors, with Atkins and WW being the most studied.... To our knowledge, our study is the first systematic review of RCTs to specifically focus on the Atkins, SB, WW, and Zone diets.A previous systematic review of major commercial weight loss programs in the United States examined the 3 major nonmedical weight loss programs at the time (WW, Jenny Craig, LA Weight loss), as well as medically supervised proprietary programs, online programs, and organized self-help programs, but excluded book-based diets. This previous review included case series in addition to RCTs. Similar to our findings, the authors concluded that: 'With the exception of 1 trial of WW, the evidence to support the use of major commercial and self-help weight loss programs is suboptimal.'"  Done
This is not controversial from the perspective of mainstream science (which is Wikipedia's persepctive). The authors of this review also describe the obesity epidemic and say: "Consequently, effective prevention and management strategies are needed to reduce the burdens of overweight, obesity, and their associated comorbidities. Despite their popularity, the Atkins, SB, WW, and Zone diets seem to only achieve modest sustained weight loss. Comprehensive lifestyle interventions aimed at curbing both adult and childhood obesity are urgently needed. Interventions that include dietary, behavioral, and exercise components, as well as legislative measures and industry regulations, may be better suited to the multifaceted obesity epidemic."
fad diets are just that - ways for whoever is selling them to make money, some kind of identity-thing for their fans, and most importantly are just are noise in the signal that public health authorities urgently try to communicate with respect to a healthy diet - eat a variety of stuff mostly from plants, avoid sugary stuff and processed food, don't eat too much, and of course, get some exercise every day.
the removal was just disruptive as has been Anmccaff's consistent effort to delete the "fad diet" attribution over the past year and a half. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
So, an honest summation of this might also be "One study that compared , in limited areas, SBD to usual care in major bariatric surgery showed it performed similarly to usual care." That's hardly damning. Anmccaff (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Agatston's ideas circulated, gratis, for several years before commercialization, and have been available all-but-free -libraries, used book stores, &cet, for about a decade. This argument isn't just WP:SYNTH and WP:OR on Jytdog's part, it's also factually wrong. Anmccaff (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The point at issue is you have been repeatedly removing well-sourced content with incorrect edit summaries, and adding your own original research ("no longer considered a fad" - see Jytdog's diffs above). All these bad edits have been part of a consistent push to water down criticism and boost this diet. It would probably be for the good of the Project, and for you, if you took a break from this topic area. Alexbrn (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
If you read the review it summarizes all the cardiovascular-related evidence (including weight changes) for the four diets, including South Beach. It finds that the marketing claims are not supported. Not complicated. Not a surprise. Jytdog (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
here is the "South Beach Diet" website where you can all kinds of "South Beach Diet" branded stuff. The name is a trademark owned by SBD ENTERPRISES, LLC which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nutrisystems per bloomberg, and here is the Nutrisystem website where you can buy all kinds of other garbage. Nutrisystems is a publicly traded company that according to its 2015 annual report spent $124 million in marketing (p13) and had $463M in revenue. (p24) It is a marketing-driven, money-making enterprise selling things that don't work and making a lot of noise that confuses the public. Again this is not complicated. Jytdog (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: I restored the hat that I had created in my own comment. In this diff Anmccaf changed my comment and their edit note incompetently asks: "Removed hatting, so actual discussion can take place. Who added these comments, exactly?)" Anmccaf then inserted their own remarks in the midst of mine.
This board is for addressing behavior and this thread was raised to address Anmccaff's year and a half disruption. Which now everybody can see is happening even here. Jytdog (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • just pinging to get some attention. (blatantly). Again all Aanmccaff has done at the article for a year is removed sourced content - please look at their contribs to the article. All deletions of sourced content. And from their first Talk page comment they made it clear that they have used the diet and liked it, and were going to interpret "fad diet" as they saw fit, not how it is used in sources. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I've worked with Anmccaff before, and they're not always the most pleasant user to try to collaborate with, and have a tendency to jump into combat mode. But I'm afraid that if issues on two articles in two years (both of which are probably WP:BATTLEGROUND, but neither of which broke 3RR) is all there is to go on, that's going to end up being a light case for a TBAN. TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment and i recognize that. I think the removing of completely valid content for no valid reason is blockable. (not the edit warring but the tendentious removal of valid content). but i would be satisfied with a warning from the community which hopefully they would take on board and change their behavior, and with which i can come back here if they don't change their behavior. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Propose warning

Propose hopefully an uncontroversial warning/reminder to Anmccaff of the following:

  • WP:3RR is a bright line, and approaching that line intentionally and especially repeatedly is still edit warring, regardless of whether you actually cross it.
  • Simply the fact that two users are reverting you does not constitute "tag teaming," and accusations that this is the case may be construed as a personal attack when not accompanied by evidence.
  • You are expected to follow the dispute resolution process, period. This expectation is not lessened, but is rather heightened for experienced editors, as are the potential consequences for failing to do so.

TimothyJosephWood 01:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Isis (disambiguation)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is a true stalker

-- Gstree (talk · contribs) 21:01, 16 December 2016‎ (UTC)
You forgot to sign your post. The article currently includes Isis (given name), which is where the list you're trying to post should be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Gstree: I've got to agree with the above here - I see you've made the edits to Isis (given name) now, so hopefully the disagreement between yourself and HW can settle down. What exactly would you like to see as the result of this thread? -- samtar talk or stalk 22:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Samtar: I would like to keep the article before this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isis_(disambiguation)&diff=755164590&oldid=755146976. --Gstree (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Gstree: so you are asking for admin help to solve a content dispute? Admins don't decide content disputes. This is a question that needs to be decided on the article's talk page. - GB fan 23:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd encourage HW to be friendlier when making that type of edit, especially with newbies (Gstree enrolled in October 2016). 50.0.136.56 (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

User:ProgGR

User:ProgGR is systematically editing articles related to the The Young Turks and its hosts in order to maintain a positive bias in the articles. The edits are disruptive and biased. The user has been warned of numerous times on their talk page. I ask that this user be suspended from editing The Young Turks and Cenk Uygur. Examples: [32] [33] [34] [35]. (Update) Let me add that my edits may be flawed and I welcome any feedback or corrections. However, my flaws should not distract from what is likely an agenda-driven account.

Analogstats (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I was going to say this is a content dispute, but it does look possibly disruptive to me. Have you tried to discuss this with the user on their talk page or on the talk pages of the affected articles? I don't see any recent sections about this. AlexEng(TALK) 03:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Multiple others have brought this up on the user's talk page, with no response. There is an active discussion about the connection between the two Young Turks organizations on the article talk page [36] [37]. Previous mentions have been removed from the article by this user and others. I think at least one sentence is warranted. Analogstats (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Um, no, Analogstats. He's been removing incorrect, badly referenced and POV edits. Really, if the program really is named after the "Young Turks" movement, you should be able to find a reference source for that; it's up to you to reference your additions. The biggest complaint I see is that he doesn't use edit summaries, which aren't mandatory. Risker (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I would point out there are currently zero citations in the intro to that article, as numerous other articles. Should all of the intro be deleted for lack of citation? I will do so if that is proper. And I will happily add a citation for the naming claim if that will ease your concerns. However, I think it's a far stretch to say that pointing out that an organization named The Young Turks is named after The Young Turks is "POV." If you have concerns about my edits, please discuss on my talk page. I am happy to improve my editing. But please do not attack me to distract from the other account that has almost exclusively made edits to The Young Turks and its hosts - all of which are to remove any edits which may show negative aspects of the subjects. If you think their behavior is unbiased and undisruptive, please say so. Analogstats (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The lead is a summary of the article and does not need to be independently sourced. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Kuala Namu International Airport

Offensive edit summaries removed. The actual issue seems to have died away, suggest WP:RFPP if it resumes. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

111.95.116.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Another similar incident from my previous report. An anonymous user added a destination that does not exist. I tried to remove it, but the user added it back and called me haram. I need the administrators to intervene in this issue. Cheers. Calvin Wisanto (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Calvin Wisanto The edit has been reverted by Gunkarta. I guess if it starts we can start blocking. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Lemongirl942 I don't think the edit summary should be removed, as it could be used as evidence for the administrators to take action against the anonymous user in the future. Calvin Wisanto (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, admins can view them. And now we have this ANI for the record. (That's why I added the IP address and diffs, so that it can be easily referred to in the future). If it continues, we can block the IP. But for now, it seems the disruption has halted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
You mentioned about a previous report. Could you link that here? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

────Ah OK, found the previous report. Seems like this is a case of block evasion. 118.137.145.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for a period of one month. From the looks of it, this might well be the same editor evading the block. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revisited: Tendentious editing and WP:NOTHERE behavior by User:Cassandrathesceptic

Without an expressed conclusion and due to 72 hours of inactivity, the discussion Tendentious editing and WP:NOTHERE behavior by User:Cassandrathesceptic was archived a couple of days ago. As one of the participants, I was content with this as I had hoped, vainly apparently, that the ANI discussion along with the simultaneous MFD of a polemical essay on their user page, would finally lead @Cassandrathesceptic: to accept that their pattern of behaviour was not tolerable and should cease, and, on that expectation, I was prepared to leave the discussion not formally resolved. It would seem my confidence in the prospect of an epiphany for CtS was misplaced as their returning edit is a lengthy personal attack on me, including the impertinent attribution of personal views and motivations and indicating the strong likelihood of their continuing to edit in the same manner as before. (For clarity, neither the ANI or the MFD were initiated by me but by two different users, neither of whom have had any previous interaction with me, to my knowledge.) Proven wrong that the matter may be over, I feel it necessary to revisit the discussion after all.

I would have thought it appropriate to ping all the earlier participants that the discussion has been revived plus, for info, the user on whose page the new post was made, but would prefer to check first. Would that be a suitable and appropriate course? Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe that if you notify all the editors involved in the previous discussion -- pro and con -- that would not be considered to be CANVASSING. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
My take on it is that it would be canvassing regardless of whether or not all of the editors are pinged. If this is going to end in a firefight, better not to offer up free ammunition. My advice is to trust in people to find the new topic of their own accord. AlexEng(TALK) 01:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd just been checking Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification which states "An editor... can place a message... On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:... Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". On the basis that notifying previous participants on their talk page is regarded appropriate and not as canvassing, pinging would seem not only equivalent but more readily evident to all that it has been done. No? Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's against policy; you're probably fine in that regard. I think it's just shaky enough that someone might call you out on it, but that "someone" wouldn't be me. Your call. AlexEng(TALK) 02:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
(uninvolved) Canvassing would be only notifying one side of the argument. If you notify everyone, that's perfectly fine (even if everyone in the previous section was on the same side, it can't be helped then). ansh666 10:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation; in which case, notifying the following previous participants of the relisting of the discussion (CtS having been notified already): @Agtx:, @Nyttend:, @Someguy1221:, @TheGracefulSlick:, @EdJohnston:, @SmokeyJoe:, @FillsHerTease:, @Andrew Davidson:. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

  • This fresh incident was provoked by the apparent deletion of Cassandra's user page. It is naturally alarming when this seems to happen but this turned out to be an oversight. "Sorry it was moved to User:Cassandrathesceptic/Scots Language rather than deleted. I forgot to post the link on your talk page." I expect things will settle down as this becomes clear. This essentially remains a content dispute and Matt Lunker is on the other side of it – he wanted the page to be fully deleted. In bringing this here again, he is exacerbating the matter and this seems vexatious. Both parties should agree to disagree and move on. Reading WP:LAME may help in putting this into perspective. Andrew D. (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
What is this supposed content dispute I am in, what “side” am I on in it, and where do I, ever, profess this? Andrew, I am bemused by your assertions as to the nature of this matter as you appear to hit the nail on the head in your very first post, that (in regard to but one of CtS’s favoured topics) "There is no consensus among language experts about what constitutes a language versus a dialect”. It seems that every other editor involved, you and I included, and including ones that have expressed a personal view on the matter (which I have not), accept the reality of that lack of consensus and of its coverage in the article – only CtS does not. They do not, and have continued to campaign to have the matter portrayed otherwise. If I am on a side, you are on the same one.
I've always been fond of the saying by Professor Max Weinreich, quoted by Leo Rosten in The Joys of Yiddish, that "A language is a dialect that has an army and a navy." Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
And this is not about any one particular topic, it is about CtS’s pattern of editing as a whole. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No opinion from me; I just put in a little reminder to the person who created the thread. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure, only fair to include you in the ping though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Of course, and thank you. I'm just trying to avoid having someone ping me or leave me a talk note saying "Nyttend, don't forget to participate" :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - In the past discussion I noted how Cts used personal attacks and accused M Lunker of sockpuppetry even after "apologizing". In my opinion, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather push their POV on articles.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm never impressed when someone denies sockpuppetry if they were clearly involved in it. It makes me think they're not going to behave appropriately in other areas. Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
    • There's a murky boundary between dynamic IP hopping (which seems to me to be what happened back in 2012, hence a rangeblock) and sockpuppetry, though I'm not qualified to comment on it in this specific case. ansh666 22:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
If the editor isn't blocked or banned but simply problematic, then yes it can be a bit murky. But there's no murky boundary when the editor is already blocked or banned. (The only exception may be when the editor isn't aware they were blocked/banned, but in that case range blocks shouldn't be needed.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrator abuse

Various things:
  • ViperSnake151 is not an administrator.
  • Both ViperSnake151 and the IP were edit-warring, but the heart of it was two days ago and it has broadly stopped.
  • The issue is a content dispute which should be resolved on the article's talkpage. Discussion has at least started there; hopefully it can progress to actual resolution of this issue.
  • The page has been semi-protected. IP, if you disagree with this please approach the protecting admin or WP:RFPP.
  • Noting the points above there seems nothing else that requires admin tools. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to report an editor and an administrator for abuse. User:ViperSnake151 recently repeatedly added unreferenced material to the article NHL Centennial Classic. It was reverted. He readded it, it was reverted again, and it was readded again, and again. User:ViperSnake151 never once used the talk page as instructed. When he was warned about edit warring he responded by deleting the warning on his talk page with the comment "Don't template the regulars". He then had IP user banned for 3RR for reverting his unreferenced edits by an administrator friend. He also had an administrator friend protect so that it couldn't be "vandalized" even though it was him that was vandalizing it. This kind of treatment of other users and abuse of administrator privileges is a growing problem on wikipedia. Please look into these users, he has a long list of article ownership behaviour and crass treatment of other users. 64.231.151.232 (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

G'day, from what I can tell, this relates to this [38]. I note that it does not seem that 174 clearly stated what their concerns were with their edit summaries (i.e. specifically what was wrong with ViperSnake's copy editing) when reverting. Frankly, without clear communication what the concerns were, I can see how it would seem 174's were disruptive and hence why administrator action was taken. This now appears to have sparked a thread on the article's talk page, which is the best way to deal with it. As such, in future, I would suggest that you take the initiative and start a post on the talk page yourself after you revert. Beyond that, as far as I can tell ViperSnake's edits were referenced. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I realize the above section is closed, however, the I.P above has now | taken to showing his displeasure with ViperSnake by messing around with his page page. I reverted him and templated him for this. However, his page may need some extra eyes, just in case the I.P tried this or something worse, again. Also, there is a possibility that the IP above signed in with a different IP, given the | Changes made by the first I.P. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NHL_Centennial_Classic&diff=754718441&oldid=754712091%7C are nearly identical to the changes made by the second I.P.] (Note the changes made in the first paragraph. The second I.P has added more changes, but based on behavior, both Vipersnake and I agree this is the same person, considering the first I.P was blocked for edit warring, this looks like a pretty good case for block evasion. KoshVorlon 17:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: sorry, was offline. Agree this is the same person, please let me know if this recurs during their current block. Page protection has resolved the issue at the article, have also watchlisted ViperSnake151's page. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen, Me and egregious violations of policy

Rjensen is banned from removing or refactoring talk page comments by other editors, with the exception of minor or non-controversial changes. Maunus is warned to be civil to other editors. Let's all have some eggnog now. Unless you don't like eggnog. In that case, have something else. Katietalk 03:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rjensen (talk · contribs) and I are in agreement that one of us are egregiously violating policy. We just don't agree whom of us it is. The context of this disagreement is this discussion Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rjensen_and_BLP and the original disagreement here: in which Jensen invokes BLP to justify his removal of a talkpage comment by me that he finds to be unpleasant (I agree that it was). So the questions are: Is an editor who has a biographical article allowed to remove other people's talkpage comments about them if they find them to be false or otherwise in violatoin of BLP. I would say that RJensen is in fact violating both WP:TPO and WP:COI by personally removing comments of other editors with whom he is in a discussion. I have had this discussion before woth Rjsensen who has a habit of editing his own biography to remove material he doesnt like. If it is indeed the case that he is allowed to remove other people's comments under BLP if he dislikes them then I think it would be very nice to clarify this, in which case I can avoid ever interacting with him in the future.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me repeat two points I made at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: A) Maunus refuses to provide his required RS and instead misquotes Wikipedia. 1) his false statement = Jensen's claim there was never any significant anti-Irish sentiment in the US. 2) He cites the Wikipedia article on me that states Jensen argues that "No Irish Need Apply" signs were mostly a myth and that there was "no significant discrimination against the Irish" in the job market. 3) Actually what I did write was As for the question of anti-Irish prejudice: it existed but it was basically anti-Catholic or anti-anti-republican. There have been no documented instances of job discrimination against Irish men.(FN13) Was there any systematic job discrimination against the Catholic Irish in the US: possibly, but direct evidence is very hard to come by. [Journal of Social History 2002 p 407] Maunus is in deliberate defiance of the BLP rule about verifiability. Rjensen @ 17:30, 30 November 2016. and B) every editor has the right to remove another editor's posts if they fail the BLP rules. Maunus is in deliberate defiance of these BLP rules: 1) " any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source" 2) "Dealing with articles about yourself...Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself." 3) "Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable." 4) "This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." 5) "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages" 6) "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." = Rjensen 10:53, 3 December 2016. C now I'll add some new comments: Maunus never tries to explain why his comments comply with WP:BLP As for WP:TPO he violates it too--it states " Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which applies to talk pages as well as to articles" As for WP:COI it states: "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly." My conclusion is that Maunus thinks the BLP rules do not apply to him and he can say any false or nasty thing he wants. Rjensen (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
They compky with BLP because the are true and verifiable and not defamatory in any sense. As I have stated. You are known only for your mistaken claim about anti-Irish sentiment - if it werent for that particular controversy and the media attention it got you you would not merit a biography article. And you claim that WASP is a slur. Both are verifiable facts whether you wish they werent or not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Rjensen: Let's be clear -- the quotes you give refer to the article space. Almost no one gives inline citations for talk page comments about other Wikipedians, and if we applied your standard then you and I would have been violating BLP when we referred to this guy as a sockpuppet. The only source that says that is the Wikipedia SPI, which is a self-published source and therefore unacceptable for BLP purposes. You need to drop this game right now. It's been almost two months since I explained this policy to you,[39][self-published source?] and I can't help but imagine that others have explained the same thing to you in the past.[citation needed] Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Leaving aside the BLP concern, your comments could be seen as "personal attack", which could justify the other editor in removing it. Essentially you are accusing another editor of having a double standard: according to you he says there was no anti-Irish sentiment in the U.S. but infers there is anti-English sentiment. But whether or not "WASP" is a slur has nothing to do with what RJensen has argued about anti-Irish sentiment, and the discussion will proceed better without that comment. TFD (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't leave aside the BLP concern, Jensen's failure to undestand BLP and COI is the core of this issue. I readily admit that my comment was not friendly, but rather sarcastic. I don't think an editor is allowed to remove comments that they believe are personal attacks, but I may be mistaken. And yes I am accusing him of having a double standard. I think he clearly has one. IN any case the point still is if an editor may under BLP remove comments from other editors in spite of WP:TPO and COI - or if they should rather have someone else make that call. And the same goes for the biography itself - Rjensen has several times removed material from his article that he disliked instead of flagging it on the talkpage and having someone else made the decision. This is why I do not trust the judgment of Jensen one little bit when it comes to judging what is a BLP violation and what it a COI. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:TPO, clear and unambiguous personal attacks can be removed, but not comments that are simply uncivil. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I have also noticed Rjensen's curious habit of quoting BLP as though it applied to Wikipedians in out-of-mainspace discussion between said Wikipedians. I found this extremely unusual and potentially problematic since reliable sources are almost never going to be found for any of the statements one would want to make about other Wikipedians and their behaviour. For context, I noticed this problem two months back when he removed a discussion on my talk page between a now-block sockpuppet. I wound up re-removing the offending material anyway, but it was still weird. Just to show how absurd this is: if we applied the "we can't say things about other Wikipedia editors unless reliable sources have said the same" to Wikipedians other than Rjensen, I would have committed a BLP-violation by saying that Imboredsenseless was a sockpuppet just now, since no reliable sources can be found to back up this claim.
I don't think it's a serious problem that merits a block or anything like that, but he should definitely be told to stop invoking BLP when other Wikipedia editors say things about him as a Wikipedian that he doesn't like, and if he keeps it up he should receive a short block. I actually set him straight back in October, but maybe if an admin did the same he would take it more seriously.
Update: On closer examination, it turns out he has done the same thing (blanked all or part of another user's talk page comment because it contained supposed "BLP violations" against him or another user in relation to their Wikipedia activity) at least 24 times since 2010. More than one third of his talk page blankings that cited BLP in their edit summaries were of this type.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC) (edited 10:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC) )
Extended content
Wow, I did not know that Rjensen was a Conservapedia admin working to conservatize wikipedia explicitly - that explains a lot.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Watch it, snunɐɯ·. The account that posted that was almost immediately blocked as a sock and was clearly trolling, and the Conservapedia account they claimed was Rjensen hadn't edited Wikipedia in like six years. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
(A) Hijari88 says " other Wikipedia editors say things about him as a Wikipedian that he doesn't like," -- that did not happen. the Maunus statement about me and the Irish is NOT about me "as a Wikipedian" -- he referred to writings OUTSIDE Wikipedia by a BLP (an article I published in 2002 in a scholarly journal.) Maunus got it wrong and his false statement about a real person is unsourced =a statement about a BLP & Irish that in no way refers to an internal Wikipedia discussion. (B) What is very rare or unique here is that a Wiki editor (me) is using his real name AND has a Wiki article about him. Maunus made the Irish-allegation based on off-wiki misinformation about a BLP. That is, BLP is a central feature of this discussion. (C) I think that an attack on an anonymous pseudonym is not an attack on a BLP because the username masks the "personhood" and the real person under attack is unknown. it is only an attack on a Wiki editor. (D) Of course we have rules about attacking any editor falsely = wp:civility = quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them. I allege that Maunus did that re me & the Irish. (E) Another point: "unsourced" is a key factor. If editor X falsely states on a talk page that editor Y is ZZZ regarding the Irish, then that statement has to be sourced to something Y said on Wikipedia about the Irish or else it is a deliberate falsified personal attack by X and violates wp:civility; it is not protected speech. (F) And by the way, Maunus won't stop: he just now made another false statement about outside-Wiki statements that Rjensen is "working to conservatize wikipedia explicitly" That is false. I never said anything like that anywhere and you can look at my 124,000 edits here (and my speech at Wikimania 2012 and my Journal of Military History 2012 article about Wikipedia) here to verify that my goal is to bring in standard scholarly sources to support Wiki history articles. Rjensen (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I am a reliable source for my own opinion - which is that your conservative agenda is clearly visible in most of your article changes. I am also of the opinion that you routinely violate both WP:COI (by editing your own BLP) and abuse WP:BLP (by claiming it as a way to censor people you disagree with in discussions).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Our article on you quotes you as saying that there was "no significant discrimination against the Irish" in the job market. The so-called BLP-violation in question consisted of the claim that you are a "person who claim there was never any significant anti-Irish sentiment in the US". The only substantial difference between these is the difference between "anti-Irish sentiment" and "discrimination against the Irish". This is not a justification for deleting a comment about article content as a supposed BLP-violation, as it seems extremely likely that you would have done the same thing if he said that you are a "person who claim there was never any significant discrimination against the Irish in the US", based on the flimsy excuse that criticisms of your actions as a Wikipedian require inline citations because BLP applies to users whose user pages list their real name and who happen to have Wikipedia articles at the moment. All active Wikipedians are LPs, and so all crititicisms of Wikipedians and their views are criticisms of LPs and their views. There are different degrees of anonymity. Your username is not easily identifiable by itself as a real name, and one would have to check your user page to figure out who you are, but I know people who simply use the username "John Doe" and "John Doe" is their real name. My username is only very loosely linked to my real name, but I have posted enough on-wiki and allowed other stuff to be published about me off-wiki that it would not be difficult to find out who I am. Others have the privilege complete anonymity. Demanding that every criticism of you as a Wikipedian and your stance on what a certain article should stay include an inline citation to a reliable source because you happen to fall very closer to the "real name" end of the spectrum is highly disruptive. Trying to use BLP as an excuse to wikilawyer your opponents into not talking about you as a Wikipedian will not end well. If you have a problem with any particular portion of a comment, remove that, or report the user. In the diff I cited above, you removed several thousand bytes of discussion (mostly by me) from my user talk page because you found three words of another users comment offensive. Pointing out that you yourself have, on Wikipedia, stated that you have edited Conservapedia is not a personal attack (it's a simple statement of fact); if you try to bring BLP into it, then since no reliable sources have discussed your activity on Conservapedia we suddenly can't comment on it, even though you brought it up on Wikipedia. Demanding that BLP apply to comments about other users' Wikipedia activity is patently absurd. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
A wikipedia article is NOT a reliable secondary source--everyone here knows that. My 2002 article looked at discrimination against the Irish in multiple areas and explicitly said YES there was anti-Irish discrimination based on religion and politics. Maunus said Jensen " claim there was never any significant anti-Irish sentiment in the US" and that is false. Maunus admits he was derogatory. The rule at WP:CIVIL is Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. --this rule explicitly covers talk pages & is not limited to BLP. Rjensen (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I freely admit that I have been less than civil to you. Your abuse of the BLP policy and routine violations of COI and refusal to recognize this when poointed out to you pisses me off - and frankly you are yourself also routinely uncivil to other editors in discussions. If you admit you misapplied BLP and that you meant to invoke NPA and that you refrain from using the BLP policy to protect yourself in disputes with other editors , I will be happy and may even choose to extend an apology.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Maunas post was a personal attack - as it was irrelevant, it also looks like battleground, so it's quite understandable that BLP protection is also claimed for that irrelevant attack on a living person. Removal was correct under TPO. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: NPA is an entirely separate policy from BLP. Pointing out something about someone's off-wiki activity (which is discussed in their article, which they link on their user page) that seems kinda-sorta-maybe relevant to what they are arguing about article content is somewhat DICKish behaviour, and doesn't even really look relevant to me. But Rjensen apparently makes a habit of citing BLP in order to blank other users' (perhaps sometimes valid) comments because he considers NPA-violations when made against him (and apparently only him) to be BLP-violations because they are not supported by third-party reliable sources. Allowing for such blanking (with BLP, not NPA, as the justification) is not a good idea, since almost nothing that happens on Wikipedia talk pages and noticeboards is covered in reliable sources. Trying to apply BLP to our Wikipedia activity is extremely dangerous. Note that I'm not defending Maunus's comment (if it had been replaced with Template:RPA and the edit summary didn't mention BLP I would have been fine with it). But your above comment is only going to embolden Rjensen the next time he tries to demand a reliable source for "You said X [on-wiki] before -- your credibility in relation to Y is therefore questionable". This is not an isolated incident. In October, Rjensen removed a massive block of text from my talk page and when I asked him off-wiki what he thought qualified as a BLP-violation it was literally a single part of a sentence. Nowhere in the block of text was Rjensen's real name mentioned (if someone's real name is "John Doe", "Jdoe" is not their real name, and will not show up on a Google search of his real name). Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
They are separate policies (as I already said), they protect two different groups of people but there will be and is overlap between the two groups. There is nothing dangerous about deleting irrelevant personal attacks that battleground and that overlap with BLP, and there is nothing dangerous about deleting sock-puppet, pretend outing, personal attacks which is a lie, regarding a living person. Your argument is the dangerous one, as it leads PA and BLP violation, but more importantly attempted injury to living people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
As is yours, as you're encouraging abuse of the BLP policy by the overly sensitive, like Rjensen. --Calton | Talk 13:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Not in the least. Your argument is encouraging BLP policy violations, so people can feel comfortable making personal attacks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Tripe. Jensen is indeed overly sensitive and has been gaming this for years.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
You've already demonstrated your long-running inter-personal problem, it's not helping your position. As someone who has disagreed with RJensen, sometime strenuously in editing dispute - it is plain false that he always has any such problem. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: it is plain false that he always has any such problem Please see the two diffs I provided, one from two months ago and one from four years ago, neither of which had anything to do with Maunus. See also [40], [41], [42], [43] and [44] (falsely claiming that another user, who also appears to edit under their real name, accused him of "illegal actions" by accusing him of violating Wikipedia's sock/meat policy). The fact that several of these were in relation to our article on him makes it a little murkier, but the "BLP violations" in question were clearly accusations of violating Wikipedia policy, not "illegal actions". This is a long-term, recurring problem where User:Rjensen uses the BLP policy to justify either (a) removing or otherwise refactoring other users' comments when they challenge his Wikipedia activity in a manner he doesn't like or (b) removing entire blocks of text, sometimes by several users, because one part of it may have qualified as a legitimate personal attack. Again, there should be no block or TBAN at this time if he promises to stop doing it, but your constant refusal to acknowledge that this is even an issue, apparently driven by your personal belief that Maunus had the false BLP accusation coming because he violated NPA and CIVIL, is disturbing. If you wanted, I would have supported a short block for Maunus for the off-topic personal attack (until he acknowledged that it was inappropriate and apologized), but the bigger issue (one that has been brought to Rjensen's attention numerous times over at least four years) is Rjensen's repeated and long-term abuse of the BLP policy to create a chilling effect and get away with removing comments that aren't uncivil or personal attacks. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Maunus comment was not attacking Rjensen's on-wiki actions, as much as it was attacking a living person who had published off-wiki in a Journal. His comment was using that living person's identity in an irrelevant content dispute. Even assuming Rjensen would be found ultimately wrong that that BLP permits Maunas to do so -- it's "only" personal attack -- (should we arbitrate it?), Rjensen is permitted to raise BLP and have the matter decided, and he is permitted to be wrong. As for your other examples, the overall context is Rjensen has 124,639 edits, and when compared with that almost all of your relatively few examples deal with the biography of a living person, so raising BLP issues is going to happen, the "murkiness" you refer to means that some will be upheld and some not- those discussions run to pages and pages and noticeboards. I stand by my comment, and I am sure there is nothing that should disturb you, but I can't be held responsible for what disturbs you. Should Rjensen edit war, and be wrong, I am sure he knows the consequences, and even if he does not, that's the risk he will run.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Not relatively few examples. I did cherry-pick, in a manner of speaking, as I "Ctrl+F"ed his contribs to article talk and user talk namespaces for places where his edit summaries mentioned "BLP" or "living", but the diffs I linked represented something like a third of all the diffs I checked. The rest may or may not have been legitimate BLP violations against off-wiki individuals; I just ignored them because the LPs in question were not Wikipedians and the "BLP violations" in question were not made on a talk page in a direct message to the LP in question. I was once laughed off BLPN for saying that describing the author of a source I cited as not being an expert in his field or a reliable source for some claim might qualify as a BLP violation, which Rjensen has also done[45] -- if it weren't for my own prior experience I would be inclined to agree with him, but clearly the community's opinion can't be accepted when it disagrees with me and ignored when it agrees with me. "NPA" doesn't appear anywhere in his edit summaries to user talk page edits for the past five years, except in section titles on his own talk page, and for whatever reason he seems to only use the phrase "personal attacks" when addressing IPs, and even then very infrequently. "Civility" was only mentioned twice, once in December 2013 and once in September 2014. Again, I am getting these results basically at random by searching his contribs to particular namespaces for particular search-terms, but I don't really have a choice: I don't have enough time to go back and carefully read everything he has written. What results I am getting seem to indicate that in virtually all cases where he encounters a CIVIL- or NPA-violation, he mislabels it as a BLP-violation, and never the other way around. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I'm just not seeing it so far. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Maunus comment was not attacking Rjensen's on-wiki actions, as much as it was attacking a living person who had published off-wiki in a Journal If you read the whole discussion, the two of them were having a content dispute about what the article should say, and User:Maunus made an inappropriate snipe about something User:Rjensen published off-wiki and speculated about possible bias. This is something that happens virtually all the time whenever there are ever any disputes about anything that could be considered remotely political. I have been called a Korean nationalist, anti-Japanese POV-pusher and a Japanese nationalist, anti-Korean POV-pusher, a user with Christian sympathies who is biased in favour of believing Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical person and an atheist POV-pusher who gets his ideas of early Christianity from reading Dan Brown. As far as I am concerned, none of these epithets are remotely accurate, and of course none of them can be backed up by reference to reliable sources, and I am a living person. This does not mean the application of those epithets to me was a BLP-violation. They were inappropriate, off-topic personal attacks. His comment was using that living person's identity in an irrelevant content dispute. Again, the only difference between that and when someone claimed I get everything I know about early Christianity from The Da Vinci Code is that when they said that about me they were basing on nothing but their own desire to get a rise out of me, whereas at least Rjensen mentions on his user page that he is the same guy we have an article on. Rjensen is permitted to raise BLP and have the matter decided, and he is permitted to be wrong Then he should do that. In this case, you are the only third party out of four who has not said that he was wrong to cite BLP (one more said that it didn't matter if it was BLP as it was still an NPA-violation). And again, this has been going on for years, with him challenged several times by several independent users. If he wants to keep doing it, the burden should be on him to find someone other than you who agrees. As for your other examples, the overall context is Rjensen has 124,639 edits, and when compared with that almost all of your relatively few examples deal with the biography of a living person No, some of them happen to deal with biographies of living people, but all of them deal with his or others' activities as Wikipedia editors and his removing or refactoring their comments based on bogus accusations of BLP-violations. As for his total number of edits, 85.2% of those 124,639 edits are to the mainspace, and it can safely be assumed that if he blanks something from an article and says it is a BLP violation, whether or not he is right, the violation in question was not an attack on another Wikipedia editor for their Wikipedia activity. Edits to other namespaces that don't cite BLP and don't blank other users' comments are also completely irrelelvant to whether he is abusing BLP. Of the edits to talk and user talk namespaces (together 13.1% of the remainining 14.8% of his total edit count) where he blanked all or part of someone's comment and his edit summary mentioned BLP, 35.294% are claims that a criticism of another user for their Wikipedia activity is a violation of BLP. He has been corrected about this on his user talk page, in edit summaries of users reverting him, and now on ANI. I don't know how many times he has been corrected, but it's at least three. those discussions run to pages and pages and noticeboards Again, if you can point me to a previous discussion where this came up and where community or ArbCom consensus was on Rjensen's side that blanking other users' comments because they contain criticisms of other Wikipedians and their activities as Wikipedians was sanctioned by BLP specifically, or to a previous incident where Rjensen removed a BLP-violation and inaccurately/inadvertently labeled it a CIVIL- or NPA-violation, then I will bite my tongue, but otherwise I think someone should tell him firmly, here and now, that his repeated misuse of BLP in this manner is inappropriate. I stand by my comment and I am sure there is nothing that should disturb you, but I can't be held responsible for what disturbs you. Again, an entire section of my talk page was blanked because one of the parties had made an off-topic personal attack against Rjensen that I hadn't even noticed, and I received an email that seemed to be placing the blame on me for somehow "hosting" that attack on my talk page. That disturbs me. I hope my posting this will prevent further incidents of this kind. You are entitled to your opinion, but in this instance you appear to be in the minority, as Calton, Maunus, Black Kite and I (not to mention at least one other who pointed it out back in like 2013) all agree and the only one who has commented in this thread other than you and Rjensen who didn't explicitly state that they thought Rjensen's actions inappropriate was FreeKnowledgeCreator, who only commented on the difference between CIVIL and NPA. (Rjensen's later coming out of the blue and citing a passage that implied uncivil comments can be removed actually seems to imply they were arguing against this point, but I didn't notice that until now.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
No. Maunus and Rjensen were not having a discussion at all. Maunus dropped his "snipe" as you call it in someone else's discussion. And again, almost all of your relatively few examples occurred in the context of a biography of a living person. If you are bothered that BLP applies to talk pages, and BLP issues are raised on talk pages than you have to change policy. But it is now permitted to people (including Rjensen) that they raise objections in removal or otherwise. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Maunus and Rjensen were not having a discussion at all. Maunus dropped his "snipe" as you call it in someone else's discussion. Point taken. But if you notice a recurring problem with a user, you are allowed (even encouraged) to bring it up when it happens again. As far as I am concerned, Rjensen was wrong on the article content question, so trying to say that his mislabeling someone's comment as a BLP violation was OK because that someone had "followed" him there is not a good idea. If you are bothered that BLP applies to talk pages, and BLP issues are raised on talk pages than you have to change policy. Nice try. You are not going to turn this discussion on its head that easily. Nowhere on the BLP policy page does it say anything about Wikipedians and their Wikipedia activity being covered. They can't be, because WP:BLPSPS explicitly bans all comments made on Wikipedia by anyone other than the living person in question as sources for claims about living people. This has nothing to do with whether BLP applies to talk pages. But it is now permitted to people (including Rjensen) that they raise objections in removal or otherwise. Your grammar is a little confusing, but I think you are saying that Rjensen is allowed object to things others write, by removing their comments or some other method. Plenty of users have been blocked or banned for less than what Rjensen did on my talk page and in this very thread. Repeatedly and unapologetically hiding behind BLP to justify removing or refactoring other users' comments when they aren't BLP violations is unacceptable. Once or twice could be called a good faith mistake, but in this case he has done so at least 24 times over the past six years, he has been told he was wrong at least twice before, he has done it twice in the space of less than two months, he had a whole big ANI mess opened over it, and has nevertheless repeatedly denied doing anything wrong. Again, I don't currently support a block, and if I was keen on a formal ban I would propose one, but your comments are clearly making the problem worse, not better. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
First. I recommend you read WP:Bludgeon because your comments are just going on and on. You do go on about "blocks", for someone who is not calling for a block, and I find that odd, especially in response to my comments, as I have never mentioned blocking. Second, BLP applies to all living persons, and yes per policy, removal is a way it is raised. Third, if you don't know that WASP is "sometimes disparaging"[46]] reference a WP:Reliable Source, like the one I just provided -- that's the way Wikipedians are suppose to do it, not making attacks on others, in what you call, "following" someone or otherwise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
You should take your own advice on bludgeoning, since in this case your bludgeoning is serving to unilaterally filibuster an otherwise unanimous consensus that Rjensen's edits are disruptive. Mine is only correcting you and Rjensen on your numerous mistakes, non sequitur arguments, distortions of policy and distortions of what I and others have said in this thread. I admit I am kind of shooting myself in the foot since if I had posted all my evidence in my first comment and then not looked at the thread again, the thread would probably be closed by now with Rjensen receiving a final warning that the next time he did what he's been doing he would be block. But shooting myself in the foot is something I'm entitled to do, and the only one who suffers for it is me. As for blocking: I would not be opposed to a block, but I'm not proposing one either. If User:Arthur Rubin or some other admin blocked him for his attacks against me in this thread or for his violations of TPO, or both, I would probably thank them for it since if he received a block he might finally start to listen. If you think a source that says a term is "sometimes disparaging" justifies its being included in a list of "ethnic slurs" despite its being used by writers of articles on both the SDLC and ADL websites, as well as in quotations from white supremacists who were apparently not speaking ironically in those same articles, then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. ANI is not the place to hash out content disputes anyway. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
No. FYI slur means disparage.[47] Your comment shows misunderstanding bludgeoning too, which pile on your other misunderstandings. Look to your word count, and your comments' overweening fixation. Bludgeoning has nothing to do with me standing in the way of the pettiness and pettifoggery of your arguments. (In defense of personal attack, no less). Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Alanscottwalker: You're wrong again (about me being the only one bludgeoning this discussion and about me defending personal attacks -- I don't care who's right about an article I've never edited), but that's not important. Please see the bottom of this thread, and clarify whether you would be okay with all of your responses to me (except the first one, which another user responded to) being collapsed to make this thread more readable/closable. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Just noticed this has apparently been going on for years. "Ctrl+F"ing Rjensen's contribs for BLP brought up a few more that happened to mention BLP in the edit summaries, with the most obvious being this. I am sure a thorough search would bring up a lot more. Yes, Rjensen is allowed remove comments from his own talk page. But saying that "Your arguments are unreasonable and obtuse. [...] Really, if you were editing honestly, you should have immediately changed the sentence" needs to be removed as a "blp vio" is incredibly disturbing. Citing BLP violations against oneself has a chilling effect since part of the reason for BLP is to prevent libel and defamation lawsuits. Plenty of accounts have been WP:NLT-blocked for claiming that Wikipedia in the mainspace includes defamatory statements, but the reason for NLT is to protect editors from a chilling effect. Repeatedly and needlessly (and sometimes baselessly) citing BLP to justify blanking comments like "your arguments are unreasonable and obtuse" is unhelpful at best and at worst looks like a deliberate attempt to create a similar chilling effect without actually citing real-world laws and so violating NLT. Again, I am not saying any sanctions should be brought against him at this time, but he should be told firmly that criticisms of his on-wiki actions do not qualify as BLP-violations, and removing entire conversations between other users because one part of one comment by one of them was a personal attack against him is unacceptable. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Hijiri88 overlooks the rules that apply to talk pages: Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. WP:CIVIL Rjensen (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Again, you're the one overlooking the fact that you specifically told me by email that it was one sentence of the already-blocked sockpuppet's comment that you found questionable, and yet you saw fit to remove my entire conversation with them (most of which, by word count, was mine, not the sock's). You are also overlooking the fact that that quotation doesn't come from WP:BLP. I did not deny that Maunus's remark was a violation of CIVIL and NPA, so your quoting WP:RUC at me is entirely irrelevant. My problem is with your repeatedly referring to uncivil remarks when directed toward you as a Wikipedian as "BLP violations". Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I have also recognized myself that my comment was a borderline NPA violation. But Jensen did not cite NPA or WP:CIVIl but specifically cited BLP.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
It was an attack, and you quibble that he removed it under the wrong section of policy - that is silly. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
It was not a direct personal attack, but it was incivil (and Jensen is himself not generally a particularly civil editor in disputes, so he should be able to take that from others as well). And what I quibble with is the fact that he frequently and routinely use a misinterpretation of the BLP policy to delete other peoples statements and disregards the COI policy by editing extensively in relation to his own biography. For that reasons it is important that he understands the difference between NPA and BLP policy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
It was very direct. The only mystery being, at the time, why you brought it up in an unrelated discussion, a discussion which should have centered on dictionary definitions of WASP (and most definitely not on an editor or characterizations concerning a real life person) - but now it is apparent you have an acrimonious history, which may explain but not excuse that. It's not a misinterpretation of BLP policy that it requires extremely careful and conservative discussions of living people and controversies concerning them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Utter nonsense. BLP is not about conversations between editors, and the fact that he is taking that interpretation should be a cause for immediate sanction. The fact that you have written a biography about yourself does not mean that all of a sudden you can silence everyone who contradicts you or makes a statement about you that you disagree with. All editors are equally "living people" the fact that some have biographical articles gives them no special rights whatsoever. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Maunus has trouble reading the BLP rule. So he invents his own new rules like his latest one 8 lines above: "BLP is not about conversations between editors" actually BLP does apply. it states "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." --talk pages i suggest generally consist of conversations between editors. Rjensen (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I've read both your positions and you have both presented them enough. As someone who has spent a long time discussing and drafting both BLP policy and the COI guideline, as well as discussing NPA, it is plain that RJenesen should not be sanctioned over the underlying attack posted by Maunus. And Maunus would do well to be either more careful and stick on topic, or as he said in the OP just stay away. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: Please, stop trying to provide Rjensen with justification for his repeated abuse of the BLP policy. He routinely removes other users' comments because he believes one small part thereof qualifies as an "unsourced" personal attack against him, and that BLP therefore applies because he edits under his real name (in a manner of speaking). The rest of us who have been involuntarily outed apparently have to get by citing NPA while Rjensen gets to steamroll any discussion he doesn't agree with because he chose to edit under his real name? That simply isn't fair. I agree with you that in this specific instance Rjensen shouldn't be sanctioned, but he needs to change the way he interacts with other users, since this constant inappropriate citation of the BLP policy (with the implicit claim that such-and-such comment is defamatory/libelous) is clearly designed to create a chilling effect and is borderline NLT-violation, even without the unsanctioned deletion of other people's comments that don't qualify as either personal attacks or BLP-violations by any stretch of the imagination. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia cannot buy into your extreme view of BLP that it means an accusation of defamation or libel - that would mean BLP could never work or even be discussed on wiki - defamation and libel are court judgments, BLP is not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Please. BLP as a policy exists to protect real people from unsourced and potentially defamatory claims made about them on Wikipedia, and to protect Wikipedia from people saying Wikipedia is making such defamatory claims. Constantly citing BLP for violations of NPA and CIVIL is inappropriate, and given Rjensen's activity in this discussion it has become increasingly clear that he deliberately does so to intimidate his opponents. The chilling effect of his citing BLP has allows him to remove massive chunks of text because five or six words may have constituted a personal attack against him and go unchallenged. BLP cannot apply to arguments made about us as Wikipedians because no reliable sources ever discuss such things Rjensen is the only user I have ever seen remove personal attacks against Wikipedians (and simple incivility that probably didn't constitute personal attacks) as "BLP violations", nd he has done so on numerous occasions. He has not apparently ever cited the correct policy to justify these removals. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Rjensen's claim that personal attacks against him are covered by WP:BLP purely because he has an article is are one of the most nonsensical misuses of a policy I have ever seen. WP:NPA perfectly adequately covers removal of personal attacks - we even have a template {{RPA}} for it. In absolutely no way should the more severe sanctions for BLP violations - including an ability for someone removing a clear BLP violation to break 3RR - apply here. Having said that, the whole issue wouldn't exist if the comments hadn't been made, and I am gratified that Maunus has accepted that he was over the line. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Yes, but if he cited NPA, he would have to be careful what he removes; when he cites BLP, he can blank entire sections of other people's talk pages with impunity, because other users will suffer a chilling effect and not challenge him on it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly my point. Rjensen needs to be aware that he can't use BLP in that way. Misusing the policy like that will not end well. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Hijir88 complains that back in 2013 I deleted the statement "keeping your bigoted, imbecilic opinions off the Talk Pages" in a discussion on deGaulle. Yes I think that statement should have been deleted from a talk page. (the "your" refers to third editor not to me.) Hijir88's complaint is that I should not have mentioned BLP violation in my edit summary. That's true, that was not the correct tag to use in this case since no living person was involved. Note that no citing of any rule is required when deleting a violation of WP:civil. I suggest a "chilling effect" is called for when an editor talking to another editor uses words like "your bigoted, imbecilic opinions". We want that language to never be used. Rjensen (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
If saying that someone's edits are inspired by bigotry and imbecility is a BLP violation, then what's the point of even having WP:NPA as a separate policy? If a Wikipedian's death has been confirmed, does BLP then no longer apply and the much lighter restriction of NPA take effect? Let alone that if BLP requires that we have reliable sources for the claim that this or that anonymous Wikipediam is bigoted or imbecilic, we would also need a source to say that they are ignorant of the article subject, or else we couldn't say that without a reliable source. I have edited articles on topics I don't know much about, and am fairly certain that from time to time I have argued with editors who knew more than me (I have apologized for being wrong when the users I was arguing with turned out to be right, anyway). I have been accused of being ignorant of the subject matter, too. These things are true of virtually all Wikipedia editors who have been here for a long time and edited a wide variety of articles. They are also true of you. I would never dream of removing comments about how I do not know as much about the subject as whoever I was arguing with as "BLP violations" against me. Additionally, your belittling my chilling effect point and saying directly that it is a good thing that your comments have a chilling effect seems to indicate that you don't care much for Wikipedia's NLT policy. Could you please clarify that your accusations of BLP violations in the seven instances that have thusfar been brought up were not meant to create a chilling effect? I don't want to continue interacting with you if you are comfortable causing your fellow Wikipedians to suffer a chilling effect over what were at worst some relatively minor NPA violations. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) When you made any one of the above edits, and whether you would have been wrong to blank any of those comments if you had cited RPA or RUC, is completely irrelevant. I don't care if another user back in 2013 (or back in 2007) violated NPA and you reverted them. If you cite BLP, you should be able to defend your actions on BLP grounds. The fact that some of the comments you removed (though still a small minority of the ones already cited) actually deserved to be removed per RPA or RUC is not important to the question of whether you have been abusing BLP. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
But if we are going to talk about dates, then instead of discussing one of the diffs I gave above that dated from three years ago, we should focus on your recent behaviour. In October you removed these three posts by me on my own talk page because the user I was addressing had turned out to be a sockpuppet and so his comments, according to you, were "BLP violations by [a] blocked sockpuppet". When I reverted you and requested that you email me, you did so and clarified that it was 57 words in the sock's second post you found offensive, and you included an extra bit about how you were "disappointed" that I had not carefully analyzed the sock's post and decided independently to blank those 57 words. The 57 words were indeed offensive, and may even have been untrue, but they were clearly based on your activity on Wikipedia (and some off-wiki activity that you yourself have discussed on-wiki); calling them "BLP violations" was wrong. I had already decided to drop the issue, and then independently of that you instigated another similar incident where someone made an inappropriate personal attack against you as a Wikipedian in the context of something you were trying to add to an article and you said they were committing a BLP violation against you. That's twice that essentially the same thing has happened in under two months. It doesn't even matter that you were doing the same thing as early as 2012, since this is a recurring, current problem. You need to stop making BLP accusations like this. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
These are always tricky cases. "...keeping your bigoted, imbecilic opinions off the Talk Pages" is purely a civility issue as it technically refers to content, not the person themselves. But one could make the case that it is implicitly calling the editor an imbecile, which is of course an NPA issue. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Black Kite: I know it's tricky, but for the matter at hand it doesn't really matter whether it is a CIVIL issue, an NPA issue, or both, because the problem is that Rjensen said it was a BLP issue. All three have provisions allowing for blanking, so the blanking itself would only have been an issue if the comment was "none of the above"; the only issue is the labeling of it as a BLP issue when it wasn't. I think it would be interesting if someone could track down an instance where Rjensen blanked a comment and cited the right policy, or even blanked with an NPA or CIVIL rationale where the problem was in fact BLP and not NPA or CIVIL. The evidence I've come across (admittedly something of a confirmation bias, mind you) indicates that the user specifically abuses the BLP policy, rather than it just being a recurring good-faith mistake where he accidentally cites the wrong policy. Since the blanking itself has rarely been a problem, then citing the wrong policy in a string of good-faith mistakes would not be a concern. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Hijiri88 that in one edit three years ago I used a "BLP" tag on a talk page deletion when "CIVIL" was the right tag. However when dealing with an actual BLP biography then I suggest BLP rules apply as well as CIVIL. The way to "chill" the making of improper remarks is to erase them--which is what I did. The tag is not what does the "chilling" it's the erasure that gets attention. Tags are optional in these cases and using the wrong one in 2013 is not "abuses the BLP policy." The BLP policy calls on every editor to immediately and without discussion erase poorly sourced statements about actual living people--and that includes me!--and doing so is not an "abuse." Rjensen (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Again, why are you ignoring all the more recent diffs? My user talk page is not your "actual BLP biography", nor is the talk page on our ethnic slurs article. Criticisms of your activity on Wikipedia are not BLP violations, and even when they are influenced by your (self-confessed) activity off Wikipedia the only difference is the potential violation of WP:OUT, which is also separate from BLP. And again, your comment looks like you don't know what I mean by "chilling effect". Sometimes your erasures are blatantly disruptive (again, see my talk page), while at other times the erasures by themselves would be fine if you didn't inappropriately cite BLP and so implicitly claim that someone was committing libel against you. In one case you inappropriately claimed that someone was accusing you of "illegal actions" when all they did was speculate that you may have violated Wikipedia policy. By this standard, anyone who opens an SPI, or an ANI report, or anything on Wikipedia without having reliable sources would be violating BLP. Again, you would have violated BLP when you referred to User:Imboredsenseless (doubtless a living person) as a blocked sockpuppet, because no reliable sources could be found for such a claim. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I did not call Imboredsenseless a blocked sockpuppet. Taking the lead from US libel law and BLP rule about corporations, I think a BLP violation is only possible against an identifiable person. That includes editors using their real name but not editors using a codename. Hijiri88 makes the same point. A law textbook says "The potential plaintiff always bears the burden of proving that the allegedly defamatory statements were reasonably understood to be 'of and concerning' him or her.Bruce W. Sanford (2004). Libel and Privacy. Aspen. p. 4. Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I did not call Imboredsenseless a blocked sockpuppet [48] BLP violations by blocked sockpuppet. You can be forgiven for forgetting the exact words you used, but I provided the diff in my first post here. If you were not calling Imboredsenseless a "blocked sockpuppet", were you referring to me? Not only is that claim unsourced, it's simply not true. At least if you were calling Imboredsenseless a blocked sockpuppet your claim would have been accurate and all you would have done was violate your own unique interpretation of BLP as applying to statements made about other Wikipedians and their Wikipedia activity without a reliable source. Taking the lead from US libel law So you admit you interpreting BLP in a legal manner and attempting to create a similar chilling effect to a legitimate legal effect without getting blocked for violating our no legal threats policy? You have never once inaccurately referred to a BLP violation as a personal attack or a civility violation, and yet you refer to personal attacks and civility violations as BLP violations on a regular basis. Why is this? If it were a good faith confusion of policies it would not be so consistently one-sided. What other explanation is there for this, for your sudden citation of US defamation law, and for your referring to violations of Wikipedia policy as "illegal actions"? You appear to be trying to violate the spirit of our no legal threats policy by creating a similar chilling effect, while carefully avoiding making direct legal threats. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Rjensen: Please respond to the above. Your denial of having made the claim that Imboredsenseless is a blocked sockpuppet based on something you read on Wikipedia appears to indicate that you are just making a series of good-faith mistakes and you believe you yourself violated BLP policy with the above edit summary and are trying to deny that this happened. If this is the case, it actually makes you look bett